Dear Ms. Townley
I've received your letter dated January 24, 1996 and the envelope is postmarked January 25, 1996. Pages 2 and 3 are dated January 23 (not January 24). The body of the letter asks for a response by February 7, while page 3 asks for a response by January 23. Why is the title page dated January 24, but the remaining pages dated January 23? Why does the body of the letter ask for a response by February 7, but the actual response page ask for a response by January 23? (Note: The requested response on the response page is two days BEFORE the letter was mailed.) A mention is made of two enclosures, yet no enclosures were included.
In addition to the mistakes already mentioned, there are technical inaccuracies in your letter. You object to my useage of the term "P6" when referring to the Pentium Pro Processor on the grounds that you don't have any product by that name. Yet any visit to your web site (and FTP site) will confirm that files are available to download that refer to this new processor as the P6. In addition to these files, Intel Architecture Labs provides the April 1995 "Special Edition P6 Processor" CD-ROM. This CD-ROM was still being shipped after the Pentium Pro Processor was announced and began to ship. (As far as I know, it's still available.) You also object to my use of the term P6 on the grounds that "this suggests to consumers that "P6" refers to an Intel product or is an Intel trademark." This mistake is impossible to make, as I have a disclaimer at the bottom of each web page that specifically states that "P6" is NOT an Intel trademark.
My strongest objection to your letter concerns your demand that I adhere to your corporate trademark guidelines. As an independant author and non-intel employee, Intel has no right to demand or expect that I adhere to your corporate policies. To me, this is the ultimate example of your corporate arrogance. It is my belief that you actually intend to capitalize on the popularity of my web site. Therefore, you want to make sure I adhere to the same guidelines that you expect of your own employees and authors. I will not let Intel dictate authorship guidelines to me or any co-author at my web site.
I recognize and endorse your efforts to protect your trademarks and intellectual property. However, I disagree with your view that my logo is a trademark infringement of Intel's Corporate Logo®. My logo has never been mistaken for your corporate logo. I don't provide any links to your web site, nor you to mine. I am not profiteering in any way from my web site, whereby you can claim I'm using the recognition of your logo to my profitable gain. In fact, my logo is an obvious form of satire. This satirical display is substantiated by the tone and content of material at my web site. Each web page has a satirical trademark statement at the bottom. You should make no mistake, my logo is a legal and acceptable form of satire which you cannot control or demand that I change.
I'd love to respond to your letter, but the number of errors contained within make it difficult for me to do so. The letter asks for my written response, but doesn't include a return address, or a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Certainly Intel can afford $0.36 for a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Or should I assume that you never really expected me to respond to your letter, and that it was a mere formality needed to advance your next form of hostility towards my web site?
I look forward to talking to you about this. Had you bothered to call
me, instead of sending me your letter, we might have been able to resolve
this without you sending me (more) proof of your corporate harassment.
Each and every time I've talked to Intel about my web site, I've always
invited an open dialog between us. I can see you chose the more confrontational
approach, than the approach which would have yielded a greater degree of
cooperation on my part. This isn't the first time your company has made
this foolish mistake with me.
Robert R. Collins
Return to Intel vs. Robert Collins
Read the letter from Intel's lawyers