Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:49:05 10/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1999 at 12:56:39, KarinsDad wrote: > >Have to disagree with you on this one Robert. > >Although what you say makes sense on the surface, it does not make sense with >regard to these specific circumstances. > >It was very controversial of Dr. Hsu to use the name Deep Blue Junior when there >is the obvious confusion with Junior. It was just as controversial of Amir Ban >to use Deep Junior (with a similar motif, Deep means further down the graph in >chess programs). However, I can understand Amir's desire to show that what is >good for the goose is good for the gander. Exactly _how_ would "Deep Blue Junior" be confused with "Junior"? I had "Jr" after my name for _years_ until my dad died, because he was also "Robert Hyatt" and you can't have two with the same name, in the same family, and not have mass confusion. Feel free to disagree, as that is your perogative. However, note that the entire USA disagrees with your position. Hence all the "Jr" products that are over here, from crock pots to crack pots, actually. > >Regardless of word usage in the U.S., when one product has a similar name to >another product and both products compete in the U.S., the product which had the >name first will often win in a court of law. The reason is that the assumption >is made that the second product is attempting to acquire market share based on >name recognition of the first product. But _not_ with the word "junior". Any more than you can claim the name "2nd edition" and prevent all the book publishers from producing a new edition with that as part of the title. It is simply commonplace. I would be happy to produce a list of 10,000 products that exist as "productname" and "productname junior" if you'd like. This is no different, IMHO. > >If there was a maul called Junior and someone else then later came up with Paul >Junior, I'm sure the company with the one called Junior would win in a court of >law and the other product would have to change it's name to Mini-Paul or >somesuch. Sure... but if someone named it just "junior" they wouldn't get anywhere as "paul junior" is accepted here. > >And your analogy with "2" is an attempt to go to a nearly illogical extreme with >an example. Very few people name ANY product based solely on a number or symbol >(e.g. Pepsi One is not called 1). However, there are often products named on >single words, regardless of other meanings of those words (such as Junior). > >KarinsDad :) It was just an attempt to show how illogical the arguments are. IE why not name something "new and improved" and then dare Proctor and Gamble to produce a "New and Improved Tide"... Junior was used in the above manner _long_ before it was adopted as the name of a chess program. We played "cray blitz junior" in a chess tournament in 1984 at the US Open. Because we couldn't get a real multi-cpu cray, and wanted everyone to know we were running on a very slow one- cpu cray. When something has been done for so long a time, trying to copyright a common name modifier like "junior" just won't work. Particularly when the word "junior" is used in such a common way (at least in the USA and Canada). Another choice might be to name a product "free" or "light". We both know what those mean, right? Free means either no sugar nor no fat, depending on context, light means low sugar/fat. Totally accepted usage even recognized by the US department of agriculture, and monitored by the food and drug administration here. So someone can come along and name something "light" and then challenge everyone with a "1000 Island Light" name? :) Light, free, junior, senior, etc are all treated the same over here...
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.