🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu> mcastle@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle) 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.


>Because then we would have Cyrix586 and Am586 and we would be back where we
>started.

And I would that giving the 'talk' in the past few years in the press -
both trade and consumer - about the '586 - that AMD and CYRIX could
come out with the Pentium clone and call it a '586.

My own gut feeling is that the name change was a mistake.   Changing
proven names in the past has caused companies some anxious moments.

Nissan has admitted that changing the cars from Datsun to Nissan was a
major mistake.

TWA changed their name to Alegis - and 6 months later changed back.

How is Intel (or formerly iNTEL) going to educate the end users that
the powerhouse chips they have been hearing about for the past couple
of years - the 586 - is now going to be name the Pentium.

By trying to get a name that is trademarkeable they may shot themselves
in the foot.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill