Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
JStamp Trademark — Parallax Forums

JStamp Trademark

ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
edited 2001-06-03 06:50 in General Discussion
I was doing some patent and trademark lookups today and noticed
that someone other than Parallax has a trademark on 'JStamp'. A
company called Systronix. Looks like it's a competing product.

SD

Comments

  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-30 20:44
    At 15:27 05/30/01, degroof@m... wrote:
    >I was doing some patent and trademark lookups today and noticed
    >that someone other than Parallax has a trademark on 'JStamp'. A
    >company called Systronix. Looks like it's a competing product.

    A competing product calling itself any kind of "Stamp" sounds like a
    possible trademark infringement to me.

    Jim H
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-30 21:22
    Stampers -

    Er, BASIC Stampers -

    There are some succinct comments on this at
    http://jstamp.systronix.com/jstamp_conflict.htm

    I looks as if there is some room to argue both sides,
    but it does appear that there is no lock on calling
    IC's "stamps." As the above link indicates, apparently
    Systronix and Parallax are working things out
    "amicably."

    Bob Pence


    --- Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@s...> wrote:
    > At 15:27 05/30/01, degroof@m... wrote:
    > >I was doing some patent and trademark lookups today
    > and noticed
    > >that someone other than Parallax has a trademark on
    > 'JStamp'. A
    > >company called Systronix. Looks like it's a
    > competing product.
    >
    > A competing product calling itself any kind of
    > "Stamp" sounds like a
    > possible trademark infringement to me.
    >
    > Jim H
    >
    >
    > To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
    > basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    > from the same email address that you subscribed
    > with. Text in the Subject and Body of the message
    > will be ignored.
    >
    >
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >


    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
    a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-30 22:12
    [font=arial,helvetica]In a message dated 5/30/01 4:02:48 PM Central Daylight Time,
    bobpence_2000@yahoo.com writes:


    it does appear that there is no lock on calling IC's "stamps."



    To whom? ·If you play a little word association game with people familiar
    with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly elicit "Parallax" or
    "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron" means "gasoline" to people
    in the petrochemical industry). ·While others may legally use the term
    "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there certainly is an
    ethical question.

    One must wonder, since there are infinite naming possibilities available, why
    any company (other than Parallax) would want to use the term Stamp? ·My guess
    is that these companies (there are more guilty of this "crime" than
    Systronix) are trying to infer Parallax's high quality onto their (possibly)
    questionable products.

    But that's just my (biased) opinion....

    -- Jon Williams
    -- Dallas, TX
    -- Applications Engineer, Parallax
    ··* and I was a long-time customer before I became an employee[/font]
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-30 23:24
    Yup. Sounds like they are riding the coattails of Parallax.

    As someone new to the actual Parallax product line, I don't recall ever
    running across any other processors using the word stamp. I also don't
    recall finding to much on any other processor (other than the raw PIC's,
    etc...) when searching. I think this speaks for itself.

    If Parallax wanted to throw enough lawyers and money at it, they could get
    the Stamp name.

    Is this J-Stamp, as opposed to JStamp, the Stamp 3?

    Original Message

    > To whom? If you play a little word association game with people familiar
    > with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly elicit "Parallax" or
    > "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron" means "gasoline" to
    people
    > in the petrochemical industry). While others may legally use the term
    > "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there certainly is
    an
    > ethical question.
    >
    > One must wonder, since there are infinite naming possibilities available,
    why
    > any company (other than Parallax) would want to use the term Stamp? My
    guess
    > is that these companies (there are more guilty of this "crime" than
    > Systronix) are trying to infer Parallax's high quality onto their
    (possibly)
    > questionable products.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 19:58
    yOn Wed, 30 May 2001 jonwms@a... wrote:

    >
    > To whom? If you play a little word association game with people familiar
    > with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly elicit "Parallax" or
    > "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron" means "gasoline" to people
    > in the petrochemical industry). While others may legally use the term
    > "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there certainly is an
    > ethical question.

    It's a legal one too. If basic stamp is trademarked, i would urge parallax
    to issue a legal challenge against the company. It actually doesn't
    terribly matter that much whether it was actually trademarked as long as
    they can demonstrate prior use.


    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 21:48
    Which explains why Intel called it a "Pentium" as opposed to a 586.
    Cyrix and many others were riding Intels' coat-tails using numeric
    designators (to name their processors) very similar to those used by
    Intel.

    --- In basicstamps@y..., "Sean T. Lamont .lost." <lamont@a...>
    wrote:
    > yOn Wed, 30 May 2001 jonwms@a... wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > To whom? If you play a little word association game with people
    familiar
    > > with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly
    elicit "Parallax" or
    > > "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron" means "gasoline"
    to people
    > > in the petrochemical industry). While others may legally use the
    term
    > > "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there
    certainly is an
    > > ethical question.
    >
    > It's a legal one too. If basic stamp is trademarked, i would urge
    parallax
    > to issue a legal challenge against the company. It actually doesn't
    > terribly matter that much whether it was actually trademarked as
    long as
    > they can demonstrate prior use.
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc.
    (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma -
    Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H.
    Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 22:08
    This reminds me of a problem that came up in the ISP industry a few
    years ago. Some company in Chile trademarked the word 'Shoe' in their
    country, and sued a US company for the use of the name 'shoe' in their
    url. As I recall, the case was ultimately lost, but at the cost of
    considerable attorney fees.
    -Chilton

    On Thursday, May 31, 2001, at 01:58 PM, Sean T. Lamont .lost. wrote:

    > It's a legal one too. If basic stamp is trademarked, i would urge
    > parallax
    > to issue a legal challenge against the company. It actually doesn't
    > terribly matter that much whether it was actually trademarked as long as
    > they can demonstrate prior use.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 22:22
    Intel began using names for their chips instead on numbers because
    they could not copyright/trademark a number. AMD & Cryix would name
    their devices the same as Intel, since they performed the same
    function (and were in some cases pin-for-pin replacements). Intel
    wanted to ensure that customers that bought a "586", bought an Intel
    device.

    --- In basicstamps@y..., iceninevt@y... wrote:
    > Which explains why Intel called it a "Pentium" as opposed to a 586.
    > Cyrix and many others were riding Intels' coat-tails using numeric
    > designators (to name their processors) very similar to those used
    by
    > Intel.
    >
    > --- In basicstamps@y..., "Sean T. Lamont .lost." <lamont@a...>
    > wrote:
    > > yOn Wed, 30 May 2001 jonwms@a... wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > > To whom? If you play a little word association game with
    people
    > familiar
    > > > with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly
    > elicit "Parallax" or
    > > > "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron"
    means "gasoline"
    > to people
    > > > in the petrochemical industry). While others may legally use
    the
    > term
    > > > "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there
    > certainly is an
    > > > ethical question.
    > >
    > > It's a legal one too. If basic stamp is trademarked, i would urge
    > parallax
    > > to issue a legal challenge against the company. It actually
    doesn't
    > > terribly matter that much whether it was actually trademarked as
    > long as
    > > they can demonstrate prior use.
    > >
    > >
    > > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc.
    > (ServNet)
    > > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma -
    > Bremerton
    > > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". -
    H.
    > Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 22:40
    Although as someone previously pointed out, there is information about
    this on the Jstamp webpage where they state that they are trying
    to work things out with Parallax. They also state that they did a patent/
    trademark search and found >300 other "stamp" microchip (eg: DOS stamp and
    MicroStamp) products before they named it Jstamp.
    you can read more of their take on it here:
    http://jstamp.systronix.com/jstamp_conflict.htm


    On Thu, 31 May 2001, Sean T. Lamont .lost. wrote:

    > yOn Wed, 30 May 2001 jonwms@a... wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > To whom? If you play a little word association game with people familiar
    > > with small micros, the word "Stamp" will certainly elicit "Parallax" or
    > > "BASIC Stamp" as a response (just like "Chevron" means "gasoline" to people
    > > in the petrochemical industry). While others may legally use the term
    > > "Stamp" (since Parallax didn't trademark it early on), there certainly is an

    > > ethical question.
    >
    > It's a legal one too. If basic stamp is trademarked, i would urge parallax
    > to issue a legal challenge against the company. It actually doesn't
    > terribly matter that much whether it was actually trademarked as long as
    > they can demonstrate prior use.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-05-31 23:48
    I thought it was because of the Pentium math error

    286 + 100 = 386

    386 + 100 = 486

    486 + 100 = 597

    Original Message

    > Intel began using names for their chips instead on numbers because
    > they could not copyright/trademark a number. AMD & Cryix would name
    > their devices the same as Intel, since they performed the same
    > function (and were in some cases pin-for-pin replacements). Intel
    > wanted to ensure that customers that bought a "586", bought an Intel
    > device.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-06-01 00:50
    Nicholas Judson wrote:
    >
    > Although as someone previously pointed out, there is information about
    > this on the Jstamp webpage where they state that they are trying
    > to work things out with Parallax. They also state that they did a patent/
    > trademark search and found >300 other "stamp" microchip (eg: DOS stamp and
    > MicroStamp) products before they named it Jstamp.
    > you can read more of their take on it here:
    > http://jstamp.systronix.com/jstamp_conflict.htm
    >
    Literally true but not entirely accurate. Of the 432 trademark claims
    containing the word "Stamp", only 5 refer to electronic circuitry:
    JSTAMP, MICROSTAMP, BASIC STAMP, DOS STAMP, ISTAMP.

    All the other claims were for postage stamp, rubber stamp, etc
    products.

    Of those 5, the ISTAMP and DOS STAMP claims were abandoned. Of the
    remaining 3, only MICROSTAMP and BASIC STAMP have registration
    numbers.

    I managed to find some useful information about the MicroStamp
    product. It's not a microcontroller. It's more of a smartcard on
    a chip.

    So, what it boils down to is that the only microcontroller on the
    market with a registered trademark using the word "Stamp" is in fact
    owned by Parallax.

    ...at least as far as I could tell. Anyone know of any products that
    I missed?

    SD

    --
    /===================================================================\
    | Steve DeGroof (http://degroof.home.mindspring.com/) |
    \===================================================================/
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2001-06-03 06:50
Sign In or Register to comment.