Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #21Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Samuel A. Fineberg
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:01
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:01
17 lines
1488 bytes
1488 bytes
In article <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, newberry@delphinus.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) writes: |> 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. The problem is that any manufacturer can make thier own 586 name the same way. I.e., AMD586, or Cyrix586 would be legal. Of course one could do the same with the Pentium. I.e., Cyrix could make the Cyrpentium or AMD could make the PentAMDium. This whole name business is pretty stupid, isn't it? Sam
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct29.000158.20378@nas.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!win31.nas.nasa.gov!finebergReferences:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!win31.nas.nasa.gov!fineberg From: fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg) Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> <1992Oct28.232419.26035@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov (News Administrator) Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 00:01:58 GMT Message-ID: <1992Oct29.000158.20378@nas.nasa.gov> Reply-To: fineberg@nas.nasa.gov Lines: 17