ATT Technical - Picaxe Powered labeling/advertising

[D n T]

I intend using a PICAXE as part of an interschool competion project. This project is sponsored by outside bussinesses. I want to advertise the use of PICAXE because I like them and think that if people ( other teachers) see a practical use for them, they will want to use them. Is there a protocol I need to go through to put a " CONTAINS PICAXE TECHNOLOGY " sign on the unit?
Is there a standard artwork that is prefered, what do I have to do to do so.

I don't want anything for free, I just want to let other people know about something I think is a goood thing.

 

[wilf_nv]

How about "PICAXE Inside"?

 

[hippy]

I'm sure there was some info from Rev-Ed on "PICAXE" usage, but can't find it at the moment.

"PICAXE Inside" could run foul of the "Intel(R) Inside(R)" trademark. Although Intel lost a claim in Italy, the allegedly infringing mark had been a trademark in its own right.

"Contains PICAXE Technology", is probably acceptable, although it should probably be "Contains PICAXE(R) Technology" and/or otherwise indicate that "PICAXE is a registered trademark of Revolution Education Limited".

It's a minefield knowing what can and cannot be done, knowing if one is infringing or not, or whether the trademark owner objects or approves, so it would be nice to have an official logo / terminology and license of use to go with it. Intel's own trademark guidelines can be found here ...

http://www.intel.com/sites/corporate/tradmarx.htm

<i>Intel and Intel Inside are registered trademarks of Intel Corporation. PICAXE is a registered trademark of Revolution Education Limited. </i>

 

[wildbill]

Yes, a logo. Competition time - design a logo for picaxe - i think picaxe is well enough established to warrant a competition for a unique logo, decided from it's current users/forumites, given it's world wide recognition to date. The prize could be the world wide acclaim of saying &quot; i designed that &quot; along with a kit or something sponsored by Rev-ed. Is this a good idea or can someone please confirm my madness.

Wildbill.
Kelvin Tuffield Youngs,(once based @ Aldershot) if your'e out there, send me a mail.

 

[hippy]

I think a logo comp could be fun. I've never really liked the one top left of the forum, but do like the one in the Prog Edit splash screen ...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/the.happy.hippy/picaxe.gif

That might just be my liking for retro-70's style though

 

[manuka]

DnT- us colonials are often tainted with a Ned Kelly view on copyright,so bravo on your forward planning! My recent Forum thoughts, <A href='http://www.rev-ed.co.uk/picaxe/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=4115&amp;forum_id=22&amp;Topic_Title=how+to+identify+chips&amp;forum_title=PICAXE+Forum&amp;M=False ' Target=_Blank>External Web Link</a>, are pretty much on this topic too, &amp; I strongly agree it's high time for Picaxe logo, slogan &amp; labelling.

Mmm- given the alliteration potential, how about continuing the &quot;P&quot; with Picaxe <b> Presented, Primed, Programmed, Processed, Propelled, Packed </b> etc. Rather fancy <b>Picaxe Processed !! </b> myself as although tame beside power etc, it implies an imbedded micro, a controlled sequence of events &amp; value added enhancement. Well that's actually what happens of course!

Naturally we don't want Rev.Ed to squander their slender resources on legal &amp; patent issues etc, but even an informal recognition will be much appreciated.

I've got to say that the lack of labelling &amp; logos creates an impression that Picaxes were dreamed up by hobbyists who never got around to finishing off the design! Such comments have been tellingly expressed by both colleagues &amp; commercial contacts here in NZ.

And believe me,I've had no end of a job to convince tertiary workmates these darlings should be taken seriously! Some still insist they're <i>&quot; toys that make things too easy&quot; </i> . These are often the same folks who maintain LED flashing needs 100 lines of cryptic assembler &amp; a weeks brain power...
Stan


Edited by - stan. swan on 12/03/2006 05:18:08

 

[steirny]

Competition - great idea.
I like Picaxe Processed.
One question - must have missed the obvious but where did the &quot;AXE&quot; in Picaxe come from? I can't help picturing a miners tool for some reason, but that's just silly, especially for a logo.

 

[flyingnunrt]

Or
Picaxe &quot;18X&quot; In Control.
Picaxe &quot;08M&quot; In Control.
etc.
how about
PICAXE... Breaking new ground in education!

 

[manuka]

That happy miner idea was mine from 2002 ( see how it stuck in your mind!), &amp; used when we first mentioned the 08 Aus/NZ in &quot;Silicon Chip&quot;. The idea was he'd say &quot;Silicon - I've found silicon !&quot; &amp; wave his miners Picaxe around accordingly. Rev. Ed weren't happy about that logo &amp; approach however, so I quietly dropprd it.

Picaxe &quot;means nothing- it's just a name&quot; according to Rev.Ed at the time as well. Stan

Edited by - stan. swan on 13/03/2006 10:47:13

 

[Technical]

In response to DnT for a single home-made item like this including a line such as 'controlled by a PICAXE&#174; microcontroller' is fine. This does not apply to commercial applications.

The full trademark statement, for those interested, is defined by Microchip and is a bit of a mouthful....

&quot;PICAXE&#174; products are developed and distributed by Revolution Education Ltd. PICAXE&#174; is a registered trademark licensed by Microchip Technology Inc. Revolution Education is not an agent or representative of Microchip and has no authority to bind Microchip in any way.&quot;

In summary this means that the PICAXE&#174; trademark is owned by Microchip but is used under exclusive worldwide license by Revolution Education Ltd. It may not be used or associated with any product without prior permission of Revolution Education.

 

[hippy]

I think that clearly demonstrates the minefield of the Intellectual Property arena and the need for clarification from a trademark owner or licensee rather than relying on any other official or unofficial sources. Time for me to update some web pages to avoid infringements.

 

[manuka]

Me too, but first I've got to splutter that in my ~4 years using/promoting these darlings that it's the very first time I've seen <b> PICAXE&#174; </b> as such. An idle glance thru' the Rev. Ed site &amp; Editor shows only plain PICAXE (usually in capitals)&amp; Google is unaware of this too.

I'd no idea MicroChip &quot;owned&quot; PICAXE&#174; either- it's akin to learning COKE is part of Heineken.

This is such an important point that a firm ruling is needed, especially since diverse &quot;commercial&quot; products now use Picaxes. For &#174; insights see<A href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark ' Target=_Blank>External Web Link</a> etc.
Stan

Extra: Gadzooks-I'm sure Shakespeare himself would have felt 'controlled by a PICAXE&#174; microcontroller' is not going to catch on! Any objections to <b>PICAXE&#174; processed </b> ?



Edited by - stan. swan on 13/03/2006 20:47:06

 

[hippy]

The UK Patent Office is listing &quot;picaxe&quot; ( lowercase ) as a registered trademark of Rev-Ed ...

http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsrequested=C&amp;trademark=2388482

Microchip have had the &quot;PIC&quot; mark registered for a long while and have vigorously defended it which is I guess how the current situation has come about. I did say that IP was a minefield didn't I

 

[manuka]

Hippy- thanks for this footwork. I note from this site that Rev.Ed only registered &quot;picaxe&quot; mid-late 2005, so guess all our earlier PR can be considered antediluvian...
There are important differences between TM and &#174; of course.

Footnote: ALT + 0174 enters &#174; from a numeric keypad (first turn it on -keypads upper LHS ), while ALT + 0153 gives &#8482; .

 

[D n T]

Perhaps I will go with
&quot;Its got a Revolution Education product onboard, Picaxe, the name is used under license, to ...&quot;
Or just
&quot;TOP SECRET, we're not telling whats in here&quot;

 

[wilf_nv]

I say stay with &quot;PICAXE Inside!&quot; for non-commercial personal use and with a bit of luck, Intel will give our little chips more publicity than money can buy.

 

[andrewpro]

beautiful idea, but sadly, it's been tried already . Not particularly with Intel, I dont think, but I've seen it somewhere. Maybe slashdot.

Now judges like to gag media releases on cases like that, particularly to prevent the &quot;any publicity is good publicity&quot; thoughts.

I was part of developing a product once...it was a GPS based auto location system. After nearly a year in R&amp;D, prototyping, and field testing, the entire project was dropped. Why? Licensing <img src="sad.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle> . The GPS and RF modules we used were OEM versions, and in order to produce the device, the cost would ahve to be nearly trippled to cover the licensing fees of these already exhorbitantly priced devices. It was a serious kick in the pants. Lawyers can be mean people, even when they're working for you!!

--Andy P

 

[hax]

Andypro,

I was interested in your last post. I thought that if one used an OEM device within a product, that they could then sell it with no extra licencing paperwork.

Much like if I used a resistor in a commercial product, I would not have to approach the resistor company and ask if I can re-sell it as part of my commercial product. I would think that it would be a given that the resistor company wants me to use their product within mine.


Out of interest, would you mind elaborating on what exactly the licencing problem was with the OEM devices?

 

[Dippy]

Its a minefield isn't it.

And next we have RoHS... (July 1st in Europe).
Pah, more paperwork!

 

[andrewpro]

A bunch of reasons, really. Most of it revolving around the embedded software. Could we have written our own? Sure, but we had neither the manpower or money to do so.

The GPS guys used proprietary protocols and algorithms (however that's spelled?) to get the accuracy they did. There was a DSP and an ARM in there, both of which required software. The software was included with the dev kit, but when it came to production, was an add-on.

The RF side of it came down to the encryption ,compression, and error correction. Again, proprietary software (noticing a trend here? grrr).

It's akin to using microsoft XP embedded. You can buy the kit for like 900 bucks, and develop your software and build the OS just the way you want it, but then you have to cough up 99 bucks every time you put it into a device.

It boils down to bad business decisions on the companies part (the one Iw as working for). Instead of looking at the big picture from day 1, they waited until &quot;the last minute&quot; to work on the marketing and business aspect of it. They did that alot and is probably why they no longer exist (out of business).

--Andy P

Edited by - andypro on 17/03/2006 20:15:09