Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Commodore Smartphone Hits Trademark Opposition

Posted by timothy on from the but-what-about-my-new-disney-nuclear-plant? dept.

damnbunni writes: As reported on amiga-news.de, it appears that Massimo Canigiani didn't license the Commodore trademarks before announcing that Commodore PET Smartphone. The company that actually owns the mark, Commodore Holdings, is not amused. It's not like it would have been hard to determine who owns it and try to license. The C= Holdings trademark is registered with the same EU agency 'CBM Limited' applied for a new mark. I can't see much of an excuse here. The company holding Commodore's trademarks is literally Commodore Holdings. They can't even say "We had NO IDEA who to contact!"

28 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. use similar accessories? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    like the VIC-20, i.e. cassette recorder/player to store data? (sorry but the name instantly reminded me of the early 80s products).

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:use similar accessories? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Still my favorite port of Moon Patrol.

    2. Re:use similar accessories? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      that's the Commodore 1530 "Datasette" -- wonder if that trademark is still valid...

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    3. Re:use similar accessories? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      what, you never had a walkman that doubled as a phone?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  2. Who would name a phone that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's next? An Amiga smartphone? Sinclare 2015?

    1. Re: Who would name a phone that? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's Sinclair... That was my first computer. :)

      My first computer was ENIAC. I'm hoping they make an ENIAC phone.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Who would name a phone that? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Pff none match my TRS-800 now with 32GB of ram.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re: Who would name a phone that? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having once bought 16K of RAM for a TRS-80 color computer ... that cost you, what, eleventy-six trillion dollars?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re: Who would name a phone that? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      And with the speed of RAM back then, you would have been almost halfway to using all of that 32GB by now.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re: Who would name a phone that? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Pfffft. That's not even close to old-skool. *I'm* waiting for a phone based on this.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. For all my Commodore questions... by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure about legal expertise, but these geeks are awesome.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:For all my Commodore questions... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That was good.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. Who owns it? by Announcer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a page where I put up a bunch of info about my experiments and memories of my Commodore systems. In the years that page has existed, the ownership of the C= logo/name/etc changed hands FIVE TIMES! Just now, I Googled it, and got this page:

    http://www.commodorecorp.com/

    It hasn't been updated since 2013.

    My attempt at a disclaimer is at the bottom of this page:

    http://webcache.googleusercont...
    (Google cached, to prevent Slashdotting my Host's server.)

    --
    Willie...
    1. Re:Who owns it? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      [quote]It hasn't been updated since 2013.[/quote]
      It also looks like exactly 1 URL at that domain actually returns content.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Who owns it? by Announcer · · Score: 1

      I noticed that, too... and yet, that company is suing someone for using a name they haven't bothered to do anything with since 2013?

      --
      Willie...
    3. Re:Who owns it? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. Actually using the trademark isn't a requirement.

      It really doesn't matter if they're not actively using it. You can't just decide that it's yours now and release something with it.

      And it seems like they should have known from the start they have no legal way to just suddenly decide it was theirs for the taking.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Who owns it? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I have a page where I put up a bunch of info about my experiments and memories of my Commodore systems. In the years that page has existed, the ownership of the C= logo/name/etc changed hands FIVE TIMES!

      It's not just that, it's that- as far as I can tell- the rights to Commodore's various products and brands have not only been split up, but also sublicensed over the years to the point of being a confusing mess.

      The company (*) that made the "Commodore 64x" around four years ago- you remember, the PC in a case that at least *looked* like a C64- also released the "Amiga 1000", "2000" and "3000". These had sod all to do with the original Amigas of those names. In fact they weren't even computers in their own right, but just home theatre PC cases, spuriously claiming to be "revivals" of the originals.

      What makes this more stupid is that, at the same time, other companies were still making- under license- "real" Amigas. When I say "real", I mean they support the current version of the AmigaOS- also produced under license!- even though they aren't remotely low-level compatible with the original Amigas. (In fact, the only reason for having AmigaOS run on that overpriced, underpowered custom hardware, rather than commodity PCs seems to be as a means to subsidise AmigaOS via the very small- but incredibly diehard- remaining userbase).

      Of course, these are two different things- the HTPC "Amiga" was an utterly second-rate, shameless attempt to exploit the nostalgia market with something that didn't even look like an Amiga, whereas the AmigaOne et al is aimed at the rabid diehards who are still using AmigaOS almost 20 years after it died as a mainstream proposition. But the point is that they were happy to whore out the Amiga name for two entirely different "Amigas" at the same time.

      And then there's the fact that AmigaOS itself was the subject of a legal dispute. Or the fact that the current Amiga Inc. (the apparent owner/licensee of the Amiga rights) notably *isn't* the same company as the "Commodore" that owns the rights to *that* brand.

      This isn't remotely complete, and doesn't even touch on the passing around and splitting of the rights in the wake of Commodore's demise. (Nostalgia-related exploitation of the brand goes back as far 1998- just four years after Commodore's demise- when the "Commodore 64" name was used on a crappy low-powered web PC). The point is that the rights are all over the place and have been whored out all over the shop.

      It hardly matters if this latest b******t attempt to slap a "Commodore Pet" badge on a mediocre Android smartphone and claim it as a revival of the Pet (even though it was to come with Vic 20 and C64- not Pet!- emulators that any Android device could run) is "officially" endorsed or not. It's all crap, who gives a toss anyway?

      (*) "Commodore USA", who were themselves just a company that had licensed the "Commodore" name from the rights holders and are now no more.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  5. Odd ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    I'm sure when the article was posted originally a bunch of people said "how the hell do they propose to do that since they don't own it".

    Is this just a case of someone deciding they'd simply appropriate someone's trademark and release a product around it?

    From the sounds of it, this was legally DOA before it was announced.

    Something about this sounds really sketchy to me.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Odd ... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Brings about an interesting point, can you own a trademark without a product or service. So for something like $300 a word can you buy out the English language http://www.oxforddictionaries...., 7000 commonly used words only $2.1 million dollars what a bargain. Psychopathic capitalism, is it not a wonder (they did it on the internet via domain names so why not spread it out into to the rest of the world).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Odd ... by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      can you own a trademark without a product or service

      Yes, you can.

      So for something like $300 a word can you buy out the English language

      No, because English words are not specific enough to be trademarks. Trademarks are limited to a particular market segment... so while "Apple" is a unique name for a computer brand, it's not a unique name for a brand of fruit.

      Even within the market, a trademark is invalid if it's not unique enough. Typically, the judgement is based on whether a reasonable person would know exactly what product is being referred to when the trademark is used. This boils down to the oft-quoted rule that trademarks must be defended, since knowingly not defending a mark can be used as evidence that the mark is now a generic term for multiple products, and therefore ineligible for protection.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  6. bollocks by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    for someone 'easy to contact' they sure have been absent from the commodore scene, absent from the fans, absent from the planet earth when this phone was announced.

    Commodore should be public by now, it's old hat tech. And thanks to AROS and WinUAE it's already supplanted in the free world, and honestly done much better.

    1. Re:bollocks by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      its only their responsibility to protect their property, nothing else, and they did

      so get the fuck over yourself

  7. Re:Hrmm by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    Or here is a crazy idea, MAKE SOMETHING NEW.

  8. Re:Hrmm by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Like , what about a modern floppy? Block-writeable media that you can give away. Enough with that internet shit or these flaky USB thumb drives that cost too much, are personal and sometimes require to kneel down behind the PC to plug them in.
    I would like a 1GB floppy that costs 1 euro and lasts 15 years, with perhaps the form factor of the 3" Amstrad ones (unbreakable, the drive belt broke instead)

    I want some friends and I to exchange music, pictures, documents and so on. Minidisc would have been nice had Sony not played stupid games.

  9. Re:Hrmm by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    commadore didnt even do that when they existed, 99% of what they produced was bought with the companies that made it like MOS and Amiga

  10. Re:Which is it? by Psychotria · · Score: 1

    Commodore holdings or the Holden commodore

    It's the Holden Commodore HSV SmartPhone

  11. Re:Hrmm by Blaskowicz · · Score: 2

    And micro-SD go in more places than regular SD, but the latter is more easy to hold.
    This was senseless ranting ; every computer or device can have their needs satisfied in one way or another, so any new best thing wouldn't get hold on many computers or devices. Even generalizing an existing tech to every computer or devices doesn't get done. SD and full size USB are really close but it's uncommon to have them both - except if you constantly run into recent laptops, then it may be very common.

    My other rant would be lack of bluetooth on desktops. I am semi-suprised that I can't buy a bluetooth PCI card, damn everything else is available on PCI or PCIe. Yes that's a very petty qualm as there are tiny USB modules, and unused USB headers on every motherboard.

  12. Slightly unrelated by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    Of course it was stupid to use trademarked names and symbols without caring about the trademark holders.

    On the other hand, selling trademarks without the actual products is a scam in itself. Since the 90s, a whole bunch of domestic TV makers went belly up. And without exempt, the trademarks were bought up by asian scammers that now slap these trademarks on cheap chinese TVs tricking elderly people (like my late uncle) into buying them at inflated prices as they thing they're buying some local quality products.

    --
    bickerdyke