Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Videoblog Directory Opening Up

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Haugstrup
    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins ... Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference. - Andreas --
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
      On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@...>
      wrote:

      > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
      > podcast!

      Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference.

      - Andreas
      --
      <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
      Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
    • Andreas Haugstrup
      On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:52:02 -0000, Steve Watkins ... I didn t know if you were aware that there s a difference, so I thought I d point
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
        On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:52:02 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@...>
        wrote:

        > Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I
        > keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion.

        I didn't know if you were aware that there's a difference, so I thought
        I'd point it out. :o)

        > Anyway trademarking the term podcast, if sucessful, would potentially
        > have big consequences for everyone using the term in the name of their
        > shows etc. But in practise these legalities still require the owner to
        > have sufficient funds to go through the courts etc to defend their
        > property, the cost of cease and decist letters to podcasters alone
        > would probably make podcast an unwise choice when attempting to
        > exploiting the name by grabbing "ownership" of it.

        What could happen is that the guy decides to sue Adam Curry or whoever,
        and the court will determine (hopefully) that podcast is a generic term
        and thus un-trademarkable.

        But with the wonders of the US legal system what also could happen is that
        the guy just sends out cease and desist letters, and no one wants to spend
        money going to court so the trademark is never actually challenged.

        Hes going to have a hard time though. Trademarks have to be actively
        enforced, and I doubt he's got the cash to sue everyone in the the US who
        use the term "podcast".

        - Andreas
        --
        <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
        Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
      • Steve Watkins
        Its pretty easy to determine the legality of such names. US trademark database search: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=l0pj34.1.1 Doing a
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
          Its pretty easy to determine the legality of such names.

          US trademark database search:

          http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=l0pj34.1.1

          Doing a search for trademarks including the word blog currently
          gives the following results:

          MINDBLOG
          BUILDINGBLOGZ
          BLOGWORKS
          THINKBLOG
          MAGAZINE BLOG
          BLOG MAGAZINE
          PROTECTIONBLOG.NET
          BLOG-N-PLAY
          BLOGRINGS
          YAHBLOGS.COM, WHERE BLOGS ARE.
          SMALL BUSINESS BLOG
          EARTHLINK PROTECTIONBLOG
          BATTLE BLOG
          BLOGPULSE
          BLOGAUDIO
          DIRECTBLOG
          BLOG BUILDER
          ST BLOG'S
          MOBILEBLOG!
          NBA BLOG SQUAD
          ENEWSBLOG
          BLOG.TV

          Combining the above with the fact that no use of the R registered
          symbol or TM in blogdex's logo suggests that name isnt legally
          protected.

          Out of interest I searched for vlog, there is only 1 US result:
          VLOG.TV

          There were no results for videoblog or vblog. vog yielded 2 live
          results but not related to videoblogging, namely venezuela oil & gas,
          and some device "VOG-VIDEO-OCULOGRAPHY" which is "instrumentation
          for measurement, analysis and recording of eye movement for medical
          diagnostic procedures in ophthalmology and neurology"

          Cheers

          Steve of Elbows




          --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Baron"
          <videoblogyahoo@r...> wrote:
          > While I imagine many people would find this ridiculous and say "you
          > can call it what ever the hell you want", well, no you cant do
          that.
          > Its possible you might even legally be unable to name it that, if
          you
          > were challenged. Maybe this case would be legal.
          >
        • Steve Watkins
          On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term podcast! Word Mark PODCAST Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: online
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
            On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
            podcast!

            Word Mark PODCAST
            Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: online prerecorded
            radio program over the internet
            Standard Characters Claimed
            Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
            Serial Number 78564869
            Filing Date February 10, 2005
            Current Filing Basis 1B
            Original Filing Basis 1B
            Owner (APPLICANT) Shae Spencer Management, LLC William R. Heitz LTD
            LIAB CO FLORIDA 1st Floor 345 Woodcliff Drive Fairport NEW YORK
            14450
            Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
            Register PRINCIPAL
            Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

            This blog has details of the case, and what you can do to try to
            stop people from patenting phrases like that which have already
            entered common use as a term "nobody owns":

            http://nip.blogs.com/patent/2005/03/better_rename_t.html

            The way these systems work, that trademark application should really
            be turned down, but this might not happen if somebodymakes a
            mistake. So it can be useful to alert the relevant trademark
            authorities with evidence as to why such applications should be
            turned down.

            Thinking about it, it would make sense for the videoblogging
            community to keep an eye on the trademark scene, to make sure nobody
            manages to trademark a term that we use broadly. The same goes for
            patents now what software is covered by increasing number of the
            worlds patent laws, but thats a lot more hassle to monitor due to
            the long winded technical language used in patent applications.

            Cheers

            Steve of Elbows

            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@d...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Its pretty easy to determine the legality of such names.
            >
            > US trademark database search:
            >
            > http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=l0pj34.1.1
            >
            > Doing a search for trademarks including the word blog currently
            > gives the following results:
            >
            > MINDBLOG
            > BUILDINGBLOGZ
            > BLOGWORKS
            > THINKBLOG
            > MAGAZINE BLOG
            > BLOG MAGAZINE
            > PROTECTIONBLOG.NET
            > BLOG-N-PLAY
            > BLOGRINGS
            > YAHBLOGS.COM, WHERE BLOGS ARE.
            > SMALL BUSINESS BLOG
            > EARTHLINK PROTECTIONBLOG
            > BATTLE BLOG
            > BLOGPULSE
            > BLOGAUDIO
            > DIRECTBLOG
            > BLOG BUILDER
            > ST BLOG'S
            > MOBILEBLOG!
            > NBA BLOG SQUAD
            > ENEWSBLOG
            > BLOG.TV
            >
            > Combining the above with the fact that no use of the R registered
            > symbol or TM in blogdex's logo suggests that name isnt legally
            > protected.
            >
            > Out of interest I searched for vlog, there is only 1 US result:
            > VLOG.TV
            >
            > There were no results for videoblog or vblog. vog yielded 2 live
            > results but not related to videoblogging, namely venezuela oil &
            gas,
            > and some device "VOG-VIDEO-OCULOGRAPHY" which is "instrumentation
            > for measurement, analysis and recording of eye movement for
            medical
            > diagnostic procedures in ophthalmology and neurology"
            >
            > Cheers
            >
            > Steve of Elbows
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Baron"
            > <videoblogyahoo@r...> wrote:
            > > While I imagine many people would find this ridiculous and
            say "you
            > > can call it what ever the hell you want", well, no you cant do
            > that.
            > > Its possible you might even legally be unable to name it that,
            if
            > you
            > > were challenged. Maybe this case would be legal.
            > >
          • Steve Watkins
            Oops I meant trademark, not patent. Sorry bout that. Cheers Steve of Elbows
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
              Oops I meant trademark, not patent. Sorry bout that.

              Cheers

              Steve of Elbows

              --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@d...>
              wrote:
              >
              > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
              > podcast!
            • Steve Watkins
              Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion. Anyway trademarking the term
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
                Yes I emant trademark, but in the past Ive mostly studied patents so I
                keep using that word in err, sorry for the confusion.

                Anyway trademarking the term podcast, if sucessful, would potentially
                have big consequences for everyone using the term in the name of their
                shows etc. But in practise these legalities still require the owner to
                have sufficient funds to go through the courts etc to defend their
                property, the cost of cease and decist letters to podcasters alone
                would probably make podcast an unwise choice when attempting to
                exploiting the name by grabbing "ownership" of it.

                Software patent issues though, hmm I just dont know how much to worry
                about them. I hope they arent used to stifle the opensource and
                shareware etc end of the software market in the future. Im thinking of
                specific examples such as whether any of the features of ANT are
                covered by patents, whether we need to worry about that stuff or
                whether its not worth worrying about until (if ever) that bridge needs
                crossing. Whatya reckon?

                Cheers

                Steve of Elbows

                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup"
                <videoblog@s...> wrote:
                > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:42:12 -0000, Steve Watkins <steve@d...>
                > wrote:
                >
                > > On the same subject, I see somebody is trying to patent the term
                > > podcast!
                >
                > Trademark, not patenting. Huge difference.
                >
                > - Andreas
                > --
                > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
              • Andreas Haugstrup
                Thanks for the clarifications. They helped a lot. ... Look at explode(), trim(). That sort of stuff. PHP has excellent string/array manipulation. :o) ... Do it
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
                  Thanks for the clarifications. They helped a lot.

                  > Initially I wanted to keep my code very simple (I'm a php neophyte);
                  > I'll look at that.

                  Look at explode(), trim(). That sort of stuff. PHP has excellent
                  string/array manipulation. :o)

                  >> Why not just link normally? I guess I'm not understanding this short
                  >> version business..
                  >
                  > This one's quite subtle. The only "placeholder" template tags that I
                  > have available are either <BlogLink> which is the full url to
                  > the current entry (e.g.,
                  > http://www.herecomespod.org.uk/vlogdex/arc260405.html#ID268 ), <BlogID>
                  > (e.g., 268), or which is the entry
                  > number or <$FileExt> (e.g., .html) which is the file extension of the
                  > page. I don't have the information there to know where a file
                  > is stored to hard code the template, nor can I truncate the full url
                  > back to the file name stem in HTML. So I need to do it after
                  > the fact - which requires Javascript. I guess I could do it server-side
                  > by putting ASP in the template, but I've kept clear of that
                  > in these blogs so far.

                  Do it on the server. Lots of people (and Google) have javascript turned
                  off, so it's not a good idea to use javascript for something vital.

                  - Andreas
                  --
                  <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                  Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.