<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Raymond Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:laseray@gmail.com">laseray@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Another fool. Trademarks apply to commercial interests, the program is<br>
non-commercial in nature. Thus it would be very difficult for anything<br>
to be done about this for creating a free program from a free program.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Sorry you are incorrect. Then again you have shown a strong desire not to admit when this is the case in past discussions, so I don't expect you to change your mind.<br><br>Trademarks apply to any product, be it software or physical, or company. A trademark is simply an identifying mark that differentiates something from the competition. This applies to Open Source software just the same as it does any other.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Maybe you should check the fact that there is already another program called<br>
improvisor that exists that is not Impro-Visor, it is a commercial company<br>
that could claim trademark infringement against Impro-Visor.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Possibly, I don't know the situation or history with those products. It is completely seperate from this situation however. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
So if anybody is in a problem it will be Impro-Visor first.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>No, it will be whoever decides to defend their trademark first.<br><br><br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">There is a reason. A scumbag company forced trademark issues to the front<br>
even though they were doing FOSS. Trademarks in FOSS are just as bad as<br>
software patents. Too bad most people do not get that.</blockquote><div><br>That is your opinion. I would disagree, very strongly in fact.<br><br> <br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Okay, maybe for names and logos used by FLOSS, the creative commons<br>
should be forced as an agreement or something similar to this.<br></blockquote><div><br>Once again, see what i already wrote. If a company does not defend its trademark, then the rights to that trademark are lost. Trademarks HAVE to be defended to remain valid. Thus forcing the CC isn't really an option as much as I enjoy the concept of the CC licensing.<br>
<br><blockquote>Trademarks can only be in violation when they are on similar things.<br></blockquote> Once again, WRONG. Trademark violations are when the use of a similar name, logo, image, etc. causes confusion with the original product. The products don't necessarily HAVE to be similar, just cause confusion with the trademark.<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Something funny about confusing names. For my needs jconv can be a very<br>
good audio application and a very useless Japanese code conversion.</blockquote><div><br>Which is why this does not apply as a trademark issue, it does not cause confusion with either products.<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
So this would not be okay in Germany only, if there was a trademark<br>
applicable in Germany.</blockquote><div><br>Wrong, see above.<br><br><br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Then Bob is guilty first and my project name is just due to his applications<br>
name. Who is more guilty, a single person trying to do FOSS or a professor<br>
and educational institution that should be in a better position and act more<br>
appropriately? If my name is similar to theirs by derivation and that is<br>
similar to the commercial one, then Bob and his ilk have unclean hands before<br>
I ever made a project. </blockquote><div><br>Yes someone else did something wrong, I am just copying them so I must be in the right. That is EXACTLY it. /sarcasm<br><br>Seriously, you need to understand what you are writing about much better before you spout off drivel as fact. I am not a lawyer, but I obviously understand trademark law much better than you do. Not only that as a moral or ethical issue which you seem to think you are taking the high ground on, this is just wrong.<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Since there is so much confusion surrounding how copyrights work<br>
in FOSS, it should be no surprise that similar misunderstandings exist<br>
for trademarks in the same situation.</blockquote><div><br>The irony is amazing.<br><br><blockquote> This is FOSS, not commercial enterprise,<br>
things do not need to operate exactly the same as in proprietary<br>
situations. That goes as much for trademarks as it does for copyrights.<br></blockquote><br>Idealogoically you are correct. However the same LAWS apply to both.<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
They made all kinds of crazy claims<br>
and did not understand how futile it is for one FOSS project to try<br>
to go after another one. I still have my similar name even though<br>
they have a trademark. Trademarks are for commercial interest.</blockquote><div><br>I am going to stop repeating myself correcting you on trademarks.<br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
Claimed infringements on trademarks have to show that the existence<br>
of a similarly named product causes or potentially causes damage<br>
to the trademark holders product, company, bottom line, and so on.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Or confusion in the marketplace with that product.<br><br>I suggest you read up...<br><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm</a><br>
<br>Specifically this part...<br><br>"<p>
<a name="7">7. </a> <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#toc">What constitutes trademark infringement?</a></p><p>
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1114.html">15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125</a>.
The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use
of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes
infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the
source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such
goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the
courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the
strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the
similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the
similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution
exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/polaroid.htm">Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961)</a>.</p>
<p>"</p><p>Note that damage to sales is not mentioned as a factor.</p><p><br></p>At this point I am done with this topic, Harvard has said anything I could on the topic in a pretty clear article linked to above, and I certainly take their word on this well above Raymond's.<br>
<br> Seablade<br> </div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div>