+1

Maybe the relevant person only just heard of Skype when talk of them entered the stock markets. My dad's never heard of Skype, but he's certainly heard of Sky. It would not surprise me if the same is true of many a lawyer.

It would be obscenely unfair to throw out a case just because someone had been trading in relative obscurity for X years before coming to the attention of the name holder.

Skype are the leading VoIP company how obscure is that?

VoIP is pretty damned obscure to most people. Certainly compared to TV, which pretty much everyone knows about.

In technology, one year is a long time. In law, it can take 10 years to hear a single case. Remember, the law and those that practice it tend to be pretty archaic.

Next stop. Claiming he owns the 'Sky' in 'Skywalker'. look out, George Lucas. Oh wait, you have experience of stupid legal cases already.

Yes but VoIP has been going for so long that many telcos use it for their long distance traffic as well. I think that BT use it to some extent. So it is impossible for a telecoms firm to be unaware of Skype or VoIP. In fact I remember a decade ago the telcos were worried that it will steal much of their business.So for Sky to not know of Skype when they entered the Telco ISP business is laughable.

I own the "Nick" in Nickelodeon.

I am going to patent the letter "i" in lower case.

*plots future covered in money*

I lol'd.

Good point just made by someone in the office....."surely you can't own words within words?"

I cannot seriously think that this case has any merit.

Fact: I own the phoneme "tard".

Every time you use it you owe me money.

You must make a fortune every Saturday? All those football fans shouting whose the bastard in the black?

And Coleman's must owe him a fortune...

I hope the Aussie tit spends a billion on lawyers and still gets reamed in the courts.

+1 ...