>>BD> I think you meant Office 97.  Windows 97 has not been
 >>BD> invented yet. > Bob
 >>SR> Hi Bob,
 >>SR> Excuse me for butting in, but Windows 97 NEVER will be invented,
 >>SR> Microsoft will not be using numbers in names anymore. They
 >>SR> cannot be copyrighted.
 >>LK> 1.  I work for an Intellectual Property Law firm
 >>LK> (Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights, etc.).
 >>LK> 2.  Numbers can be "copyrighted."
 >>LK> 3.  And on the subject of Trademarks, they can be
 >>LK> trademarked.  Look at Windows 3.1.  It is trademarked.
 >>LK>   Lawrence,  Moderator, MS_WORD
 > Sorry, you may be a lawyer, but my information does not agree with
 > your statements. Why don't you check with Intel and you will discover
 > that they called their, then new, processor chip Pentium, (Penta is
 > six) because the number
Since I work in the industry of Intellectual Law and the source of your 
information does not, that means that my information is not correct?  Rather 
an arogant concept, isn't it?
I will say it again.  Numbers *can* be trademarked as part of trademark. Look 
at Windows 95.  It is a registered trademark.  Now, Microsoft most likely had 
to disclaim rights to "95," meaning that if someone else used the numbers 
"95" as part of their trademark, Microsoft could not bring that person to the 
courts; however, the phrase "Windows 95" is
registered. Also, if Intel attempted a registration for "Intel 486" there 
would be no problem.
Furthermore, you stated that Microsoft was therefore going to call Windows 97 
Windows Memphis (I believe that was it).  That way it could be protected. 
However, an application to register "Windows Memphis" would be initially 
refused by the Examining Attorney at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
because of the geographical part of the name.  Microsoft would have to 
disclaim the Memphis part of the trademark; just as they would with the 97.  
However, most likely, after that disclaimer, it would be just as protected as 
Windows 97.
 > ending in 686 could NOT be copyrighted. Their previous chips, 586,
As I have stated before, you are using the wrong term.  Intel was not seeking 
copyright protection.  They were seeking trademark or trade name protection. 
Whereas you may believe that is a very insignificant point, it clearly shows 
that you, and your source, are not informed about Intellectual Property.
 > message, you will be talking to yourself. I do not intend to respond
 > further or continue the thread on copyright discussion on numbers vs.
 > names. If you
 > would like more information, write the Department of
 > Copyrights, Library of Congress and request their booklet
 > on copyrights. I have it and it contains some very useful
 > information and may be of help to you in your business
 > endeavers.
Stewart, I may be writing to myself, but you need to understand that we are 
NOT talking about copyrights.  Writing to the places you suggested will NOT 
provide the answers, and as long as you continue to believe that Intel cannot 
copyright numbers, you are deluded because copyrights is not the 
issue--trademarks is.  All the books in the
world about copyrights will not provide you the correct information.  This is 
not about copyrights.  It is about Trademarks.  Again, I would suggest that 
you contact an attorney who practices in Intellectual Property law. You will 
be told the same that I have told you.
        Lawrence,
        Moderator, MS_WORD
--- FMail 1.0g
---------------