A new precedent
There are a couple of key differences in this case, however. Firstly, Smartbook AG is still producing products called Smartbooks, and secondly, Smartbook AG has extended its action beyond just Qualcomm and its OEM partners. It is sending legal letters to the media too - HEXUS included.
We fully respect the right of any company to defend its trademark from infringements. It's right that a company should be able to protect its trademarks from appropriation. But Qualcomm doesn't claim to own the term smartbook, just as Intel didn't with netbook, so this makes the legal position a lot more complicated.
Furthermore, HEXUS certainly doesn't claim to own the term, and when we use it, it's to describe this class of ARM-based mini-notebooks. None of us are lawyers, but surely journalists and individuals have a fundamental right to use descriptive terms as they see fit. If we chose to call all ARM-based mini-notebooks netbooks, or iNotebooks, or bananas, the freedom of speech we all hold so dear ensures we can.
This sort of thing is actually part of a broader trend of legal threats being used to control the press. There was a high profile case last year in which oil company Trafigura used a ‘super injunction' to not only stop The Guardian newspaper reporting on a story, but even to report on an MP asking a question in parliament about it.
In the end, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger tweeted this comment: "Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?" Within hours, all the stuff Trafigura was trying to silence was all over the web and it soon threw in the towel.
