Jump to content

Talk:Next-Generation Secure Computing Base

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seano1 (talk | contribs) at 05:37, 1 September 2005 (→Trademark law fallacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See /archive 1 for old discussion (which was previously at Talk:Palladium operating system)

Trademark law fallacy

Correct me im I'm wrong, please.

From the opening paragraph:Microsoft claimed it was because a book publisher of the same name wouldn't allow them to use "Palladium" -- my understanding of trademark law is that if the trademark is for two products from different industry categories, that is in different trademark categories (in this case IT and print-publishing), then its perfectly legal; but my understanding comes from the OSI's claim, not from a formal law text.

So can anybody confirm wether my understanding is correct or not? --Lemi4 18:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly the way trademarks work, but there's always some interpretation involved - for instance, [I think] the browser now known as Firefox was said to be infringing the trademark of a BIOS maker because they were called "Phoenix" and had a product called a "browser"; I'm not sure what it was, but it certainly wasn't a web browser. - IMSoP 20:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's is a book publisher called Palladium Books, and they are known for being dicks when it comes to intellectual property. Why Microsoft would not stick with the name when they seamed, to this non-lawyer at least, to have a very good case and when they can certainly afford the legal fees I can't say. Seano1 05:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base&oldid=22306916"