# Lexmark using a "BSD" Jargon ... means something else



## dalecosp (Nov 21, 2013)

I note that Lexmark is now using "BSD" to mean "Business Solutions Dealer".

I'm not a lawyer. I know it freaks me out a bit. Has anyone got any thoughts about this? Do we _need_ to have any thoughts about this?


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Nov 21, 2013)

dalecosp said:
			
		

> Has anyone got any thoughts about this?  Do we *need* to have any thoughts about this...?



It is a little unsettling that a technology company would do this. However, it is quit_e_ possible that they are not that familiar with operating systems since that is a common affliction. They may just not be that "techie" after all. You could write them a nice letter to explain how they might be confusing the tech savvy public with their unfortunate choice of acronyms.

That said, if you've ever looked at three letter domain names, or even three letter trademarks, you'll see that most combinations are used for lots of things. BSD also is used for "Buyer's Stamp Duty" in England.


----------



## sossego (Nov 22, 2013)

Bring Some Donuts. BullShit Detector. Big Smiling Doofus.


----------



## neel (Nov 22, 2013)

Well, according to the US trademark office, BSD means something related to DNA, and is owned by an Australian company.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Nov 22, 2013)

Get the Australians after 'em. That'll teach 'em a lesson.

My understanding is that they can only get in trouble when there would be confusion between the two products.


----------



## fonz (Nov 22, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> My understanding is that they can only get in trouble when there would be confusion between the two products.


That does leave the question of what exactly does or does not constitute confusion. Case in point: remember the Ford v Ferrari case (or almost-case, actually)? Apparently Ford were concerned that people might confuse a Formula 1 racing car and a mass-produced pick-up truck


----------



## saxon3049 (Nov 22, 2013)

fonz said:
			
		

> That does leave the question of what exactly does or does not constitute confusion. Case in point: remember the Ford v Ferrari case (or almost-case, actually)? Apparently Ford were concerned that people might confuse a Formula 1 racing car and a mass-produced pick-up truck



I think that didn't happen when a old medical company said "Hey guys, we have been using that since 1920 on a cough medicine" and both Ford and Ferrari just let it go, I do know one case of two small companies in the motor trade that both used an abbreviation to mean two different things that slugged it out in court for 15 years over the right to use it on marketing materials, and just before they both threw in the towel they BOTH got bought by the same company (I was told this when I worked for Jaguar doing production support). 

If you want to see real litigation fiascos don't look at the Samsung and Apple battles, look at the motor industry.

Also in addition to this: if you want to see a mess of abbreviations look no further than the automotive industry (or any major engineering company), my dad back around 2000/2001 was working for RR and had a three-volume binder of abbreviations. One three-page section was full of a single abbreviation and all 16 meanings; each one had a section on how to determinate which one was correct in various contexts. I don't know if anyone has had the privilege of reading any of the old DEC (Digital) software and hardware manuals, one I found had a glossary in the back that has confusing multi use abbreviations listed in the back with the right page listed for the meaning. |I miss that level of documentation.


----------



## fonz (Nov 22, 2013)

saxon3049 said:
			
		

> I think that didn't happen when a old medical company said "Hey guys, we have been using that since 1920 on a cough medicine" and both Ford and Ferrari just let it go


Actually, as far as I know Ford dropped the (tentative) lawsuit when Ferrari renamed their F-150 to "150Â° Italia". But still, let's compare the two.

The Ford was (and still is) a mass-produced pick-up truck that anyone can buy, which probably needs around ten seconds to go from 0 to 100 km/h and which probably won't go much faster than 200 km/h if it can even do that in the first place. It's a massive pick-up truck with plenty of space and it's available in a plethora of colours.
The Ferrari is a Formula 1 racer. Only a few have been built, probably even fewer people have ever driven it and it's not available to the public, who wouldn't even be able to drive it anyway. And the few ones that were ever built are all red and have advertising all over them. It goes from 0 to 100 to 0 in three seconds tops (driver reaction time factored in) and does upwards of 300 km/h. It has space for one person and no luggage whatsoever.
Yeah, I can see the confusion... :e


----------



## saxon3049 (Nov 22, 2013)

fonz said:
			
		

> Actually, as far as I know Ford dropped the (tentative) lawsuit when Ferrari renamed their F-150 to "150Â° Italia". But still, let's compare the two.
> 
> The Ford was (and still is) a mass-produced pick-up truck that anyone can buy, which probably needs around ten seconds to go from 0 to 100 km/h and which probably won't go much faster than 200 km/h if it can even do that in the first place. It's a massive pick-up truck with plenty of space and it's available in a plethora of colours.
> The Ferrari is a Formula 1 racer. Only a few have been built, probably even fewer people have ever driven it and it's not available to the public, who wouldn't even be able to drive it anyway. And the few ones that were ever built are all red and have advertising all over them. It goes from 0 to 100 to 0 in three seconds tops (driver reaction time factored in) and does upwards of 300 km/h. It has space for one person and no luggage whatsoever.
> Yeah, I can see the confusion... :e



It's a branding issue, hell the Land Rover "Evoque" is spelled the way it is to avoid trademarks but still sound the same. Hell Ford and GM tried to Sue Land Rover in 1949 for the body shape of the Series I Land Rover, it was tossed out of court but only after Land Rover bought an engine off Ford and the gearbox from GM. Eventually LR bought out the rights and started making their own designs. Oddly enough with press space for the bodies rented from multiple Ford plants. 

If you want another example, but one where branding fails, the "Punto" was made to counter the Mini but the design process slowed it down. In South Africa and South America it was sold unsuccessfully as a small truck but it sold well in Europe apart from Spain. It was when the name "Puinto" meant "small ****" (guess) they changed the global branding and we ended up with the Fiesta. The problem is lots of companies will not research local  meanings prior to a product launch and it becomes embarrassing.


----------

