Dell Loses Bid To Trademark "Cloud Computing"

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.

Humanity

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

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

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

Better yet: Patent farting and wait for them to explode.

Re:Humanity

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

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

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

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.

too bad

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*

Re:too bad

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

Re:too bad

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:too bad

Admit it, you're just clouding the issue. :) Incidentally, a cloud is just a crowd run on LISP.

Re:too bad

"blogosphere"

Another term as bad as "cloud computing".

Re:too bad

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

"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.

Re:too bad

How would you describe cloud computing in two words without using a 'worthless buzzword'?

Distributed Computing

Re:too bad

Q: How do you say 'goddamn idiot" in two words without just saying it?

A: "Anonymous Coward"

Slashdot Poll

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 ...

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

i.e. - Computing for idiots.

Re:Next trademark attempt - Clod Computing

I'm a clod, you insensitive... um...

WtF

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.

A million duhs screaming out

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

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!)

Not quite so sudden

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.