Talk:Mind map/Archives/2018

Trademarks

"Mind map is copyright of Tony Buzan." This is plain wrong. He either has a patent for something related to mind mapping or trademark rights for the term "mind map". Copyrights only cover actual works, i.e. books he has written, software he has developed etc. Somebody with a clue should correct this.

I'm not sure where that bit about copyright was seen. A word or phrase can't be copyright. What I've seen all over the Buzan-related sites is indeed a claim to registered trademarks - on "Mind Map", "Mind Maps", and "Mind Mapping" - belonging to the "Buzan Organisation". These sites don't necessarily belong to said organisation, so some claims may be wrong (erroneous), but I presume that Buzan and his organisation have trademarked at least one of these terms.

That being the case, this Wikipedia entry would seem inappropriate - a bit like having the information on vacuum cleaners in an entry entitled "Hoover".

In my experience, "mind map" and "concept map" are synonymous. Concept maps have been around for a long time, although I don't know when the descriptive phrases were coined (I would like to find time to research this!). I don't think there is the slightest possibility that the concept of "concept map" or "mind map" were invented by Buzan. However, Buzan may well have invented the concept of destroying the concept by restricting it to hierarchical structures as in all the examples of "Mind Maps" that I've found on the commercial sites ( as well as the freeware "Freemind" which I've trialled and found excellent, provided that you want to draw hierarchical structures and NOT more general concept maps).

Trademark law does not permit registration of words descriptive of the product. For a trademark on "Mind Map" to be valid, it could not therefore refer to what is commonly called a mind map or concept map. It seems to me that Buzan's trademark(s) would be valid precisely because they do not describe mind maps, but that would hinge on legal detail that is beyond my capability or interest.

This trademarked "Mind Mapping" seems to represent simultaneous commercial appropriation and vandalising of a valuable public concept, and should not be promoted in Wikipedia.

>> This is a valid legal point. The mind map is a trademarked product of the Buzan organization. There is no clear legal definition of a mind map. Other non-trademarked diagrams do have clear definitions. Based on this point, it would seem that the mind map is completely inappropriate for wikipedia.

Alternatively, the entry could simply read, "The mind map is a trademark of the Buzan organization, used to promote a radial graphic that is perported by the Buzan literature to have been intuitively adopted by numerous "geniuses" because it harnesses the otherwise "untapped 99% of the brain's mental potential" (The Mind Map Book, ((Buzan and Buzan 1991))" Arnold >>

I intend working on an entry for "concept map(ping)", but I'm new to Wikipedia and have a lot on my plate, so it may not appear soon. If someone else can do it sooner or better, I'll be very happy!

It would be nice to include links to genuine concept mapping software (not restricted to hierarchical structures).

A few years ago I trialled "TheBrain" http://www.thebrain.com/ and found it excellent. Unfortunately the trial version is time-limited and crippled and the product is associated with a defective business model (high price, low volume, for software that has a potential market of everyone on the planet with access to a computer.)

Google Directory http://directory.google.com/Top/Reference/Knowledge_Management/Knowledge_Creation/Concept_Mapping/Software/

lists a few concept mapping programs. Some seem to be inferior (and even more expensive) compared to TheBrain, and I am not motivated to download the trials. I am downloading IHMC CMap Tools http://cmap.ihmc.us/ to test. This looks VERY promising, being network-enabled (link concept maps across web or other networks). I'm not clear on their business model. The software seems to be fee-free, but I find the license difficult to read and it may be restrictive in ways that I don't understand. It is a large download (25.9) but I am open to the possibility that its extra features will justify this.

Richard Jones 04:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added a hand drawn image of a mind map. Strictly speaking, a mind map should have a central image, with images throughout. I do like the computer version, and think it appropriate to keep it there. Oliver Y

The claim that Buzan came up with idea in 1971 is dubious. He has a chapter on Mind Maps in the first edition of his book Speed Reading, published in 1971. It seems very unlikely he came up with the idea, developed it enough to include in a book, wrote the book, and had it published, all in 12 months. I have heard, though can't cite, that he was developing the idea while at university in Vancouver. Lutin

Agreed; the claim that he came up with it in 1971 would be dubious if we were making such a claim in the article. However, we're perfectly within our rights to simply report what Buzan has claimed himself: that he came up with it as he started to write that book, which was published in 1971. If we have conflicting information we should add it.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I altered the 10% result, as it was inconclusive. The only conclusion that the researchers made after analysis was that it led to only a small increase in memory. Regards EBlack 06:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the trademark symbol should be removed. There is no reason to respect the dubious claim by Busan. I don't think (but IANAL) that his trademark is valid. And clearly the term is already generally used to describe other non-Busan products. Paranoid 14:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Having read the book "The Mind Map Book" (Tony Buzan and Barry Buzan, 1993, 2000, 2003, publ. BBC Worldwide Limited, ISBN 0 563 48701 1), I would like to point out the following:

• "The Mind Map Book" is copyright to Tony Buzan and Barry Buzan.
• Mind Map® is a trade mark. That is, the phrase "Mind Map" is trade mark. It should be sufficent to make this trade mark acknowledgement at the foot of the article.
• Individual mind maps are the work of the artist or mind mapper, and are copyrighted to the artist.Kreb Dragonrider 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a section in the article that mentions the trademarks. Does it look appropriately placed and worded to you?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that section which declare the trademark is placed and worded okay. Despite the wider legal implication of the trademark, I have drawn mind maps occasionally (unpublished) for my personal inspirations. I think I am using mind maps in the way that Tony Buzan had intended, for the mental enhancement of readers. The trade mark is, I believe, a safeguard from copycats, imitators, charlatans, using the word "mind map" in their own publications, in a different method from Tony's methods.Kreb Dragonrider 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the trademark site in UK, it shows that Buzan only has trademark for 'iMindMap' his software. </ref>https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext/Results</ref>. There are various entries for variations of Mind maps, Mind.map for a particular font and business logo. There does not seem to be a current trademark listed for 'mind map' or 'mind mapping' or 'mind maps'. Searching on the US site, it looks like Buzan has something on 'Mind Maps' , it says 'live'. There is another company with a trademark on 'mind maps' displayed in a particular logo. So it looks like Buzan does not have a trademark on Mind mapping, Mind maps or mind map as words, rather a particular logo style use of them. It is that, which is protected.

It looks to me like people are just repeating what they have heard elsewhere, that Buzan has trademarked the words as a whole. I think he has rights to specific logo uses of 'Mind Maps' and 'iMindMap' in US, and just 'iMindMap' in Uk.

This might help anyone who is thinking about teaching mindmapping professionally. 81.156.234.145 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

References