Intel Puts The Squeeze On ... A Yoga Foundation? 389
geogeek6_7 writes: "Intel Inc., everyone's favorite chipmaker, has apparently decided that they own the rights to the word 'Inside.' In proceedings bordering on the line of frivolity, the Yoga Inside Foundation has been tagged with trademark infringment in papers submitted to the PTO by Intel. The article states that Intel will most likely use the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 in court." Don't worry, Intel doesn't want every instance of the word "Inside" -- only the ones that come right after another word. (Look at the meaning of "Inside" that the YIF is referring to, and the story gets even more absurd.)
trademarks (Score:2, Insightful)
TV Small Court of Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, the big companies would _have_ to use this court before the case was allowed to go (via appeal) to the usual federal courts. No lawyers, just like small court-- just the 2 sides presenting their case to a telegenic judge. Shown publically, to expose how ludicrious this is.
Court costs would, of course, be covered by advertising. The rest would go to the US gov't (thus probably wiping out the national debt in just 3 seasons...)
And hey, once the corps realized that the negative PR cost of being displayed as total loons on daytime TV cost more than nuking some pitiful NPO or individual, maybe fewer would be filed.
At least moving these things away from the horrible, horrible process that is our modern judiciary would give some recourse to individuals and small entities. You know it's bad when I'm recommending jerry springer-like exposure over the court system.
Keeping up Appearances. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the understatement of the year.
The yoga people are offering the Intel Exec's free lessons so that they can learn to be a little more "flexible." If I were in Intel PR, I'd jump on that opportunity right away, and issue a press release the next morning.
Witness the rebirth of ENRON! [lostbrain.com]
tcd004
A link to the site in question (Score:2, Insightful)
They're all spoiled, now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is good, in its pure and properly practiced form--unfortunately, so is any other form of economy. The bigger companies contributed to political campaigns, and so they began to get judges to rule in their favor even when, perhaps, it wasn't something they really had a right to. They paid for privacy when someone should have looked over their shoulders.
And then it gradually came to the point where large businesses *expected* this privilege. I can't blame Intel because they're behaving in a way which corporate America not only accepts but encourages. They're no longer motivated by a search for prosperity but by mere greed--they are the gluttons who want more food even when they can't eat anymore.
These lawsuits are the symptoms, not the disease. People need to become aware of the business practices of the companies they patronize, and modify their spending habits appropriately. They need to let their representatives know that the interests of business aren't *their* interests.
Once the people take the power *back* from the corporations, maybe the world will regain some of its sanity again. Remember, in America, even if you can't vote, you are an all-important Consumer--pay attention to the choices you make.
What's next? XWindows=XPortholes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Next they'll go after little "Evil Inside [extrapolation.net]" logos that constitute fair use in free speech (as satire, political protest) as laid down by Falwell v. Flint [sexuality.org] and the First Amendment [house.gov]. Heck, one can make a completely valid argument that the same would apply to "Linux Inside [imf.au.dk]. How can someone own a trademark on the expression of one object being within another?
"Yoga Inside" has no chance of diluting the Intel brand; however, Intel's behaviour does. Nobody's going to run around and say that they're computer is a "Yoga Inside". Your rant is spurrious.
I'm deeply suspicious of changes to trademark law. Got to love the recent changes [google.com] that have been made to copyright law.
<sarcasm>Thanks, Disney [wired.com]!</sarcasm>. If this trademark stuff gets as out-of-whack, maybe we'll be using XPortholes instead of XWindows [x.org] a few years down the road.
Re:TV Small Court of Sanity (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shopping is something you do every day voting is once a year (if you show up for local elections).
Shopping effects corporations which are more powerful then the govt and for all practical purposes own the govt. How you spend your dollars has a much bigger impact on the composition of your community and country then how you vote.
Unfortunately the number of people who are mindful of their spending is smaller then the number of people who vote.
What a pathetic country we live in.
Re:They're all spoiled, now. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the corporations that grant these monopolistic situations - its the STATE! Corps just make best use of available laws because if they don't someone else will and they'll lose competitive advantage.
Take away the laws and the corps can't use 'em. Leave them and they HAVE TO or they cease to exist - just to be replaced by ones that DO because we all want to buy stuff.
Can't have an economy without corps! Can't have your shiny 4 disc LOTR DVD without corps!
Why blame a corp? (Score:4, Insightful)
increase shareholder value. You can hardly blame
them for trying to do that. Even if you don't
like the means.
It is the job of governments to create and enforce
rules that corps have to comply to. It is the job
of a government to care for the goods of its
citizens.
If the jurisdiction fails, put the blame where it
belongs.
Re:They're all spoiled, now. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really.
1. You invent product with name people will recall.
2. I invent similar product with same name.
3. What happens now?
Tom
Re:Why blame a corp? (Score:1, Insightful)
increase shareholder value. You can hardly blame
them for trying to do that. Even if you don't
like the means.
Of course you can. If you don't like what they do then go ahead and blame them for it. You think if something's "my job" then I'm absolved of all responsibility for what "my job" entails and for the manner in which I choose to carry it out?
People ARE responsible for their actions. Yes, that includes people running companies, shocking as that might seem to you.
Ferrari 308 GTB (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more you are under the impression that trademark is intellectual property. It isn't. It is association in the public's mind, and if the public loses that association you lose the right to the exclusive right to use the mark, as in Band-Aid and Kleenex.
As such, in a very real and legal way, a trademark is the "intellectual property" of the public!
A trademark is an item that can be uniquely identified with a business. A company is granted the "temporary" right to the exclusive use of the mark only so long as it is, and remains, a unique indentifier.
As it happens a car model number with zero in the middle does *not* uniquely identify a Peugot, and "Yoga Inside" does NOT conjur up images of computer chips.
Thus neither is a valid trademark.
KFG
Re:Why blame a corp? (Score:4, Insightful)
The job of a corporation is to make money. To increase shareholder value. You can hardly blame them for trying to do that. Even if you don't like the means.
The duty of any human being is to behave in an ethical manner. The duty of any citizen is to promote the good of his/her society.
Those duties superceed any duty as an employee or shareholder of a corperation. Since a corperation is made up solely of employees and shareholders, behaving in an ethical manner and promoting the good of society are the top two duties. Therefore, increasing shareholder value must be accomplished through ethical behaviour in a way that promotes the good of society.
If a corperation behaves in an ethical manner, it can, with care, meet it's second obligation by meeting it's third. This is true because producing a useful product or service while enhancing the prosperity of it's constituants is good for society. The key is to make sure that it's means to that end do not cause more harm than good.
Government exists solely to require and facilitate the first two duties. All that it does must be a means to those ends. It is meant to be both a forum where citizens may discuss what constitutes ethical behavoiur and the good of society, and as an organizer to promote that good. Legislation is meant to be an enumeration of the findings of that forum. Criminal court and law enforcement share the sad but necessary function of stopping and correcting people who fail in their duties in a manner consistant with that forum's findings. Courts also act as a lesser forum with a narrower focus where the enumeration (law) is clarified and applied to individual circumstance.
The failure of government to perform it's function does not relieve ANYONE (member of a corperation or not) of their duties. If the law fails to enumerate a necessary behaviour (or restraint) and the court must err on the side of leniancy (in the hope of minimising harm), that does not in itself make an action acceptable.
Closer to the topic at hand, In this matter, To date, Intel is behaving better than many other corperations might in this matter. It could do much better. If it would think flexibly and use the money a legal battle would cost (or even a fraction of it) to sponsor Yoga Inside instead, it would do much more good for society as well as for itself and avoid the potential damage to the strength of it's trademark that a finding for the defendant might cause.
Re:Intel, fuck you (Score:3, Insightful)
This is no different than IBM trying to trademark the "e" symbol with a circle around it. Come on. That's fucking bullshit.
Good post up to here. Actually it's completely different. The circled 'e' was a new symbol, a character that hadn't been used before. The obvious relationship with the @ symbol and the use of the letter 'e' was so clever that in retrospect it seems obvious. But it wasn't obvious, and it was a completely new symbol (AFAIK; if others had used it before, I retract this entire argument).
Inventing a clever logo and trademarking it seems like a *perfectly* legitimate thing to do and completely different from trying to trademark common words like "Inside" or "Windows".
Re:Ferrari 308 GTB (Score:3, Insightful)
This must be some strange definition of the word "voluntary" of which I was previously unaware.
Do you perchance work for the IRS, which claims (with a straight face, no less) that the U.S. tax system "is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance"?
Would you defend a rapist in court with "Your Honor, in the case of the young woman in question, she decided she didn't have the physical capability to fight my client in the back alley, and voluntarily decided to have sex before going to the nearest hospital emergency room?"