On 9/6/05, Jack Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 10:42:10AM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote: > > > > We'll still probably use OG* names for graphics things, but the > > prototype board isn't a graphics card, per se. We still need a name > > for that. > > > Well, I suggested Bridgehead for that a day or two ago. This > afternoon I found a little time to look for conflicts. Basically, nothing. > USPTO has no trademark registrations at all for Bridgehead. Google came up > with nothing in computer graphics. There was something for game software, > but it was pretty obscure. > This leaves open the question of whether the development board > actually needs a name, since it's going to a small audience that will know > what it is anyway. I'm commenting on development board part numbers in a > different thread -- it needs a part number structure in any case so that > purchasers can order the exact configuration they want.
I could imagine selling large numbers of them. A university FPGA lab might buy 100 of them at a shot. It need SOME sort of name. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
