Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying

from the back-it-down dept

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having "intel" in their name somewhere -- including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered "generic" (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic). But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand's products. People referred to other tissues as "kleenex" and it stuck. Intel's lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of "intel" as short for "intelligence." It's common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply "intel." The owners of the site explained this to Intel, and in return were given a boilerplate explanation about trademark law, insisting that since Intel's trademark is so valuable, it still has to stop others from using it -- even if they're in a totally different business, which is an interesting interpretation of trademark law, and one not supported by the courts in most cases.

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world's largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can't order a Centrino processor. There's simply no confusion at all. Even worse, it appears that Intel's lawyers dragged out this situation far too long. They first contacted the site back in 2007, and the site's owner responded with a clear explanation of why the name was not infringing. Since then, there have been periodic bursts of contact from different Intel lawyers (it apparently seems to change each time), followed by months of silence, before a new group of lawyers starts pestering the site again. Finally, after more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is NY, Not The FTC Or DOJ, Filing Antitrust Claims Against Intel?

from the grandstanding dept

I have no idea if Intel is really guilty of antitrust violations or not at this point -- though, considering the fact that its products keep getting faster and cheaper, it's not as if there's been some obvious huge monopoly rents handed out somewhere. However, I do find it quite odd that it's Andrew Cuomo, NY's Attorney General, filing antitrust charges against the company, rather than the federal government. The DOJ and the FTC have been investigating Intel for a while, and haven't yet filed charges. Europe has -- but Europe seems to do that against any successful American tech company eventually, as the European standard for "antitrust" often appears to be "big successful American company" rather than any proof of antitrust behavior. To have Cuomo file such a case just seems misplaced. What does it have to do with New York? Given Andrew Cuomo's rather long history of silly grandstanding to bully companies for the sake of getting his own name in the headlines, rather than any actual legal basis, it feels like more of the same. Pick a big target, don't worry about the legal specifics, but get headlines to build up the name of Andrew Cuomo. It's pretty sad that Cuomo seems to keep attacking innovative tech companies solely for the sake of building up his own political reputation. Tangling up innovation in pointless lawsuits doesn't help the economy in the slightest.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EU Antitrust Regulator Scolded For Simply Ignoring Evidence In Intel's Favor

from the well-that's-convenient dept

It's no secret that we think that EU antitrust regulators are way too aggressive in pursuing antitrust claims against US tech companies. The EU continues to view market size as a problem, rather than looking as closely at actual anticompetitive behavior. And, now, it's coming out that the EU's antitrust regulators may be so overzealous to take down companies that they'll ignore evidence that goes against their hypothesis. The EU's ombudsman has apparently issued a report scolding EU antitrust regulators for flat-out ignoring evidence from a Dell executive concerning Intel and AMD. The EU, as you probably know, fined Intel €1 billion a few months back, finding that the company had abused monopoly powers to force hardware makers into using its chips. But, the EU's ombud discovered that the antitrust regulators had interviewed Dell execs who said simply that AMD's chips didn't have the performance of Intel chips. In fact, in their tests, AMD's chips were "very poor," so they chose Intel chips entirely on the basis of performance. And... conveniently, the EU's antitrust regulators simply failed to record this info and did not include it in their report. Of course, you can make anyone appear to have violated antitrust rules if you purposely ignore all evidence to the contrary.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Insight Community Webinar On Enterprise Knowledge Management

from the midmarket-innovators dept

A few weeks back, we had an Insight Community case, sponsored by Sun & Intel, soliciting proposals for a webinar on enterprise knowledge management, targeting mid-market companies. We're happy to announce that this Thursday, August 6th, at 9am PT, we'll be hosting that webinar, moderated by me, led by Joel Alleyne, a member of the Insight Community, and a widely recognized expert on knowledge management, along with some additional guests as well. If you're interested in enterprise knowledge management, especially in the mid-market, hopefully, you'll be able to attend. If you have any useful questions that you'd like addressed in the webinar, feel free to ask them here and we'll see what we can do!

Psion Gives Up Its Trademark Claim On 'Netbook'

from the hopefully-it-didn't-cost-too-much dept

Late last year, Psion kicked off a ridiculous legal fight, claiming that it owned the trademark on the word "netbook" and all of the companies offering "netbooks" today were infringing. While it is true that Psion had a (very different) product called a netBook many years ago, it had stopped offering it in the market, and the generic use of "netbook" was clearly referring to the new generation of small/cheap computers, having absolutely nothing to do with Psion's netBook. The whole purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of customers or some sort of misappropriation of brand value built up by the holder of the mark. That clearly was not the case here at all... and yet Psion continued to fight on. This week, the company finally withdrew its trademark claim after reaching some sort of "amicable settlement" with Intel. In all likelihood, this means Intel paid Psion to go away, though, one can hope that enough trademark attorneys explained to Psion that the company had almost no chance of succeeding in pushing its claim forward. There are certainly plenty of borderline trademark cases, but it's difficult to see how this one would even be in the same zipcode as a legitimate claim.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Psion Not Going Down Without A Fight Over The Netbook Trademark

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Late last year, Psion kicked off an attempt to reclaim the "netBook" trademark the company had largely abandoned years earlier, now that it was suddenly popular for reasons that had nothing to do with Psion's old discontinued netBook product. After making a big stink about it, both Dell and Intel moved to have Psion's trademark cancelled as abandoned. However, Psion is fighting back, not just with a response to the request to cancel, but with a lawsuit against Intel on a number of different fronts. Psion is claiming unfair business practices and also challenging Intel for "cybersquatting" on the netbook.com domain name. Of course, given that Psion was selling its product long before Intel had the name, you have to wonder how that's cybersquatting? Shouldn't Psion have tried to acquire the name back when it actually mattered? In the end, it seems like Psion is spending an awful lot of money to try to get the goodwill put into the "netbook" name by others over the past year and a half. It's a pretty obvious abuse of trademark law that hopefully a court will slap down.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Trusted Computing Not So Trustworthy

from the but-of-course... dept

As pretty much anyone in computer security recognizes, any bit of "secure" computing is only secure for a limited period of time. Eventually, the security will be cracked. Yet, we still keep hearing about expectations for some new technologies to solve all our security problems. For example, we've been hearing for years about the wonders of "trusted computing," which basically gets mocked every time some company tries to roll it out (which is why it's gone through five or six name changes over the years). The latest news is that Intel's implementation of a trusted computing offering, called Trusted Execution Technology, has security vulnerabilities that allow it to be circumvented. In other words, it's not trustworthy, nor secure. Of course, it's not widely used, either, so it's not a big deal. But, once again, there is no magic bullet for security that solves all security problems.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You're Measuring Productivity In Hours, You're Doing It Wrong

from the output,-output,-output dept

Usually we don't see these types of stories until March Madness time, but the NY Times is writing about how much productivity is "lost" due to trying to keep up with the "data stream." Apparently research firm Basex has come out with a gimmicky calculator to determine how much productivity is likely lost, and put out a silly, borderline ridiculous press release noting that Intel claims it worked with the research firm to determine that the impact on productivity because of information overload was "up to eight hours a week." Seriously? Productivity is measured not in hours, but output. If productivity were just about hours, we'd be looking for ways to get people to work more hours. But, most people recognize that there are diminishing returns to making people work too much -- and they have time off to charge their batteries.

If you're going to measure productivity this way, we could just as easily say that we're putting out a study showing that sleeping costs a company approximately eight hours a day in lost worker productivity! Something must be done! While I have no doubt that information overload can be a cost to productivity, it's not going to be measured in hours. If I "waste" 20 hours a week dealing with information overload, but I'm able to extract information that makes me three times as productive, the rest of the week, then that's a good trade-off. Do people actually pay companies for this sort of research?

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intel Suing More Companies For Trademark Infringement

from the gotta-keep-the-lawyers-busy dept

Earlier this year, we mentioned that Intel was suing a travel agency for having the name Intellife Travel, despite the fact that trademark law is pretty clear that trademarks only cover specific areas of business, and Intel is not in the travel business. This wasn't the first time Intel had stretched trademark law, either. As we wrote last year, it was suing a jeans company as well. Law.com is running an article noting that Intel appears to have stepped up its trademark lawsuit campaign this year, filing 15 lawsuits already, including a recent one against Intellectric, an electrician in Southern California who has been using the name for years.

Intel, of course, claims it needs to sue to protect its name, but this is incorrect. It only needs to sue in clear cases of confusion or dilution. These names of companies in totally unrelated businesses (where there's no chance of confusion) are situations where there is no impact on Intel and they need not sue. There are some cases where it could make sense -- and I'll grant Intel's lawsuit against the research firm "Insider Intel" might make sense, given Intel's trademark on "Intel Inside," but many of these other lawsuits are ridiculous.

Yet, because many of the businesses are small, while Intel is huge, the businesses are forced to settle. Remember the travel agency? Rather than fight the lawsuit (which it almost certainly would have won), the company decided to settle, though it can't talk about the terms of the settlement.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Time For A Moron In A Hurry To Explain The Difference Between Microprocessors And A Trip To China

from the it's-not-that-hard,-really dept

Intel is famous for being overly aggressive in trying to enforce its trademark, often claiming rights over almost any use of the prefix "intel" to anyone using the phrase "something inside," even if it's completely unrelated to the business that Intel is in. Trademark, of course, is not intended to give a company "ownership" of a word or phrase. Instead, it's a consumer protection system, designed to prevent consumers from being tricked into believing that they're buying a good from one company instead of another. That's why trademarks are only applicable in the business area that the company is using the mark. Thus, Johnny's Soda doesn't interfere with a trademark on Johnny's Dry Cleaning -- because they're totally separate businesses. That's also why we have the moron in a hurry test. If a "moron in a hurry" is unlikely to be confused by the use of the mark, then there's no trademark infringement.

Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Intel from trying. Over the years they've gone after a maker of jeans (Intel Jeans), a marketing firm (for using the term INTELMARK for one of its products) and an artist's cooperative for using the name "Art Inside") among various other cases over the years. Its latest is to go after a travel agency called Intellife Travel that books trips between the US and China. The travel agency clearly explained to Intel that unless Intel's trademark covered the travel business, there was unlikely to be any infringement. Intel took a year to think about it... and then filed a lawsuit. Hopefully, Intel gets smacked down quickly on this clear abuse of trademark law.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Nicholas Negroponte Ever Understand That Competition Isn't About Killing OLPC?

from the get-over-it dept

We've never quite understood Nicholas Negroponte's position when it comes to the $100 Laptop/OLPC/XO (whatever it's called these days). While the idea behind creating a super cheap, super durable useful computer for children in developing nations is good, Negroponte has always approached the idea as one where only he should be allowed to see that vision through. When other companies decided it might be a good idea and wanted to target that market themselves, Negroponte flipped out and started attacking them for trying to undermine his project.

Sorry, Nicholas, but competition isn't undermining.

In fact, competition is generally what drives all parties to be better at what they do, in order to fend off the competition. Yet, somehow, the UK's Times Online has bought into Negroponte's side of the story and written up an article bashing Microsoft and Intel for trying to "kill" the OLPC. The article is riddled with factual errors and opinion substituting as fact, but the worst is in the central point of the article. The author mistakes companies all aiming for the same market as a nefarious attempt to "kill off" Negroponte's pet project -- as if he has some universal right to the market that no one else can attempt to enter. It also brushes over some simple facts, like the one where many countries have looked at the OLPC and realized it doesn't really serve their needs just yet. That, if anything, should be even more reason why competition is necessary. It helps create better products that actually serve the needs of people in those markets, rather than just what Negroponte decides they must want in his top-down manner.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Meaningless WiMax Patent Pool

from the somebody's-missing.... dept

There are some folks who believe that the solution to patent problems is to just have everyone who claims to have a patent on a certain technology throw it into a "patent pool" and then those who use the technology pay up a fee that gets divided up among pool members. It sounds nice, but in practice, it almost never works. Setting up a patent pool actually encourages the wrong behavior: it encourages plenty of other patent holders to claim they deserve to be a part of the pool, and if they're not included, they start suing like crazy. Also, it encourages companies to try to get any kind of patent that might get them included in a pool, leading to all sorts of crazy claims. It's the exact opposite of the type of behavior that should be encouraged.

So, don't read too much into the fact that a bunch of companies in the WiMax space have agreed to put together a patent pool under the amusingly inaccurately named "Open Patent Alliance." The companies involved, Cisco, Intel, Samsung, Sprint, Alcatel-Lucent, and Clearwire are all betting big on WiMax deployments, so they know it's in their best interest to get the licensing out of the way. But you'll notice that there are a lot of companies missing -- including Wi-LAN who has been claiming that it owns all the key patents over WiMax technology for years. The patent pool sounds nice, but it's certainly not going to diminish the number of patent lawsuits that arise over WiMax technology. If anything, it's just going to make all those other companies even angrier.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Intel, Google, Cable Co's Give US WiMax A New Lease On Life (In The Form Of $3.2 Billion)

from the let's-try-this-again dept

A bunch of the worst kept secrets in the wireless broadband world have finally come together. No one ever really believed that Sprint and Clearwire would fully break off their WiMax agreement. It simply made too much sense for them to get back together. At the same time, everyone also knew that Comcast and Time Warner were talking to Sprint to help fund WiMax in order to get a wireless pipe with which to compete with the telcos. And... oh yeah, given how much money Intel had pumped into WiMax to make everyone think it just had to be the next generation wireless system, there was no way it was going to let Sprint and Clearwire's WiMax plans collapse. Finally, toss in the fact that Google was known to be interested in Sprint's WiMax plans, and it's not hard to figure out what is actually happening...

Yes, indeed, Intel, Google, Comcast and Time Warner are teaming up to pump $3.2 billion into a joint venture that would merge Sprint and Clearwire's WiMax operations under the Clearwire brand name. This is certainly no surprise given all the earlier stories, but given how many problems have surrounded WiMax as well as earlier attempts for the cable companies to offer wireless services, don't expect this new venture to go smoothly right from the beginning. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. Most of the companies involved didn't really have much of a choice but to do this. Of course, in all this mess, Sprint and Clearwire squandered a portion of the lead they held over AT&T and Verizon. While it will still take a while for AT&T and Verizon to get LTE plans into motion, all this futzing by Sprint and Clearwire took away some of the huge lead it should have had.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

HD DVD Bets Big On Super Bowl Ad... Yeah, That'll Do It

from the great-moments-in-wasting-money dept

In the biggest standards battle most people couldn't care less about, most folks are assuming that Blu-ray has finally won the battle. However, the HD DVD folks aren't totally giving up yet. After hanging their heads and canceling a party and press conference at CES, it appears that Toshiba believes the way to revive interest in the HD DVD standard is... to spend $2.7 million on a Superbowl ad. As if that's going to make a difference. It brings to mind various dot com startups from the last bubble who put their entire marketing budget into a Super Bowl ad. In the meantime, it may be time to start watching HD DVD's other backers. Microsoft still insists it's strongly behind HD DVD but have opened the door to finally giving it up. Meanwhile, Intel has a long history of jumping ship after it realizes it backed the wrong horse in various standards battles. The company seems to have learned when to cash out and move on. Last year it moved closer to that position by supporting both standards (while still officially backing HD DVD). If the trend keeps moving towards Blu-ray, then expect to see Intel jump more fully to the other camp. Now, if only this had been worked out four years ago, before people had moved on to online video. Blu-ray can still do well, but it missed its biggest opportunity to take over the market a few years ago.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

OLPC And Intel Split Over Friction From Competing Laptop

from the sore-losers dept

Last year, after a very public spat with Intel over its competing Classmate PC, the One Laptop Per Child project appeared to patch up its differences with Intel and welcome them as a supporter. Now, they've had a nasty breakup, with each blaming the other for the separation. Intel said OLPC had demanded it stop selling the Classmate PC as a condition of continuing as a supporter of the OLPC project. OLPC head Nicolas Negroponte countered that Intel had "contributed nothing of value" to the OLPC project in the last six months. Negroponte's claims don't make a lot of sense. If Intel had merely failed to contribute resources to the project, that would hardly justify such a public and acrimonious split. The only other complaint, that Intel "continued to disparage" OLPC's product after joining the project, suggests that Negroponte is tacitly conceding that Intel's Classmate PC was the real sore point. As we said last year, this seems like a case of sour grapes on Negroponte's case. It's ridiculous to think that in a world with hundreds of millions of poor children there should only be one low-cost laptop design. Giving governments in developing countries more options can only be a good thing for poor kids. Negroponte sniffs that "we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market." But if Intel is able to provide developing countries with a better laptop at a lower price—and turn a profit in the process—what's wrong with that? Losing those sales might bruise Negroponte's ego, but it's hard to see how it's bad for the kids whose interests Negroponte claims to champion.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once

from the this-is-innovation? dept

Three and a half years ago, I wrote an article about the coming WiFi patent problem, focusing on the Canadian company Wi-LAN who claimed a bunch of patents related to WiFi technology. The company started off by suing Cisco. That lawsuit was eventually settled, but Wi-LAN clearly wasn't done yet. The company has now sued 22 different companies for violating its patents. This strategy seems to be the new strategy of patent holders: sue a ton of high profile companies all at once. It's what Sandisk did for example. Why is it becoming more popular? Because these patent holders are afraid that one of the potential targets might sue them first, seeking a declaratory judgment saying they don't infringe, and do so in a court other than the patent friendly court in Marshall, Texas. Oh yeah, Wi-LAN also notes that it's more economical to sue everyone at once. How nice of them.

Of course, Wi-LAN is hardly the only company that claims patents having to do with WiFi. It's a true patent thicket. If all these patents were actually valid and needed to be licensed no one could afford WiFi and it would be worthless. It's also worth noting that Wi-LAN's target list is somewhat ridiculous as well. It appears to be suing up and down the supply chain from chip suppliers like Broadcom and Intel to computer makers like Apple, Dell, Lenovo and Sony all the way to retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City. Assuming that all are somehow responsible for paying Wi-LAN the company could conceivably get license fees three or four times for the same computer. It's not hard to start adding up the questionable things going on here: (1) broad patents that are claimed to be important for a standard long after that standard has become widespread (2) these patents are one of many, many patents that claim to cover WiFi technology (3) filing the lawsuit against many companies at once (4) filing the lawsuit in east Texas and (5) filing the patents up and down the supply chain. This isn't what the patent system was designed to do and patent attorneys know it.

147 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ah, So Now Intel Says 2008 Is The Year For WiMax

from the don't-bet-on-it dept

Intel has been hyping up WiMax for ages, to the point that many people (including reporters) believed it existed when didn't. In fact, Intel even declared WiMax a proven success before it existed. Now that's marketing! While there's a decent chance that WiMax will eventually be successful, it's reached the point that we have a hard time believing anything Intel has to say about the technology. So, when they come out and say something like 2008 will be the year for WiMax consider us skeptical. The good news is that we're not the only ones. That Wired article is written by Bryan Gardiner who expresses his skepticism and quotes some WiMax skeptics and points to Intel's earlier overstated claims on the technology. Either way, the idea that 2008 will be the year for WiMax simply reminds me of the fact that some wireless company or analyst firm seems to have declared every year since 2003 the year for "3G wireless." Now that we're moving on to what some people consider "4G," it's only fitting that we have four or five years of people claiming that next year (no, really this time!) will be the year for WiMax.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why The Rest Of Tech Industry May Not Be Happy About The EU/Microsoft Decision

from the they're-coming-for-you-next dept

While some in the tech industry are cheering the EU's decision to stick to its antitrust fines and penalties against Microsoft, it may not be such a good thing for the industry as a whole. We were already wondering how the decision benefited customers in any way, and Fortune Magazine is noting that this could spell trouble for other successful American tech companies, who have caught the eye of EU antitrust regulators. Intel, Apple and Google are all being looked at carefully -- and with the success against Microsoft notched away, it could be tougher for these other firms to win. If there really is a monopoly problem, making competition nearly impossible, you can make an argument for the government to step in. However, most of these cases look more like European regulators just looking to see how they can punish American tech firms for being successful. Obviously, this doesn't matter nearly as much for smaller firms and startups -- but should those firms become successful and start to grow rapidly, they too could face the same challenges in Europe.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..