You want a conspiracy? Check this out.
The other day, hired gun (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hired+gun) Sam Johnston (http://samj.net/2009/02/conspiracy-theories-about-intels-role.html) categorized me as a conspiracy theorist (http://samj.net/2009/02/conspiracy-theories-about-intels-role.html). Personally, I don't mind. I do perceive and analyze patterns and form conjecture based on them. (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2007/12/patterns-i-perceive.html) However, I do have a problem with people using words they don't understand, like Sam has done with "Conspiracy theory." Per Wikipedia:
[A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)
Now, clearly I am alleging Intel committed actions I believe were wrong. Not necessarily illegal, since there is no legal precedent for this type of enforced genericide, but I did use the phrase "dick move" (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2009/02/save-small-laptops.html) in reference to their attempt to counter OLPC. However, wrongful action alone is not a conspiracy. An attempt at secrecy is also required, and all of Intel's actions have been quite public.
First, it was already widely reported that Intel was working with preferred partner Asustek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asus) on a response to the OLPC XO laptop. Outlets included the OLPC blog (http://www.olpcnews.com/sales_talk/intel/negroponte_100_laptop_asus.html), PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/132560/asustek_intel_working_on_199_notebook.html), and SYS-CON media (http://dotnetdjnewsdesk.sys-con.com/node/386906). Yes, not only did they work together on the Eee PC, but the target market was the same as OLPC was trying to serve. Dick move? I think so. Covert? Obviously not.
After that, it seemed Intel wanted to get onboard with OLPC. But after six months, Intel abruptly jumped off in January 2008. Again, this was widely reported by outfits like Wired (http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/intel-breaks-up.html) and SYS-CON media (http://www.sys-con.com/node/484591).
A month later, Intel announced their "netbook" category, as reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=az8hQRcc_a.c&refer=us) and celebrated on the Intel blog (http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2008/03/thoughts_on_netbooks.php). Not only was this not a secret, but they claimed it on their blog. Interestingly, no reporting from SYS-CON media. I guess none of their bloggers would know about this.
And this leads us to the genericide of the netbook trademark, starting in the second quarter of 2008. I've already shown my data (http://sumocat.blogspot.com/2009/02/save-small-laptops.html) on that, demonstrating how Google and major blogs had no activity on "netbook" prior to 2008. You're welcome to check out other sources, like SYS-CON media (http://www.sys-con.com/node/263069), which shows only one prior mention on 8/22/06 (http://www.sys-con.com/node/263069), a press release from Psion announcing a deal outfitting a beverage distributor with netBook Pro computers.
As you can see and confirm for yourself, I hare accused Intel of no actions that have not been publicly reported. Sorry Sam, but your assertion of a conspiracy theory holds no water because I have made no accusation of secrecy.
Oh, but wait, I did imply there was a conspiracy to check out, so here goes: Sam Johnston is a consultant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultant), an expert hired to solve problems. He's been blogging for SYS-CON media (http://samjohnston.sys-con.com/) since August 2008. One would think he'd be able to access their news archive as easily as I can. Yet, he founded "Save the Netbooks" (http://blog.savethenetbooks.com/2009/02/conspiracy-theories-about-netbook.html) despite evidence on SYS-CON that Psion was shipping netBook Pros well into 2006 and likely beyond, assuming a normal course of service and replacement. How to reconcile that data? I can think of four ways, but they're unflattering so I won't verbalize them. But if someone else has a theory, feel free to post a comment.
[+/-] Hide/Show Text
[+/-] Hide/Show Text
Labels: just me, mobile tech
You want a conspiracy? Check this out.
posted by Sumocat at 2/21/2009 05:47:00 PM
12 Comments:
The only problem with this kind of conspiracy theory is that it assumes someone(s) was smart enough to figure these things out ahead of time, instead of the flailing nature we've seen through this whole thing.
By
Unknown, at 2/21/2009 07:40:00 PM
True, but I haven't assumed organization either. Intel's game of footsie on OLPC didn't look all that organized to me.
By
Sumocat, at 2/21/2009 07:49:00 PM
You're reading *way* too far into this.
First, "conspiracy" was used in the sense of "a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act", not in the sense that it required two or more parties to "conspire". Second, SYS-CON is one of a number of publishers that syndicate my content... CircleID and MSDN are others.
Entertaining read though, and the 2006 press release is defintely a juicy find which could well scuttle the 3 year "prima facie" abandonment claim. Fortunately they *do* list the Netbook Pro on their "discontinued products" page so abandonment itself is essentially proven (the secondary market doesn't count - especially the secondary market in Germany given trademarks are territorial).
I'm satisfied enough now to credit Intel with the [re]introduction of the term "netbook", including retrospectively as applied to the OLPC and Eee PC. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that it was a deliberate attempt to genericize a trademark nor an attack on Psion (rather poor market research), but only Intel will ever know the truth behind that.
By
Sam Johnston, at 2/22/2009 09:01:00 AM
Sam, Sam, Sam, you categorized me as a conspiracy theorist, which carries a distinct connotation from the term on its own. Please use phrases more carefully.
As far as reading too much into things, speak for yourself. My use of SYS-CON as an example was to demonstrate you are obviously aware of this resource and *should* have had no problem researching the issue as well as I have. Yet, your research is less complete than mine.
And so was Intel's. Do you really believe Intel did not perform due diligence when re-introducing the netbook name? Do you think them completely negligent? No, I believe they, like you, performed preliminary research then stopped as soon they found discontinuance documents. It was poor research, but I would not assume they were completely negligent. It seems implausible to believe they did not know of the trademark and just coincidentally genericized the term after January 08, which according to one of your old arguments would have been the point of prima facie abandonment.
And let's not forget, a product is not a trademark; it's the product name that is used as the trademark. A product can continue under a different name. A name can be transferred to a new product. Discontinuance of a product does not equate with discontinuance of a trademark. To assume otherwise shows poor comprehension of the issue. As I mentioned before Sam, you need to be smarter.
Regardless, I appreciate your rational counterpoint.
By
Sumocat, at 2/22/2009 09:45:00 AM
Apologies, no offense intended. There's been a lot of eyeballs looking at this and the 2006 release has just surfaced now - interesting, yes, but I don't think it'll change the outcome.
As for Intel, there's not much point in speculating something on something that is unverifiable (that is, whether or not Intel did their research before jumping on "netbook"). Maybe Psion would have a case against them for dilution to the point of extinction but the abandonment and fraud issues remain (remember it was the *Netbook*, not the Netbook Pro that was used in the statement - a technicality yes but the law's like that).
And yes, discontinuance of a product does equate with discontinuance of a trademark when it's the last product carrying the mark.
Sam
By
Sam Johnston, at 2/22/2009 09:59:00 AM
Sam, I'm not offended by the tag; I consider it a compliment. What offends me is your inaccuracy with the language. I analyze use of language carefully, so it displeases me when phrases are poorly chosen. Now then...
Netbook is a registered trademark. The only way Intel could not have known about it is if they didn't check the registry. That would be complete failure to perform due diligence. If they checked and decided to use it anyway without further inquiry, that would be malicious infringement. Do either of those strike you as more positive than my theory of sloppy research? You want to keep those options open, that's your prerogative, but I am keeping clear of them.
And if discontinuance of a product means instant abandonment of its trademark, then why hasn't anyone pounced on the iBook name? Apple discontinued the line in May 2006, before Psion discontinued their netBook Pro. By your logic, the name has been up for grabs since then. Hey, why not use "ibook" as an alternative to "netbook?" It's open for use, right? Fits your argument perfectly, right down to claiming it's a portmanteau of "Internet" and "notebook." You prove to me that "ibook" is available, then I'll take your claim seriously.
By
Sumocat, at 2/22/2009 03:26:00 PM
The language allows for my usage of "conspiracy", as it allows for yours: S: (n) conspiracy, cabal (a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)).
The iBook trademark #75584233 covers "computers, computer hardware, computer peripherals and users manuals sold therewith" so they're good to go for as long as they offer peripherals.
Psion's "netbook" mark #75215401 OTOH is just for "laptop computers", as in the devices themselves. Stop selling the devices (permanently or for 3+ years) and the trademark self destructs.
Also do you see anywhere Apple actually admits to dropping iBook or is it implicit in the MacBook release?
Re: Intel, you're right, it's not too hard to search TESS. I'm still not sure whether to put it down to incompetence or playing dirty pool though.
Sam
By
Sam Johnston, at 2/22/2009 03:40:00 PM
Something like this would be useful, and the definition of "obsolete" is quite clear:
"Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued all hardware service for obsolete products with no exceptions. Service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products.
There's some quirks on the official kb article about California laws but I reckon a "Petition for Cancellation" of the iBook trademark on the basis of abandonment could well be successful today (certainly outside the US anyway).
Sam
By
Sam Johnston, at 2/22/2009 03:52:00 PM
Sam, Sam, Sam... Now that's what I'm talking about! Strip out all that overly broad bulls--t and boil it down to the core.
Look, we both know discontinuing a product does not necessarily mean discontinuing a trademark. Apple has stopped shipping iBooks, which you had previously argued would have meant something. But that doesn't matter because the core of your argument, as you've now presented, is that the Psion trademark is narrow to the point that dropping one equates dropping the other.
It is specific to the Psion trademark. It targets a flaw in the registration. This is not an overstretched net; it's a harpoon. In all seriousness, this is being smarter.
Whether it stands up is another matter. Of the ways in which trademark can be lost, summed up at IPLG, this argument appears novel, but that doesn't mean it won't work. I commend your effort.
By
Sumocat, at 2/22/2009 05:19:00 PM
A flaw indeed... one of many. I'm sure you'll appreciate this post on "Lessons learnt the likely loss of the "netbook" trademark"
By
Sam Johnston, at 2/22/2009 06:01:00 PM
Last word: I really did not consider the cultural difference in our exchange, which means different phrasings. My apologies. Lesson learnt.
By
Sumocat, at 2/22/2009 06:09:00 PM
Great article you got here. I'd like to read more concerning that topic.
BTW check the design I've made myself Young escort
By
Anonymous, at 11/17/2009 06:50:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home