mailing list archives
IP: Comment from IBM on non trademark IBM'ers view
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 18:45:24 -0500
From: patrick () us ibm com
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:31:39 -0500
Subject: Re: IP: IBM'ers view
Dave, please let people know this is not correct. IBM has not trademarked
e-business. To the contrary we intentionally wanted anybody and everybody
to use the term (as they have). The result was the creation of a new
"category". Consultants are saying IBM is the leader in the new category.
We did trademark the red "e@" symbol but not the name.
Vice President - Internet Technology, IBM Corporation
Email: patrick () us ibm com
Homepage and PGP public key at http://www.ibm.com/patrick
Please respond to farber () cis upenn edu
To: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com
cc: (bcc: John Patrick/Somers/IBM)
Subject: IP: IBM'ers view
X-Sender: richard#goodread.com () mail samnet net
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:47:06 -0500
To: farber () cis upenn edu (David Farber)
From: "Richard J. Solomon" <richard () goodread com>
Subject: IBM'ers view
improvements such as ubiquitous e-mail, on-line chatting, Internet voice
communication, distance-learning and better multicultural appreciation.
Every media invention has heralded the lowering of cultural frictions, and
every one has caused new, unanticipated problems. Railroads, airplanes,
telegraphs, radio, television were supposed to eliminate war. I could fill
a book with quotes. Instantaneous borderless information.... Maybe this
It's worth asking: what's wrong with this picture? Why can't we anticipate
these things? Was the domain name/copyright/trademark conundrum so hard to
imagine just 15 years ago when the Web was being promulgated? Here we have
IBM trademarking "E-business?. Gimme a break...
What are we ignoring now? Would anyone pay for a serious hard look?
- IP: Comment from IBM on non trademark IBM'ers view Dave Farber (Dec 03)