Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Claims To Own the 'Sky' In 'Skype'
Crudely_Indecent writes "Not content to own just news stories, Rupert Murdoch is now going after individual words! His BSkyB is fighting a legal battle with Skype, claiming that it owns the 'Sky' in 'Skype.' From the article: 'A spokesman for Sky confirmed that the company has been involved in a "five-year dispute with Skype" over trademark applications filed by the telecomms company. These are, the spokesman added: "including, but not limited to, television-related goods and services."'"
That's one aspect, but in this case Sky is eponymous, sort of like Windows is. So MS could trademark Microsoft Windows XP, but not Windows. Sky by itself can't be trademarked as it already has a meaning which in this case is irrelevant because only a ham fisted fascist like Murdoch would actually even consider those to be confusing.
very good. for non-speakers of French, merde means crap.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
apparently the E.U. thinks so. The courts ruled in his favor. http://www.itwire.com/it-industry-news/strategy/41108-skype-vs-sky-whats-in-a-name/
Sort of. Money is certainly an issue, but so is his conservative agenda. His "genius" is in turning a healthy profit by spreading his message, instead of *spending* money to do the same. Of course, that's not a completely new strategy; he just mastered it in the realm of television by hoisting a tabloid-style news channel under the banner of legitimate news. True, the FOX television network is (or was) known for its "racy" content relative to its competitors, but fun and games end where the news begins. The strategy of any network affiliate is to draw in viewers with the entertainment, then keep them around for the news. In the case of FOX, however, the local affiliates are more and more resembling syndicated broadcasters for the FOX News Channel. Outfoxed has a fairly factual description, albeit presented in a rather hysterical fashion.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
He also owns the company that sued Al Franken for "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". It was laughed out of court because the title was obvious parody. I wonder if they don't have slightly different intentions. For example, I may lose the case, but you still have to pay legal fees, and devote time and resources to dealing both with the court battle and the public relations repercussions...OR...you can pay me to make this go away.