06-25-2004, 03:26 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,060
|
|
Is Our Patent/Trademark System Completely Idiotic?
There have been several news stories this week that are making me seriously wonder if the U.S. patent system is completely off its rocker!
Okay, I'll concede that Microsoft's latest patent, though a bit weird, at least has some bit of scientific basis to it and seems to be aimed at some truly unique technologies. But this morning I read a Reuters news report explaining that Washington Mutual Inc., a financial services company, has received a patent for the design and layout of its branch offices. This means that if another bank has its teller stations, ATMs and concierge desk situated similarly to Washington Mutual's, they're infringing on the patent and liable to be sued!
But the latest patent news (from the Idaho Mountain Express) that REALLY gripes me relates to (of course) the SCOTTeVEST company. Even though Scott Jordan, the founder and CEO of SCOTTeVEST, holds a registered trademark for his logo, he is being sued by Scott USA, which produces sporting goods (most notably, ski goggles).
"Scott USA alleges that the violations committed by ScotteVest are related largely in part to ScotteVest�s use of the word 'Scott' to promote and sell ski-related products from the Ketchum area."
"He�s using a logo very close to the �Scott� logo," said Dave Stevens, Scott USA chief financial officer. "It creates confusion in the mind of the consumer."
Stevens said the word "Scott," as it is written in the ScotteVest logo, notably resembles several of Scott USA�s trademarked uses of the same word.
Okay, you be the judge. Taking a look at the two logos above, do you honestly think that consumers would actually confuse the two? Sure, they both have the name "Scott" in them, but the last I heard you cannot claim a total copyright for a person's name.
This just strikes me as idiotic. Even more idiotic is the fact that Scott USA is trying to get SCOTTeVEST to turn over every bit of revenue they've received while using the SCOTTeVEST logo! PU-LEASE!! :bad-words:
You know, I'm sure that the attorneys who file these kinds of lawsuits serve some useful purpose on this planet, but I can't figure out what it is (kindling, perhaps?). It just goes to show that Americans are losing the ethic to actually EARN their income, chosing instead to try to steal it from others via idiotic lawsuits.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 03:34 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
This is actually a trademark case, not a patent. On this, I honestly see no problem with it. If you don't protect it when an infringement is possible, you may lose your right to sue when an infringement is absolute. That is why the name Kleenex cannot be trademarked. The company that owns it never sued anyone until the 70's or 80's and the courts told them "tough. You haven't cared for 50 years. It is too late to care now."
If there is no infringement (and I think there is none here, my 2�) then the plaintiff has it in their records they are adequately defending their name.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 03:45 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 217
|
|
Sort of reminds me of Pilot vs. Palm... 8)
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 03:56 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29
|
|
When I saw the title, I thought you were referring to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY...4/0604aca.html which is thousands of times worse. Basically, its an article about a company who doesn't make anything on its on, it only buys patents and collects money on them either by license or lawsuit. They made a lot of money by doing this with the v-chip and now are after pretty much anyone who has ever made money from streaming or downloadable audio/video (think websites, entertainment media companies like Disney, Time Warner and Sony, even content distributers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon). Ever put music on a digital media player? Ever watched movie trailers online? Maybe previewed or downloaded music from iTunes or a similar service? If so, you could be their next target. Since they have no product to protect, they will try to extort money out of whoever they can get it from.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 03:58 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 212
|
|
I'm sorry, but looking at the logos, it does not add to my confusion. I can tell they are two different companies. Maybe people sue when it starts hurting in the pocket from poor sales of their own products?
__________________
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 03:59 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 102
|
|
I have been to a Washington Mutual branch that was set up in a very unique configuration, which I happened to like very much so I agree with the patent to some extent.
Just to play devil's advocate here, image you are Washington Mututal and you have hired Architects, Interior Designers and Construction outfits at the cost of millions of dollars to get a new and unique look and feel to your bank that draws in new customers because of the "experience". Then a few months later "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan" copies your layout/design without having to hire expensive companies to create that same look and feel. I personally would not be too happy about that when I spent a lot of $$ on a new marketing tool. Just my 2 cents. :-)
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 04:08 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 476
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rfischer
I have been to a Washington Mutual branch that was set up in a very unique configuration, which I happened to like very much so I agree with the patent to some extent.
Just to play devil's advocate here, image you are Washington Mututal and you have hired Architects, Interior Designers and Construction outfits at the cost of millions of dollars to get a new and unique look and feel to your bank that draws in new customers because of the "experience". Then a few months later "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan" copies your layout/design without having to hire expensive companies to create that same look and feel. I personally would not be too happy about that when I spent a lot of $$ on a new marketing tool. Just my 2 cents. :-)
|
Hey, I bank at "Jimmy-Bob Savings and Loan"! What ya got against them? They give free samples of road-kill with every deposit!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 04:08 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,396
|
|
Trademark Suits
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by c38b2
Sort of reminds me of Pilot vs. Palm... 8)
|
Not really. Pilot made pens, Palm made PDAs, and those seem like quite different markets. Also, "Pilot" wasn't in the Palm company name.
On the other hand, Scott USA does make some outer wear, I believe, and consumers could believe that the SCOTTeVEST was made by Scott USA (especially as they are now located in the same city). Whether Scott USA has been damaged is another issue, and asking for all of SCOTTeVEST's revenue seems extreme.
Of course, that's how you're supposed to negotiate -- ask for something you know you probably won't get so that, when the negotiation is finished, you have what you wanted. If you asked for reasonable damages in the first place, you wouldn't be able to negotiate, and would look stubborn.
When I posted this story at pocketnow, I actually made some suggestions to resolve this issue. Specifically, I suggested renaming the SCOTTeVEST the TECeVEST. I think it sounds more "techie" and would avoid the problem. You can see why I chose "TEC" in my story.
Steve
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 04:09 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 80
|
|
Re: Is Our Patent System Completely Idiotic?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brad Adrian
There have been several news stories this week that are making me seriously wonder if the U.S. patent system is completely off its rocker!
|
That took you until this week to conclude? :wink:
You should make this a Poll question. I'll bet you'll find that there's no real need for a "no" choice.
|
| |
|
|
|
06-25-2004, 04:09 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,097
|
|
what f*ing idiots, that is his surname, he has full rights to it, if their founder wasn't a scott, scott with the vests should counter-sue for the same reason they sued him.
If eveyrone involved is a scott, they need to drop it and get on and make some money, the good old fasioned way
Edit: I forgot to mention that if he also got it trademarked someone at the government looked it over, so he has double protection.
Those logos look nothing alike (aside from the word scott appearing in both)
__________________
Please see www.grlt.com "Tech with a twist of lime!"
The Midlands Hybrid Club MidlandsHybrid.com
Current: Kacey's Wing, T-mo Wing Past: GCM_T, T-Mobile MDA |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
