Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #20Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Mike Newberry
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 23:24
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 23:24
10 lines
1014 bytes
1014 bytes
In article <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> 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. > >jin meng In fact, trademark statutes require that the name be a "construct" and not an object in "common use". Surely, Intel586 like simply i586 should be able to be registered as trademarks.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!delphinus.as.arizona.edu!newberryReferences:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!delphinus.as.arizona.edu!newberry From: newberry@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? Message-ID: <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> Date: 28 Oct 92 23:24:19 GMT References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> Sender: news@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Lines: 10