Conference 7.286::digital

Re: .11

Same ad was in the Boston Globe.  I also noticed the misuse of "Alpha" - it
should have said "Alpha AXP processor".

					Steve

    I believe I heard or read that Digital Semiconductor was going to
    drop the "AXP" designation and simply go with "Alpha" from now on.
    This may be the first evidence of that change.

Re: .13

I do believe you're right - I have a draft copy of what calls itelf
"Alpha 21164 Microprocessor Hardware Reference Manual".  Even so, though,
it should have said "Alpha processor".

					Steve

    re: usage of Alpha.
    
    new trademark standards have just been published for the Alpha products
    - they are available in the Integrated repository.
    
    

Re: .16

Funny that I didn't get this directly as I'm signed up for "Digital Identity
and Branding" info with Readers' Choice.  But I found it anyway.

Here's the relevant section from:

  25-Oct-94  USING ALPHA TRADEMARKS                                 CS001I

  Starting in November 1994, Digital will phase-in the use of Alpha rather
  than Alpha AXP.  This is a  business decision based on the marketplace
  acceptance of the term "Alpha" rather than "Alpha AXP"  and the resulting
  market equity which has grown around "Alpha".

  Digital's workstation and server products based on the Alpha architecture
  will be referenced in one of  the following ways: "AlphaGeneration products
  from Digital Equipment Corporation"  "Alpha  systems", or "AlphaServer and
  AlphaStation products". They should not be referred to as "Alpha AXP
  products, computers, systems, etc."

  Consequently, it is appropriate to say: "Digital proudly announces two new
  AlphaStation products and  three new AlphaServer products. These
  AlphaGeneration products from Digital are based on Digital's  fourth
  generation of Alpha technology, and extend Digital's performance and
  price/performance  leadership across all computing categories -- from
  desktop to enterprise computing."

  It is inappropriate to say: "Digital's new Alpha AXP products..." or
  "Digital announces three new Alpha  AXP Servers, the AlphaServer 1000 4/200
  system, the AlphaServer..."

  Trademark note:    It is not necessary to use the TM symbol when Alpha is
                     used alone.

AXP was axped.

> Starting in November 1994, Digital will phase-in the use of Alpha rather
> than Alpha AXP.  This is a  business decision based on the marketplace
> acceptance of the term "Alpha" rather than "Alpha AXP"  and the resulting
> market equity which has grown around "Alpha".

  This sounds like a good thing.  Obviously marketplace acceptance of the term
  "DEC" rather than "Digital" played no part in this decision.  My only regret
  is that the Alpha logo will probably undergo yet another revision.  I kinda
  liked the last one.

  Bob

    
    
      Back  1993, we got a copy of a memo from Janet Shipman dated
    September 6, 1993 (for wide distribution)  saying (in part) 
    "The law department has strongly stated that alpha can not be
    used by itself.  Do not use a phrase like 'Alpha Systems'".
    
      Has something changed?
    
    
    							-al

    This sounds like job justification time for the "Brand Communications"
    Group (the folks that have given us at least 3 Alpha logos so far).
    If they settle on one thing for more than a certain length of time,
    somebody might notice that they're not really needed, and TFSO...
    .02 kb  

Re: .20

We have a new logo - it's the AlphaGeneration logo.  I see the latest
revision as a long-overdue recognition that we can't force the marketplace to
use a complicated and contrived term when we're unwilling to use it 
consistently ourselves.

But the document still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

					Steve

re Alpha logo,

I still like the (original?) multi-colored one that looked like a chip
with Alpha printed on top of it.

I have a black Land's End shirt with that logo on it, and it looks
_sharp_

/harley

While we might have wanted to (or wished we could have) used just Alpha to refer
to our new 64-bit technology, chips, systems, etc., starting two years ago,
some computer industry company's trademark on the "Alpha" term prevented our
doing so.

No, seemingly, the *market* has come to think of Digital's 64-bit technology,
chips or systems in association with the term "Alpha."  The extent to which
this association is so makes our using "Alpha" legal.  I believe that legal
precedent for a similar situation exists, and, on that basis, we've made the
change.

Note that "It is not necessary," according to what .18 quotes from Digital 
Identity and Branding, "to use the TM symbol when Alpha is used alone."  I
would think that doing so would, in fact, be inappropriate.

I'm not a lawter and don't play one on TV, but I think that's the way it goes.

Bruce

         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 3475.11              Cooperative Ads and Digital?                  11 of 26
MBALDY::LANGSTON "our middle name is 'Equipment'"    18 lines   1-NOV-1994 11:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with .10.  We're talking about a $13 billion ($13 thousand million for
those in Great Britain) company in a very competitive market.  Our long-term
market strategy is strategic and would be compromised by broadcasting it.

Re: channels ads

I saw an ad in the L.A. Times (The second largest daily circulation in the U.S.,
I can't believe it's not included in the new ad campaign.) yesterday.  It used
the cloud-with-a-silver-lining photo from the "We're planning a comeback" ad
and the same design.  It was a call to action to call the local Avnet Computer
offices to reserve a spot at the local new product announcement event on 
Thursday. (Avnet is distributor.)

An interesting thing about the ad (and possibly a rat hole) is that it
mentioned something about new client and server systems using our "64-bit
Alpha."  Not "Alpha AXP."  Isn't that was a violation of someone's trademark?

Bruce

Re: .14

I asked Van Smick if he would clarify the "Trademark note" - he replied that
the text was very carefully constructed and would not be clarified or
amplified.  You can read into that what you will.

					Steve

    
    	Mr Mod.
    
    	If you just moved all these notes yesterday lunchtime, how come I
    just read them at the original location - look at the time of this
    note.
    
    	Please delete the original set - thank you.
    
    				Malcolm.

    re: last several
    seems to me that if Digital can respond to the common usage and
    acceptance of the name Alpha vs. Allpha AXP or whatever, and make a
    public statement of such acceptance and actually encourage the "common
    use" term, then why the hell can't they do the same thing for "DEC"
    versus  "Digital"?
    
    go figger

Re: .16

The notes were moved and don't appear in 3475.  If you (or anyone else) can
still see these notes in 3475 (other than 3481.1 which I copied) please
send me mail.

					Steve

    RE: .4  "Even so, though, it should have said "Alpha processor".
    
    If corporate calls it a duck,  I call it a duck.
    
    /Lou Snider
    /Alpha 21164 Microprocessor Hardware Reference Manual Tech Writer
    
    Extract from product announcement follows.
    
    HIGHLIGHTS
    
    o  World's highest performance microprocessor, featuring speeds greater
       than one billion instructions per second (BIPS)
    o  Ideally suited for servers and high performance client systems
    o  Uniprocessor Alpha AXP 21164 servers outperform most multiprocessor
       servers based on competitive chips
    
    PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
    
    Digital's semiconductor family of Alpha AXP microprocessors has
    maintained a performance lead over the competition since 1992 when 
    the Alpha AXP architecture was launched. The Alpha AXP 21164, the 
    world's fastest microprocessor, demonstrates Digital's continuing 
    superiority in microprocessor design and performance. It further 
    underlines the company's commitment to providing a family of 
    leadership products that offers increasing performance over 
    technology generations.
    

    RE: My last reply
    
    I think the destinction is that when the Alpha 21164 microprocessor is
    incorporated on a system board, the board then is an Alpha processor in
    the context of a system.
    
    \Lou
    

Geez.  There goes my NOTES personal name.

I'm glad to see the corporate branding folks finally come to their 
senses and call the machines what they should have been called in the 
first place.  Better late than never.

--PSW

    Just to set the record straight on the history of this work, the
    decision to begin using Alpha instead of Alpha AXP was not made by the
    Worldwide Brand Group. It was made by the business units and is simply
    a business decision. I was asked to drive the decision process and to
    document the decision. Since I was already working with Peter Miller on
    a usage guide for all the new Alpha trademarks, I decided to include
    the decision in the Alpha Trademark Guide.  
    
    Van
    
    

    "It is not necessary to use the TM symbol when Alpha is used alone, 
    nor should it be listed as a trademark." 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Is this correct?

It is correct.

		Steve

    Based on my hazy understanding of U.S. trademark law, the "problem"
    with the unadorned "Alpha" wasn't that it might conflict with someone
    else's trademark,,, quite the opposite.  Apparently "alpha" is too
    generic a word to be trademarkable.  An analogy would be if I were to
    open a garage and call it "Reliable Auto Repair", I couldn't get a
    trademark on the word "reliable".  Yes, somebody *could* conceivably
    open another garage and call it "Reliable Auto Repair" and I couldn't
    touch them legally... whether it's a good *business* decision for the
    other person to do is is another matter entirely.
    
    In my arrogant opnion, we spent too much energy a couple years back
    arguing about what to call Alpha, and not enough energy actually
    selling it...
    
    	"Allright, smart guy, if you think the wheel is so simple,
    	 YOU tell me what color it should be!"
    
    --jim
    

                          ... then what of "Digital?"
    :>
    

... and how about the article in today's Boston Globe about the guy who's in
trouble with the US Olympic Committee (this is from memory, so details may not
be quite right). Seems the name of his coffee shop (?!!) includes the word
"Olympic". He received a note from the USOC insisting that he stop using that
word unless he pays them a royalty or licensing fee or some such.

RE: .27

The USOC doesn't have a leg to stand on in court.  Unless the guy was 
using the 5-ring logo or something else implying a connection with 
sports.  That doesn't mean their lawyers can't write letters, though.

--PSW

	But the lack of a leg does not necessarily mean that it's worth his while to 
try to fight it in court either.

	My brother-in-law wrote a book about the Winter Olympics anded up renaming it
so that he referenced the "Winter Games"  instead of the olympics.  His publisher was 
Turner (as in Turner Broadcasting) and even they didn't want to muck with legal fees 
and court time over this.

Tracey 

    Re: .28
    
    He was using the 5-ring logo.  I think if he hadn't they might have
    left him alone.
    
    					Steve

AT the last PC show I attended there was a Taiwanese PC being displayed
called ALPHA. The splash they made was much bigger than the one we where
making. I guess they could be a bit miffed that we used THEIR brand name.

rgds ted

    In one "PC Catalog" I got recently there were two companies with
    "Alpha" in their names.  We are not claiming Alpha as a trademark.
    I think the idea is that we're biting the bullet and calling our
    products what our customers call them, despite the lack of trademark
    protection.  This has some element of risk and I applaud those who
    have decided that the risk is worthwhile.
    
    We do have trademarks which we use when referring to Alpha-based
    products: AlphaStation, AlphaServer and AlphaGeneration.  It's just
    that we're now going to use "Alpha" the way the rest of the world
    does.
    
    					Steve

    re: .32
    
    This makes the most sense to me.  It is akin to the early days of
    Digital when the machines made couldn't be called "computers" since
    that term was already reserved.  
    
    I don't care what folks call our machines so long as they buy them.  
    I know how I buy hardware.  I care most about what's in the package, 
    not the wrapping around it.  I prefer to buy OEM-packaged software 
    and hardware rather than pay extra for the fancy and unnecessary 
    retail packaging.  Seems to me that if customers recognize us as 
    "Alpha" then we should use that term rather than try to "educate" 
    them about the "correct" term to use.  Otherwise, it's just another 
    artificial barrier to the sale.  
    
    It's kind of like when you go on a date and are always being 
    corrected about when and how you pronounce your date's name,
    especially if it's a really long name or difficult to pronounce.
    You show respect and all, but the chances of you calling back for
    another date get whittled down a bit.
    
    Steve