Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00513
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Justin jaf60@student.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:06:19 +1300
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM as a trademark
> Actually I think you are correct. A thorough trademark search is done each
> time a name or logo is submitted
snip...
As for patents on circuits and new devices, yes, you can patent
> til you drop. When is the last time you saw a trademark symbol next to a line
> from Confusious, or Carl Marx? They are philosophys, and if BEAM is only a
> philosophy it can't be trademarked.
Yes, I totally agree.
[warning - personal interpretations ahead!]
In addition, I would say that there is only one BEAM, and that is the
BEAM philosophy. In addition to this, there might be a BEAM Robotics Inc
[tm] or a BEAM Games [tm], or whatever, but these are mere company
identities, and not relevant to question of BEAM being intellectual
property. It isn't.
I would also go further than this (though I suspect many would not) and
say that BEAM is only our _name_ for a philosophy, thus allowing "BEAM"
to encompass a robot that is 20 years old and built under a philsophy
with a different name but consisting of the same concept. The history of
the BEAM philosophy does not begin when our particular name was attached
to it, in the same way that the history of America did not begin when it
was discovered by Europeans.
People seem to think that "BEAM" being vague is a bad thing?!?!
Try to see what happens if you define "game" or "art" in a non-vague
sense. You destroy it.
We could ditch all the legal crap by ditching BEAM in favour of BAME -
different name, similar concepts. Start fresh :-)
BEAM cannot be rigidly defined, and cannot be property (not even if the
word "BEAM" could be)
These are good things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home