What if I ripped off Intel's cpu?

[Gonkee]

So if I were start a company and produce cheap chips called "7700k" would I get fined/sued/put to jail? It's just a model number.

[Master Disaster]

Pretty sure nothing would happen as 7700K is not a trademark. If you used Intel however things would be verrrrrrry different.

[Princess Luna]

It is a registered brand, in all the countries that have trademarked patents for Intel you could be potentially sued, so go rip it off in China or North Korea where patents are worth shit

[Gonkee]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Pretty sure nothing would happen as 7700K is not a trademark. If you used Intel however things would be verrrrrrry different.

Would you be dumb enough to buy it?

[Droidbot]

4 minutes ago, Gonkee said:

Would you be dumb enough to buy it?

if it performed like the real thing I'd buy it

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Gonkee said:

Would you be dumb enough to buy it?

Don't scam people, that's not nice. Unless you ripoff their design too.

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

It is a registered brand, in all the countries that have trademarked patents for Intel you could be potentially sued, so go rip it off in China or North Korea where patents are worth shit

7700K is not a brand, its a model number. Intel is the brand.

[SCHISCHKA]

a smarter thing to do is what Lindows did

Quote

In 2002, Microsoft sued Lindows, Inc. claiming the name Lindows constituted an infringement of their Windows trademark. Microsoft's claims were rejected by the court, which asserted that Microsoft had used the term windows to describe graphical user interfaces before the Windows product was ever released, and that the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple Computer many years before.^[7] Microsoft sought a retrial and after this was postponed in February 2004,^[8] offered to settle the case. As part of the licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $20 million, and Lindows, Inc. transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed its name to Linspire, Inc.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire

 

hmm I should quickly register windoze.com

[Gonkee]

1 minute ago, SCHISCHKA said:

a smarter thing to do is what Lindows did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linspire

 

hmm I should quickly register windoze.com

Man windoge

[Guest]

On 4/6/2017 at 6:58 AM, Gonkee said:

Man windoge

I think the courts also said that you cannot trademark numbers.  Intel tried to trademark 8086 back in the day, but failed.

[2FA]

On 4/6/2017 at 6:42 AM, Princess Cadence said:

It is a registered brand, in all the countries that have trademarked patents for Intel you could be potentially sued, so go rip it off in China or North Korea where patents are worth shit

AMD's A10 7700K would like a word.

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 minutes ago, VPrime said:

I think the courts also said that you cannot trademark numbers.  Intel tried to trademark 8086 back in the day, but failed.

You can trademark numbers. "1" was trademarked in 2002 by a NASCAR driver. The thing is, you have to prove the trademark is significant based on a certain context. For example, you can trademark Apple for anything other than being a computer or electronics company (or anything else that I'm not aware of). Apple had fun with this as well when they released the Macintosh, butting heads with the amplifier company McIntosh. The courts decided that Apple was fine, because there were two clearly different contexts established.

 

The thing with Intel abandoning trademarking number was during the 80386 days, where they were afraid of the trademark "386" becoming generic due to legal clones. This is also the beginning of Intel's long legal feuds with AMD. In any case, they lost the trademark because in the context of computers, "386" had become generic.

 

Source: http://tedium.co/2017/05/18/intel-386-486-trademark-battles/

 

Also I think from that, every company decided it wasn't worth it to trademark numbers because numbers provide more than just a name in computer hardware space.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

You can trademark numbers. "1" was trademarked in 2002 by a NASCAR driver. The thing is, you have to prove the trademark is significant based on a certain context. For example, you can trademark Apple for anything other than being a computer or electronics company (or anything else that I'm not aware of). Apple had fun with this as well when they released the Macintosh, butting heads with the amplifier company McIntosh. The courts decided that Apple was fine, because there were two clearly different contexts established.

 

The thing with Intel abandoning trademarking number was during the 80386 days, where they were afraid of the trademark "386" becoming generic due to legal clones. This is also the beginning of Intel's long legal feuds with AMD. In any case, they lost the trademark because in the context of computers, "386" had become generic.

 

Source: http://tedium.co/2017/05/18/intel-386-486-trademark-battles/

 

Also I think from that, every company decided it wasn't worth it to trademark numbers because numbers provide more than just a name in computer hardware space.

Well dang.  I'd rather not have companies trademark numbers...

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, VPrime said:

Well dang.  I'd rather not have companies trademark numbers...

I don't think companies should be able to trademark common food names either but...

[NumLock21]

Bmw has a i3 and so does intel.

The necro!

[System Error Message]

the x86 architecture is copyrighted, you cant make it without a license anymore as only intel and AMD have the license to make it. If you do both companies can come after you.

There are 2 ways you can do it, with an electron microscope or with engineers to design an x86 compatible chip. The problem with either solution is that they are very expensive and you have to get the fabs to make the CPU too.

 

CPU design can get very complicated. Rather than trying to make an intel like CPU, make your own thats better instead. Why dont you take a look at CPUs like tilera for example or make a CPU thats also a GPU for design examples.

[yathis]

On 4/6/2017 at 4:42 AM, Princess Cadence said:

patents are worth shit

they are worth shit world wide, not just China and ill dudes land

Generally speaking that is.

 

Intel has deep pockets and lawyers on payroll.

 

[Derkoli]

On 7/17/2017 at 6:43 PM, Mira Yurizaki said:

You can trademark numbers. "1" was trademarked in 2002 by a NASCAR driver. The thing is, you have to prove the trademark is significant based on a certain context. For example, you can trademark Apple for anything other than being a computer or electronics company (or anything else that I'm not aware of). Apple had fun with this as well when they released the Macintosh, butting heads with the amplifier company McIntosh. The courts decided that Apple was fine, because there were two clearly different contexts established.

 

The thing with Intel abandoning trademarking number was during the 80386 days, where they were afraid of the trademark "386" becoming generic due to legal clones. This is also the beginning of Intel's long legal feuds with AMD. In any case, they lost the trademark because in the context of computers, "386" had become generic.

 

Source: http://tedium.co/2017/05/18/intel-386-486-trademark-battles/

 

Also I think from that, every company decided it wasn't worth it to trademark numbers because numbers provide more than just a name in computer hardware space.

I know this is an old thread, but mcintosh arent just an amplifier producer..

[Mister Woof]

On 4/6/2017 at 3:43 AM, Gonkee said:

Would you be dumb enough to buy it?

Are you admitting to a scam scheme?

 

EDIT: Damn, just realized this is a necropost

[PianoPlayer88Key]

9 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

EDIT: Damn, just realized this is a necropost

If I come to a thread via a search function, I don't often bother looking at the date if I'm replying.  (I've seen forums that encourage people to search for a topic to see if it's already been posted before posting a new one.)

 

I do, however, look at the date if I'm researching some things like how to do something.  A post from 2006 on how to do something in Firefox may not be relevant for a modern version, for example.

Also, if I'm looking at a topic list sorted by date, newest first ... If all topics on the first page are < 30 minutes old, I know the forum's very active and my plea for help or whatever would get promptly buried.  Conversely, if there are topics from 1995, 1997 (skipping 1996), etc. on the first page and the last post was in 2003, then my e-prayer may never be heard.

 

 

Personally I think patents & copyrights last WAY too long, I think it should be closer to the commercial new-in-stock lifecycle, or a few years or so.  (For example, Haswell and Broadwell should have expired by now and Skylake should be on its way to expiration, imo.)

[Master Disaster]