trademarked, patented shrubbery

Grok Headline matches for trademarked, patented shrubbery

Yet Another Lawsuit Over Trademarked Ad
Words

Yet Another Lawsuit Over Trademarked Ad
Words 01/29/2004 02:49 AM
Well, that didn't take long. Less than a week after AOL paid up to settle the lawsuit they were dealing with over selling trademarked words and phrases as search keywords, a company is suing Google, AOL and other Google partners for basically the same thing. In this case, American Blind and Wallpaper Factory told Google to stop selling keywords based on their trademarks. Google told them they would stop selling on things like "American Blind Factory" and "DecorateToday," but saw no reason to stop on such generic terms as "American wallpaper" and "American blind." In fact, Google went so far as to ask a judge to say this was perfectly fine. In response, American Blind is suing them. Let's try this once again: the point of trademark is to make sure no one is misled. That's not what happens at all when someone is buying keywords on your trademark. Trademarks don't give you a monopoly over the word or phrase - they just let you stop people from confusing customers into think they're you, or that you endorse them somehow. However, ads are clearly ads, and targeting them at people who might be interested in your offering (so long as they don't misrepresent themselves) is a perfectly justifiable thing to do. It's the same thing as getting shelf-placement near other, similar products.

Trademarked registered copyright

Trademarked registered copyright 10/30/2003 09:14 AM
This work is dedicated to the Public Domain. trademarked registered copyright 2003 Copyright symbol, registered trade mark symbol, trademark symbol, copyright 2003 David Weinberger David Weinberger David Weinberger -->...

Google to sell trademarked keywords

Google to sell trademarked keywords 04/13/2004 03:35 PM
MSNBC Apr 13 2004 8:12PM GMT

Now Google Getting Sued For Blocking
Trademarked Terms

Now Google Getting Sued For Blocking
Trademarked Terms 12/12/2003 03:10 PM
A few months back, France fined Google for selling ads based on trademarked terms. I was surprised, because in my own experiments with Google ads, I've had a few ads that were rejected because they (according to Google) contained trademarked terms. Personally, I don't see how buying a keyword is, in any way, a violation of trademark. The point of a trademark is to protect the company from having someone else appear to be you. You can't sell Bob's Cola and put a Coca-Cola label on it. However, if someone is looking for Coca-Cola, there's nothing wrong with suggesting they might also want to look at Bob's Cola, as well. Anyway, now it looks like Google may get hit from the other side as well. They've been fined for selling ads based on trademarks, and now, apparently, they're going to ge t sued for blocking ads based on trademark complaints. The pending lawsuit apparently says that Google is banning ads on terms that aren't trademarked as soon as anyone complains. That is, Google doesn't check to see if there's an actual trademark - they just ban the ad as soon as there's a complaint. The group that's going to sue says they've brought together over 3,000 complaining advertisers who have had ads blocked. As mentioned, I've had my ads blocked too, but this seems like a ridiculous lawsuit. Where in the law does it say that Google has to sell you ads for whatever you want? They have the right to reject ads for whatever reason they want. It is their system, after all. If people believe they're blocking ads unfairly, then isn't that an opening for competitors to better serve advertisers by offering them something that Google doesn't?

Recognizing The Real Issues Associated
With Trademarked Keyword Ads

Recognizing The Real Issues Associated
With Trademarked Keyword Ads 07/14/2004 01:21 PM
We've covered this topic many times before, but almost every article on the subject seems to ignore the real legal issues involved... until now. The question is about whether or not Google should be able to sell ads based on trademarked keywords. As we've pointed out before, trademark law isn't about giving the owner complete protection over the trademark, but rather about avoiding customer confusion. Thus, using trademarked terms in ads is only trademark violation if the ad somehow implies that the company advertising is a different company, or that it endorses the company in question. It's certainly possible that ads could constitute trademark infringement, but it depends on what the ads say. LocalTechWire is running a good overview of the real legal issues surrounding advertising on trademarked terms, noting that companies are likely to claim "initial interest confusion" -- saying, basically, that when a searcher first spots the ads, they may be confused. This may be a pretty difficult argument to make, as it's pretty easy to distinguish an ad from a search result on Google. Even more importantly, if they can somehow suggest people can't distinguish between the ad and the natural search results, they'll have to show that the ad is somehow confusing in a way that would harm their brand. This may be provable on a case-by-case basis, but it will be tough to make that claim across the board on all Google ads.

Google Fined for Trademarked AdWords
Text

Google Fined for Trademarked AdWords
Text 10/29/2003 01:14 AM
"The Lower Court of Nanterre required Google France to pay 70,000 euros (about $81,400) to two companies that owned the rights to certain words. Google France sold the use of these words to advertisers through its AdWords program."

Google Says Okay To Selling Trademarked
Search Terms

Google Says Okay To Selling Trademarked
Search Terms 04/13/2004 02:10 PM
Considering the fact that they've come out on the losing end of a number of cases on this subject, it's a bit surprising that Google is so aggressively changing their ad terms to say that they will no longer prevent advertisers from buying ads based on trademarked keywords. There have been a ton of cases on this, from France< /a> to wallpap er to eBay to Playboy . In fact, despite all of this, Google was also sued by someone else who felt it was illegal that they were illega lly blocked from buying a trademarked keyword. While I think Google's position is the right one, the track record in court doesn't seem good. As we've said many, many times before, a trademark doesn't give you full control over a word or phrase. It's only designed to prevent confusion over the trademark. That is, if someone is presenting themselves as your company or your product, they have violated your trademark. However, to simply advertise themselves to anyone searching for your trademark - as long as it's clear that they're a different company - doesn't not violate the trademark. It's simply a good marketing strategy to position yourself where people are looking for that type of product. It's the same thing as making sure you're on the shelf in the store near your competitor. Thus, it seems as though Google's new rules fit with the spirit of trademark, but unfortunately too many people are misinterpreting trademark in a way to believe that it means you have total control over the trademarked word or phrase. No matter what, there are going to be a lot more lawsuits over this.

Google Wins Lawsuit In Germany Over
Trademarked Terms

Google Wins Lawsuit In Germany Over
Trademarked Terms 09/21/2004 12:29 PM
While the courts in the US still seem to be a bit confused over the purpose of trademarks in lawsu its against Google concerning advertising based on trademarked keywords, it looks like the German courts may have a clearer picture. A similar lawsuit brought against Google in Germany has been dismissed, though details are not given. Again, the purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion for the customer. That is, it's designed to protect another company from misleading someone into believing they're a different (usually more popular) company. However, advertising somewhere where people are looking for a particular brand is simply good marketing, not trademark infringement. Just go into your local supermarket, and look at all the similar products stacked near each other, the aisle coupons for other products, and the receipt coupons advertising competing products after you pay. There's no confusion over brands -- it's just advertising.

Bodog Becomes First Official Online
Gambling Brand Trademarked in the US

Bodog Becomes First Official Online
Gambling Brand Trademarked in the US 03/14/2005 06:00 PM
Winner Online Mar 13 2005 5:52PM GMT

AXA takes Google AdWords to French Court
over Trademarked Terms

AXA takes Google AdWords to French Court
over Trademarked Terms 04/27/2004 08:08 PM
Search Engine Journal Apr 28 2004 0:30AM GMT

Patents are obviously patented

Patents are obviously patented 02/10/2004 02:55 AM
In a surprise move, the US Patent Office has granted a patent which patents the patent office itself!

Hehe. Actually, the patent is meant to patent the concept of "digital ownership", i.e. the idea that you can "own" things in online multiplayer games. The patent is just so broad that it covers pretty much any database, including the patent database.

This is another example on how the USPTO has just thrown its hands up in the air and basically says "accept them all and let courts sort them out." This is an example on so many countless things that have gone wrong with the system I can't even be bothered to enumerate them anymore... Let me just begin with the notion that the idea of ownership could be patented at all, and end up with how big companies can use this to trounce upon the smaller ones, and you can imagine the rant between those yourself.

Has HP Patented Refilling Ink?

Has HP Patented Refilling Ink? 03/28/2005 06:33 PM
In a case that sounds somewhat reminiscent of Lexma rk's (failed) attempts to use intellectual property law to block the competition, HP has decided to sue two companies that offer refilled ink cartridges for their printers. The ink business, of course, is big business -- with ink costing more than vintage champagne or high end perfume (depending on whose study you want to read). HP claims that they have nothing against customers choosing to buy refilled cartridges, but they have problems with these two refilling companies. The first one is accused of patent violations, which seems like an odd issue. The details (buried all the way at the end of the article) say the patents are about the type of ink -- which seems bizarre. Even more bizarre is that HP seems to make it very clear in the filing that if the three patents they've picked out don't stick, they have another 9,000 to choose from (which sounds eerily like IBM's patent attack on Sun years ago: "OK, maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"). The other claim makes a bit more sense, as HP says the second firm is packaging the refilled cartridges as if they were new -- which could lead to consumer confusion. Still, these lawsuits do seem like a simple attempt to scare off certain ink refillers.

What if the alphabet was patented?

What if the alphabet was patented? 04/01/2005 10:39 PM
CNET Asia Apr 2 2005 2:13AM GMT

Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag --
It's Patented

Regifting Not Just A Seinfeld Gag --
It's Patented 12/08/2003 09:28 PM

Now It Turns Out That Burning CDs Is
Patented As Well

Now It Turns Out That Burning CDs Is
Patented As Well 12/15/2003 09:21 PM
Because the day just isn't complete unless another silly patent lawsuit is filed, Optima Technology now believes that they own a patent on CD-burning and are suing Roxio for refusing to license their patent. This fits in with plenty of other patent lawsuits that have been showing up recently which clearly demonstrate just how off-course our patent system has become. The purpose of a patent is to protect and encourage innovation. The idea behind CD-burning is not innovative, and Roxio didn't come along and steal the idea from Optima. There are simply too many cases these days of some company sitting on a patent until someone else discovers the same thing and then suing them. How that "encourages" innovation is beyond me. Meanwhile, Optima says they basically plan to sue anyone who has anything to do with CD burning unless they all come running to license the patent.

Apple really patented by Microsoft?

Apple really patented by Microsoft? 05/04/2004 07:49 PM
globetechnology.com May 4 2004 10:50PM GMT

Apple patented by Microsoft

Apple patented by Microsoft 05/04/2004 02:03 PM
Calm down, it's not that Apple, it's an actual, edible apple. An entire tree, to be exact: the Burchinal Red Delicious. By Microsoft. At least that's what the patent says.

Samsung's 2 Technologies Patented

Samsung's 2 Technologies Patented 04/27/2004 06:10 AM
Hankooki Apr 27 2004 9:09AM GMT

Stopping Spam Patented (Again)

Stopping Spam Patented (Again) 06/02/2004 10:10 AM
Earlier this year, we noted that Postini had receive d a patent for the incredibly obvious concept of anti-spam filtering. Well, it looks like they may be in for some competition, because Network Associates/McAfee has now been awarded a patent for an idea that (sarcasm alert) no one could have possibly come up with prior to December 2002 when they applied for it: us ing a combination of methods such as "filters, paragraph hashing, and Bayes rules" to stop spam. What this really means is that there are now going to be anti-spam patent battles which will slow down the process of stopping spam, and do no one any good, other than a few lawyers who will get rich. Why can't these companies just compete in the marketplace? Still, it would be great if, at some point, AT&T finally made it clear why they patented spamming itself last year.

'Matrix' idea patented by Sony

'Matrix' idea patented by Sony 04/07/2005 10:40 AM
Sony has patented an idea for transmitting data directly into the brain, with the goal of enabling a person to see movies and play video games in which they smell, taste and perhaps even feel things, it was reported today. The patent - based only on a theory, not on any invention - marks the first step towards a "real-life Matrix", New Scientist says. In the sci-fi film of that name, cyber-reality is projected into the brains of people via an electrode feed at the back of their necks. In Sony's patent, the technique would be entirely non-invasive - it would not use brain implants or other surgery to manipulate the brain. The patent has few details, describing only a device that would fire pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify the firing patterns of neurons in targeted parts of the brain. Sony Electronics spokeswoman Elizabeth Boukis said the work was a "prophetic invention" and no experiments at all had been done on it.

Star Trek Communicator: Patented

Star Trek Communicator: Patented 07/07/2004 06:04 PM
Xybernaut, the grandfather of well-hyped "wearable computing" that perpetually seems to have problems actually selling products has now announced two wearable computing patents, both of which seem pretty questionable. The first is for an "ergonomic display," which apparently is a display unit that includes rubber handgrips with "tactile ridges." The second, though, is for a "personal communicator" system, that "combines the functionality of a cell phone (or mobile phone), a body supported computer and a pager." Star Trek may want to claim prior art, but Xybernaut claims this is a bit different from previous wearable patents in that this version includes "detachable" parts. Who knew that by making something detachable, it was suddenly patentable? Maybe King Missile should claim prior art...

Microsoft patented tasks grouping

Microsoft patented tasks grouping 07/01/2004 11:51 PM

Automatic Software Downloading Now
Patented

Automatic Software Downloading Now
Patented 06/15/2004 11:49 AM
The latest in a long line of patent hoarding companies to come out of nowhere with a patent for something obvious to threaten lots of companies is British Technology Group. They're now waving around a a patent for automatic software downloads for things like anti-virus updates and are threatening a number of companies, including Microsoft, if they don't pay up. First off, there must be some prior art on this. Automatic software downloads are hardly a "new" technology. It would also be interesting to hear how this is possibly "non-obvious" considering that tons of companies offer this feature on their software, and its unlikely that most of them did so because they dug up some obscure patent and "stole" the idea. Instead, they just implemented a perfectly obvious idea to improve their own software. Now, thanks to the patent hoarding process, just about any software product that needs regular automatic updates will be more expensive, or won't work properly. This is innovation?

Wireless Management Of A Computer
System: Patented

Wireless Management Of A Computer
System: Patented 09/03/2004 02:40 PM
The patent system is just getting out of control. The latest is that a company named Expand Beyond has paten ted a system for wireless monitoring and management of computer systems. The patent (6,772,169) sounds incredibly broad, covering any systems where someone is using a portable device with a wireless connection to monitor computer systems. Why is this patentable? The big difference here is the "wireless" aspect -- which isn't a new technology. All they're doing is taking something that existed over a wired network before and making it wireless. To say that's "non-obvious" (as a patent must be) is a joke.

AirIQ and Aircept Promote Key Patented
Technology

AirIQ and Aircept Promote Key Patented
Technology 08/18/2004 06:39 AM
Stockhouse Canada Aug 18 2004 11:29AM GMT

Sony's patented method to make the
Matrix

Sony's patented method to make the
Matrix 04/07/2005 12:49 PM
David Pescovitz: Apparently, Sony has received a patent on a purely theoretical method for transmitting sensory experiences directly into the brain. Their approach would non-invasively fire ultrasound pulses at various parts of the brain. Details are sparse as the inventor declined interview requests from New Scientist.

Elizabeth Boukis, spokeswoman for Sony Electronics, says the work is speculative. "There were not any experiments done," she says. "This particular patent was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us."

Link to article and Link to patent

Patented Signal Handoff Hype, Promise

Patented Signal Handoff Hype, Promise 04/16/2005 06:42 PM

UCSD did a great job getting into the media this week with a fast Wi-Fi handoff technology: SyncScan drops a Wi-Fi adapter or appliance, like a VoWLAN phone, out of its associated mode for a few milliseconds at a regular, defined interval to check on signal strength. This avoids adapters swapping to a new AP only when signal strength becomes unusable or nearly so.

SyncScan relies on a feature in Atheros's chipsets that's available from the open-source madwifi drivers; it's the same sort of feature (if not the identical one) that allows Atheros's WLAN switch partners to offer RF monitoring on the same APs that are also handling client data interchange.

Two problems with SyncScan's approach: first, it requires firmware to be installed on the access point, which is fine for experimentation and open-source projects, but otherwise needs signoff from major firmware developers and their manufacturing partners; second, it's got that patent-pending label attached, which always has the caveat of causing resistance until fees are revealed.

SyncScan puts all APs within listening range of each other into a synchronized beaconing mode so that the "I'm alive" signals happen at fixed intervals. This allows adapters to only listen at discrete periods and to get a clear idea of precisely what's happening in the local RF space. But this coordination adds overhead and there has to be a cost to synchronization and the inevitable resynchronization.

One of the IEEE 802.11 groups, 802.11f, was dedicated to fast reassociation through preauthentication--tokens exchanged among APs at Layer 3--but that doesn't help with fast reassociation on an RF level, or Layer 1.

Double handheld click patented by
Microsoft

Double handheld click patented by
Microsoft 06/07/2004 05:59 AM
ZDNet UK Jun 7 2004 10:31AM GMT

Offering Internet In Public Places:
Patented

Offering Internet In Public Places:
Patented 09/21/2004 12:29 PM
Just as more people are finally realizing the potential for a "pate nt apocalypse" if our patent system isn't fixed soon, we have yet another example of idiotic patents getting in the way of actual business. Wayport, the company that has offered both wired and wireless internet access in hotels, airports and random other places (such as McDonald's) for years has now been hit with a patent lawsuit from a tiny company in New Hampshire, called PowerOasis, that claims they've just received a patent on offering internet access in public places -- because, obviously, no one had ever thought of that idea before this company came along and patented it. Exactly which patents they're suing over isn't entirely clear. The company claims 2 patents in the space, but a search of the USPTO finds 3 patents in the company's name, all for a "Power and telecommunications access vending machine." No matter which patents are the ones they're suing over, the company's statements help demonstrate how bad our patent system has become: "Wayport has deprived PowerOasis of the ability to sell and expand its services in airports and other locations, including hotels, to an extent that cannot be calculated but that has severely hampered PowerOasis in its effort to expand its businesses." Read that a second time. Basically, PowerOasis is admitting that Wayport has a better sales and marketing force. No one at Wayport deprived PowerOasis of anything. They just beat them in the market. Too many patent holders these days seem to think that a patent (no matter how ridiculous it may be) entitles them to simply have the market, rather than still having to go out and win the market with a good product, backed up by a good sales and marketing team.

Contextual Advertising In Email May Be
Patented - And Not By Google

Contextual Advertising In Email May Be
Patented - And Not By Google 05/19/2004 07:17 PM
Here we go again with more pointless patent battles that will do more to hold back, rather than encourage, innovation. While Google has made the big publicity splash (with both good and bad publicity) concerning their Gmail offering that puts contextual text ads alongside email based on the contents of the email, anothe r company applied for a patent on a similar idea well before Google applied for their own patent. Now, there's almost certain to be some sort of patent battle concerning this type of offering, which will do little (if anything) to help ensure better solutions reach the public. Instead, it will just tie up lawyers in a long term battle that will pay off handsomely for lawyers - but only delay innovation for end users. Besides, I still wonder how such an idea is patentable? It's not as if it wasn't obvious. Hell, even I came up with the idea before Google announced their product - and if I could think it up, it's pretty hard to say that it's "non-obvious."

Apple patented by Microsoft | CNET
News.com

Apple patented by Microsoft | CNET
News.com 05/05/2004 04:04 AM
Microsoft has patented Apple

news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5205574.html
track this site | 5 links

Monsanto Wins Case Over Patented Canola

Monsanto Wins Case Over Patented Canola 05/21/2004 03:47 PM

Philips 3-D Display Uses Patented Lens
Technology

Philips 3-D Display Uses Patented Lens
Technology 05/20/2004 07:00 PM

Big Intrusions, Tiny Pictures and
Patented Problems

Big Intrusions, Tiny Pictures and
Patented Problems 12/28/2003 11:43 PM
Users of Microsoft Windows found themselves in the bull's-eye -- years of inattention to security issues in Redmond, Wash., left them exposed to the Blaster worm, the Sobig virus, Messenger Service pop-ups, spyware infestations and worse, while Mac and Linux users missed out on all the "fun."

Software Installation/Update via
Internet Patented

Software Installation/Update via
Internet Patented 11/02/2003 07:35 PM
RKBA writes "My wife just handed me an article from the Wednesday, October 22, 2003 issue of the Wall Street Journal about a tiny Austin, TX company called ...

Philips 3-D Display Uses Patented Lens
Technology And New Software

Philips 3-D Display Uses Patented Lens
Technology And New Software 05/20/2004 07:17 AM
Space Daily May 20 2004 10:38AM GMT

Microsoft, Apple Sued For Patented
Online Updates

Microsoft, Apple Sued For Patented
Online Updates 07/21/2004 10:54 AM
Last month, a company named BTG announced that they held the "worldwide licensing rights" for a patent on automatic updates over the internet -- and (of course) they expected everyone to pay up, including Microsoft. Well, it appears that the Microsoft lawyers laughed them out of the room, so now BTG has been forced to sue both Microsoft and Apple for violating patent 6,557,054 on "A method and system for distributing updates by presenting directory of software available for user installation that is not already installed on user station." And people still think our patent system works great? The patent was applied for in April of 2000. There must be a ridiculous amount of prior art of applications that updated themselves prior to that.

Unaxis Optics Announces Licensing of Its
Patented ColorWheels™ Technology

Unaxis Optics Announces Licensing of Its
Patented ColorWheels™ Technology 06/06/2005 12:02 AM
Unaxis Optics, the world-wide leading manufacturer of ColorWheels™, has entered into a licensing agreement with a major Taiwanese optical manufacturing company for the exploitation of its patented ColorWheel™ technology for DLP™ based projection display applications. [PRWEB Jun 2, 2005]

Flooding File Sharing Networks With
Bogus Files: Patented

Flooding File Sharing Networks With
Bogus Files: Patented 05/05/2004 05:10 PM
Well, here's a nice convergence story covering two topics we discuss on a regular basis: file sharing and ridiculous patents. A computer science professor has now received a patent on the process of flooding a file sharing network with bogus files to annoy people trying to download files. How is this not obvious? It didn't take a professor and a doctoral student to come up with this idea. Plenty of folks in the industry just went ahead and did it themselves. The professor also makes the same tired old mistake of saying that file sharing is the same thing as stealing a CD out of a store - something that even the Supreme Court has said is not true. Copyright infringement is definitely illegal, but it's not the same thing as stealing a physical object. Of course, some may say that this will make it more expensive for others to flood such P2P networks with fake files (and therefore a good thing), but relying on a bad patent isn't the way to go. I wonder if this patent covers flooding the patent office with bogus patents as well?
Grok Description matches for trademarked, patented shrubbery
GrokA matches for trademarked, patented shrubbery

trademarked, patented shrubbery

The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: