Reminds me of such things as the game Core Wars, and the movies Tron and The Matrix (bots can kill rogue processes too...)
...I'm also reminded of the scene in National Lampoon's Vacation where the kids make Pacman eat the data off Chevy Chase's CoCo screen... That always annoyed me as another crummy example of computers in the movies - now it seems that life is imitating art;>
IIRC it was the arrival of sound in the Mac that caused Apple Records to freak out - although I can't seem to a nice link on the net to the whole story. Again, IIRC, the tale is told in The Macintosh Bathroom Reader... (or was it theM Macintosh Bible?)
My point is, if you've been selling double glazing for 10 years under the trade name "Windows 2000", Microsoft couldn't (or shouldn't be able) to stop you using that name, even if they "obtain" a registered trademark for computer software. You'd have a good shot at registering your trademark for whatever class of goods double glazing comes in... You'd also be liable to be sued to hell if you tried to claim some soft of affiliation with Microsoft!
There is a big difference between a "trademark" and a "registered trademark".
Saying "XXX is a trademark" is a statement that XXX is being used by someone for some business purpose. It is not a criminal offense for nyone to use the mark "XXX" (unless this is fraudulent). The remedy for infringment of a non-registered trademark is an action for "passing off".
Saying "XXX is a registred trademark" is much more serious. It is a criminal offense (in the UK anyway) to: -
(1) falsely use a registered trademark (2) claim a mark is registered when it isn't (3) wrongfully threaten someone with enforcement proceedings
People often claim that "XXX is a trademark" with the hope that it will give them some sort of legitimacy to a word or mark, and scare off other people from using it.
As we've seen in this thread, sub-editors for some reason seem to love to add it in to press releases for no apparent reason too.
If in doubt, always seek proper legal advice:-) [Which this isn't, by the way...] --
Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?
Very broadly...
Trademarks are registered in different "classes" of goods and services - e.g. there are distinct trademarks for "Apple" for computers and "Apple" for music.
If someone thinks you are using a similar name to them for a different product, and that this is affecting their business, they can try and sue you for "passing off". (McDonalds resteraunts threaten this quite frequently).
Also, as you American's can sometimes forget, it's a big world out there... It is possible for the same trademark to be registered for similar products in two different countries by two competing producers.
I think the statement you quote that "NT is a trademark of Windows" is probably over-zealous subediting, rather than a faux pas by Microsoft... Can anyone confirm this?
Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
My initial guess was that this must've been copied straight from Apple's press release...
It is traditional for corporations to attempt to "protect" phrases they like by claiming to own them. (Was it $5 million that Microsoft had to pay for "Internet Explorer"?)
One company in the UK recently applied to register Y2K as a trademark! (This was refused, of course).
However, the original Apple press release for this story is at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16macosxs erver.html, and this doen't mention "Open Source" being a trademark.
Also, at http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ps-faq.html Apple states...
Q. What is open source licensing? Open source is a new term for the historical development model used by the UNIX and Internet community to facilitate distributed development of complex, high-quality software...
So, the question is why on earth did NewsAlert claim that Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.?
(p.s. of course, "copyright" is not the same thing as "trade mark"...) --
This is an edit of a message I posted to my (IP law) class mailing list... (Most of the links have appeared in Slashdot before).
>With regard to the questions posed at the end of your email... I think >I'd be wanting a serious reduction in price if I were to have my rights in >the music made subject to a restrictive licence. Certainly it wouldn't go >down well with the music buying public, but then, if the corporations want >us to go this way we'll have no choice: they'll just withdraw the other >music media.
Yup. People won't be happy with restrictive licences, but the corporations will try to introduce them anyway...
Following my ramblings about proprietary vs. open formats, there is an interesting piece in Wired News, reporting a speech from the head of BROADCAST.COM, Mark Cuban.
He says "distribution, not content, will be king" and that "MP3 will die".
Two thoughts spring to mind. 1. The golden rule of the web: "Content, Content, Content" 2. Why give up what's free in favour of what costs?
MP3 can't be uninvented - and new open formats will undoubtedly come along. I think this gives publishers and broadcasters a problem - they are going to have to find new ways to "add value" if they want to keep their markets.
Slashdot Mirror
What a fabulous idea!
;>
..
Reminds me of such things as the game Core Wars, and the movies
Tron and The Matrix (bots can kill rogue processes too...)
...I'm also reminded of the scene in National Lampoon's Vacation where the kids make Pacman eat the data off Chevy Chase's CoCo screen... That always annoyed me as another crummy example of computers in the movies - now it seems that life is imitating art
ANJ
...you get the idea
IIRC it was the arrival of sound in the Mac that caused Apple Records to freak out - although I can't seem to a nice link on the net to the whole story. Again, IIRC, the tale is told in The Macintosh Bathroom Reader... (or was it theM Macintosh Bible?)
My point is, if you've been selling double glazing for 10 years under the trade name "Windows 2000", Microsoft couldn't (or shouldn't be able) to stop you using that name, even if they "obtain" a registered trademark for computer software. You'd have a good shot at registering your trademark for whatever class of goods double glazing comes in... You'd also be liable to be sued to hell if you tried to claim some soft of affiliation with Microsoft!
--
There is a big difference between a "trademark" and a "registered trademark".
Saying "XXX is a trademark" is a statement that XXX is being used by someone for some business purpose. It is not a criminal offense for nyone to use the mark "XXX" (unless this is fraudulent). The remedy for infringment of a non-registered trademark is an action for "passing off".
Saying "XXX is a registred trademark" is much more serious. It is a criminal offense (in the UK anyway) to: -
(1) falsely use a registered trademark
(2) claim a mark is registered when it isn't
(3) wrongfully threaten someone with enforcement proceedings
People often claim that "XXX is a trademark" with the hope that it will give them some sort of legitimacy to a word or mark, and scare off other people from using it.
As we've seen in this thread, sub-editors for some reason seem to love to add it in to press releases for no apparent reason too.
If in doubt, always seek proper legal advice
[Which this isn't, by the way...]
--
Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?
:-)
Very broadly...
Trademarks are registered in different "classes" of goods and services - e.g. there are distinct trademarks for "Apple" for computers and "Apple" for music.
If someone thinks you are using a similar name to them for a different product, and that this is affecting their business, they can try and sue you for "passing off". (McDonalds resteraunts threaten this quite frequently).
Also, as you American's can sometimes forget, it's a big world out there... It is possible for the same trademark to be registered for similar products in two different countries by two competing producers.
I think the statement you quote that "NT is a trademark of Windows" is probably over-zealous subediting, rather than a faux pas by Microsoft... Can anyone confirm this?
Cheers
--
Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
s erver.html, and this doen't mention "Open Source" being a trademark.
My initial guess was that this must've been copied straight from Apple's press release...
It is traditional for corporations to attempt to "protect" phrases they like by claiming to own them. (Was it $5 million that Microsoft had to pay for "Internet Explorer"?)
One company in the UK recently applied to register Y2K as a trademark! (This was refused, of course).
However, the original Apple press release for this story is at http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/mar/16macosx
Also, at http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ps-faq.html Apple states...
Q. What is open source licensing?
Open source is a new term for the historical development model used by the UNIX and Internet community to facilitate distributed development of complex, high-quality software...
So, the question is why on earth did NewsAlert claim that Open Source is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.?
(p.s. of course, "copyright" is not the same thing as "trade mark"...)
--
This is an edit of a message I posted to my (IP law) class mailing list... (Most of the links have appeared in Slashdot before).
:-)
:-)
>With regard to the questions posed at the end of your email... I think
>I'd be wanting a serious reduction in price if I were to have my rights in
>the music made subject to a restrictive licence. Certainly it wouldn't go
>down well with the music buying public, but then, if the corporations want
>us to go this way we'll have no choice: they'll just withdraw the other
>music media.
Yup. People won't be happy with restrictive licences, but the corporations
will try to introduce them anyway...
Following my ramblings about proprietary vs. open formats, there is an interesting piece in Wired News, reporting a speech from the head of BROADCAST.COM, Mark Cuban.
WIRED: MP3 WILL DIE
He says "distribution, not content, will be king" and that "MP3 will die".
Two thoughts spring to mind.
1. The golden rule of the web: "Content, Content, Content"
2. Why give up what's free in favour of what costs?
MP3 can't be uninvented - and new open formats will undoubtedly come along. I think this gives publishers and broadcasters a problem - they are going to have to find new ways to "add value" if they want to keep their markets.
This also applies to Windows vs. Linux:
WIRED: OFFICE DELAYS AFFECT MS PROFIT
WIRED: LINUX CUTS IN ON MS TURF
Does anyone think governments, regulators, and the software and entertainment industries will be able to stem the tide?
LAWNEWS: LINUX MAY ALTER IP LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Hopefully this all ties in with the current study topics - I apologise if I'm just rambling on
I say sell broadcast.com, buy redhat and Transmeta
What do slashdot-ers think?
--
http://www.dubar.com
--