Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #17Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 21:10
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 21:10
7 lines
980 bytes
980 bytes
eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng) writes: > I can understand why INTEL would want a name for their next generation > processor to be trademarkable. Then why not simply use the name > INTEL586. Surely this has to be trademarkable. they wanted something that sounded like an ingredient so they could play more advertising games with 'intel inside'
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<gevk71S00WB_QCAxsM@andrew.cmu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!hela.iti.org!usc!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fj05+References:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!hela.iti.org!usc!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fj05+ Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Message-ID: <gevk71S00WB_QCAxsM@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 16:10:25 -0500 From: Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? In-Reply-To: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> Lines: 7