Conference 7.286::digital

    I agree!
    
    Thanks for posting this, Steve.  I was just about to send away
    for a few T-shirts myself.

I wonder if IBM or the people who wrote UNIX, also complained thru
legal channels also ??

						JoeF

    Actually, I think the female was supposed to be Barbie Benton.
    The caption was "Ken and Barbie".

        I suspect it had to do with trademark protection. In our legal
        system you can lose your proprietory rights to words, phrases
        and symbols if you don't defend them every time that they are
        infringed upon. Even though you might be sympathetic to one use,
        you need to protest and put a stop to every unlicensed use or
        someone else can point to it and show that your mark is in the
        public domain. This is why Disney came down so hard on us over
        the ReGiS Mickey Mouse and Goofy images. Having been on both
        ends of this issue a couple of times DEC is very sensative to
        the issues. 
        
        JimB.

    I've written them to ask if any of the products which don't contain
    DEC trademarks are still available, as I had ordered one of those.
    Still, I don't believe that the simple use of our trademark, properly
    denoted with the "TM" mark, is infringing, but then again I'm not
    a lawyer.  Still, I can't help but wonder why the lawyers got upset
    over this and not the zillions of places our trademarks are used
    without acknowledgment.  (Consider the frequent places where UNIX
    is acknowledged as a trademark but, in the same sentence, VAX and
    VMS are not.)
    
    One does not need to license use of trademarks in order to keep
    them.  I suspect that the argument used was that the existence of
    these items were insulting to DEC, which I disagree with.
    
    Lastly, I cannot see how DEC can POSSIBLY have any legal basis for
    objecting to a T-shirt with "Maynard Vice" on it!  (Did we sue Atari
    for its video game that pitted you against the "evil VAXXIAN empire
    from the planet MAYNARD"?)
    
    					Steve

        Re: .6
        
        I agree with you, the argument was probably over `insulting
        DEC' rather than over trademark issues.
        
>    Still, I don't believe that the simple use of our trademark, properly
>    denoted with the "TM" mark, is infringing, but then again I'm not
>    a lawyer.  
        
        I'm also not a lawyer, but I believe that there is no legal
        basis behind using the `TM' mark.  It is recognized by many
        people as designating a trademark, but does not provide any
        legal protection.  (However, the R in a circle for registered
        trademarks does have legal implications.)
        
>    (Consider the frequent places where UNIX
>    is acknowledged as a trademark but, in the same sentence, VAX and
>    VMS are not.)
        
        Consider the AT&T license for UNIX, which requires that the
        licensee honor the trademark and use the trademark.
        
        [Digression:  AT&T does have to worry about losing its UNIX
        trademark, DEC doesn't have a serious problem with VAX or VMS.
        Trademarks must be adjectives (registered trademarks are
        different).  People tend to think of UNIX as a noun (`a UNIX
        implementation', not `an implementation of a UNIX operating
        system'), but VMS and VAX are normally thought of as `the VMS
        operating system running on a VAX computer'.] 
        
        So, is DEC so big that it has to take itself seriously?  If the
        lawyers were smart, they would just ask for a percentage of the
        take on the products (and a discount for DEC employees). 
        
        					B.J.

    re .5:
    
    For a moment I thought that trademarks have something to do with
    this action, but the next moment I dismissed that thought.  I don't
    really know why the Law Department took action, but in my layman's
    opinion I kind of doubt that our trademarks are being seriously
    jeopardized in this instance.
    
    re .7:
    
    I disagree with the assertion that "there is no legal basis behind
    using the `TM' mark."  Read the _Trademark Handbook For Digital
    Employees_.  Also, Digital does register some of its trademarks.
    There are reasons that Digital does not use the recognized symbol
    for registered trademarks to denote those of its trademarks that
    are registered.  (Don't ask me why; I'm not a lawyer.)
    
  --Simon
    

    Since we're on this tangent anyway, I'll quote from the handbook
    Simon mentioned (you can order it by sending mail to JOKUR::SMC):
    
       The steps for getting, and the importance of, trademark
       registrations vary widely from country to country.  In the
       United States, you must use a trademark before you can register
       it and it is the use, not the registration, that gives you
       most of your rights.
       
       But in many other countries, you must register to have any
       trademark rights at all.  A few countries are hostile to
       foreign trademarks and give them very little protection
       in any form.
       
       Because trademark registration is an expensive process,
       Digital does not register every trademark in every country
       where it is used.  Digital does register its trademarks
       in countries where they are commercially important and where
       meaningful protection is available.
       
    
    I am fairly certain that Digital has NO trademarks that are
    registered in the U.S.
       					Steve

< Note 316.9 by QUARK::LIONEL "We all live in a yellow subroutine" >
    
>    I am fairly certain that Digital has NO trademarks that are
>    registered in the U.S.
  
  DECdirect(tm)plus is listed in the DECdirect calatlog as a registered
  trademark.  
  
  Could it *really* be registered only outside the U.S.?

-Andy  

    Re .9, .10:
    
    I believe DEC, PDP, FLIP-CHIP, and FOCAL are all registered trademarks
    of Digital.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    From the VT220 Programmer Reference Manual (the one on the top of
    my pile!):
    
	    The following are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation, 
	    Maynard, Massachusetts.
    
	    digital (logo)	DECwriter	P/OS		UNIBUS
	    DEC			DIGITAL		Professional	VAX
	    DECmate		LA		Rainbow		VMS
	    DECnet		MASSBUS		RSTS		VT
	    DECUS		PDP		RSX		Work Processor

    It doesn't say "Registered" trademarks, but I can't help thinking
    that many of them must be.
    
    -  David

      Are there any lawyers/attorneys out there reading this?  Why
    not put in your 2c worth?  Are there any lawyers out there that
    can use a computer let alone NOTES?  Don't be afraid, engineers
    don't dislike lawyers, only dispise them.
    
    Greg
    

    I'm not a lawyer but if I were I'd be reluctant to reply to a
    combination invatation/put-down such as yours.
    
    Cheers,
    Marty

    
    	Although my kid sister is a lawyer, I've seriously thought of
    getting one of those T-shirts that quote "First, we kill all the
    lawyers".   Look at our ratio of engineers to lawyers to population
    and look at Japan's.  sigh  - Chris
    

    Corporations must be ever vigilant against erosion of their trademarks,
    which in some cases are their most valuable assets.  The words xerox
    and kleenex come to mind.
    
    Some years ago, there was a counterculture poster depicting the
    Disney characters (Mickey, Donald, Goofy, et al) doing drugs together.
    Call me square, but I thought it was horrid, not funny.  I believe
    the Disney lawyers took a similarly dim view.
    
    Contemporary trends go too far, perhaps, in protection.  Have you
    ever noticed that Lucasfilms has registered as trademarks the names
    of every Star Wars character, all three film titles, and the
    significant props?

        Last Thursday night I saw a fellow wearing a T-shirt with the
        following printed on it, all in something like italics or old
        english: 
        
        		I hate digital! 
        		I hate digital! 
        		I hate digital! 

        Since we were in a high end stereo store, it wasn't surprising to
        find out that it refered to CDs, not to computers. When I told him
        where I worked, he commented that he knew this would come up some
        day. Unfortunately that shirt is also no longer available. 
        
        I don't see how DEC legal could stomp out a T-shirt that said
        "Maynard Vice" any more than they could "Maynard G. Krebbs". 

    Here's another 'I'm not a lawyer, but...' answer..
    
    I remember a friend of mine in Albuquerque that bought a car from
    the local dealer, and got a real lemon, long before there were lemon
    laws.  He didn't get much satisfaction, so he put a sign up in his
    front lawn and had magnetic signs made up to wear proudly on the
    doors as he drove around. They signs all said 'I'll never buy another
    car from [dealer name]'.  No slander, misrepresentation, name calling,
    or whatever, just a statement of his intention to not purchase from
    the dealer.  After a few requests from the dealer, and a few refusals
    from him, the dealer finally picked his car up and dropped off a
    new one.  
    
    I think the point is that the guy with the Tshirt could probably
    walk around with I hate Digital all over it as long as he didn't
    slander the company.  Once again...any lawyers listening?
    
    Gil
    

    What's the big deal? *You* could go out and get your own shirt made 
    up to say Maynard Vice, or whatever as long as it wasn't slanderous 
    or malicious. 
              
    The issue with allowing a single company to mass produce these
    things is probably related to *sanction* or implied consent just
    by letting it go without protest. That sets a precedent and precedents
    play an important part in winning or losing a case. Also, if you
    let one firm do this without protest (silence means consent), you've
    lost control over others. 
    
    As someone mentioned, image has a lot to do with it, too. Now, if
    Digital *chose* to have some of their own shirts made up (if they
    had the sense of humor to pull it off right) it would be a wonderful 
    marketing tool. Customers would enjoy the shirts, and so would
    employees. Humor/satire has been used successfully before, but 
    it sure can be the proverbial double-edged sword. (As you know,
    some humor is very culture-related and does not cross international
    lines easily. What's funny in one country can be terribly offensive
    in another.
    
    As I said, make your own shirts in any shirt shop.
    
    And enjoy.
    
    Irena
    
         
                        
    

    RE: .14
    
      I made my statement "tongue-in-cheek" but don't really know the
    accepted symbol for that; it's something like --).  Even so, there
    is a ring of truth to the statement as noted by the ratio of lawyers
    to engineers here in the USA compared to that of Japan.  Lawyers
    do not add to the GNP or to the balance of trade, whereas, many
    engineers are working to design/build/manufacture products and 
    processes which directly affect the U.S.'s international competi-
    tiveness.  
    
      The need for lawyers is real.  Certainly, health and safety laws,
    consumer protection laws, and many other legal activities have made
    life better for most people while protecting them for unnecessary
    risk.  However, the legal system can go too far in the regulatory
    area and in judicial/jury rulings such that innovation and new 
    product development are stifled.  
    
      Finally, given the dialogue in this NOTES topic, I'd judge that
    most of the contributors are engineers of some type.  Thus, if 
    there are any lawyers watching who have read this, why not let
    us know what you think.  I promise not to attack you.
    
    Greg
    

re: < Note 316.20 by SLDA::OPP >
>                      -< Sincere appeal to ENET lawyers >-

    
>    Lawyers do not add to the GNP or to the balance of trade ...

Nor do doctors, politicians, the service sector, the military,
the rest of the governement ...

Very few people add directly to the GNP or balance of trade, so I
don't see a good reason to single out this quality about lawyering.
    
>    However, the legal system can go too far in the regulatory
>    area and in judicial/jury rulings such that innovation and new 
>    product development are stifled.  

I agree but ...

I wouldn't confuse the "legal system" with lawers; it's a bit like
blaming scientists for the nucleur bomb, or engineers for guns.

In general, we have a lot of lawyers because we pay them -- we have
a lot of lawsuits because we like to sue.  And juries are staffed by
people, not lawyers.
    
>    [if] there are any lawyers watching who have read this, why not let
>    us know what you think.  I promise not to attack you.
    
I think you've sort of phrased the discussion in a loaded way, though
I don't think you meant to do that.  I believe the word "sincere" in
your note's title, but I think you've clumped together a number of
things: US ethics and attitudes, the legal system, the judicial system,
the legislative system, and so forth.  If you look at why/how things
are the way they are, I'm think you _might_ find the Japan/US lawyer/
engineer ratios to be more of a symptom (albeit a self re-inforcing one)
than a cause.

???

greg who is not a lawyer    

    If we're through talking about T-Shirts, let's talk about what gets
    into a memo.  See Note 1.11
    
    General Electric's engineers documented concerns about the safety and
    quality of their (reactor) designs. 
    
    Rather than giving GE a medal for being concerned about quality,
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has charged GE with fraud and
    these memos seem to be the smoking gun.
    
    Read the story in Business Week, June 15, 1987, page 32, and read Note
    1.11 and don't draw conclusions from the two sentences above. 

    RE .21  Beg pardon ?  The GNP is a measure of goods AND services.
    If there is a demand for those services, the free market will
    fill it. It is our litigation-happy society that causes the
    boom in the number of people seeking law degrees, not the
    other way 'round. There's gold in them thar hills, and folks
    are after a piece of the action.

re: < Note 316.23 by ARMORY::CHARBONND >


Yep, we are 100% in agreement.  Read .21 again, it is a reference
to a previous reply.

- g

    LAYWER = SPOILSPORT = MORE REGULATIONS = UNNEEDED COMPLICATIONS
    
    
    "First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers!"
    
                            -- William Shakespeare
    

    I read a book some time ago... there was a comment in it about lawyers
    which I paraphrase here...
    
    "Lawyers are like beavers that continuously dam up the stream of
    progress."

    D

    
    Enough slagging off of lawyers. Future excursions into such territory
    will be deleted and returned to their author.
    
    Co-Moderator

    Qu'est que c'est "slagging off" ?  

                        "Slagging off" = "Denigrating"