Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86 | 687 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT

I remember Intel having problems with registering numbers as something:
trademarks?

It's why the 80486 (commonly known as the 486) was followed by the Pentium and
not 80586 (aka 586, as one would expect).

btw [off topic] what did happen to the 80186? The 8086 was followed [in wide
use] by the 80286 (aka 286) by the 80386 (aka 386), etc.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86 - Authored by: greed on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT

at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86

Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT

It was trademark-related. "80586" and "586" were, as simple numbers with no other distinguishing characteristics, deemed by the USPTO to be too generic to be trademarkable for pretty much the same reasons that "coffee" or "milk" on their own wouldn't be trademarkable.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )