×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Tries To Trademark "Cloud Computing"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the head-in-the-clouds-or-perhaps-some-other-orifice dept.

United States 130

Ian Lamont writes "The Industry Standard reports that Dell is trying to trademark the term cloud computing . The phrase entered the tech lexicon years ago, but Dell's application (serial number 77139082) was made in early 2007 to the US Patent and Trademark Office, apparently in connection with data center products and services that it was promoting around that time. A quick search of Google News indicates that Dell itself did not use the term in press releases or discussions with indexed English-language media sources from 1996 to 2006. Dell is not the first company to attempt to trademark this term: The Standard notes that NetCentric, a company that provided 'carrier-class Internet fax technology,' also gave it a shot in the late 1990s, but was rejected."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

130 comments

Michael Dell doesn't know... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452673)

the difference between the Meta-Grid and the Hyper-Net!

-Anonymous Howard

New coin term: trademark troll (4, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452675)

And here I thought that only happened with patents.

Re:New coin term: trademark troll (4, Interesting)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452853)

The obviousness of some of the colloquial expressions protected under trademark in the US is sometimes quite surprising. Dish soap marketers, for instance, must be careful in how they describe the effective concentration of their product, because "a little goes a long way(tm)" is a trademark of P&G group.

Re:New coin term: trademark troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453409)

Dove trademarked use instructions on its beauty bars "Everyday is Everything"

Re:New coin term: trademark troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454041)

I can beat that, actually.

AOL-Time Warner trademarked (or at least copyrighted) the "Happy Birthday" song. That's why restaurants always make up their own birthday chants when they honor a birthday in a public setting (the dining area).

Talk about total and utter BS.

Re:New coin term: trademark troll (2, Interesting)

5of0 (935391) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454423)

You think that's bad, I passed a Carl's Jr. truck (Hardees to you east of the Mississippi) that said "It's Rude To Stare" next to a picture of their burger, and they had apparently trademarked the phrase, as it had a "TM" after it. And it was to the left of the burger, so it's not like they were trademarking the burger itself.

I even found a picture [flickr.com] of the truck (the TM isn't visible, but it's there, just to the upper-right of the "It's Rude To Stare"). Is there something I'm missing, or is the trademark world just that ridiculous?

Re:New coin term: trademark troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453901)

three-peat 'nuff said

Not only sneaky morals, but... (4, Funny)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452701)

Cloudy thinking by Dell.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452769)

Guess they had their heads up in the clouds on this one, eh?

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453557)

Their heads are not that high. Think about 3 feet off of the ground and behind them.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452791)

No it's just greedy thinking.

Anytime you try to patent a technical term, you are just deluding yourself. The only reasons for doing so are gaining an edge an a pre-existent market.

I would think the only exception is where a technical term actually gets created out of word that is already trademarked. Like "Xeroxing a paper". That did use to be a technical term in the past. I am sure there are others.

The whole reason Dell wants this patent is so that when their competitors attempt to explain their own products in any marketing literature they have to refrain from using a well known technical term. I can even see sales people having to say, "No. It's like cloud computing" since they cannot actually say it is cloud computing.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1, Offtopic)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453505)

I would think the only exception is where a technical term actually gets created out of word that is already trademarked. Like "Xeroxing a paper". That did use to be a technical term in the past. I am sure there are others.

"Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.

The whole reason Dell wants this patent

Sigh. Did you even RTFS? Dell is trying to *trademark* the term, which is something completely different than a patent. The difference is brought up in almost every single article on /. involving copyrights, trademarks or patents. How can anybody not know the difference by now?

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453749)

"Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.

Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.

Sigh. Did you even RTFS? Dell is trying to *trademark* the term, which is something completely different than a patent. The difference is brought up in almost every single article on /. involving copyrights, trademarks or patents. How can anybody not know the difference by now?

Take it easy. I know what the difference is between copyright, trademarks, and patents. I misspoke. It happens.

Instead of poking fun at my mistake, why not address my argument directly? Dell attempting to get a trademark on a well defined technical term is not about protecting anything original to them. It's dirty and will most likely fail. I was pointing out that it is motivated by greed and an attempt to secure an unfair and undeserved advantage over their competitors.

It would be like Pepsi or Coke trying to trademark "soda". It can't be done, shouldn't be tried, and is pretty silly to anyone considering it. So is cloud computing and Dell.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0, Redundant)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454221)

It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

No, it's not [wikipedia.org]. "Xerography" is the technical term. "Xerox" is a meaningless, made up company name.

Instead of poking fun at my mistake, why not address my argument directly?

I didn't agree or disagree with your argument because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454269)

I disagree with your argument, because you come across as a TIT

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (2, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454271)

I didn't agree or disagree with your argument because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

I think it's clear that I do know what I am talking about. Once again, you use a distasteful tactic to make a point. You have yet to make any productive comment about Dell's attempt to trademark a well known term, yet still persist in attacking me personally over a disagreement about whether or not a term exists in one of my examples.

Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is part of our language. You can rant against that all you want. Apparently, instead of discussing it rationally, you just want to lobby personal attacks.

Bravo.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454609)

Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is part of our language. You can rant against that all you want. Apparently, instead of discussing it rationally, you just want to lobby personal attacks.

Can you even read? Not once have I said the word "Xerox" isn't "part of our language". As I've tried to explain twice already, the technical term is *NOT* Xerox, it's "xerography". Yes, "Xerox" has become synomomous with "making a copying", but that *doesn't* make it the technical term for the process involved. Both the dictionary [merriam-webster.com] and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] agree with me.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454795)

Wow. You still cannot attempt a productive argument without at least one insult. I am pretty sure I can read. I think. It would make writing a little harder to be sure.

Anyways, Xeroxing is still as valid of a technical term as any. A technical term is, "A word that has a specific meaning within a specific field of expertise".

Well... that being said I would think secretaries making copies comprise a "field" that one could have expertise in. Those secretaries operating in said field, would commonly use the phrase, "Xeroxing". I know. I heard it myself.

As another poster pointed out, the inclusion of a word in dictionaries (or even Wikipedia), is not required for a word to be valid. Only the consistency of it's use. Well, "Xeroxing" is pretty darn consistent in it's use. I know it, and I think any other reader of this post would instantly recognize it as well. Your argument about whether it could qualify as a technical term is the only productive discourse happening here, and I just gave my argument why I think it IS a technical term.

Now if you want to argue about the validity of words not in dictionaries I ask you to consider, "Fo Shizzle my Nizzle". I don't think that is in a dictionary, but most people know *exactly* what it means. I would argue that it is highly consistent in it's use.

So do I forgive you for your constant derogatory insults in your attempt to have a rational conversation with me? Fo Shizzle My Nizzle :)

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454807)

Sorry,but I have to agree here. As someone who grew up in the '70s,you NEVER copied anything,you Xeroxed it. Just like today nobody searches the web for anything,they Google it. I guarantee you if Google dies out in 5 years folks will still say "just Google it". Hell,I say "just Google it" and I use Yahoo search. But I can't ever remember anyone saying they needed to have something copied,they needed it Xeroxed. That was just they way it was,right along with wood grain on everything.

So whether you believe it or not,as someone who lived it and used that phrase more times than I can count,I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that it didn't matter who made the copier because we Xeroxed everything.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454863)

I think he is arguing a point to death even though it clearly is a valid technical term. He wants xerography to be the dominant and only recognized technical term for the process, but Xeroxing is just as valid.

You don't have to have grown up in the 70's either. I was born in the late 70's, and it was still Xeroxing well into the late 80's.

You've supported my point quite well though. It never mattered what company name was on the copier, you made a Xerox. That was my whole point about how a technical term could also be a trademark in the first place.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454473)

No, it's not. "Xerography" is the technical term. "Xerox" is a meaningless, made up company name.

Word - n.
a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.



If I tell someone to "Xerox this for me" and they come back with a copy of my original paper, then "xerox" is a word. Not to mention plenty of dictionaries include the word xerox, and words exist before they're put in dictionaries, not after. Inclusion in a dictionary is not a requirement for a word, I could make up sounds all day long and call them words, the number of people knowing a word is also not a factor for a word's existence. The only real requirement for a word is a sound/spelling that conveys a persistent meaning. Even that's not correct (ex. "gay" hasn't had a persistent meaning) Language is fluid, there's no central office defining languages, anyone and everyone helps make a language.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454463)

Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

In particular, the name came from the Greek "xeros', meaning dry.

Up until then, all practical copying involved a wet process. In the 60s, I used to use a Bruning copier. It involved aligning a piece of translucent original and feeding the sandwich into a slot, where the pair was flashed with a very bright light inside a glass cylinder. The original and copy were separated -- the original came back to you and the copy was diverted through a tray containing a developing solution, thence to some webbing which ran it past a dryer.

Earlier there were "spirit duplicators" which used some kind of special paper typed with a special ribbon. some kind of alcohol-like stuff wet the ink and allowed it to be transferred many times to regular paper.

I also used an early offset machine maned Multilith. Again. typing onto a special kind of paper produced a forward image. It was mounted on a cylinder where it was first wet with water, then run past an ink source. The oily ink was repelled by the wet part of the mat, but picked up an oil-based ink at a later stage. This small amount of ink was transferred as a reversed image onto a rubber blanket on another cylinder. Finally paper was brought into contact with the rotating rubber blanket for a final positive image. It was called offset printing because the image was offset onto the rubber blanket before getting to paper.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (1)

Aereus (1042228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454879)

Where I live, when you blow your nose you use a kleenex. When you want to cover leftovers, you use saran wrap. Yet Kleenex is just a brand of tissue paper, and Saran Wrap is just a brand of plastic wrap, but both products are so widespread, that the brand name is used to describe a generic product.

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452967)

Yeah ... their logic is definitely fuzzy in any case.

But... How did this happen? (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452977)

I like to speculate about the social background of how these things happen. Here is my guess:

Dell top executives were sitting around during a long lunch smoking cigarettes and drinking martinis. One of them said, "We've gotten a lot of free bad publicity [google.com] in the past, but now that Ed Foster has very unfortunately and sadly died [gripe2ed.com], how will we get bad press in the future?

They smoke their cigarettes for a while in silence while staring at a good-looking waitress, until one of them says, "I know. We will get Dell on the front page of Slashdot by trademarking a commonly used term!"

Another says, "I don't like that idea very much, but since we only get a new idea about once a year, let's do it."

And that's how it happened. Or maybe not. I would love to know the true story, which I think would be more interesting than this fictional one.

Re:But... How did this happen? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453787)

which I think would be more interesting than this fictional one

I don't know. Write some more about the good looking waitress. What kind of martini was it? Mix up a murder investigation or something. I think I would stick to the good looking waitress.

Something like, ".. and the waitress came over to the table. She was tall and had long blond hair. She took a long puff off her cigarette which gave me time to look her up and down. She had tits so big you could see her coming around the corner and still have time to comb your hair...."

Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454283)

If the trademark passes, this will surely thunder some anger

Where was this article in July? (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452705)

The first comment to the article links to the USPTO page for the applicatoin [uspto.gov] where the status shows that the opposition period went by without anybody noticing, so the mark is one step closer to being validated. It appears only the dependable USPTO is left to block this thing on its own.

Re:Where was this article in July? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452825)

USPTO, dependable? What kind of wierd alternate dimension have I fallen into?

Re:Where was this article in July? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452937)

Attempted humor in an otherwise serious post... not a good idea on /. I guess.

Re:Where was this article in July? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453303)

responding to your own post disappointed that you didn't get the LULZ? not a good idea on /. I guess.

Re:Where was this article in July? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452939)

whoosh.

The trademark has been allowed. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453777)

A Notice of Allowance was issued on July 8. Examination is over. Nobody objected during the objection period. So Dell owns "CLOUD COMPUTING" as a trademark. The remaining processing is just paperwork - publication in the Official Gazette, and printing and mailing the trademark certificate to Dell.

Cloud opportunity (5, Interesting)

darealpat (826858) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452711)

I was struck by the comment at the end of the article by a trademark attorney that no-one had opposed it when it was initially published. I think that points to a fundamental flaw in the process: who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?

Perhaps that is the clouded thinking that permeates the USPTO and the tech entities that use them to further their cause.

Anybody (3, Informative)

dereference (875531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452911)

who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?

Anybody [uspto.gov]. The marks are published weekly for opposition. The latest few are available as PDF downloads free of charge; follow the link and you can even subscribe to the paper copy (for merely $1,536/year).

Re:Anybody (1)

samj (115984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454181)

Ok, excuse me while I spend my Sunday afternoon (and allocate a day every week from now until the end of time) downloading this week's 154.2Mb Trademark Official Gazette [uspto.gov] and then going to find equivalents in all the other jurisdictions I care about (which probably means the 80 members of the Madrid system [wikipedia.org], given a grant in any of them can be ratcheted up to a 'global' trademark within 6 months).

Either the USPTO has to do their job or the community has to do it for them - in the latter case I would suggest that we need something like feeds of the new applications and something like the Wikipedia New Pages patrol [wikipedia.org]. Good luck with that...

Re:Cloud opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453911)

What do you mean youâ(TM)ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind itâ(TM)s only four light years away you know! Iâ(TM)m sorry but if you canâ(TM)t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs thatâ(TM)s your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I donâ(TM)t knowâ¦apathetic bloody planet, Iâ(TM)ve no sympathy at allâ¦

I have a great idea for a new patent! (3, Funny)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452733)

A device for generating heat based on the constricted flow of subatomic particles through metallic pathways, embedded in a fabric base for easy folding and heat distribution! I call it an "electric blanket" :)

Re:I have a great idea for a new patent! (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453813)

Although if you could stretch the definition of fabric to say.. silicone you've pretty much patented every IC on the planet.

Beating a dead horse but... (1, Insightful)

Yold (473518) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452781)

When the f*** is someone going to take the initiative, like Al Gore did in creating the internet, to reform the U.S. patent protocol. If it is an algorithm, that is a legitimate patent. There are certain classes of patents, especially technology ones referring to a design methodology, that should not be patented.

All this is going to do is provide ammunition for frivolous lawsuits, and there are plenty of those already with ambulance chasers. Its just a sickening waste of public funds.

wtf?? (2, Funny)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452815)

..like Al Gore did in creating the internet.

Wait, I thought AOL created the Internet.

Re:wtf?? (3, Funny)

MrMage (1240674) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452923)

If Al Gore or AOL created the internet, then why does every internet address begin with www? Bush clearly left his mark on the tubes.

Re:wtf?? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453283)

If Al Gore or AOL created the internet, then why does every internet address begin with www? Bush clearly left his mark on the tubes.

there are marks on the tubes?!

no wonder my packets aren't making it back from blizzard's servers.. they're probably still stuck in the scratches!

Why not? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452817)

Microsoft trademarked "windows."

Re:Why not? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452847)

Microsoft: Windows, Word, Excel.
Apple: Pages, Numbers, Safari.

Re:Why not? (1)

samj (115984) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454195)

Perhaps, but there wasn't already hundreds of vendors selling products and services around these terms when they were trademarked...

Re:Why not? (3, Informative)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452907)

Microsoft trademarked "windows."

Which only applies to operating systems [uspto.gov], computers [uspto.gov] and related crap [uspto.gov]. It does not cover the use of the word for sheets of glass.

Trademark law seems a little less insane than copyright. At least, to a layman.

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453181)

Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it. Same case here with Cloud Computing. You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.

Re:Why not? (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453259)

Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it.

Let's not confuse patents and trademarks.

Same case here with Cloud Computing.

I don't know what the situation with Cloud Computing is. The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess. So, I can't really comment.

You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.

Eh. This is getting philosophical.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454261)

I don't know what the situation with Cloud Computing is. The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess. So, I can't really comment.

Ok so do yourself a favour and RTFM [wikipedia.org].

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453361)

But it wasn't the name of a product, nor an indicator of the source of any product, nor a wavy-flag logo with some colored lites.

A computer "window" and Microsoft Windows are not at all the same.

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453449)

Why not? So you can't call your operating system "Windows." You are perfectly free to refer to the square things in your OS as windows. And every GUI OS I know of does so.

It's a stupid name anyway.

Re:Why not? (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453631)

Still, Lindows got sued.

Re:Why not? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453683)

Should they not have? That was a pretty obvious attempt to associate their OS with the one called "Windows."

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454777)

Well, the fact that MS were the plaintiff and had to settle with Lindows for $20m based on worries they'd lose the Windows trademark, I'd call it one of the least successful pieces of litigation in history.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453561)

Actually Microsoft did not trademark "Windows".
They tried to, but got turned down multiple times.

They only succeeded in trademarking "Microsoft Windows".
(Don't remember how many times they had to submit that one till some idiot rubber stamped it.)

The Black Cloud (1)

zazenation (1060442) | more than 5 years ago | (#24452971)

This reminds me of the Fred Hoyle SF classic where an intelligent cloud from interstellar space surrounds the sun and only a few scientists are able to communicate with it. They were able to use the cloud to thwart others on earth from communicating with it. Brings interesting parallels to monopolies, selfishness and greed to mind.

the thing I find most objectionable about this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24452987)

is Dell's new TV ad where "Steve" bounces up and down on his bed with an air guitar singing,

Hey! (hey)
Dude! (dude)
Get Off-a Mah Cloud

I say let them have it... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453047)

... if it means nobody else will be able to say "cloud computing" anymore I am all for it. Now it someone would have been able to trademark Web 2.0 life would be good.

Re:I say let them have it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453299)

and twitter
and blog(osphere)
and countless others

Re:I say let them have it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453419)

... if it means nobody else will be able to say "cloud computing" anymore I am all for it. Now it someone would have been able to trademark Web 2.0 life would be good.

Hey, anyone up for trademarking "The Year of the Linux Desktop(TM)"?

Re:I say let them have it... (1)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454453)

Are you also okay with someone patenting "object oriented", "client/server", and "clustering"? Because they are all expressions used to refer to specific architectures.

I know some terms get overused, but letting people patent them isn't the best way to combat hype.

Who else is using it? (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453055)

"Cloud computing" is one of those "next big thing" products here on slashdot, but who's actually using the term in their marketing? Plenty of people are selling "cloud" applications, but nobody's calling it that as most people think of "the cloud" as untrustworthy.

Is there an actual case of somebody like Amzaon's s3 actually calling themselves "cloud computing"?

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453199)

s3 is Amazon's storage service. EC2 or "elastic cloud computing" is what you seem to have not heard of. And yeah, they use it on the regular in their marketing.

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453233)

Amazon EC2 [amazon.com]

Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) is a web service that provides resizable compute capacity in the cloud. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers.

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453247)

Ex-Netscape founder Mark Andressen launched LoudCloud, an IT managed services provider, in 1999. The company later shifted their focus and was renamed Opsware [wikipedia.org]; a couple years ago it was acquired by HP.

Re:Who else is using it? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453279)

well, if Dell manages to trademark "Cloud Computing(TM)", then we could use other terms such as condensed-vapor-in-the-atmosphere computing or smoke computing like the symbol usually used for the cloud in the diagram. Do they sound trustworth enough?

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453383)

It refers to a general computing concept. On that basis alone, and the now accepted generic usage of the term, it should be summarily rejected as a trademark.

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453431)

Yeah, trying to sell "cloud computing" belongs right up there with trying to sell a vinegar-based salad topping as "douchebag dressing".

Re:Who else is using it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454327)

http://joyent.com/

Re:Who else is using it? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454345)

I can't help it, but "cloud computing" gives me images of happy people walking on the clouds and dancing, and also doing some computing while at it :)

Fired (2, Funny)

johndmartiniii (1213700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453169)

Didn't some asshole try to trademark "You're fired" a few years ago. Sheesh.

Re:Fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24454519)

Didn't some asshole try to trademark "You're fired" a few years ago. Sheesh.

I congratulate you on the excellent use of the epithet.

The asshole in question is Donald Trump. He had his lawyers start sending C&Ds to a small ceramics studio somewhere down south. The woman who ran the place, where students could learn ceramic techniqies and have access to kilns, etc., had named her shop "You're Fired" years before the bewigged dickhead used it for his shabby show. I don't know where his eventual lawsuit ended up.

However, I do know that, many years back, a woman opened a children's clothing store in Marin County, California, and named it Grammy Goose. Laura Scudder's corp C&Ded her ass, but finally backed off when there was a massive grassroots boycott of all LS products. They got lots of bux in Marin and LS didn't relish the idea of very likely not ever selling another Granny Goose potato chip up there.

I've got an idea (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453237)

Maybe they'll have better luck if they actually make a water vapor cloud that can do calculations. But of course then the patent people would just say "WTF, I ordered your new cloud and I'm locked out of local disk management" and refuse them the patent anyway.

Re:I've got an idea (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453285)

If I had one of those kind of cloud computers, I could say "I made it rain" and still remain a geek.

So where is Dell's cloud now? (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453311)

I don't see Dell selling or providing any service or product close to Amazon or Google. Did they think they'll grab the buzzword first and then come up with some idea of a product? Is this the typical Dell way of doing business and product development? Were they thinking of printing cool cloud patterns and sky color on their next laptop line? You'd think with their brand recognition and product reach, Dell would be setting itself up as THE alternative to Windows and Mac with out-of-the-box Linux. There lies the opportunity to be a dedicated hardware manufacturer partner that an Ubuntu or Suse/CentOS needs to make serious inroad into the corporate and government offices. No, Dell rather choose Windows because it is an easy sell, just like everything else they do, take the cheap road.

Why "cloud computing", just isn't that... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453317)

...special, brings up images of warm spring days and cute fluffy bunny rabbits and various chick flick scenes and [voice="George Carlin"] BULLLLLL SHIT! Get that "sensitive" guy out of the damn room! Who wants a "cloud" computer, give me a category 10 hurricane computer with some richtor 25 earthquake RAM! And Krakatoa I/O!

Anonymous Coward (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24453575)

If I read the USPTO site correctly on July 8th Dell was granted an Allowance to use the term "cloud computing" so they're not "trying" to trademark it, they actually did. And are actually using it in promotional materials. See, http://www.dell.com/cloudcomputing.

Great!!! (2, Funny)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 5 years ago | (#24453849)

Now could someone please trademark Web 2.0 so we won't have to hear that stupid buzzword either?

The early cloud (1)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#24454103)

Dell itself did not use the term in press releases or discussions with indexed English-language media sources from 1996 to 2006

Why were they using the term prior to 1996, and why did they suddenly stop?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...