Ms. Van Herk and Microchip has to be aggressive with protecting their trade
names. Otherwise the trade names could become public domain and they would
loose them. If lots of people started saying things like "Motorola makes a
great PIC" and Microchip did nothing, then the term "PIC" would become any
micro controller and not just micro controllers made by Microchip. For
example, "Aspirin" was a trademark of the Bayer Corporation. Of course
Bayer could not protect their trade name in the US during World War II since
Bayer is a German company.
-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of myke predko
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 2:38 PM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: New Burner Motivation (assumption).
Hi Peter,
Obviously you have never had to deal with Kim Van Herk. She's Microchip's
IP lawyer and she is not very imaginative with regards to what she considers
improper use of Microchip's registered marks. Her task is to make sure the
term "PIC", "PICmicro(R) microcontroller", "MPLAB-ICD", "PICStart Plus",
etc. are NEVER used incorrectly over the internet. in books, or casual
conversation and it is a task that she takes very seriously.
To be fair, she's a nice person, but she is very devoted to her task. And,
while even in the United States where you are protected by the 1st Amendment
with regards to how you refer to something, Microchip can put the screws to
you in other ways (like not allowing you to distribute the MPLAB-ICD with
your product or getting an injunction against selling a product in the U.S.
(or any country that has an IP treaty with the U.S.) because the registered
marks referenced in the product are not approved by their owner).
I'm mentioning this for the PBK; we have to make sure that the project we
only use Microchip's products and make sure that we reference them
correctly.
I don't agree with this policy and I have told Microchip this. It is a real
"glass boardroom" legal response to the issue of IP protection and does not
take into account the expectations of the WWW community and treaties people
and companies that would develop products and services for the PICmicro MCU
as potential infringers, criminals or, at best, general miscreants.
It's an emotional topic for me because it has caused me (and my publisher)
more gas than you could ever believe.
myke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter L. Peres"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PIC]: New Burner Motivation (assumption).
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Jim Ewald wrote:
>
> >>> What is Microchip official opinion on clones?
> >
> >> They want everyone to run out and buy them or course. Duh!
> >
> >I'm sure their legal department would be interested in any PIC clone
> >that becomes available. It's probably not a good idea unless one has a
> >great legal team and deep pockets.
>
> You are assuming all the time that they would be in a country where they
> can be sued and the lawsuit would get over within less than a lifetime or
> two. This may be slightly wrong.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu