On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:22:13PM -0600, Seth Goodman wrote:
I think Dolby Labs would cringe at this, but Hormel got nabbed so why not Dolby?
The trick is called "Dobly", not "Dolby". I don't think "Dobly" is a trademarked word.
Is that why it's named that? Like most other people here (it seems) I thought that it was misspelt, but it was consistent through the paper, so I used that (although when reading it in my head I 'said' "Dolby"). Maybe it's a new Harry Potter house elf <wink>. It doesn't seem to make much sense to use "Dobly" if "Dolby" is what they mean. I don't see (but IANAL) anything wrong with writing a paper that explains how "Dolby"-style techniques were used in email classification, assuming that it had (TM) and "Dolby is a registered trademark of ..." in all the right places. As long as they weren't going to use it to try and sell stuff. =Tony Meyer
Yup, I assumed it was a typo, too. I wonder if Dolby(TM) has become ubiquitous enough in common parlance to lose their trademark status, like Kleenex and Xerox? Monty Python's famous skit probably did a lot to jeopardize Hormel's trademark on Spam(TM), but they seem to have held on to it. But "Dobly"? Ick. -- Seth Goodman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Seth Goodman writes:
Yup, I assumed it was a typo, too. I wonder if Dolby(TM) has become ubiquitous enough in common parlance to lose their trademark status, like Kleenex and Xerox? Monty Python's famous skit probably did a lot to jeopardize Hormel's trademark on Spam(TM), but they seem to have held on to it. But "Dobly"? Ick.
Guys -- you both need to re-watch _Spinal Tap_ ;) - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAPpHDQTcbUG5Y7woRAnXnAJ9+o32T+BRWPsqS+7l2Zka+YZNIVwCdFWgH b5K5Ppl1eHMibbWBu50ZVpA= =IEHs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
jm＠jmason.org -
Seth Goodman -
Tony Meyer