How to kill a trademark: crush the holder
Despite my insistence that Intel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel) is the key player in the "Netbook" trademark dispute (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-kill-trademark.html), I must admit, I did not expect them to take direct action, as they have in the form of a lawsuit against Psion (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2009/02/25/the-netbook-naming-wars-intel-sues-psion/). The tactic has obvious merit but is not without risk.
First, the merit: they could crush Psion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psion) outright. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. I worked in litigation support. I've seen how a major corporation can smother an opponent in documentation and legal fees. It's a brute force attack that would crush nearly anyone. I doubt Psion can stand against it alone. And that's where their chance lies.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Intel has made a lot of enemies. This isn't their first lawsuit or attempt to muscle a smaller company. In the low-cost laptop market, they face AMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd), ARM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Limited) and VIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIA_Technologies) (and probably some other three-letter-named company). If one or more of them decides Intel cannot be allowed to dominate the category, they might step up to help while Intel is vulnerable.
How are they vulnerable? They are now directly involved in a situation where they cannot admit direct involvement. Their lawsuit (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/02/16/Intel_Wants_Netbook_Trademark_Canceled.htm) cites when the name entered common usage and that it's been widely adopted by media, industry and consumers. What it does not mention is that Intel had any involvement in making that happen. That Intel introduced the term as a generic (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-want-conspiracy-check-this-out.html) is a matter of public record, yet reading the lawsuit one gets the impression it was formed from the ether. I don't fault them for avoiding that origin, but that avoidance reveals a weakness.
This is why I did not expect their direct involvement and why I consider it a gamble, not a guarantee of success. Still, the safe bet is that they will force Psion to back down. Crush the holder. Kill the trademark.
[+/-] Hide/Show Text
[+/-] Hide/Show Text
Labels: aimless musing, mobile tech
How to kill a trademark: crush the holder
posted by Sumocat at 2/25/2009 09:35:00 PM
10 Comments:
Is it only you and me that see this situation for what it is? It amazes me that there is this "Save the Netbook" campaign when if they looked at the evidence they would see its the big guys crushing the small guys...
I don't get why people don't see this from the Sumocat point of view?
By
Anonymous, at 2/26/2009 10:05:00 PM
We're unconvinced that the legal fees alone would destroy either company (remember Psion is listed as PON on the London stock exchange) but Intel will have ample opportunity to answer these claims in Psion's counter-suit.
StN
By
Save the Netbooks, at 3/01/2009 12:59:00 PM
StN - you had better start facing up to the fact your campaign is rooted in plain disregard for some other companies trademark. The facts are in black and white now and I can't see it going any other way than the "right" way. Generic it may now be to some extent but thats through no fault of Psions, its through Intels own championing of a registered trademark as though it was their own.
Is it because you are scared you might lose control of "Netbook" on Wikipedia (btw, I've read people saying about COI and although I've never posted anything - I think they do have a very valid point!).
By
Anonymous, at 3/01/2009 10:25:00 PM
And for the record, this is the same Sam that bullied some guy online to silence him by posting a bunch of personal details to "expose" him. Thats low and desperate.
By
Anonymous, at 3/01/2009 10:30:00 PM
Hey dude, if you're going to throw accusations like that around, please back it up with support. Sam has tossed some loaded terms my way, like labeling me a conspiracy theorist, but you don't see me accusing him of being anything he hasn't already claimed to be. If it's private, send me an email and I'll keep it confidential, but I would prefer to see support for such comments and judge the validity for myself.
Regardless, I'm glad no one can use such a tactic against me. One of the advantages of publishing my thoughts in my own voice and hand is there is precious little private data to use against me that isn't already published, not counting finances and the like.
By
Sumocat, at 3/01/2009 11:09:00 PM
Yeah that was not cool. Assuming you are who I think you are I hope you will shed this attitude before your 2 week block for disruptive and tendentious editing expires, unless you want to find yourself blocked again for even longer.
For the record the guy you're talking about posted said "personal details" (a photo and a pair of IPs) publicly on the Internet himself. He also called us (yes, there's over 200 of us now) cyber bullies, idiots, poisonous and a bunch of other things (both within Wikipedia and outside on Twitter, in article comments, etc.). He has since made peace, wished us well and vanished.
Also for the record, we don't take a position on whether Intel should be held accountable for introducing the term "netbook" into the marketplace - that will be for the jury to decide. Our primary concern is protecting consumer choice.
StN
By
Save the Netbooks, at 3/01/2009 11:53:00 PM
So you did bully some guy using personal data? See, it doesn't matter if the guy published the data himself; it's how you go about using that data. Posting someone's IP address and photo can be intimidating, regardless of how you get that information. What matters is the context in which it is used, such as a notice that you know who and where he is. How is more important than what. At any rate, it obviously would not have been for his well-being.
By
Sumocat, at 3/02/2009 07:04:00 AM
The offending article (Batallion of brits bulwark beloved, beleaguered business (Psion)) was more a comment about Wikipedia's conflict of interest non-policy than any one individual, though this guy really did go out of his way to be antisocial in a tirade that lasted a few days, deliberately trying to discredit both the campaign and its founder personally.
The photo was fitting (and tagged with an appropriate disclaimer) and the relevance of the IP numbers (which were actually public, not revealed from private server logs or anything like that) was a sock puppet investigation. Both were removed shortly after the user complained.
StN
By
Save the Netbooks, at 3/02/2009 08:04:00 AM
Sumocat, I need say no more. I wasn't trying to start any trouble, just posting a fact. Go look at how the guy retreats after his details were posted... see the intimidation that occurred - it is all played out in a post on StN.
The guy may have posted his photo somewhere, and everyone has an IP but it was you that went around digging up this information and posting it on a website that is getting some traffic at the moment. Not cool Sam, not cool.
Sorry Sumocat that I've brought this up on your blog but if I brought it up on his, he'd post everything about me including my breakfast ceral if he could.
By
Anonymous, at 3/02/2009 08:22:00 AM
No need to apologize anonymous visitor. If I couldn't handle trouble, I wouldn't be blogging in my own handwriting. My only problem was with the incomplete data you supplied. Thanks to StN for filling in the blanks.
By
Sumocat, at 3/02/2009 08:39:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home