Dell tries to trademark "cloud computing"

[greggh]

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08 ... -computing

After witnessing countless corparate attempts to patent common practices or trademark common terms, and seeing the resulting PR fallout, one would think that companies would just stop trying. Dell, however, seems to think that it should be able to trademark the term "cloud computing," a phrase that entered the tech lexicon many years ago to describe software processing that takes place on a distributed network, such as the Internet.

The trademark application (serial number 77139082) was noted by Sam Johnston, a member of the Cloud Computing group on Google Groups, and mentioned on the Elastic Vapor blog.

Dell is not the only company to go after this term. The first trademark application was made in 1998 under serial number 75291765 by NetCentric Corporation, a company that used to provide "carrier-class Internet fax technology." The application was killed less than a year later. Dell's application is dated March 23, 2007, well after the first mention I was able to find of the term, which appeared as "cloud" and "cloud network" in the New York Times in 2001.

Considering that cloud computing is a generic term that's been used countless times in articles, papers, and books, it would seem obvious that the trademark application should be killed. It was published for opposition April 15 of this year, and the definition submitted in the trademark application makes it clear that Dell is covering all potential use of the term, and not restricting it to a cloud computing platform of its own specific design:

IC 040. US 100 103 106. G & S: Custom manufacture of computer hardware for use in data centers and mega-scale computing environments for others

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Design of computer hardware for use in data centers and mega-scale computing environments for others; customization of computer hardware for use in data centers and mega-scale computing environments for others; design and development of networks for use in data centers and mega-scale computing environments for others; Consulting services for data centers and mega-scale computing environments in the fields of design, selection, implementation, customization and use of computer hardware and software systems for others; Consulting services for data centers and mega-scale computing environments in the fields of design, selection, implementation, customization and use of computer hardware and software systems for others

Dell was generous enough to note in the application that the term "computing" on its own was not being trademarked.

Why is it that corporations can't seem to stop themselves from doing these blatantly slimy things? Michael Dell seems like a reasonably smart guy. At some point you would think it would come to his attention the slimy thing that Legal is doing and he would say, "we can't do something that slimy", instead of "go for it".

[greggh]

US Patent Office rains on Dell's 'cloud computing' trademark

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/07 ... sent_back/

Dell's grip on a "cloud computing" trademark may not be as solid as it first seemed.

The US Patent Office has canceled its "notice of allowance" on the Round Rock computer vendor's attempt to master the popular IT buzzword. Passing the "allowance" step in the trademark process had meant that opponents could no longer object to Dell's claims. But Dell's trademark application was updated yesterday to show the case has now "returned to examination."

It would seem someone working for the USPTO was stuck by thunderbolt of rationality.

[greggh]

Dell Loses Bid To Trademark "Cloud Computing"

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid ... 4&from=rss

"The USPTO has issued a 'non-final determination' refusing Dell's request to trademark the term 'cloud computing' (we discussed the application earlier), finding that the term is generic and 'therefore incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant's services.' According to Data Center Knowledge, 'Dell has the option of filing a response to submit arguments to dispute the USPTO examiner's findings.'"

It's pathetic that the USPTO is so dysfunctional. This would have sailed through if not for the public attention.