Newsflash: Intel responds to Psion's netbook counter-suit

A lot has happened since we revealed that Psion has counter-sued Intel. For a start we have a judge - Saundra Brown Armstrong who's apparently a 60-something African American ex-policewoman and a kick-off time: June 17, 2009, at 3:45 p.m with the Initial Case Management Conference (PDF), as well as some routine filings such pro hac vice orders (e.g. PDF).

Not wanting to waste any time, on March 9 Intel filed a Motion to Shorten Time (PDF) and a Motion to Expedite (PDF), pushing to get Psion to cough up key information "including its sales and marketing efforts to promote products in connection with the netbook term, consumer awareness of Psion’s purported rights in netbook, and its efforts to police use of the term by third parties, all of which are pertinent to whether Psion has any rights in the mark" which they argue would "confirm that Psion does not have any rights in the term". The idea is that by getting hold of inside information regarding Psion's netbook sales and enforcement (if any) of the trademark they can attack the trademark itself, thereby undermining much of the case. This information will likely surface eventually (Psion have already divulged some high level sales figures and details about trademark enforcement prior to December 2008 are conspicuously absent) but the sooner the better.

Psion didn't like this (likely because the information would have undermined their case, exactly as Intel had intended) and argued strenuously against it (PDF). They particularly didn't like the "ex parte" claim (PDF) which Intel justified on the basis that "irreparable harm suffered by Intel as a result of Psion’s claims that it owns the generic term “netbook” increases each day. Accordingly, Intel cannot afford to wait and follow the normal notice procedure in connection with this motion". Unfortunately the judge sided with Psion on this one and denied (PDF) the motions on 18 March saying Intel "failed to
demonstrate good cause for its request", even considering Intel's colourful reply (PDF). Unfortunately it seems we're going to have to wait for due process - this could well have seen the case scuttled within days rather than months.

The real news though is Intel's response to Psion's counterclaim (PDF) which was filed on Thursday. The essentially deny everything contentious, but the highlights are as follows:

• Intel "denies that Psion offered any Netbook laptop computers in the United States after 2003, as confirmed by Psion’s website"
• "Intel denies that Psion has advertised its Netbook laptop on its website or otherwise since 2003, after Psion’s website listed that model as discontinued"
• "Intel admits that it has used the term “netbook” in its generic sense. Intel denies that it uses the term netbook as a trademark or as an indicator of a sole source to offer any of its products or services."
• "Intel denies that it commenced use of the term “netbook” with any knowledge of Psion’s claim of existing rights in the term."
• "Intel denies that Psion has any rights in the term “netbook”"
  

The following affirmative defenses are rather interesting too. In addition to some legalese such as asserting Psion's counterclaim is barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver and acquiescense there are some revealing claims:

• Psion "fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"
• "The term “netbook” is generic, i.e. a relevant portion of consumers do not associate the term “netbook” as originating from, or being approved by or affiliated with, a single source."
• "Psion has no trademark rights in the term “netbook”"
• "U.S. Registration No. 2,404,976 for NETBOOK was obtained or maintained through fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office"
• "Psion abandoned any rights that it may have once had in the term “netbook” or U.S. Registration No. 2,404,976."
• "Intel does not use the term “netbook” to identify a source of any products or services"
• "A relevant portion of consumers do not associate the term “netbook” with the source of any products or services offered by Psion."

Intel also accuse Psion of having "unclean hands" (as had been said of them previously) and note that any recovery granted to Psion be offset against the damages claimed. The main source of damage claimed is that Psion is "using its purported rights in the admittedly generic trademark to interfere with Intel’s business relationships and contracts" citing the Google AdWords ban as an example. Confusion aside that alone is upsetting a lot of people who have lost a key channel to consumers and it seems the only way the ban will be lifted is if Psion allow it to be or the trademark is cancelled.

Our opinion is that while Psion may have had a valid trademark on the term "netbook" previously, this has not been the case for the last year due to abandonment and genericide. The term itself can no longer function as a source identifier and is thus unable to be used as a trademark by Psion, Intel, Dell or any other entity. That's good news for consumers because it means that all vendors can participate in the marketplace on a level playing field - at least once the trademark confusion is cleared up. We're fairly confident that Intel's court case, Dell's TTAB filing or both will see the registration cancelled by mid-year.

We don't take a position on whether Intel should be held accountable for hijacking the trademark, though it is believable that they didn't do a trademark search on this obvious descriptive (or at worst, suggestive) term before using it. The fact that it was mentioned at an event and appeared in an Intel technical blog long before they obtained netbook.com, etc. would suggest that the term did not go through the normal product development process (that is it wasn't deliberate - besides, they could just as easy have chosen another less sensible term like ULCPC or UMPC). It helps that to the best of our knowledge Intel doesn't currently and has never offered a netbook product. In any case the netbook brand appears to have been relatively worthless before Intel got to it so the damages should be limited accordingly (perhaps tied to Psion's dismal sales).

Another interesting point is that less than a month after Psion filed their trademark #75215401, a Mountain View company called NETschools Corporation (which has been merged out into an Atlanta company by the same name and apparently subsequently acquired by PLATO Learning, Inc.) filed trademark #75224985 for a netbook "portable personal computer for K-12 students". Given the time it usually takes from inception to trademark application and the absence of USPTO tools like TDR and TESS it seems that these two applications "crossed in the post" and that Psion only managed to secure the mark by a handful of days. The fact that two companies came up with the same term separately is also quite telling of its descriptive (and therefore impossible to protect) nature.

Finally, we strongly object to Psion's claim that "Intel and computer manufacturers and retailers have numerous other options of descriptive terms to describe small, easily-portable notebook computers – such as “ultraportable” notebook (the term previously adopted by the industry to describe these devices before Intel’s proliferation of “netbook”), “sub-notebook,” or “mini sub-notebook.” In fact, the industry already uses some of these same terms for keyword advertising.". An ultraportable aka ubnotebook is not a netbook; the former pertains to size ("a class of laptop computers that are smaller and lighter than typical notebooks") while the latter pertains to Internet connectivity - an "internet notebook" ("a class of laptop computer designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet"). These are discrete categories and Psion's claim that the terms are interchangeable is patently false - with any luck Intel will summarily dispense with this weak argument, for example by referring to the corresponding Wikipedia articles.

A netbook is a netbook is a netbook - consumers know what to expect when they ask for one (and in almost all cases it's not an overpriced Psion device, that's for sure).

Newsflash: Intel counter-sued by Psion in "netbook" trademark lawsuit; jury trial demanded

The Save the Netbooks campaign has just secured court documents (PDF) filed Friday by Psion in response to Intel's suit against them in which they systematically deny Intel's claims against them and countersue on the basis of:

1. Trademark Infringement Under The Lanham Act
2. Unfair Competition Under The Lanham Act
3. Common Law Unfair Competition
4. State Law Unfair Competition
5. Unjust Enrichment
6. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
   

In their prayer for relief they give a laundry list of demands:

1. A judgment that Intel’s actions have violated and continue to violate the rights of Psion
2. That the Court order the domain name transferred from Intel to Psion.
3. That injoins Intel and "all those persons in active concert or participation" from:
   
   • Using the term netbook "in connection with the promotion, advertising or offering in connection with the Intel’s products and service"
   • Or "any trademark, service mark, name, logo or source designation of any kind that is confusingly similar to the NETBOOK mark"
   • "Otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff in any manner"
   • "Conspiring with, aiding, assisting or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in or performing any of the[se] activities"
4. Intel and "all those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, including, but not limited to, Intel’s licensees" to "deliver up for destruction, or show proof of destruction of, any and all products, labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements, and any other materials in their possession or control, that depict the names or marks “NETBOOK” or any other mark confusingly or substantially similar to the NETBOOK mark, and any materials or articles used for making or reproducing the same"
5. A report within 30 days in writing "and under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Intel has complied with the injunction"
6. "All damages it has sustained as a result of Intel’s infringement, unfair competition, unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment"
7. For "damages awarded to Psion be trebled"
8. "That an accounting be directed to determine Intel’s profits resulting from its infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices, and that such profits be paid over to Psion, increased as the Court finds to be just and proper under the circumstances of this case"
9. "That the Court declare that this is an exceptional case and award Psion its reasonable attorneys’ fees for prosecuting this action"
10. "Punitive damages in such amount as the Court finds arises from the willful acts of common law unfair competition"
11. "Costs of this action and prejudgment and post-judgment interest"
12. "Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper"
    

Finally, Psion "respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by right to a jury".

Some of their defenses include that:

• Google is not the only provider of Internet advertising (technically true but is that the case in practice?)
• They sell, and continue to sell even into 2009 the "netBook pro" (giving 2009 YTD sales of $13,650 and 2008 sales of $60,900 - a drop in the multi-billion dollar industry ocean)
  
• They advertised the netBook line at psionteklogix.com "as well as through its direct sales force; newspaper, magazine and trade journal advertisements; and trade show exhibits"
• "The NETBOOK mark is inherently distinctive", is "recognized by the relevant consuming public as being sponsored by, approved by, authorized by, associated with or affiliated with Psion", and "has become a valuable asset of Psion" (all of which are debateable)
  
• "Intel willfully and maliciously has encouraged, aided and abetted other manufacturers and retailers in the electronics industry to adopt and use the term NETBOOK as a generic name for a type of laptop computer in an effort to destroy Psion’s trademark rights."
• "Use by Intel of the designation NETBOOK has caused and is now causing severe and irreparable harm to Psion, to the value of its NETBOOK mark, and to the goodwill associated therewith."
• "Intel has acted willfully and maliciously, has unlawfully attempted to trade on the tremendous commercial value, reputation and goodwill of the NETBOOK mark, and has deliberately and intentionally confused and deceived the public as to an affiliation, connection or association of Intel with Psion, and/or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of Intel’s goods and/or services."
• "Intel has been and continues to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Psion by Intel’s unauthorized use of the infringing mark."
  

They also provide this rather interesting table of "retail sales" totaling $5,357,034 over 11 years, or less than $500,000 per year on average:

Year	Sales (USD)
1999		$62,800
2000		$7,874
2001		$7,335
2002		$30,566
2003		$24,503
2004		$780,096
2005		$1,709,433
2006		$2,073,207
2007		$586,680
2008		$60,900
2009		$13,640

Assuming around 15,000,000 netbooks were sold in 2008 at a conservative $200 per unit (and that our calculations are correct) Psion had a "netbook" market share of two thousandths of one percent in 2008 - rather low for a company claiming to hold a monopoly over the mark.

In other news, Save the Netbooks (a grassroots campaign formed to defend the impending netbook trademark threat - for more see the launch press release) has just reached the 200 member milestone! Thanks to all of you for spreading the word. Keep up the good work!

Update: According to Domain Name Wire the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act claim has teeth to the tune of $100,000. In fact "if the court finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful" then that too is trebled to $300,000. Ouch. As they say "This will be an interesting case to watch. It’s not everyday you see a Fortune 500 company alleged to be cybersquatting."

Update: Welcome Slashdotters!

Psion Accuses Intel of Cybersquatting
We discussed Psion sending C&Ds late last year over international trademarks held on the term 'netbook' and Dell accusing Psion of fraud last week. Since then Intel has joined in by suing Psion in federal court. On Friday Psion counter-sued Intel (court filing, PDF). SaveTheNetbooks.com has an analysis here. Psion has demanded a jury trial, profits, treble damages, destruction of material bearing the mark 'netbook' and the netbook.com domain (among other things), claiming that they are still actively selling netbooks despite also revealing sales figures showing a minuscule market share. It seems that declaring victory may have been a little premature as it will be months before the dispute plays out in court.

Psion claims "netbook" trademark still actively used, not abandoned

Psion, via their de facto link to the blogosphere, jkOnTheRun, have responded to the Dell and Intel filings. Surprisingly they claim that "although manufacture has been discontinued, sales in the US and EU have not". We suggested that the netBook Pro could be a fly in the ointment after Sumocat discovered a 2006 press release (pushing the three year abandonment window out to mid this year) but pointed out that trademarks expire the instant the relevant product is permanently discontinued. Unsurprisingly Psion have pulled their discontinued products page (which you may still catch in Google's cache) and the End of Service Life Summary PDF, which listed the Netbook Pro and Netbook as discontinued respectively. Fortunately we've kept copies here and here and expect both Dell and Intel have done the same.

In any case the fraud claim sould still stick thanks to their use of a discontinued "netBook" brochure rather than that for the "netBook Pro" (a technicality yes but the statement is still almost certainly false) and the only realistic argument we foresee coming up about genericide is the short timeframe which is more a side effect of the increasing propagation speed of the media (in this case the Internet).

They curiously claim that the netBook Pro line was discontinued because they couldn't find a power management controller: "Because of the sophisticated nature of the Netbook ® Pro design, a simple replacement controller could not be found and that meant that manufacture had to cease once those supplies of controllers were exhausted; it was a great pity." If the product was even moderately successful you'd have thought they'd have been able to find a solution - after all they have a bunch of other handheld computing devices with similar requirements on the market today.

They go on to explain that they "understand why people might have assumed that sales ceased a while back – it’s not as if the product has been in Best Buy" (save the fact that they listed them both as discontinued on their web site) and then, despite the fact that trademarks are about building public brands, claim that "those people simply had no access to Psion’s confidential sales information". Interesting question - can a trademark actually exist soley under NDA? This would only really be useful for example for selling military equipment for which distribution is restricted and for us non-lawyers it sounds tenuous at best. I guess we'll see if the argument holds water in due course.

As usual the commentary is as enlightening as the article itself - apparently the answer lies in the forums for example. Perhaps most damning is that the devices are allegedly non-compliant with european legislation regarding hazardous substances and from the same post that Psion have rejected reasonably modest orders (e.g. 1,000 units) because they "couldn’t deliver as it was no longer in production". That raises the question as to whether it is acceptable to keep, say, 100 units and sell one a year for the next hundred years to keep hold of a valuable mark. Logic would suggest that it's not but law and logic are not always exactly aligned.

So what's the game plan here... their share price seems to have taken a hiding in the last few weeks and if the charts are to be believed it's at its lowest in over 10 years:

Anyway it seems like this story isn't over yet but stick around for a front row view of the action over the coming months.

Update: Psion Teklogix (Psion's canadian subsidiary who actually handle the netbook and own the trademark) have pulled the netbook EOL info from their web site(s) but it seems the memo didn't make it to head office yet:

Google rejects review of AdWords "netbook" ban

The Public AdWords complaint filed with Google has finally been rejected:

Please note that we received a complaint from the trademark owner of NETBOOK. In their complaint, the trademark owner stated that they are the owner of the mark and that its use in certain advertisements is not authorized.

They went on to explain that there is no avenue for recourse with them:

If you disagree with the trademark owner's assertion of exclusive rights to use the trademark, we encourage you to contact the trademark owner directly. Google is not in a position to arbitrate these disputes.

This ban is one of Intel's gripes in its federal court filing, and presumably one of the primary sources of damages (curiously while Psion have prevented others from listing ads there's no word of them having listed their own - nothing to advertise perhaps?):

You'll recall that we asked for the following:

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Save the Netbooks
Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Subject: Public complaint about "NETBOOK" trademark subject to pending cancelation
To: Google Advertising Legal Support Team

Dear Sir/Madam,

Psion Teklogix' "NETBOOK" trademark is now the subject of a Petition for Cancellation[1] filed by Dell Computer, Inc. on the basis of:

    * Abandonment
    * Genericness and
    * Fraud

Accordingly we believe that it is inappropriate that a ban be maintained on a term over a trademark which is now clearly unenforceable, knowing that many businesses (including Google's) are being harmed the entire time this ban is in effect.

Save the Netbooks
http://www.savethenetbooks.com/

1. http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92050564&pty=CAN&eno=1

So it looks like we may well have to wait either for Psion to relinquish the trademark or for it to be taken from them before manufacturers and retailers will be able to advertise via this channel in affected territories (e.g. most of the western world) again.

Is there any precedent for AdWords denial of service on such a large scale (bearing in mind that the netbook industry is now a multi-billion dollar industry)?

Intel join Dell in pursuit of Psion over the Netbook trademark

Who'd have guessed that the very same day we registered the domain to launch the "Save the Netbooks" campaign (16 February 2009), the Courthouse News Service broke the story that Intel had filed against Psion in the district court of Northern California:

Intel Wants 'Netbook' Trademark Canceled
SAN JOSE (CN) - Intel sued Psion Teklogik in Federal Court, demanding cancellation of the "Netbook" trademark for little computers. Intel claims the public already uses the term generically, as "extensions of the notebook category, smaller computers purpose-built for mobile Internet access." Intel claims Psion, of England, trademarked the term for its laptop computers, but discontinued its line of laptops in 2003. It says Psion launched the Psion Netbook Pro laptop in October 2003, but says that too has been discontinued. Intel claims Psion can't reclaim the term, which allegedly has become generic, with a slightly different meaning. Intel's lead attorney is Ian Boyd of San Francisco.

The filing itself was dated 9 February 2009 so it took a week to bubble to the surface, and another week for it to hit the mainstream news.

This is a different affair altogether from Dell's filing with the Trademark Trial & Appeals Board (TTAB). For a start it's out of the USPTO's hands now and in the district court. That means it's a real court case with all the things that entails (judges, lawyers and perhaps most importantly, damages).

Here's a birds eye view from a non-lawyer:

• "Netbook is a generic term for a category of notebook computers that are small (debatable), inexpensive, and contain less processinb power, making them optimal for connecting to the internet (or "net")".
• "It is well established that "netbook" does not operate to identify a single source, or brand, of any such computer; netbooks are simply extensions of the notebook category."
• Both Psion and Intel operate in California and the court can cancel trademarks.
• Intel makes chips, not netbooks. It does operate netbook.com but also pc.com, chips.com etc. to promote devices with Intel chips, but netbooks can have non-Intel chips too.
• Psion started selling the netBook in 1999, replaced it with the netBook Pro in 2003 and has since discontinued both.
• Psion owns the trademark for "laptop computers" but lied in a sworn statement in 2006, some 4 days before the due date for the statement, and on that basis shouldn't own it.
  
• "In or before 2008, in light of recent technological innovations, the computer industry (including manufacturers and retailers) and the media began to use the term netbook to describe a class of compact computers that were small, inexpensive, and optimal for connecting to the internet "on the go". The term "netbook" was a logical name for this new category of computer, with "net" representing its specific purpose (connectivity to the net) and "book" representing its size and mobility (as in the existing category name "notebook"). There is no alternative term with any appreciable usage that describes the netbook category, just as there is no alternative term with any appreciable usage to alternatively describe desktops.". Intel is careful to take neither credit nor responsibility for [re]introduction of the term.
• Widespread usage achieved in 2008, some say 2009 will be the "Year of the Netbook" (likely)
• "Beginning with the launch of the Asus Eee PC in 2007, many computer manufacturers began to launch inexpensive compact laptop computers with lower processor speeds that were optmal for a mobile connection to the internet." Acer, Sylvania, Samsung, HP, MSI identified specifically along with retailers like Amazon.com, Best Buy, Stapes, Target, Sam's Club and Costco.
• Traditional and online media are using the term generically (citing Wall Street Journal, CNET News, PC Magazine, The San Diego Union-Tribune)
• Consumers are also using the term (citing two "I just bought a netbook" type blog posts)
• Psion was (or at least should have been) aware of the "widespread and ubiquitous third-party generic use" but did little if anything to protect its rights until December 2008.
• Psion didn't educate the consuming public, rather "sat back idly as netbook evolved as a generic term for a particular category of computer".
• Therefore they can't now attempt to assert proprietary interest in this generic term now that it's lost any source identifying function it may have had (right on)
• The cease & desist letters went to Intel both in the US & UK as well as Dell, HP, Best Buy and others on 23 December.
• Intel responded on 20 January saying they were using the term generically and didn't intend to cease use, expressly denying trademark infringement or unfair competition.
• On 29 January Psion prompted Google to cut off AdWords for "netbook", immediately ending everyone's ability to advertise netbook computers (read: damages).
  
• On 6 February Psion responded, rejecting the generic defense and the claim that the use was non infringing and talking about "legal liabilities", asserting that Intel "aided and abetted and otherwise induced manufacturers and retailers" to use the term "netbook", adding that the 30 million Google hits was not a genericide defense but an indication of the "scale of potential damages due to Psion".
• Of those 30 million hits, Psion has failed to identify one instance of actual confusion in the past two years.

Getting down to business, Intel cited the following causes of action:

1. Cancellation of Trademark Registration
2. Declaration of Non-Infringement
3. Unfair Competition

 Their "Prayer for Relief" is:

1. Cancel US trademark #2,404,976 
2. Enjoin Psion from asserting rights in "netbook" or similar marks
3. Declare that Intel's use of the term is kosher with respect to trademark infringement, unfair competition or any other damage
4. Attorneys' fees
5. Costs and disbursements for this action
6. A judgment granting Intel such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

So it's basically the same as Dell's complaint to the TTAB only it's in a different forum, and it's asking for "further relief".

The mere existence of this (rather short) brief suggests that Intel are confident some or all of these points will be awarded. Cancelling the marks and declaring non-infringement is fine by us, and costs will be irrelevant compared to the value of the "netbook" opportunity, but damages?

Unfortunately (for Psion) the AdWords stunt did apparently damage a bunch of companies and the netbook industry in general. One small site alone claimed privately to be losing thousands of dollars a month in lost advertising revenue and certainly without Google advertising a lot of your leads will go elsewhere. Curiously though this maneuver didn't benefit Psion at all, and now it seems they may well end up paying for it.

We're not convinced that's really fair - after all we happily admit that Psion have made some great little devices over the years - but that's not for us to decide now. One could even argue (as some have) that this is all back to front. A trademark is designed to protect the public by protecting companies' investments into brands, and yet here we have a company is using a trademark to wrestle a term from the public. We've got genericide that came about not from being too popular but from being not popular enough. And we've got the company credited for [re]introducing the term seeking damages from the company from which it was (accidentally?) misappropriated.

Then again any small company strategy which involves exacting a toll on big companies is likely to be met with some kind of resistance.

Batallion of brits bulwark beloved, beleaguered business (Psion)

A handful of brits may be ready to start the "Save Psion from Save the Netbooks" campaign if this afternoon's antics over at Wikipedia are any indication. You see up until User:842U was banned the only permitted discussion of the trademark in the Netbook article was some unjustified rubbish about how "this article refers to the term 'netbook' as a genericized trademark'". Now most of you likely believe this to be true (we certainly do) but Wikipedia's an encyclopedia so such claims rightly need to be justified.

Anyway the result was that the netbook trademark and Save the Netbooks articles were created to track information that otherwise belonged in the netbook article. This of course attracted attention from Psion supporters in the UK who wanted every second word justified with a citation and who insisted on attaching scary templates like this one. They also called us cyber bullies, idiots, poisonous and a bunch of other things (both within Wikipedia and outside on Twitter, in article comments, etc.), apparently because they were "shocked and saddened" by the whole affair with Psion who they call a "good British company".

Well today an anonymous editor (who happens to have an interest in wholesome british topics like Sherlock Holmes and Scotland Yard) took it upon himself to brutally savage the article and then list it for deletion. It then took all of seven minutes for one of the two main opponents to chime in with his delete vote and the second was also on board within half an hour, adding charges of slander and libel along with a bunch of other patent nonsense. Most deletion debates are all but decided within the first few votes but for good measure an IP from Cambridge University in the UK (likely one of their sock puppets) also had their bit to say.

Hopefully these are just other (overly) concerned individuals and not Psion's shills, but in any case the important stuff will soon end up in the netbook article where it should have been all along. In the mean time there are some important lessons. First, the most efficient way to have content you don't like deleted from Wikipedia:

1. Remove all citations and references from the article, whether reliable or not.
2. Tag the hell out of it. Advert and COI work well but don't forget Cleanup and friends too. The more the merrier.
3. If the article was written by someone in any way related to the subject then make a big deal out of it. Everyone knows you can't write an unbiased article about something you care about, right?
4. Even if there's now hundreds of people involved in the subject, act like it's only one.
5. Make sure you get some delete votes before anyone else has a chance to say anything; within half an hour if possible. Sock puppets and meat puppets are fine too. It's well established that people tend to follow the leader.
6. Forget all about any bias you might have from previous debates (especially ones you lost).
7. Ignore the rules, remember even if this content is verifiably notable you don't like it so it's got to go.

On a more serious note, the (perceived) presence of a conflict of interest does not in any way imply that an article is problematic and this alone should never be used as justification for deletion. Similarly, the templates are intended for cleaning up articles, not permanently branding them as broken. More often than not the people closest to the subject matter are the best equipped to write on it, provided their writings are balanced (which admittedly is often not the case). Beating the hell out of them is a very effective way of killing off a significant source of contributions.

Anyway now that Intel is going in for the kill y'all have a hell of a lot more to worry about than a few trademarks and a couple of Wikipedia articles.

P.S. Don't bother contributing to the debate - as we said before so far as we're concerned the show's already over.

P.P.S. Don't bother pointing out that some of the voters could be sock puppets either because one of the admins who's already voted will probably just close the investigation as a 'frivolous request' with no further explanation, bury your complaints as 'irrelevant digression' (so as not to interfere with the all important debate) and then threaten to block you for no apparent reason. You can be sure we've just broken some obscure rule by even telling you this too.

Lessons learnt the likely loss of the "netbook" trademark

There's a number of things that Psion could have done to avoid losing the "netbook" trademark.

For a start, trademarks relate to a specific class of goods or services. The "netbook" mark #75215401 is just for "laptop computers", as in the devices themselves. When Psion stop selling the devices (either permanently or by not shipping for 3+ years) then the trademark should self destruct.

Apple's iBook trademark #75584233 on the other hand covers "computers, computer hardware, computer peripherals and users manuals sold therewith" so they're good to go for as long as they offer peripherals. That said, in this kb article the definition of "obsolete" is quite clear:

"Obsolete products are those that were discontinued more than seven years ago. Apple has discontinued all hardware service for obsolete products with no exceptions. Service providers cannot order parts for obsolete products. 

Aside from some quirks realting to California laws a "Petition for Cancellation" of the iBook trademark on the basis of abandonment could well be successful today.

Had they have held a stock of Netbooks and/or Netbook Pros for (restricted?) sale after manufacturing stopped may have been another way Psion could have avoided abandonment. Indeed not listing the devices as "discontinued" on their web site may have given them 3 years grace (e.g. through at least August 2009). Even an early announcement of a new netBook might have held off the dogs too.

An administrative error (that is, including a 'Netbook' rather than a 'Netbook Pro' brochure in the 2006 Combined Declararation of Use and Incontestability) led to Dell's claim of fraud that may well be upheld.

But the ommission that undoubtedly caused the most damage was not acting quickly when others started using the mark. There are many ways to detect such usage - a Google Alert for 'netbook' or a Domain Tools alert for domain registrations would have resulted in an email alert within hours of the first [ab]uses and they could have acted quickly to stave off the onslaught.

Of course then the "netbook" industry wouldn't be what it is today... the devices would have been called something like "webbooks" and none of this ever would have happened.