Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 15:01:04 10/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1999 at 15:21:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 19, 1999 at 14:02:51, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On October 19, 1999 at 13:49:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I tink that this is a key point in the argument. Junior, an Israeli program >>commercialized by a German enterprise, is not only sold in the US, and "Junior" >>as a qualifier means nothing in Spanish, French, Italian... Like you, I have the >>same name of my father, but I never carried the Jr. after. Neither does my >>eldest son. It wouldn't make any sense in Spanish. >> >>What you argue would be valid if the whole world were the US, but it isn't. >> >>Enrique >> > > >Of course. But "deep blue" came from the US. It was built here, by people >living here, and it fits right in with the thousands of other "junior" products >on the market. I don't claim to want to force the entire world to follow in >the path of the US. But those of us living here have this pretty 'ingrained' >into us by the time we finish school. :) Sure, but that's not the point. If a noun becomes a trademark and has the copyright, no common usage of this word in any language gives the right to create confusion and infringe an international trademark. For example, "Honda" is a common Spanish word. You can hit with a "Honda", you can also give soups with "Honda", as the Spanish idiomatic expression says. But if a Spanish maker sells an artifact with this name, I know of a Japanese maker that will complain real loud. "Buy a Honda!". Imagine... Enrique >>>>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 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.