Hahaha engadget folks trying to be lawyers. You are SOO cute

>> There is no copyright infringement until he profits from it.
>> he never said he was reselling the PSPs or any of the games.

Dead. F'ing. Wrong. Copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with making money. The person that made the software, song etc. has the RIGHT to control how COPIES are made. Distribution too. So if you make a back up copy, that is deemed one of the fair uses and an exception to the copyright holder's rights. But if you upload the ROM, download someone else's ROM, then you are violating the copyright without any money exchanging hands. If you don't think I'm right, please explain how people like Jammie Thomas who uploaded files now owes the record companies 1.92 million dollars. It certainly wasn't because she made 1.92 million dollars sharing files.

Also, many of these devices are encrypted. By using custom firmware to circumvent the existing encryption to do any of the above, you are also potentially violating the DMCA as well.

So, sweetgrego, see above. While no one is going to come after him for violating his own warranty and dorking with firmware for his device, he's potentially contributing to copyright infringement by enabling others to do it.

Uberfu, you just don't know what you're talking about. Mod chips are actually illegal in most jurisdictions because they enable people to circumvent copy control mechanisms. Plus you clearly don't know the elements of copyright infringement. Please, as nicely as I can say it, STFU. You're spreading misinformation.

And zero, if a game console is using ROMs, it is likely violating the company's copyiright. Even the ones that seem legit and are sold in the mall with 85 NES games built in are illegal if Nintendo didn't license the games. And while emulating the hardware itself is not illegal, using any ROMs you didn't make yourself of games you own is. That includes renting from the video store and ripping/downloading them.

I'm a lawyer. You all are not. If you don't believe me, look up the statutes. I'll even given you a link:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

+25 internets for you. GREAT comment. Now put the lotion in the basket.

Let's be clear - there is a difference here between patents and trademarks. With patents, you do not have to use your patented idea. With trademarks, you DO have to use your tradmeark in commerce AND you have to supply examples of doing so. So it is hard to be a "trademark troll" in the same sense that there are patent trolls that buy up patents and sue on them.

This guy did have a company at one time that made some widget. Google's defense in their application was "he's no longer using it." If so, that's a solid defense since you still have to be using the mark in commerce for it to be protected.

Just wanted to put that out there. I'm not defending the guy, just trying to spread some knowlegde.

Engadget keeps eating my posts, so sorry if this appears multiple (four?) times now...

Having a trademark has nothing to do with it being a company name or a product name. A trademark is an indicator of source. If I buy a Coke, I know where it came from, i.e., the Coca-Cola company. If I buy Kleenex tissues, I know where they came from Kimberely-Clark, etc.

Specht is saying '"Android" in the computer world indicates this product, Google's Android OS, came from me - and it doesn't. People might be confused by this'

How common a word is has nothing to do with whether it can be trademarked UNLESS you are trying to trademark it for something it describes. I can't get a trademark on Copier brand photocopiers. Xerox could get a trademark on Xerox brand copiers because "Xerox" didn't make people think of copiers generally when they applied. Same with "Apple Computers" - no one associated "Apple" with "computers."

The one case where you lose trademark rights is when something becomes a generic version of the word. For example, Xerox fought long and hard to preserve its rights by telling everyone "don't call it a Xerox" because if a word does generically describe the item or service, you lose protection since it is no longer an indicator of source. If you say "I'm going to Tivo something" and you aren't using a Tivo to do it, that's bad from a protection standpoint.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/01/google-and-dozens-of-android-purveyors-slapped-with-trademark-la/comments/18614462/

was my reply - don't know why it didn't get stuck to yours.

OK, IAAL, and a patent and trademark one at that. I do not represent any of the parties and have done no research on this other than read the engadget blurb above. This is not legal advice and nothing contained herein creates an attorney client relationship.

Prior use of a trademark does not invalidate or prevent someone from getting a trademark. If you try using a mark that is confusingly similar to an existing one, in the same field of commerce, then there's grounds for suit.

If google were making Android-brand tissues, he couldn't do anything about it. But since his registration is in class 9 - electrical and scientific apparatuses - google's OS might cause a likelihood of confusion. It's based on the classification of goods and services of the mark. Just like if google wanted to sell Kleenex-brand search services, Kleenex can't do anything because the classification of the Kleenex mark is in the "cosmetics" class, but if they wanted to make Kleenex tissues, they couldn't.

Let me repeat - just because it's an old word has nothing to do with whether it is registerable. It has to be beyond descriptive (you can't trademark "apple" for a fruit stand) and there can't be likelihood of confusion.

Also, trademarks do not expire provided you keep using them in commerce and keep renewing them.

To poke around, check out the classes at the USPTO: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#Application018

To search trademarks, go to http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk

Do a "new user search" and enter one, and then look at ones with a registration number. Look at the "Good and Services" section and find the "IC", that's the class it's registered in.

@vegeta, no, it's "Popular" from Wicked - saw it this weekend (though the Nada Surf song was cool too).

-p-

Because the PSP-3000 has a new motherboard and, up until this point, has frustrated custom firmware developers as appearing "unhackabale." Of course everything is eventually, but people have been working steadily at it with no success until this.

I'd sling it to my iPhone - IF I could get the iPhone beta client AND get my firewall to let it through. Been having weird problems with my Sling Solo.

-p-

The thing is, this is exactly the argument Blizzard used against Glider - as part of the EULA, if you use the software in a manner that goes against the Terms of Service, the copying that is done into RAM is unauthorized and therefore copyright infringement. Blizz's argument was adopted by the court, so I'm surprised they're trying this since there is precedent going the other way (and AZ and CA are even in the same appeals circuit!)

-p-