Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bu.edu!bbn.com!drilex!dricejb
From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: NRC owns MultiGate trademark
Message-ID: <20545@drilex.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 91 15:03:58 GMT
References: <9705399@AppleLink.Apple.COM>
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 35

Interesting announcement.  This is how I expected one part of the drama
to play out--NRC has the trademark to "Multigate", legally, in the U.S.

The most interesting note is that they had to buy it, and I believe that
their product was announced before July 5, 1990, which is the date that
NRC acquired ownership.  I hope the guy got good money....


Now it remains to be seen what Webster Computer does in response.  I
suspect that they have a valid trademark in Australia, and probably
the U.K., too.  To my knowledge, the Webster Multigate has never been
offered for sale in the U.S., probably because of this trademark mixup.
Yet, I don't think it is viable for a technology company the size of
either NRC or Webster to have different product names in different
countries.


The market-positioning aspects of this fight are also interesting.  NRC
is entirely within its rights defending the trademark (actually it's
a responsibility, too, to avoid losing it).  And I'm pretty sure that
they've got a valid product.  Yet, their box is positioned as a less-
featured device than the Webster Computer box.  Also, the Webster
Computer box was available in Australia and the U.K. before the
NRC box was announced.

The net effect of these circumstances is to make it appear that NRC is
trying to use non-technical means to compete against a product which
they cannot compete technically.  Which isn't a good appearance, at least
to people such as those who read this newsgroup/mailing-list.

As for me, I can't afford or justify either of them....
-- 
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}