Slashdot Log In
Dell Tries To Trademark "Cloud Computing"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:43 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This discussion has been archived.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: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
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
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
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
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" :)
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)
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"?
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: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: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:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about just 'cloud'? Can can trademark the sky!
I'm afraid Can can [wikipedia.org] is already trademarked.