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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        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 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 13 , Apr 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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.