This may go down in history eventually as one of the greatest intellectual property fights of all time. It is rather ironic that so many want to pirate the beanie.
Of course, Apple has had similar problems with its rather universal logo, and then there is the Nike swish.
When all is said and done, I hope that Parallax finds themselves in a position to make some big bucks from all the abuse.
Why would Parallax ever be in a position to make big bucks out of a symbol that is decades old and been in all over the place in geek culture since?
Anyway, I don't think anyone in Parallax believes in playing those stupid games. They would rather be getting on with making cool stuff.
A. It is the brand logo that is on the Propeller chip
B. The color version is an established brand logo used within the web site.
A symbol can be shared by different brands as long as they do not compete within the same products, but this seems to directly challenge that.
For instance, you have Apple Records that established the Beatles, and Apple Computers. At one they fought of over the Apple brand and no one won. But if you were to open another Apple Computer or Apple Records, woe to you.
I simply said that I hope Parallax finds themselves in a position to benefit from this invasive use of their established trademarks. So far, Parallax has been pretty easy going about their logo. But at some point it becomes an issue to defend it or loose it. And the company mentioned is in a position to afford some major concessions to Parallax.
Of course time will tell.
Yes, beanies were around long before the Parallax Propeller, but apples have been around even longer than the Beatles or computers.
Perhaps. On the other hand a sharp lawyer might argue that:
a) Parallax has not registered the Beanie as a trade mark.
b) The Beanie, is a registered trade mark belonging to some toy company or other. (see history link I posted).
c) There is room for product confusion as a lot of Parallax products could be seen as educational toys.
d) You don't have enough money to defend yourself against my superior lawyering skills and my clients bank roll.
I'm very sure Parallax does not want to get into all of that.
P.S. When I first saw the Beanie log on the Parallax site and on the Prop itself I thought that was a bit cheeky of parallax and "how could they hope to get away with that?"
Yes, the Beatles and Apple walked away from that argument each able to continue to use it's name and logos. Primarily because there was no product confusion, one being in the computer market the other being in the music business.
Interestingly when Apple computers got big in the music business with iTunes and such Apple the record label could do nothing.
Perhaps. On the other hand a sharp lawyer might argue that:
a) Parallax has not registered the Beanie as a trade mark.
b) The Beanie, is a registered trade mark belonging to some toy company or other. (see history link I posted).
c) There is room for product confusion as a lot of Parallax products could be seen as educational toys.
d) You don't have enough money to defend yourself against my superior lawyering skills and my clients bank roll.
I'm very sure Parallax does not want to get into all of that.
P.S. When I first saw the Beanie log on the Parallax site and on the Prop itself I thought that was a bit cheeky of parallax and "how could they hope to get away with that?"
I guess you desire to be the sharp lawyer that argues against Parallax. The Propeller is NOT a toy... don't get that?
Yes, the Beatles and Apple walked away from that argument each able to continue to use it's name and logos. Primarily because there was no product confusion, one being in the computer market the other being in the music business.
Interestingly when Apple computers got big in the music business with iTunes and such Apple the record label could do nothing.
As it should be. Apple computer was the late comer to the music business.. so why should they put out Apple Records.
Gawd... Parallax has had the beanie logo on a microcontroller for year now and AMD just comes along as a late comer and blithely absconds the beanie. That is criminal.
I desire no such thing. I'm just pointing out how things go if someone really want to make a case. After all that Beanie as a trade mark can be valuable property as you point out. As such Parallax would have to have the stomach for the fight and be prepared to sink a lot of money into it's defense. All of which might be a huge waste of, not just company funds but mental effort that would otherwise be better used doing what they really want to do - making cool stuff.
I'm not suggesting the Propeller is a toy. I'm suggesting that as a possible argument an attacking lawyer might make. "Look at Parallax...", he might say, "...they are obviously in the toy business with all those cute little robots and such. They even use a toy as a logo" Case closed.
As it should be. Apple computer was the late comer to the music business.. so why should they put out Apple Records.
You are reading the opposite of what I wrote.
I said Apple and Apple could continue using their trademarks and logos after that judgement because they were in different markets and there was hence no product confusion.
Later Apple the computer company takes it's name and logo into the music business where clearly they should not do so as there is already and Apple music distributor.
Now I did say "Apple records could do nothing". Well what I meant was that perhaps they could reopen the entire dispute again but it seems that they would not dare as Apple computer is so big today. The fight would be very expensive with no sure positive outcome for them.
I said Apple and Apple could continue using their trademarks and logos after that judgement because they were in different markets and there was hence no product confusion.
Later Apple the computer company takes it's name and logo into the music business where clearly they should not do so as there is already and Apple music distributor.
Now I did say "Apple records could do nothing". Well what I meant was that perhaps they could reopen the entire dispute again but it seems that they would not dare as Apple computer is so big today. The fight would be very expensive with no sure positive outcome for them.
A billion here, a billion there ... yes lawyers will make getting justice very expensive if they have a rich client. But it doesn't mean that Parallax doesn't have a trademark claim.
Apple Records may have just decided it wasn't worth spending a lot of money on a legal battle when their recording empire was in decline.
I just can't seem to see why you are so against Parallax with this. Or is it that you just want to win a debate with me? I am powerless to do anything about this. And if Parallax chooses to do nothing, it is no big deal to me. But I think it is unfair to Parallax.
I'm not against Parallax on this. I love the Beanie logo and think it just fine where it is, on the Prop chip. I'm only exploring possibilities.
Or is it that you just want to win a debate with me?
You probably know by now that I love a debate. In the fine tradition of the old academics It's not the winning that's important but the debating:) Nothing personal.
My tempest in a teapot sort of snit about this is because I feel that big business has perverted justice excessively in the past few decades... especially with issues of brand, trademark, patent, and copyright. And we have seen a few major micro-controller makers interested in trying to use the beanie as their own logo.
Sadly it seems the only pragmatic defense is to grow just as big and just as unfair as your competitors.. regardless of your personal values. Parallax seems to prefer to hold on to being itself rather than get drawn into something that can be won without bleeding cash.
Noam Chomsky has quite a bit to say about the current ways of the world, but the people that are winning really seem to want a world where a few corporate individuals are the puppet masters and the rest of us have to accept might makes right.
Unless someone can show me another microcontroller manufacturer with a beanie logo on their product that pre-dates the release of the Parallax Propeller, it seems to me that there is a strong case for ownership of the trademark.
While Noam Chomsky may be right about a lot, it doesn't seem that the world is going to suddenly play fair. But that doesn't mean we should all give up demanding fair play and be abused.
It's bugged me ever since McDonalds tried to get the owner of a restaurant in Scotland to changes it's name. The restaurant had been there many years as was named after it's owner, McDonald. How there could be product confusion in that case I don't know, one was a restaurant and the other was, well you know...(I have to stop there as we are not supposed to use expletives around here.)
...we have seen a few major micro-controller makers interested in trying to use the beanie as their own logo.
We have? Do you have any links to such stories?
It's a bit strange because there was a debate here a while back about whether Parallax should stop using the Beanie as a logo on the Prop and especially Prop 2 I think because some considered it "not serious enough" for the new Parallax Semiconductor brand image.
Luckily the Beanie is still on the Prop and Chip still has his Fozzie Bear avatar.
There was a previous thread last year about the Beanie being used in another microprocessor related promotion. I can not seem to locate that or those threads now. Maybe I will find the right words for an effective Google search later.
It is not as if I am saying that we should ban all sales of beanies (or that Apple Computer should have the sole world rights to sell apples [I mean the fruit]; but there has been an increase in the electronic industries to exploit the beanie logo which is an obvious conflict with Parallax's beanie trademark.
There was a previous thread last year about the Beanie being used in another microprocessor related promotion. I can not seem to locate that or those threads now. Maybe I will find the right words for an effective Google search later.
It is not as if I am saying that we should ban all sales of beanies (or that Apple Computer should have the sole world rights to sell apples [I mean the fruit]; but there has been an increase in the electronic industries to exploit the beanie logo which is an obvious conflict with Parallax's beanie trademark.
So "perverting justice" has some level of acceptability, leastways till that crosses some subjective threshold of "excess"?
Acceptability? I'd have to just say it will always be a problem... like cockroaches.
Maybe I'd say some level of tolerance... like my need to tolerate mosquitoes as I can't get rid of all of them. We can't entirely get rid of corruption... it exists in every profession and agency to some extent. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it.
The founding fathers of the USA spent a huge amount of time trying to create a nation that could be durable and resistant to tyranny. And we created quite a bit of anti-trust legislation in the 1930s... but these days we let MicroSoft enjoy a 90% market share. It seems that subjective threshold has been crossed a long time ago.
While Microsoft still has somewhat of a stranglehold on the desktop PC market, Microsoft's share of the overall consumer computing marketplace has declined from over 90% to somewhere under 20% in the last decade (some say as little as 4%). Windows 8 has reached less than 3% market share in its first quarter of sales. Windows 7 was at almost 10% in the same time frame following its release. In the world of computer operating systems Windows 8 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a successful product. Microsoft is not doing too well these days.
What worries me about all this Loopy is that the Beanie has been a geek icon ever since I can remember. After all why do you think Parallax wanted to put it on their Propeller. "Propeller chip", "Propeller Beanie" get it, it's a geek joke.
As such I can't really side with the idea that Parallax should have exclusive rights to use the Beanie on micro controllers or any other geek products.
Anyway it seems to me that Parallax trades under it's Parallax Logo as seen at the top of this page. The Beanie is just a little giggle on the side.
@RDL2004 Interesting observations on Microsoft's market share. In some ways, the 90% figure may have never been realistic as the Asian users thorugh XP were something like 98% illegal copies. Still, MS did a lot of things that could be considered worthy of an anti-trust challenge.
In Asia in general and in Taiwan specifically, users are very wary of using another OS for business as Microsoft Office is the defacto office package and many have all their accounting in Excel as well as having clients insisting on MS Word documents. And a great deal are still hanging on to bootleg XP that comes with bootleg Office. Though a bit outdated, the hacked versions are still out and about and part of an underground software package. The problem is that Microsoft has responded by making legal versions more expensive in Asia than in the USA. The situation is frustrating to all. And MS is heavily discouraging manufacturers from being helpful to Linux users by making laptops and pad BIOS with features that Linux cannot locate.
When I tell people to use Linux, I see fear in their eyes. They feel all the support is in English.
@Heater
Fair enough, you feel the Beanie should be public domain to all.
But I suppose that argument could assert that all trademarks should be public domain. Coca cola and is trademark bottle shape or its trademark red and white would have no legal grounds to stand on. I believe that Disney has a trademark on just Mickey Mouse's ears. Coca Cola actually created the red and white clothed Santa Claus. I suppose that they could have claimed that any fat Santa Claus in red and white was also a trade mark. Fortunately they did.
These things are products of a big legal war chest protecting one's intellectual property... not very fair to small business that are just trying to get started or survive. Parallax is a small business by the SBA parameters.
If there are going to be trademarks, being the first to apply it to a product should count for something. Of course registration is not big burden and equally important. I believe that you can register a US trademark for $375 USD.
Long ago Disney and Warner Bros. had a huge battle on intellectual property that was settled with Disney getting its mouse and Warner Bros. getting its duck.
On the contrary. I think of trademarks are very important.
If a good business is going on making good products out of good materials and with good quality control etc etc etc. Then no doubt the business is trading under some name and using some logo. There is brand recognition and customers know what to look for.
Now, some fly-by-night comes along with a similar inferior product, made form cheaper material with shoddy workmanship, no testing and no quality control.
Well good luck to them in the market but they should not be trading under the same or similar name and using the same or similar logo. That kind of thing is going to mislead customers into buying the wrong thing. It's deception.
Well you know all that already.
The problem with the propeller beanie as a trade mark is that it was already in common use everywhere prior to adoption by Parallax.
Even worse is that it is a work of fiction created in the 1940's and arguably subject to copyright protection by someone in the same way as Mickey Mouse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_(North_America)
That is why I was surprised to see that Parallax had adopted it. Seemed like straying into dangerous territory.
Note that this is somewhat different than Apple Computers or the Apple record label adopting an apple in their names logos. After all apples are just natural objects for which I don't think God is fussing over copyright.
Many many years ago, I owned a small head shop in Coos Bay, Oregon and sold these. Everytime we reordered from our suppliers, they came with someone different claiming to hold the copyright on them.
Another oddity is the "Happy Birthday" song. It seems to have quite a few people claiming copyright while I'd prefer to consider it public domain.
And then there are all the government publications that cannot have a copyright because that is what The Constitution says and all the people on the web that sell such documents with some sort of copyright claim.
I use the NEETS manuals and the US Government Foreign Service Course for Chinese and there are vendors that claim to be owners of both.
It has gotten to be rather dicey.
This is what we supposedly have courts for... justice.
Under copyright law, at least in the USA and all countries that have signed up to this, nothing is in the "public domain". As soon as you create it you have copyright on it. No registration required. Assuming you have "created" it not copied it. In fact I have yet to find a way of putting anything one creates into the public domain. One can attach a very liberal licence to it that allows any use for any reason, but that is not the same you still had to license it where as with public domain you would not have to.
Given the ridiculously huge length of copyright now a days for sure the Beanie is not in the public domain and will not be until, what is it now, 70 years after the creators death.
Anyway, copy right and public domain are a totally different set of laws to trade mark laws. They all get put under the "intellectual property" banner but they are very different.
Many many years ago, I owned a small head shop...
Now I understand a lot more about you
This is what we supposedly have courts for... justice.
Yes indeed. But who can afford it at todays prices?
Comments
Of course, Apple has had similar problems with its rather universal logo, and then there is the Nike swish.
When all is said and done, I hope that Parallax finds themselves in a position to make some big bucks from all the abuse.
Why would Parallax ever be in a position to make big bucks out of a symbol that is decades old and been in all over the place in geek culture since?
Anyway, I don't think anyone in Parallax believes in playing those stupid games. They would rather be getting on with making cool stuff.
Love the "Boy with Beanie" picture from 1948.
"rather universal"
rather blither, rather blather, blah, blah, blah
A. It is the brand logo that is on the Propeller chip
B. The color version is an established brand logo used within the web site.
A symbol can be shared by different brands as long as they do not compete within the same products, but this seems to directly challenge that.
For instance, you have Apple Records that established the Beatles, and Apple Computers. At one they fought of over the Apple brand and no one won. But if you were to open another Apple Computer or Apple Records, woe to you.
I simply said that I hope Parallax finds themselves in a position to benefit from this invasive use of their established trademarks. So far, Parallax has been pretty easy going about their logo. But at some point it becomes an issue to defend it or loose it. And the company mentioned is in a position to afford some major concessions to Parallax.
Of course time will tell.
Yes, beanies were around long before the Parallax Propeller, but apples have been around even longer than the Beatles or computers.
Perhaps. On the other hand a sharp lawyer might argue that:
a) Parallax has not registered the Beanie as a trade mark.
b) The Beanie, is a registered trade mark belonging to some toy company or other. (see history link I posted).
c) There is room for product confusion as a lot of Parallax products could be seen as educational toys.
d) You don't have enough money to defend yourself against my superior lawyering skills and my clients bank roll.
I'm very sure Parallax does not want to get into all of that.
P.S. When I first saw the Beanie log on the Parallax site and on the Prop itself I thought that was a bit cheeky of parallax and "how could they hope to get away with that?"
Yes, the Beatles and Apple walked away from that argument each able to continue to use it's name and logos. Primarily because there was no product confusion, one being in the computer market the other being in the music business.
Interestingly when Apple computers got big in the music business with iTunes and such Apple the record label could do nothing.
I guess you desire to be the sharp lawyer that argues against Parallax. The Propeller is NOT a toy... don't get that?
As it should be. Apple computer was the late comer to the music business.. so why should they put out Apple Records.
Gawd... Parallax has had the beanie logo on a microcontroller for year now and AMD just comes along as a late comer and blithely absconds the beanie. That is criminal.
I desire no such thing. I'm just pointing out how things go if someone really want to make a case. After all that Beanie as a trade mark can be valuable property as you point out. As such Parallax would have to have the stomach for the fight and be prepared to sink a lot of money into it's defense. All of which might be a huge waste of, not just company funds but mental effort that would otherwise be better used doing what they really want to do - making cool stuff.
I'm not suggesting the Propeller is a toy. I'm suggesting that as a possible argument an attacking lawyer might make. "Look at Parallax...", he might say, "...they are obviously in the toy business with all those cute little robots and such. They even use a toy as a logo" Case closed.
You are reading the opposite of what I wrote.
I said Apple and Apple could continue using their trademarks and logos after that judgement because they were in different markets and there was hence no product confusion.
Later Apple the computer company takes it's name and logo into the music business where clearly they should not do so as there is already and Apple music distributor.
Now I did say "Apple records could do nothing". Well what I meant was that perhaps they could reopen the entire dispute again but it seems that they would not dare as Apple computer is so big today. The fight would be very expensive with no sure positive outcome for them.
A billion here, a billion there ... yes lawyers will make getting justice very expensive if they have a rich client. But it doesn't mean that Parallax doesn't have a trademark claim.
Apple Records may have just decided it wasn't worth spending a lot of money on a legal battle when their recording empire was in decline.
I just can't seem to see why you are so against Parallax with this. Or is it that you just want to win a debate with me? I am powerless to do anything about this. And if Parallax chooses to do nothing, it is no big deal to me. But I think it is unfair to Parallax.
Is that simple enough?
What do lawyers and "fair" have to do with each other?
At the end of the case, if settled out of court, one lawyer may say, "I think $10M is 'fair' for my percentage, so we better settle for $20M."
I still think the Beatles should have won but then I am British
The saga continues...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Sadly it seems the only pragmatic defense is to grow just as big and just as unfair as your competitors.. regardless of your personal values. Parallax seems to prefer to hold on to being itself rather than get drawn into something that can be won without bleeding cash.
Noam Chomsky has quite a bit to say about the current ways of the world, but the people that are winning really seem to want a world where a few corporate individuals are the puppet masters and the rest of us have to accept might makes right.
Unless someone can show me another microcontroller manufacturer with a beanie logo on their product that pre-dates the release of the Parallax Propeller, it seems to me that there is a strong case for ownership of the trademark.
While Noam Chomsky may be right about a lot, it doesn't seem that the world is going to suddenly play fair. But that doesn't mean we should all give up demanding fair play and be abused.
It's bugged me ever since McDonalds tried to get the owner of a restaurant in Scotland to changes it's name. The restaurant had been there many years as was named after it's owner, McDonald. How there could be product confusion in that case I don't know, one was a restaurant and the other was, well you know...(I have to stop there as we are not supposed to use expletives around here.)
We have? Do you have any links to such stories?
It's a bit strange because there was a debate here a while back about whether Parallax should stop using the Beanie as a logo on the Prop and especially Prop 2 I think because some considered it "not serious enough" for the new Parallax Semiconductor brand image.
Luckily the Beanie is still on the Prop and Chip still has his Fozzie Bear avatar.
Those facts and the spirit they exemplify is why I like it so much around Parallax!
There was a previous thread last year about the Beanie being used in another microprocessor related promotion. I can not seem to locate that or those threads now. Maybe I will find the right words for an effective Google search later.
It is not as if I am saying that we should ban all sales of beanies (or that Apple Computer should have the sole world rights to sell apples [I mean the fruit]; but there has been an increase in the electronic industries to exploit the beanie logo which is an obvious conflict with Parallax's beanie trademark.
There was a previous thread last year about the Beanie being used in another microprocessor related promotion. I can not seem to locate that or those threads now. Maybe I will find the right words for an effective Google search later.
It is not as if I am saying that we should ban all sales of beanies (or that Apple Computer should have the sole world rights to sell apples [I mean the fruit]; but there has been an increase in the electronic industries to exploit the beanie logo which is an obvious conflict with Parallax's beanie trademark.
So "perverting justice" has some level of acceptability, leastways till that crosses some subjective threshold of "excess"?
Acceptability? I'd have to just say it will always be a problem... like cockroaches.
Maybe I'd say some level of tolerance... like my need to tolerate mosquitoes as I can't get rid of all of them. We can't entirely get rid of corruption... it exists in every profession and agency to some extent. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it.
The founding fathers of the USA spent a huge amount of time trying to create a nation that could be durable and resistant to tyranny. And we created quite a bit of anti-trust legislation in the 1930s... but these days we let MicroSoft enjoy a 90% market share. It seems that subjective threshold has been crossed a long time ago.
As such I can't really side with the idea that Parallax should have exclusive rights to use the Beanie on micro controllers or any other geek products.
Anyway it seems to me that Parallax trades under it's Parallax Logo as seen at the top of this page. The Beanie is just a little giggle on the side.
In Asia in general and in Taiwan specifically, users are very wary of using another OS for business as Microsoft Office is the defacto office package and many have all their accounting in Excel as well as having clients insisting on MS Word documents. And a great deal are still hanging on to bootleg XP that comes with bootleg Office. Though a bit outdated, the hacked versions are still out and about and part of an underground software package. The problem is that Microsoft has responded by making legal versions more expensive in Asia than in the USA. The situation is frustrating to all. And MS is heavily discouraging manufacturers from being helpful to Linux users by making laptops and pad BIOS with features that Linux cannot locate.
When I tell people to use Linux, I see fear in their eyes. They feel all the support is in English.
@Heater
Fair enough, you feel the Beanie should be public domain to all.
But I suppose that argument could assert that all trademarks should be public domain. Coca cola and is trademark bottle shape or its trademark red and white would have no legal grounds to stand on. I believe that Disney has a trademark on just Mickey Mouse's ears. Coca Cola actually created the red and white clothed Santa Claus. I suppose that they could have claimed that any fat Santa Claus in red and white was also a trade mark. Fortunately they did.
These things are products of a big legal war chest protecting one's intellectual property... not very fair to small business that are just trying to get started or survive. Parallax is a small business by the SBA parameters.
If there are going to be trademarks, being the first to apply it to a product should count for something. Of course registration is not big burden and equally important. I believe that you can register a US trademark for $375 USD.
Long ago Disney and Warner Bros. had a huge battle on intellectual property that was settled with Disney getting its mouse and Warner Bros. getting its duck.
If a good business is going on making good products out of good materials and with good quality control etc etc etc. Then no doubt the business is trading under some name and using some logo. There is brand recognition and customers know what to look for.
Now, some fly-by-night comes along with a similar inferior product, made form cheaper material with shoddy workmanship, no testing and no quality control.
Well good luck to them in the market but they should not be trading under the same or similar name and using the same or similar logo. That kind of thing is going to mislead customers into buying the wrong thing. It's deception.
Well you know all that already.
The problem with the propeller beanie as a trade mark is that it was already in common use everywhere prior to adoption by Parallax.
Even worse is that it is a work of fiction created in the 1940's and arguably subject to copyright protection by someone in the same way as Mickey Mouse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_(North_America)
That is why I was surprised to see that Parallax had adopted it. Seemed like straying into dangerous territory.
Note that this is somewhat different than Apple Computers or the Apple record label adopting an apple in their names logos. After all apples are just natural objects for which I don't think God is fussing over copyright.
I wonder if you remember the 'smile button'
http://elouai.com/smiley-history.php
Many many years ago, I owned a small head shop in Coos Bay, Oregon and sold these. Everytime we reordered from our suppliers, they came with someone different claiming to hold the copyright on them.
Another oddity is the "Happy Birthday" song. It seems to have quite a few people claiming copyright while I'd prefer to consider it public domain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
And then there are all the government publications that cannot have a copyright because that is what The Constitution says and all the people on the web that sell such documents with some sort of copyright claim.
I use the NEETS manuals and the US Government Foreign Service Course for Chinese and there are vendors that claim to be owners of both.
It has gotten to be rather dicey.
This is what we supposedly have courts for... justice.
Under copyright law, at least in the USA and all countries that have signed up to this, nothing is in the "public domain". As soon as you create it you have copyright on it. No registration required. Assuming you have "created" it not copied it. In fact I have yet to find a way of putting anything one creates into the public domain. One can attach a very liberal licence to it that allows any use for any reason, but that is not the same you still had to license it where as with public domain you would not have to.
Given the ridiculously huge length of copyright now a days for sure the Beanie is not in the public domain and will not be until, what is it now, 70 years after the creators death.
Anyway, copy right and public domain are a totally different set of laws to trade mark laws. They all get put under the "intellectual property" banner but they are very different.
Now I understand a lot more about you