Intel Corp. & Legal Threats Against Intelligence Community

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:55:08 -0500
From: Ben N. Venzke <bvenzke () intelcenter com>
Reply-To: osint () yahoogroups com
To: osint () yahoogroups com
Subject: <[osint]> Intel Corp. & Legal Threats Against Intelligence Community
------
As some of you may already know, Intel Corp. is currently pursuing
legal action against all organizations, companies and entities that
it can find which use the word "intel" or "intell" as an abbreviation
for the word intelligence in their name or domain. Consequently,
Intel is threatening us with legal action if we do not cease using
our company name "IntelCenter" and our domain intelcenter.com. Under
Intel's criteria of what they feel constitutes a violation of their
trademark, Brooks Isoldi's Intellnet organization and the
intellnet.org domain will also be in violation.

According to Intel's argument as presented to us in two letters and
from correspondence with others who are going through the same
dispute with Intel, it does not matter that it is highly unlikely
that someone will mistake a counterterrorism intelligence
organization with a computer chip manufacturer. Intel maintains that
the mere existence of an entity with that name dilutes the value of
their mark.

As those of us who are part of or have been part of the intelligence
community know, the word "intel" and to a lesser extent "intell" have
been around as an abbreviation for the word intelligence and in
documented usage since the time of George Washington and perhaps even
earlier. This considerably predates Intel's "creation" of the world
"Intel" by combining the first part of integrated and electronics in
1968.

Our first notification from Intel was received the day after the one
year anniversary of 9-11 while trying to make sense of a barrage of
terrorist threats during that tense period. Intel's lawyer was
considerate enough to point out that Intel did not want to interfere
with our "laudable goals or business in any way." However, Intel
requested we "cease all use of IntelCenter as a name, trademark,
domain name, or otherwise."

I need your help. If you have any documented usage of the word
"intel" or "intell" as an abbreviation for intelligence, please send
me copies if possible. The older it is, the better.

Also, I'm actively collecting letters supporting the argument that
intel/intell is short for the word intelligence and in common usage.
The more detail you can provide in the letter about your background
and perspective on the issue the more effective it will be. You can
email your letter to me at bvenzke () intelcenter com or fax it to
703-370-1571. Our snail mail address is below.

It burns me that my company and all the other organizations fighting
Intel Corp. need to be dealing with this now when we should be
focusing all our energy on al-Qaeda and other threats to our country
but apparently Intel is of the opinion that this is more important
for us.


                        Ben Venzke
                        CEO
______________________
IntelCenter
Voice (703) 370-2962
Fax (703) 370-1571
Email - information () intelcenter com
Web - http://www.intelcenter.com
PGP Public Key - available upon request

PO Box 22572
Alexandria, VA 22304-9257
USA

--------------------------


From: "berikoff () pop sk sympatico ca" <gberikoff () sk sympatico ca>
Reply-To: osint () yahoogroups com
To: osint () yahoogroups com
Subject: RE: <[osint]> Intel Corp. & Legal Threats Against Intelligence
    Community

Not sure if I have documented usage of the word intel but I served in the
Canadian Forces for 12 years and intel was always used to refer to
intelligence. if fact until your e-mail dated wed, 27 Nov 2002 I have
never heard intel referred to as meaning integrated and electronics.
Garrett Berikoff CD


From: RUTWSGG () aol com
Reply-To: osint () yahoogroups com
To: osint () yahoogroups com, information () intelcenter com
Subject: Re: <[osint]> Intel Corp. & Legal Threats Against Intelligence
    Community

Guys:

Don't know who to respond to, so hope this gets to the right folks.

Thanks for the message regarding the attorney activity at Intel and the
name of this list as it relates to the term "intel". I'm not a lawyer, but
some common sense and a check back into history will reveal something of
possible interest...

Unfortunately, a legal precedent has already been set some years ago, so
it appears that Intel may in fact be able to pull this off. This is
nothing new, nor is it surprising. (It depends on what Intel has already
done in the past, is doing now, and when).

A similiar action was filed by the then Teletype Corporation against
Kleinschmidt Laboratories, Mite Corporation, Lenkhurt, Lorenz, Siemens,
Creed, Olivetti and other makers of "teletype" machines back in the late
40s, 50 and into the 60s involving the word "teletype".

Teletype Corp also using the name "teletype" as it's corporate name,
monicker, trade name, trade mark, and service mark was the manufacturer of
teletypewriters.

Specifically, teletypewriters made by Teletype Corp were called
"teletypes". Like-machines offered and produced by other manufacturers had
to be called "teletypewriters", instead of "teletype machines". Both the
words "Teletype" (denoting the corporation), and "teletype" denoting
Teletype Corp's product were given over to the Teletype Corp in a court
action.  The action - and the precedent, still stand today as a point of
law.

I'm not sure if Teletype Corp is still in business anymore, having been
supplanted by computers many years ago. In any event, they have probably
been absorbed, merged or bought out. Whoever its successors and assigns
are STILL retains the rights to the original rulings, names, patents,
trademarks, service marks, monickers, copyrights, etc.

I am certain that Intel is aware of this case, so it might be worth
researching from your end as well.

One way to beat Intel at their own game of course, is to register the
intel site's name before their action is completed. That's not a sure fire
guarantee, but the idea is to beat them to it and then use the
registration (or whatever) as further ammunition to fight your own case,
since it would then pre-date theirs.

Take solace in the fact that Intel is using the name as their corporate
trade name, and we are using it for a source-type of information, so maybe
a distinction can be drawn, although highly unlikely.

I doubt that Intel Corp's action will have ANY effect on the US  Govt's
use of the word intel, or intell, since those entities are usually immune
from such follow-on action.

For us on this list, it's a different matter. Again, they might be able to
pull it off in the private sector, since the precedent currently
exists.......and that's the key to their whole case. Best bet is to start
brain-storming for a new name just in case Intel enters the matter into
court. Without a stated ownership interest in the Intel name or term (esp
the "term" or "parlance", there's not much they can do about everyone
else's usage until they can get a legal leg up. If they have patents or
copyrights on ALL uses of the terms Intel, intel, or intell, or any
variation of the word(s), to include their articles of incorporation,
charters, etc, then maybe, but until then, -- it's iffy.

Stay well. Hope this tidbit, while not good news, helps. Suggest checking
out the legal history of the Teletype Corporation (Skokie, IL). I don't
have it, but am well aware that it exists. Also check copyrights and
patents on words...

Happy Holidays,

Dave

--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
bisoldi () intellnet org
http://www.intellnet.org
  Subscribe:    osint-subscribe () yahoogroups com

-------------------------------------------

johnmac -- It seems to me that there should only be proscription on using
the term if either there might be confusion between the organization and
the Intel Corporation or if it could be shown that Ben or Brooks were
trying to capitalize on Intel's name through the use of this pre-existing
term. Since neither of this is the case, common sense should dictate no
case -- alas, common sense is not the law. Comments from some of our legal
minds??


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request () listserv aol com
**********************************************************************


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/