Slashdot Log In
Dell Tries To Trademark "Cloud Computing"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Aug 02, 2008 09:43 PM
from the head-in-the-clouds-or-perhaps-some-other-orifice dept.
from the head-in-the-clouds-or-perhaps-some-other-orifice dept.
Ian Lamont writes "The Industry Standard reports that Dell is trying to trademark the term cloud computing . The phrase entered the tech lexicon years ago, but Dell's application (serial number 77139082) was made in early 2007 to the US Patent and Trademark Office, apparently in connection with data center products and services that it was promoting around that time. A quick search of Google News indicates that Dell itself did not use the term in press releases or discussions with indexed English-language media sources from 1996 to 2006. Dell is not the first company to attempt to trademark this term: The Standard notes that NetCentric, a company that provided 'carrier-class Internet fax technology,' also gave it a shot in the late 1990s, but was rejected."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Dell Loses Bid To Trademark "Cloud Computing" 146 comments
1sockchuck writes "The USPTO has issued a 'non-final determination' refusing Dell's request to trademark the term 'cloud computing' (we discussed the application earlier), finding that the term is generic and 'therefore incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant's services.' According to Data Center Knowledge, 'Dell has the option of filing a response to submit arguments to dispute the USPTO examiner's findings.'" Here is the USPTO's ruling. A week and a half ago the PTO cancelled its 'notice of allowance' for the mark, a move little remarked upon at the time.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
New coin term: trademark troll (Score:5, Insightful)
And here I thought that only happened with patents.
Re:New coin term: trademark troll (Score:5, Interesting)
The obviousness of some of the colloquial expressions protected under trademark in the US is sometimes quite surprising. Dish soap marketers, for instance, must be careful in how they describe the effective concentration of their product, because "a little goes a long way(tm)" is a trademark of P&G group.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I even found a picture [flickr.com] of the truck (the TM isn't visible, but it's there, just to the upper-right of the "It's Rude To Stare"). Is there something I'm missing, or is the trademark
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to remember that trademarks are much more limited than, say, patents.
If you patent something, you have exclusive say in who gets to use that patent for its lifetime. You can license it out at a price you decide, you can market your own product in a monopolistic fashion, or you can just sit on it. You can prevent anyone else from using something described in your patent, even if they invent it independently, even if they only use it privately, even if they're using it for something totally different
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not only sneaky morals, but... (Score:4, Funny)
USPTO record (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
But... How did this happen? (Score:2)
Dell top executives were sitting around during a long lunch smoking cigarettes and drinking martinis. One of them said, "We've gotten a lot of free bad publicity [google.com] in the past, but now that Ed Foster has very unfortunately and sadly died [gripe2ed.com], how will we get bad press in the future?
They smoke their cigarettes for a while in silence while staring at a good-looking waitress, until one of them says, "I know. We will ge
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Write some more about the good looking waitress. What kind of martini was it? Mix up a murder investigation or something. I think I would stick to the good looking waitress.
Something like, ".. and the waitress came over to the table. She was tall and had long blond hair. She took a long puff off her cigarette which gave me time to look her up and down. She had tits so big you could see her coming around the corner and still
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.
Sigh. Did you even RTFS? Dell is trying to *trademark* the term, which is something completely different than a patent. The diffe
Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.
That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.
Take it easy. I know what the difference is between copyright, trademarks, and patents. I misspoke. It happens.
Instead of poking fun at my mistake, why not address my argument directly? Dell attempting to get a trademark on a well defined technical term is not about protecting anything original to them. It's dirty and will most likely fail. I was pointing out that it is motivated by greed and an attempt to secure an unfair and undeserved advantage over their competitors.
It would be like Pepsi or Coke trying to trademark "soda". It can't be done, shouldn't be tried, and is pretty silly to anyone considering it. So is cloud computing and Dell.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's clear that I do know what I am talking about. Once again, you use a distasteful tactic to make a point. You have yet to make any productive comment about Dell's attempt to trademark a well known term, yet still persist in attacking me personally over a disagreement about whether or not a term exists in one of my examples.
Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is pa
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even read? Not once have I said the word "Xerox" isn't "part of our language". As I've tried to explain twice already, the technical term is *NOT* Xerox, it's "xerography". Yes, "Xerox" has become synomomous with "making a copying", but that *doesn't* make it the technical term f
Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Their heads are not that high. Think about 3 feet off of the ground and behind them.
Parent
Where was this article in July? (Score:5, Informative)
The first comment to the article links to the USPTO page for the applicatoin [uspto.gov] where the status shows that the opposition period went by without anybody noticing, so the mark is one step closer to being validated. It appears only the dependable USPTO is left to block this thing on its own.
The trademark has been allowed. (Score:5, Informative)
A Notice of Allowance was issued on July 8. Examination is over. Nobody objected during the objection period. So Dell owns "CLOUD COMPUTING" as a trademark. The remaining processing is just paperwork - publication in the Official Gazette, and printing and mailing the trademark certificate to Dell.
Parent
Re:Where was this article in July? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Cloud opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
I was struck by the comment at the end of the article by a trademark attorney that no-one had opposed it when it was initially published. I think that points to a fundamental flaw in the process: who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?
Perhaps that is the clouded thinking that permeates the USPTO and the tech entities that use them to further their cause.
Anybody (Score:4, Informative)
who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?
Anybody [uspto.gov]. The marks are published weekly for opposition. The latest few are available as PDF downloads free of charge; follow the link and you can even subscribe to the paper copy (for merely $1,536/year).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, excuse me while I spend my Sunday afternoon (and allocate a day every week from now until the end of time) downloading this week's 154.2Mb Trademark Official Gazette [uspto.gov] and then going to find equivalents in all the other jurisdictions I care about (which probably means the 80 members of the Madrid system [wikipedia.org], given a grant in any of them can be ratcheted up to a 'global' trademark within 6 months).
Either the USPTO has to do their job or the community has to do it for them - in the latter case I would suggest t
I have a great idea for a new patent! (Score:4, Funny)
A device for generating heat based on the constricted flow of subatomic particles through metallic pathways, embedded in a fabric base for easy folding and heat distribution! I call it an "electric blanket" :)
Re: (Score:2)
Although if you could stretch the definition of fabric to say.. silicone you've pretty much patented every IC on the planet.
Beating a dead horse but... (Score:2, Insightful)
When the f*** is someone going to take the initiative, like Al Gore did in creating the internet, to reform the U.S. patent protocol. If it is an algorithm, that is a legitimate patent. There are certain classes of patents, especially technology ones referring to a design methodology, that should not be patented.
All this is going to do is provide ammunition for frivolous lawsuits, and there are plenty of those already with ambulance chasers. Its just a sickening waste of public funds.
wtf?? (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, I thought AOL created the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If Al Gore or AOL created the internet, then why does every internet address begin with www? Bush clearly left his mark on the tubes.
there are marks on the tubes?!
no wonder my packets aren't making it back from blizzard's servers.. they're probably still stuck in the scratches!
Re: (Score:2)
No, AOL killed [wikipedia.org] the Internet.
Why not? (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft trademarked "windows."
Which only applies to operating systems [uspto.gov], computers [uspto.gov] and related crap [uspto.gov]. It does not cover the use of the word for sheets of glass.
Trademark law seems a little less insane than copyright. At least, to a layman.
Parent
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it. Same case here with Cloud Computing. You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it.
Let's not confuse patents and trademarks.
Same case here with Cloud Computing.
I don't know what the situation with Cloud Computing is. The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess. So, I can't really comment.
You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.
Eh. This is getting philosophical.
Re: (Score:2)
The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess.
Ok so do yourself a favour and RTFM [slashdot.org].
Wikipedia entry = "The little I know". ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? So you can't call your operating system "Windows." You are perfectly free to refer to the square things in your OS as windows. And every GUI OS I know of does so.
It's a stupid name anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, Lindows got sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Should they not have? That was a pretty obvious attempt to associate their OS with the one called "Windows."
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but there wasn't already hundreds of vendors selling products and services around these terms when they were trademarked...
Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if Dell patented it we could go back to calling servers "servers."
I say let them have it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know some terms get overused, but letting people patent them isn't the best way to combat hype.
Re: (Score:2)
Who else is using it? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Cloud computing" is one of those "next big thing" products here on slashdot, but who's actually using the term in their marketing? Plenty of people are selling "cloud" applications, but nobody's calling it that as most people think of "the cloud" as untrustworthy.
Is there an actual case of somebody like Amzaon's s3 actually calling themselves "cloud computing"?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does with Mobile Me. Amazon has a product called "Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud" [amazon.com]. Now THERE'S a stupid name!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.mosso.com/cluster.jsp [mosso.com]
Mosso is owned by Rackspace, and they've been using the term for a while.
(disclaimer: I work for Rackspace).
Fired (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If he did, unemployment might have been better.
Nyoro~n
I've got an idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why "cloud computing", just isn't that... (Score:3, Funny)
...special, brings up images of warm spring days and cute fluffy bunny rabbits and various chick flick scenes and [voice="George Carlin"] BULLLLLL SHIT! Get that "sensitive" guy out of the damn room! Who wants a "cloud" computer, give me a category 10 hurricane computer with some richtor 25 earthquake RAM! And Krakatoa I/O!
Great!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Now could someone please trademark Web 2.0 so we won't have to hear that stupid buzzword either?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about just 'cloud'? Can can trademark the sky!
I'm afraid Can can [wikipedia.org] is already trademarked.