🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

Heh.  And what would happen is that everyone would refere to the INTEL586 as 
"586".  Which given previous legislation is not a trademark.  So people would
see INTEL586 and CYRIX586 as "586" and therefore somehow equivalent.

I'm pretty sure that Intel is going to lock up their new name as far and as
tight as they can get away with.  But it'll probably backfire, as average joe
consumer will be looking at 586 as the next logical progression in terms of
the weak consumer concept of upward compatibility.

Alex