Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dell Loses Bid To Trademark "Cloud Computing"

Posted by kdawson on Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:17 PM
from the answer-cloudy-try-again-later dept.
The Internet United States
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Dell Tries To Trademark "Cloud Computing" 130 comments
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."
Submission: Dell Loses Bid to Trademark 'Cloud Computing' by 1sockchuck (826398)
This discussion has been archived.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.

Dell Loses Bid To Trademark "Cloud Computing" 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Humanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo (695287) * on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:21PM (#24640773)
    Does it make anyone else sad when they think that there are fellow members of our race that would patent breathing if they could and would idly watch people that couldn't afford to pay their licensing fees suffocate?

    • Re:Humanity (Score:4, Funny)

      by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:23PM (#24640789)
      i've looked through my file and found you are in violation of my patent on the inhalation of air. please stop stifling innovation and pay my royalties you freedom hating commie.

      • Re:Humanity (Score:5, Funny)

        by msu320 (1084789) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:37PM (#24641217)

        i've looked through my file and found you are in violation of my patent on the inhalation of air. please stop stifling innovation and pay my royalties you freedom hating commie.

        "Uh, prior art." - God

    • Re:Humanity (Score:5, Funny)

      by PPH (736903) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:44PM (#24640943)
      Better yet: Patent farting and wait for them to explode.
    • Yes, very sad. Well, it would, except I haven't paid for "sadness"; I'm too poor to license the full range of emotions.

    • Not me. Feeling sad about that is patented, and I can't pay the licencing fees. :(

    • Re:Humanity (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Renraku (518261) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:52PM (#24641307) Homepage

      Maybe it'll come to that one day. Look at what Monsanto pulls. Trust me, if Monsanto had their way, they'd own all food production in the US. Then they'd jack the prices up 50x, since its been shown that we Americans have enough disposable income to be able to make it to work and back when gas prices rise 400% in two years.

      1. Plant a field of GM crops.

      2. Test neighbor's crops for patented GM markers.

      3. Sue neighbor when nature spreads the GM genetic markers to other fields.

      4. Profit, force neighbor to burn their crops.

      5. Buy out their field and plant a field of GM crops, watch his neighbors get nervous.

        • Re:Humanity (Score:5, Informative)

          by AuMatar (183847) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:23AM (#24641475)

          google terms: monsanto sue neighboring field

          results:

          http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/PSchmeiser_Monsanto.html [thirdworldtraveler.com]

          Googling for the litigant (Percy Schmeiser) brings multiple sources for the lawsuit, including wikipedia

          • I can confirm this as well (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18 2008, @12:39AM (#24641563)

            I live in Illinois and several friends have been threatened by Monsanto over their crops having illegal plants. They tell us that if we buy Monsanto's seed we won't have to worry about being sued, but if we don't, "something could happen, these plants can spread, and you won't be legal". They make it sound like the burden is on the farmers to ensure their crops don't "infringe" rather than Monsanto making sure their modified product can't spread.

            Posting anonymously because I don't care to be sued.

            • Re:I can confirm this as well (Score:5, Informative)

              by KGIII (973947) on Monday August 18 2008, @02:35AM (#24642113) Homepage Journal

              After having been through the area - I'll take 'legal' blame and fight that one in a heart beat. They tried that up here in Maine and got their asses handed to them. They're the makers of Round-Up and Agent Orange as I recall?

              Maine doesn't have as many potato acres as Idaho but I guess we're second. They tried similar crap up in Houlton, Maine (way up north) and got tossed out on their asses. Sort of like the RIAA got tossed out. We're not a commonwealth but we seem to treat out of staters that way.

              Illinois and Indiana both had strange signs marking the brand of crop they were growing, that was odd to me but then we went west. I'd never seen that before.

              GM foods have a place, I think that place is in the bellies of hungry people or people who opt to eat it. My understanding is that they have things like the golden seed which will grow fricken rice in the damned near desert but it is unaffordable and doesn't germinate.

              So, yeah. Post non-AC and blame it on me. Say I stole control of your PC... They can ask /. and they can give 'em my IP and they can come try that here in Maine. Potato, blueberry, and timber is all we have left. They, like the RIAA, were tossed out on their arses. I was amused.

            • Re:I can confirm this as well (Score:4, Funny)

              by initialE (758110) on Monday August 18 2008, @04:09AM (#24642535)
              What needs to be done is to burn their fields preemptively. You know, just in case.
    • You would not pay for breathing yourself, but you would pay if IMPLEMENTED such a breathing mechanism in a device or sorts... You see, the patent holder could sue or try to extort evolution, or god, but not you.

      So no, it does not make me sad.

    • Now it's just time to go and invalidate a lot of other too plain trademarks. Just think of one that we use daily...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        And the slashdot average for reading comprehension drops yet ANOTHER notch.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        that would patent breathing if they could

        What part of that confuses you?

      • Hey, there's a Macbook Air already.

        We'd better hope like hell Apple's not trying for a subterranean patent there.

  • too bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:31PM (#24640837)

    If they got it, no one else could use this worthless buzzword. Now everyone has a chance to launch cloud computing on the web 2.0 while hyping it in the blogosphere.

    *Sigh*

    • Cloud Computing? You mean they wanted to be *that* closely sssociated with vaporware?

    • Re:too bad (Score:5, Funny)

      by Robert1 (513674) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:50PM (#24640979) Homepage

      Just wait till cloud computing supplants networking as everybody's favorite buzzword:

      "Hey Bob, yeah, I'm just cloudin' with some clients, be with you in a sec."

      "We have an impressive cloud infrastructure and our services can allow anyone to become more cloudy."

      It's going to happen! :(

      And of course, we can't forget the groan worthy puns from news agencies "Cloudy days ahead for Dell!" - ugh.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Koiu Lpoi (632570)
        That's true, why is it that only journalists have held steadfastly on to the pun, while everyone else has let it die (except the Japanese)? Maybe I don't talk to enough newspaper-reading folks, but I find it detracts from my interest in the story when I find the title was an awful pun instead of an actual description of the news.

      • Re:too bad (Score:4, Funny)

        by jd (1658) <imipak.yahoo@com> on Monday August 18 2008, @12:36AM (#24641539) Homepage Journal
        Admit it, you're just clouding the issue. :) Incidentally, a cloud is just a crowd run on LISP.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Koiu Lpoi (632570)
      Sorry if I'm "out of the loop", but what exactly IS "cloud computing"? I keep hearing this term to describe several (seemingly) unrelated projects, and I'd like it if somebody could break it down, or if that's impossible, just say "it's the latest buzzword, and means about as much in the real world as 'synergy'".

      • Re:too bad (Score:5, Funny)

        by Koiu Lpoi (632570) <koiulpoi AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:16PM (#24641113)
        I'd also like to point out that the Wikipedia Page [wikipedia.org] lead me on a chain from that into Web 2.0 [wikipedia.org], Tag clouds [wikipedia.org], and Folksonomy [wikipedia.org]. I want to know two things: Who is actually using these buzzwords in real development work, and why are all the names so stupid (especially "folksonomy")?

        • Re:too bad (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jlarocco (851450) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:07AM (#24641383) Homepage

          "Cloud computing" is the "web 2.0" buzzword for "Internet". It's used primarily to confuse investors and venture capitalists who remember how poorly the "... on the internet" fad turned out in the late 90s.

          The other words were made up to help solidify the illusion that "cloud computing" is something new.

        • 1. Players of buzzword bingo. 2. It avoids confusion with their real work.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Wikipedia to the rescue: Cloud computing [wikipedia.org]

        In short, it is a service where apps and data are stored "in the cloud" -- the cloud refers to the symbol used in diagrams to depict a network you have no knowledge nor control of the technology. Kinda like a black box, but very buzzword-worthy and makes you look cool. For example, Apple's Mobile Me is a cloud computing. It stores web 2.0 apps that you use to sync your computer with other devices. You don't need to know how Mobile Me works at Apple's data center, you

    • Re:too bad (Score:5, Informative)

      by hack slash (1064002) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:14PM (#24641093)
      "blogosphere"

      Another term as bad as "cloud computing".
      • All the good terms were written down by H. G. Welles and a rogue band of cryogenically frozen ancient Greek scientists, then trademarked at suitable points in the future. He is currently living with Elvis, who had stumbled on his ruse after discovering his latest hits were written five years after being published.

      • Re:too bad (Score:4, Funny)

        by value_added (719364) on Monday August 18 2008, @12:45AM (#24641605)

        From most of the blogs I've seen, I think "clouded thinking" would be more appropriate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kunwon1 (795332) *
        http://xkcd.com/181/ [xkcd.com]
    • You mean Web 2.0 (R) [wikipedia.org], registered trademark of United Business Media.

  • Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nymz (905908) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:46PM (#24640961) Journal
    Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Poll question like "What is a less generic name for Cloud Computing?"

    a) Dell's Cloud Computing
    b) gEverything has it, or it doesn't exist
    c) Skynet's primary self awareness functions
    d) Cloudboy Neal

  • The Scots already did this ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday August 17 2008, @10:50PM (#24640977)
    It's called "McCloud Computing", and there's no point in copyrighting the name because there can be only one of them.

  • Next trademark attempt - Clod Computing (Score:5, Funny)

    by tinrobot (314936) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:07PM (#24641061)

    i.e. - Computing for idiots.

  • WtF (Score:5, Informative)

    by dr_turgeon (469852) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:17PM (#24641115)

    I work for a company (a bank) that seems to apply a trade/service-mark to random word combos in at least every third or forth sentence of any marketing--even internal materials. I envisage a child claiming "mine" all the time or using a label maker ad nauseam.

  • thinking. if you so much as think of putting together a patent i will sue you or demand royalties.

    don't think about patents, think about lawyers, ideas, money, food or sleep. i will issue promptly cease and desists emails and letters.

  • Microsoft announces its new product for distributed computing architectures, "Microsoft Cloud".

  • A million duhs screaming out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:45PM (#24641273)

    finding that the term is generic and 'therefore incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant's services

    Everyone on the streets had known that. Dell had known this from the START. The patent lawyers for Dell ALSO knew this. What is surprising is that the USPTO knew this.

    • Re:A million duhs screaming out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hellwig (1325869) on Monday August 18 2008, @02:48AM (#24642169)
      The USPTO has a fantastic trackrecord. When Microsoft wanted to trademark their word processor with the name Word, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their new graphical OS that dispays applications in windows (a concept created by another company) Windows, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their suite of office applicatons as Office, did the USPTO let them?

      Okay, ignore those examples, but at least they didn't let Trump trademark You're Fired.

      But seriously, why do companies think they can trademark phrases they didn't create? Q-Tips, Kleenex, Xerox, these are creative trademarks that people easily associate with their respective products. Who the hell is gonna hear Cloud Computing and think Dell? Now, when I hear the word Dell my mind is flooded with a whole cocaphony of phrases I would rather forget (Dude, you're Getting a Dell!)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by VGPowerlord (621254)

        The USPTO has a fantastic trackrecord. When Microsoft wanted to trademark their word processor with the name Word, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their new graphical OS that dispays applications in windows (a concept created by another company) Windows, did the USPTO let them? When Microsoft wanted to trademark their suite of office applicatons as Office, did the USPTO let them?

        Did you actually look up the trademarks for those?

        Last I heard, the trademarks Microsoft owns are on "M

  • Not quite so sudden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FilterMapReduce (1296509) on Sunday August 17 2008, @11:53PM (#24641313)

    This article is tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense", but U.S. trademark law is typically endowed with a little more common sense (a little) than copyrights and patents, the other major areas of IP law. For example, how trademarks can only be held so long as they're actually in use. Compare this to copyrights applying for the life of the author plus seventy years; as a result, abandonware sites can and often are prevented from providing software titles years after the publishers have ever tried to make them available for a profit, or at all.

    I expected that Dell would lose this ridiculous trademark bid and I'm pleased that the USPTO acted appropriately. Nonetheless, I'm sure that my fellow Slashdotters will be all too happy to expose my ignorance by providing plenty of counterexamples of trademark-related idiocy.

    • The tag "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" is one of the most overused tags on Slashdot; along with "hardhack" (when the article is obviously about a softhack) and "goodluckwiththat". I'd like to see those three tags used a little more sparingly, since tags are used to look up older articles. "Oh, it was tagged with 'hardhack'. I'll just... fuck... three hundred pages of results...".

  • What They Wanted (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YetAnotherBob (988800) on Monday August 18 2008, @08:47AM (#24644229)

    I think that Dell got the ruling they wanted. This was a preemptive move. Now, they have prevented anyone else from trademarking 'cloud computing'.

    A purely defensive move.

    If only this worked with patents.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.