Slashdot Mirror
More Fun With "For Dummies" Trademarks
tonescope wrote to us with a fun narrative from Oz about Corporate Standover Tactics for Dummies in which Octapod, a small non-profit arts group has done a fun job of cataloging the dialogue between them and IDG Books. In the same vein, check out our first story about this as well.
"I don't see what problem having everyone think of your brand for something as generic as vaccum cleaners, or for that matter books"
The problem is (as I understand it) that under US law you have to make an active effort to defend your trademark, otherwise you lose it. Believe it or not, although you and I might not buy them, a *huge* amount of money stands to be made from illegitimate "for dummies" books; and if IDG doesn't actively send out cease and desist letters to web sites, then they will lose in any suit against the producer of a crappy second-rate ripoff "for dummies" book. And once they have lost that, a plethora of crappy second-rate "for dummies" books takes over, and they lose everything. If you had spent half your life building your company on a series of "for dummies" books you would be doing exactly what IDG is doing now.
I'm with IDG on this one (who are, it seems, even being polite and patient). Linus explained to everyone on /. a few months back why he had to actively defend his trademark of "Linux", but it seems like everyone has forgotten about that already, how convenient. "Four legs good ..."
"The Idiotic Guide to Screenprinting 4 DummieZ" doesn't look like a parody to me either. Non-profit, yes. But I don't see how changing the title slightly is going to hurt them.
sure, but surely changing the s to a Z is still sort of infringement?? I mean, it still *says* the same thing. I reckon IDG could get away with taking this down too, under your reasoning.
The site isnt a parody, but I dont see it being in competition with the long line of books either. Nor for that matter the Irish Folk Dancing site. And it doesn't even copy the design, colors or typeface, so fat chance of being mistaken.
Aside from the fact that the 'for dummies' books are crappy in themselves, if the only basis for their advantage is the two words and not even the design of the cover or the content inside, then they deserve to be overwhelmed for not coming up with a decent source of competetive advantage.
If you read through all the posts in this thread, I think you'll find most of these issues have been played out already. But I think the reason everyone is so annoyed is the fact that we don't see how little sites like this are going to hurt IDG, either.
Another poster put it well when he said the issue is probably to do with search engine queries on 'for dummies', in which case they should have a better internet strategy for their books - making their product superior rather than defending their product like this.
Also, with the Linux issue, or in fact Xerox or Kleenex, these are 'brand names' because they uniquely differentiate a product, and as far as i am aware were never in the dictionary before the products were released. Refer to the bob/mcdonalds post, and the post about 'Car repair for Dummies' coming out first.
Two problems with this:
The one problem that I see is that, by (a) not TMing pmail, and (b) by not notifying pegasus mail of their infringment, the name pmail is effectively diluted as far as email programs go. That being said, _the dilution applies both ways_. Pegasus Mail _cannot_ claim to own the trademark, since it was diluted by their own actions.
Trademarks have to be policed; which is why IDG's actions are just as necessary, in legal terms, as the ones that Linus Torvalds took against unscrupulous types who grabbed *linux* domain names a few years ago. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it's a reflection of the law as it stands...
There was a particularly silly case not so long ago, when McDonald's launched a trademark case in Scotland against a restaurant run by (you guessed it) someone called McDonald. The press had a field day, of course.
I was beginning to think "for really dumb people" would be better anyways. I've never bought a "dummies" book but from what I've seen they been embarassing elementry.
I did check existing names. Pegasus Mail and
pmail are not the same name, and only an idiot
could confuse them.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Hey, nice little explanation of cache.
Bleh!
Heh. I can beat that.
Deanna Sclar,
Auto Repair for Dummies,
Revised McGraw-Hill Paperback edition, 1983
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
ISBN: 0070558752 (pbk.)
In teeny type on the copyright page,
from the back seat of my car
And a damned sight better than IDG's FOR DUMMIES(R) books too. Doesn't tell you how to rebuild the carburetor, but gets people who are initially nervous about tinkering to the point where they could do a tuneup or a brake job. Compare and contrast IDG's books, if you have ever read one.
LOL.
Oops, my ass-umptions are showing.
I meant for a company that is not Red Hat releasing a Red Hat BSD. Red Hat = trademark.
Poor example, sorry to confuse y'all.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"Just because people weren't using... as a joke/buzzword ... doesn't mean..."
Er, yes it does. Quite clearly, it does, otherwise they couldn't possibly have obtained a trademark for it.
The law does allow the use of these trademarks in reporting, so I'm afraid you're more or less out of luck this time around. However, if I were to ever use your phrase for whatever usage you've obtained trademark status for it (books, consumer products, manufacturing process, etc), then you'd have a leg to stand on.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
In a day or two, we can catalog their response to the /. effect as they attempt to quash all our pages!
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
How about 'Slashdot: Novel data for users of electronic calculating machines. Information that matters'?
:)
I was gonna mention Novell, but there's the pesky extra "L". I wouldn't be surprised, though, if "Data" were trademarked by Paramount.
My
Would "... for IDGers" pass muster? "IDG" is a trademark (see http://www.uspto.gov/, then poke around in the trademarks database), but does that trademark cover "IDGers"?
To be sure, it would piss them off, but would it be actionable?
Hmmm, well here's a fact. When IDG decided to roll out a Slackware for Dummies book, they didn't get any permission to use the Slackware (registered) trademark like that. I wonder how many other cases there are where they've combined someone else's trademark with "for Dummies" and had no written permission to do so?
Maybe if we all banded together...
Pat
A weaker case? Hmmm. Two email packages, one developed in the 1980s and still going strong, and one that obviously failed to check existing names.
I'm afraid I have to disagree there. There's absolutely no difference between IDG and Pegasus here.
S.
In addition, "For Dummies" is a collection (however small) of words, not just one word. I think you'll find that MS has trademarked "Where do you want to go today?", and that Sun has trademarked something along the lines of being "the dot in dot com".
OTOH, I don't think that MS managed to get Windows trademarked, just each of Windows 95, Windows 98, etc, although I could be wrong on that one.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
...and I've lost cout of the number of "Perfect Fried Chicken", "Tennessee Fried Chicken", "Texas Fried Chicken" and "Favorite Fried Chicken"s (etc etc etc ad nauseum) there are here in London (UK).
OTOH, if you brought out a range of introductory level books, and called them " for Almost Dumbies", it'd probably all be down to the court on the day when you were sued - I guess KFC either don't care, found/feel that they don't have a case, or just plain lost.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Good plan! Now what do we do with the old people?
While not disputing your point about the law forcing IDG to act in this way don't you find it interesting that they refer in their emails to their registered trademark as "FOR DUMMIES" and "For Dummies" while asking the sites to desist from having titles like "XXX for Dummies".
I wonder how many times this has happened in the past, but people (like me) have just "caved" under the corporate pressure. For instance, a site I did as an undergrad called "Cache for Blockheads" (formerly "Cache for Dummies" (http://www.elan.org/me/collegiatep rojects/cache/) was also threatened by IDG(TM). I wanted to change the name to "Cache for IDG(TM) Lawyers" but was outvoted. We were also considering countersuing, because we figured that the content of our site was so much better than IDG's books, that they should be paying us. ;) But, in all seriousness, it was pretty frustrating. Anyone else out there get "threatened" by IDG but kept quiet until now?
It could be more serious than that. Haven't Iomega got 'Stuff' trademarked?
How about 'Slashdot: Novel data for users of electronic calculating machines. Information that matters'?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Check out the law.
(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B)Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C)All forms of news reporting and newscommentary.
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I don't see what problem having everyone think of your brand for something as generic as vaccum cleaners, or for that matter books.
....I assume that you did not intend to infringe and dilute the "For Dummies®" mark and meant well. However, I must ask you to remove the trademarked material from your web site on or November 11th, 1999.
If that happens in the US, then it becomes a 'word', and you no longer have a trademark. Anyone can call there tissues "Kleenex" beacuse Kleenex didn't defend there trademark, It was happening with Xerox as well. People wern't photocopying, they were Xeroxing, and if Xerox didn't do anything to stop it, it would have ment everyone could have started making Xerox machines. if IDG dosn't stop whats going on, they will have no basis to stop people from calling other books 'for dummies'. Its a perfictly valid use of trademark.
But treating customers with contempt,
I have reviewed the site and found it very interesting and amusing. Unfortunately, it utilizes the phrase "for Dummies" which is confusingly similar to the well-known trademark owned by IDG Books
Again we appreciate your ideas, but we must protect our trademarks.
Does that sound like contempt to you? It dosn't to me.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What part of TRADEmark don't you understand? Non-commercial use, including everyday conversation and parody, is not TRADING.
Well, it was nether normal conversation or a parody site that IDG was complaing about, but rather an informational site about screen printing.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Any reasonable person would want to be protected I think. If you want to buy a Sony TV, it doesn't mean that you want a television with the word "Sony" tacked on, it means you want a TV from a particular Japanese company. Of course, with anything there can be abuses. That doesn't' mean it' bad thing. Also, it isn't just to protect Consumers, but Large and small companies as well. Suppose you were a small company and came out with a new product, let say a program. What's to stop M$ from simply recoding your product and selling it with the same name? Trademark law.
The world would be a very confusing and annoying world without Trademark law.
It is completely doable today, using OCR and Digital Signatures, to create a product that scans webpages and images for trademarks and checks meta-data for the trademark owners signature.
That's great for the internet, but what about the real world? Or should people have to carry around Palm(TM) pilots(TM) wherever they go to read these things?
I say screw them.
Good for you. Because really, your opinion matters a huge amount.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I think I'm doing to trademark the words: you are violating our trademark and threaten all the fscking lawyers that "dilute" my oh-so-valuable trademark
While lawyers wouldn't be able to write any books or sell any products intitled you are violating our trademark, they would certanly still be able to use the word in letters. Just like you can use the word "for dummies" in speach. Idiot.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dude, they've spent a lot of time building that brand. There is no good reason why you should be able to call your product the same as another product. If anyone could use the term 'for dummies' then it would be worthless to IDG.
Trademarks are a nessisary thing, how would you know what CD player to buy if every company was called 'Sony' (assuming that sony makes good stuff). How would you feel if Microsoft called there next operating system 'Linux' without including any of linus's code? My guess is not happy.
"x for dummies" is a valied trademark, and I see nothing wrong in there actions. They were very polite, and I don't see why the people had a problem with it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Kindof ironic that IDG is yelling at people for using these terms in their emails (a free speech forum) dontcha think!
IDG was complaning that they were using there trademark to name there page not for using the term. They did use email as a medium to complain, though, if that's what you ment....
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
1)Could you post more often???
probably. i used to post more often then I do now, actualy.
2)Could you spell any worse?
Yes.
I understand that most people don't spell very well, but your post just makes humans look illiterate!
How can my one post make everyone else look illiterate? Anyway, if you have a problem with my spelling, its just that, your problem.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Use: for moronic losers
Granted, its not much better, but a step in the right direction. Just make sure you trademark it first.
Slightly off topic, Someone previously mentioned the possibility of a "for nerds" series. This leads to my 15 minutes of inspiration (before I figure that I'll never bother to spend the time doing it).....
The "for dummies" series of books attempts to take a complex subject and break it down into terms that the common layman MIGHT be able to comprehend. The "for nerds" series would do the opposite. Take a simple, familiar concept and elaborate it out to the point where it will drive most people insane. Something along the lines of a 100 page book on how to tie your shoes, with lots of scientific analysis and reference, and history, and methods, and training, and so on.
Of course, nobody in their right mind would ever read such a book, but it does bring up an interesting issue. Something new comes out that for some reason, we don't want anyone to use. We therefore publish many books and articles about the product that make it seem so complex that after reading 10 pages, the potential customer will give up all hope of ever trying to learn it.
Imagine this scenario. There exists someone somewhere who has not yet used a computer (this is just hypethetical..work with me here). He hears about the internet from his favorite source of information and decides he wants to get on it, so he looks to purchase a computer. Well, instead of rushing right down to the computer store to buy one, he decides he'll first attempt to read up on it.
He gets to the bookstore and finds a book about how to get on the internet, how to purchase a computer, what operating system to use, etc etc. This book will express in extremely easy to understand terms how to assemble a computer from scratch, but make the process of purchasing a computer from a salesman in a store seem like a nightmare (lots of references to Fry's could almost make this a reality), so the unknowing person would assume that its easier to build a computer from scratch, because he doesn't know any better.
Then it gets to the choice of operating systems. Make it extremely easy to install linux. But offer an alternative operating system for those who want more of a "challenge" and present them with the possibility of installing windows. Explain that the first downside of this option is that it will cost more, and the all windows, all the time concept of the operating system makes useful scripting extrememly difficult, but thats what our person wants, right , a challenge.
So he reads ahead a bit on the windows section, because he might have heard of microsoft before. Make the installation process seem like a royal pain in the ass. Make sure that if they attempt to walk through it, you take the absolute longest path possible. Make sure that they configure it in such a way that once the system is up and running, nothing will work right and they'll get constant error messages. And tell them that they should expect these messages on a regular basis while they use the operating system. Tell them that whenever the system locks up and a blue screen comes up, that means that many important files get deleted and the only solution to getting a blue screen is to reinstall the operating system from scratch, otherwise more blue screens will occur. The possibilities are endless, and of course, our reader will be so mortified of windows, he'll never even ATTEMPT to install it and assume that linux is really the best option, and will merrily start hacking away.
The world thrives on FUD. Microsoft uses it to say that linux is hard to install, or lacks applications, or doesn't have a multibillion dollor monopolistic empire behind it. And people believe it. And why wouldn't they, after all, someone wrote it or said it, so it MUST be true. So if they read somewhere that microsoft is difficult to install and use, with enough supporting "evidence", they might believe that too. Of course, the whole Microsoft/linux debate has gained too much public attention and has pretty much biased everyone so there are very few who haven't formed an opinion, one way or another.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Yes, but my note was expressing a difficulty with the "phantom trademark" argument, and the "common part of the english language" argument is something I won't bother to get into.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Notice with those "phantom trademarks" the wildcard portion was in the _middle_ of the trademark. What IDG has trademarked is "FOR DUMMIES". Consider if I tried to sell a drink called "Coca-Cola Original". That would be a rather clear infringement.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
How can you accuse Hall of dealing with a bad publisher? It isn't his fault that AGES after he signed up and wrote "Linux for Dummies" the company that published for him felt that they should protect their name. While I'm not informed enough to side with IDG or those who they are upset with, you shouldn't be so critical of Hall. Just as not every person who's written a program and released it under GPL agrees entirely with Stallman ATM, or what Stallman says and does years after they write the code.
I used to be a rabid VW bus owner (stop laughing please(and no, I do not own a Mac)) and had a copy of "How to Keep Your Volkswagen Alive, a Step by Step Guide for the Compleat Idiot" by John Muir (not *that* John Muir, the other one). This manual of automotive care was affectionately known as "The Idiots Book". When I first saw the dummies books I couldn't help feeling that someone had seen or used "The Idiots Book" and ripped it off. Who is infringing who here?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The original site was not a satire. It was an informational site about cache, that uses the "for dummies" catch-phrase, which is copy-righted. Granted, since they were providing it for free, not selling it, I don't think its *really* necessary for IDGB to persue the issue. If I owned the trademark "for dummies" I would only go after people who intended to put other "for dummies" books on the shelf next to mine, or a "for dummies" training service (for profit) on the internet. However their policy is obviously that use of their trademark, whether for profit or not, is an infringement and they are entirely within their legal rights to persue such a policy.
Spyky
It was sitting in the same shelf as 'UNIX for dummies' and 'Windows 95 for Dummies', so i just had to have it.
Its quite informative actually... Well written with clear illustrations.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
I love eating at the King Burger nearby...
What about a line of books "for Drummers"? is that infringment? if not, how about "four dummies"? what about "for gummy bears"?
IMHO your copyright should cover a single, (upper/lower)case insensitive instance of a string of letters and numbers and whitespace...
but then, I don't make the laws.
that's what corporations are for.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Even with my one semester of trademark law, we learned that you can trademark anything. There was a even a case where a manufacturer successfully defended a trademark on the COLOR of its product (I forget exactly what that product was, though - some kind of machine). You just can't trademark anything vital to the operation of a product or service, because that would be the same as patenting something, and trademarks are for life so it would be like one hell of a patent.
Anything that distiguishes your company from others putting out the same products or services can potentially be trademarked. Trademarks are easy to register, the hard part might be defending them because registering a trademark doesn't necessarily mean that someone else didn't use it before or in the same context, and thus might have a legitimate claim to it over yours.
The Hard Rock Cafe got into a suit with a small restaurant in New Mexico (i think) over the right to use that name, and it was decided that for the little town that this restaurant had been in for the past like 20 years, they were allowed to continue using that name.
lf.o
> Does that sound like contempt to you? It dosn't to me.
No, it isn't contempt - for them.
I was referring to contempt for customers, if they think that any use of 'For Dummies' is related to their product lines. The excuse that it confuses customers to have a website such as the ones that are used as examples on the web page reffered to in the story is clearly bullshit, and they cannot expect us to beleive it.
Now I agree that they were the first to use this for books, and in combination with their unique design should be allowed to protect that idea and investment in this market. Kleenex and Xerox are different issues, since I am not aware of those particular words being in dictionaries previous to their creation. These are called 'brand names' because they identify the brand distinctly from its competitors.
If I came out with a soap right now called 'Hi Bob' and sued everyone who used these words in an e-mail or placed it on a website, on the grounds that if people could start saying 'Hi Bob' all of the time then any old fool could release 'Hi Bob' soaps at a lower price and destroy my investment, then would I still have your support?
Perhaps this is indeed the fault of the law that if I was dumb enough to hinge my entire branding on a relatively common phrase I would be obliged to harass people to keep my trademark, but that begs the issue, why should I be allowed to make that a trademark?
Now, if my 'Hi Bob' soap had a picture of my Bob character on the packaging, and Hi Bob was written in a particular color/typeface combination, and someone came out with something roughly similar and tried to sell it, then I should go after them, no question - its a deliberate attempt to rip me off. Were the sites in question on the site you probably haven't visted blatant attempts to rip them off? Hardly.
So, I do not think that those two words are a valid basis for a trademark any more than 'Hi Bob' is a trademark. McDonalds sued a scotsman called McDonald for opening a shop here bearing his own name, and won.
If I release a software product called delmoi, i'm going to come after you too, for falsely representing my company and diluing the integrity of my brand with your posts.
Indeed you're right - Apple was a great name for a personal computer.
:)
Are you aware the beatles record company, Apple Recordings or some such, sued apple for using THEIR name? (I think there was a setllement)
Now, their reasoning was the the Mac had a built in sound card. Because it was capable of reproducing sound, it was an infringement of their record company. Either take sound support out or pay em off.
What about Macintosh? I beleive that if the creators of this raincoat brand had gone after Apple then they would have had to name the computers something else. Jacket, perhaps?
As you say, context is important. Any fool realises that Apple Macs are not made by the beatles record company, and that they are not wearable garments to protect you from the rain.
So, is IDG right to go after little tiny amateur sites like the ones pointed to on the web page, because they use these words too? Even when they dont ave a profoundly yellow book/page/printed context?
Perhaps, perhaps not. I do know one thing for certain, I doubt it has much negative effect on their brand.
so much agression! Personal insults by the way are not the best way to get the point accross, and tend to highlight ones stupidity. You may pick at my spelling and grammar now to highlight your 13 year old intellectual superiority over me now.
yes they lose the trademark if they do not enforce it... THATS NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue that they make and that I do in a roundabout way is that 'For Dummies' shouldnt be valid for a trademark because it is a common part of the english language and any idiot should be able to tell that it isnt exclusive to a product line.
the point i was making was that if it was part of a larger overall brand (like you say with the yellow shit) then they should protect it because that would indeed qualify as some kind of exclusive property. BUT NOT THE NAME. You even reinforce my point with the reference to me releasing a book on my masturbation techniques with 'bright yellow book with garish black graphics'. THAT IS THE TRADEMARK
So please, may I suggest YOU READ POSTS BEFORE YOU FLAME THEM.
ps you suck
Yes, agreed. I know it is common ettiquite to read other peoples posts before posting, and I did so.
This is why I did not address the issues directly but instead gave my 2p, albeit with little understanding of the law, about how these websites could possibly compete with their line of books, even if they did feature a phrase they 'pioneered'.
I think you will also agree that the majority of other posts in this forum address the point from this perspective also.
1) The sites they demand changes to are not published works and do not compete in any kind of marketplace - you said this yourself.
This was a core point in my post. Check the bit about 'substitute for product line'. It seems they are going still after everything on the web with that phrase anyway. That is what I find distasteful.
2) They should be allowed to brand the yellow cover, black type and 'for dummies' as a trademark, but not words in the english language. Even if they were the first to put them together it should not be acceptable to control speech on this level. If this is something to do with the law then you are correct it is the law that needs changing.
3) Some firms try very very hard to get their branding in common currency and spread it as far as possible. Becoming recognised as the cool 'hip' thing in such situations is the kind of brand equity most firms would kill for.
In other words I think they are being needlessly overzealous, or perhaps too cautious about protecting the trademark. I know I have just repeated what most of the posts say, but thats what I was trying to avoid in the first place.
So, lets say we agree over a common misunderstanding.
"... to be actionable the use must not fall within any of the statutory exemptions. Under the Act, 'fair use' of a mark in comparative advertising, 'non- commercial' use of a mark, and news reporting and commentary are not actionable."
It might make you feel a bit better to see that IDG's stock has fallen from a high of ~$24 about the time the first slashdot article was posted (the e-mail list fiasco 10/99) to ~$9 now, maybe you could find some people who held thier stock whole they were out destroying their public image to class action sue them. ;)
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
Damn that sucks. You couldn't bluff in case they were bluffing themselves..? Forcing them to give up or face filing with the courts? Just because they wrote you a letter doesn't necessarily mean they think they have a case... it means they're hoping they can get you to change without taking you to court.
I don't see any confusion at *all* between the names 'pmail' and 'pegasus mail'. An idiot could have won that case for you.. (which means you could have represented yourself :)
No offence.. You know the old saying: "he who represents himself has an idiot for a lawyer."
BTW: I initially thought exactly what ignatz stated, however reading the rest of the thread it's clear that you were unclear in your original statement.
IE: You said "demanded that I rename my program pmail because", and I and everyone interpreted that as "they demanded that you rename your program to pmail", which left us thinking you originally named your program 'pegasus mail', hence ignatz' reply. Clearly what you meant was "demanded that I rename my program (originally named pmail) to something else".
[ NH notices the automatic +2 just after he hits submit ]
AAAAHHHHhhh!!! Don't hurt me!
I didn't notice that I had just today reached enough karma and had recieved the +1 bonus!
Damn it, it should default to OFF! And it should show up in the preview! I'm a faithful previewer...
[ grumble grumble ]
That's all fine and dandy and perhaps the USTO will allow them to trademark "for dummies" brand of books, but to attempt to take down web sites and harass people sending out emails with very generic words "for dummies" seems obsurd!
It's bad enough that the USTO allowed them to have this trademark (the site listed even has an example of prior ord in dead-tree form), but for them to go after a sevort of the world-wide populateion that <STRONG>they helped to build</STRONG> is against common decency and <STRONG><I>WE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED</I></STRONG>.
but the fact remainsthat it was a non-comercial there was no profit. it was given to the web it doesent have to be 1,2 and 3 it only has to be 1,2 , OR 3.
Well, for starters great many trademarks ARE regular english words. Let's see. Apple? Of course trademark depends on context. Pants for dummies - that do not require buttoning or pulling up to wear them - won't be covered. Profoundly yellow book/page/printed or otherwise text material clearly is. It is all about context.
These people fall under fair use and thus IDG's tactics constitute simple harassment. If it was just a single letter that would be one thing but a series of threatening letters is another. Add to this that they have the gall to ask people to send them money to cover their legal fees and there is no reason to "give them a fucking break". I can't believe that your idiotic corporate suck up comment (maybe you work for IDG) got moderated to 5 when it is clear that you don't understand how this works. Maybe Slashdot need to publish "Moderating for Dummies".
Hey, you think your house is cool?
I am writing to inform you of the infringing nature of the email you are currently reading. You will note that the use of the phrase "For Dummies" in the title of this message is confusingly similar to your most renowned trademark and therefore constitutes a case of infringement, which is easily proveable in a court of law and might expose me to various types of financial damages.
Not wishing to enter into a protracted legal suit, I am now bringing this matter to your attention. I look forward to hearing from you on or before May 12th, 2000.
Sincerely,
Tyler Thornblade
-Marc
Flame all you want, I'll post more
-Marc
David Harris, Pegasus Mail (PMAIL4-DOM)
10 Beaumont Road
Dunedin,
NZ
Domain Name: PMAIL.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Pierce, Steve (SP22) Steve@HDL.COM
HDL
1013 San Mateo SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
(505) 262-8570
Billing Contact:
Fox, Steven (SF31) sfox@US1.NET
AIS, Inc.
PO Box 13150
Albuquerque, NM 87192-3150
505-299-7447 (FAX) 505-296-3754
Record last updated on 06-Apr-2000.
Record expires on 25-May-2005.
Record created on 24-May-1997.
Database last updated on 7-May-2000 01:55:29 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.US1.NET 205.214.92.249
NS2.IEX.NET 192.156.196.1
Pmail = Pegasus mail.
Guess I must be an idiot.
I did check existing names. Pegasus Mail and pmail are not the same name, and only an idiot could confuse them.
If someone hits www.pmail.com (something people tend to do) they will think that pmail = pegasus mail. Therefore they could be easily confused. If that makes me an idiot then so be it, but do we really need another pmail anyway? Why didn't he call it improvmail or qcmail?
So who's going to get in there first and trademark "For complete drooling cretinous morons who can't find their arse with both hands and military GPS"?
Next week on Slashdot: IDG patent the concept of publishing books targeted at the mentally subnormal.
It seems to be that there are at least two reasons why IDG/ 'the system' are going to be maligned. First off, is it reasonable for a company to have the sole right to use two words in a phrase, and moreover have said right for all products. (Anyone know if any elevator companies have been sued by Maxwell House for using their catch-phrase?)
Secondly, as mentioned in the subject, I'm not at all familiar with Australian law, and am not really familiar with U.S. law, but I did see a quote on one of the other groups having trouble with IDG's saying that companies have the responsibility of protecting their trademark from dilution by commercial groups, with the implication that non-commercial groups are not a threat for dilution.
Anyone care to comment what Australian Trademark Law says on the subject?
I really hate supporting and especially adding to this kind of off topic worthless post, but I must agree - That Would be Cool! Now I know what I can do with my Slash Site.
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
I always wanted to write a book called "X for complete fucking morons" Where X is the subject at hand.
XML causes global warming.
Of course, anyone searching book phrases on alibris.com would have found this out long ago, but I'll give you a link. You CAN figure out how to copy and paste this into you browser window, right?
http://www.alibris.com/cgi-bin/texis/searcher/+xBg eJiGdwwww/results.html
Your wallet stays open. Our source remains closed. We are MSFT
Don't confuse cheapness with patience or proffesionalism with manners. IDG knew that little page was not really harming IDG and that they would never recover the costs of a lawsuit from that group. This is basic self interest. I've never met a lawer who used rough phrases, the threats they make however are anything but polite. Trying to own a common English phrase is worse than rude, it's arrogant and corrupt.
Here's my break for them, I've never bought one of their books and I never will. Sure, I've read a few but I never got much out of them.
"The Morons at Pegasus Mail" is actually David Harris, a widely respected and reknown Freeware Author. Pmail (as Pegaus Mail is actually called by its users) has been around since the late eighties as well, and has always been a free product. David makes a living by selling manuals.
Pegasus Mail is one of the earliest fully functional RFC822 mailers, its DOS version probably the last remaining usefull DOS mail software. There are a number of newsgroups about Pegasus Mail (at least some of them with the string pmail).
None of this can be said about your program 'pmail'. I don't know it, but even among free software products there is value in distinguishing names. It is a matter of consumer confusion.
Pegasus Mail is everything but a big corporate outlet (even if David has a few employees), so please stop slamming him here.
f.
(Not to mention the fact that 'prior art' as a concept relates to Patent and not Trademark law). This is correct but irrelevant. A large and active user community uses this correspondance on the internet for more than 10 years now.
Pleasde check your facts
f.
A happy User of Pegaus Mail (aka Pmail like pmail.exe and winpmail.exe) since about 1990.
I can only assume the original Poster is Scott Bender (his is the only PMail package known at freshmeat).
This is a gnome/gtk based mail package. It is supposed to be around since when/ ? Certainly not since the eighties.
As far as I can see the only pmail that is around since the eighties is Pegasus Mail itself
Please folks get your facst straight.
f.
Nonetheless, my apologies.
f.
I am plain old tired of seeing this kind of crap here. This is supposed to be a forum for intellectual conversation, an exchange of informed opinions. Hatred or intolerance in any form, even jokingly, detracts from it.
In my country, we'd call you Red Neck, and promply you would be involved in a 'pedestrian accident'.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I believe the point in question is that artists, satirists, etc. should be allowed to use trademarks in their works. I wonder what happens to Andy Warhols of this Brave New World (tm). His art included trademarked things like Campbell Soup can, Mercedes Benz prototypes and even Three Coke Bottles. --
MotorMachineMercenary
"Talent borrows, Genius steals...and Shit copies."
- The Designer's Republic
"We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
How about setting up a test case? We set up a website which is either non-commerical or a parody, and wait for IDG to sue over it. We goto court on this, don't back down and get a ruling. We also counter-sue. Any lawyer's willing to do a little pro-bono work?
The Economics of Website Security
once again, we have /.ers talking about shit you can/can't do in a purely perfect world. Kindof ironic that IDG is yelling at people for using these terms in their emails (a free speech forum) dontcha think!
BTW - the post was a satire meant to villify IDG, and it's "hell or high water."
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
ok..I don't normally post incessantly like this, but I have two questions for you:
. every.fucking.thing.you.say.org
1)Could you post more often???
2)Could you spell any worse?
THE FUCKING WORD IS THEIR...IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT
I understand that most people don't spell very well, but your post just makes humans look illiterate! Slashdot has completed it's devolution into www.i.want.to.seem.smarter.than.you.by.correcting
you, my friend, are that site's system administrator!!!
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
McDonald(tm), Ford(tm), Bell(tm) are names and are trade marks
You can't handle the truth.
This(tm) is(pending patent) the(tm) worst(cr) case(tm) of(patent) patent(patent, tm, cr) infrigement(tm, cr, pending patent) I(tm) have(cr) ever(cr,tm) heard(tm, patent) of(patent) !(tm, patent, cr)
You can't handle the truth.
I guess 'for Dummies' is a registered trademark but this does not mean that you can not say 'for Dumbass' or 'for our Dummies' or 'for the Dummies' or in any other way changing the wording so that it is not exact. Is this true?
You can't handle the truth.
Anybody knows whether the words 'trade mark' or 'copy right' are trade marked or copy righted? If so, then everyone who uses 'tm' or 'cr' are infringing.
You can't handle the truth.
These guys are being quite clever, but they really ought to change "For Dummies" to "For People like those complete idiots at IDG".
My understanding of the law was that, if you could show that it was used before they trademarked it, the use of a phrase was "fair use." It seems to me that at one point in their own literature that IDG said the name was chosen to be satirical.
But from what I see of their books in store, they now cover almost everything, such as 'Dating for Dummies' and 'Flower Arranging for Dummies'. It would seem that the world is certainly dumbing down.
I could certainly see a book coming out from IDG called 'Screenprinting for Dummies'. Too bad Octapod didn't put their energy into writing it, instead of having a struggle with IDG. It seems to me they have a desire to prove to the world how victimized they have been.
The thing that strikes me, is 'What kind of company WOULDN'T protect their identity?' I wouldn't want to invest in a company that didn't protect it's interests.
Buncha morons. They never even managed to get the xample.com domain.
Didn't Microsoft sue someone over the use of "The Jewish Bookshelf" as a title of a religous CD? Wait, here are some URLs from a Google search; http://www.eeicommunications.com/eye/bookshlf.html , http://www.eeicom.com/eye/bookshlf.html.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Alright, this is something that I've been turning over in my head for awhile. Excuse me if this is going to seem obvious. I guess I need to vent a bit.
It appears one of the problems in trademark and copyright law stems from the interpretation that's been put to "defend your trademark". As long as the legal system takes that part of the law to mean "attack with the most draconian means possible" (A bit of stong/reactionary language, I know, but it's late.) ridiculous incidents like this will keep happening.
How can this be fixed? Would it require rewriting the copywrite and trademark laws?
I think most would agree that people should defend their property and that individuals and companies have a right to do so. I think, though, that somewhere along the line these rights have become weapons for overzealous watchdogs.
Just a late-night ramble.
the lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. - Chaucer
Slashdot for dummies...
some sort of way to ensure that only dummies can only get posts designed for them. IE any of these first posts, gibberish or other random crap
yes Im aware of how the mod/karma system works. but I think if you going to continuly do stupid things you should end up on the Slashdot for dummies list.
Actually, it's the X Window System. Or simply X11R6. Reference to it as "X Windows" is discouraged for exactly the reason that you just stated, or so I've read. Windows is owned (like 90% of the known universe) by Microsoft. If somebody put an X implementation in a box labeled "X Windows" and sold it at Staples, I have no doubt that MS would take legal action.
Isn't imitation the greatest compliment??
from the can't-they-spell-"louise"-right? dept.
Of course, then you would be facing a "look and feel" lawsuit. Out of the frying pan and into the fire....
Slightly more relevent would be the question "would the opinions of the /. readership be different if some unknown person somewhere posted a web page titled 'Programming Perl'?". No one would care.
Try to read the news item before posting - the story has nothing to do with people producing books that look like the "For Dummies" ones.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"Protecting Your Trademark for Dummies"
They can send it Slashdot.
I support their legal right to make crappy software and your legal right to continue buying it. Has your cost calculation considered the benefits of the virus? All those deleted, pirated MP3s are, theoretically, money in record companies' banks.
Besides the daily cost of STUPIDITY (which is how this virus spreads) is far greater than $2 billion a day.
Call your site "Cache for Stupid Fucking Morons". That will turn some heads AND avoid lawsuits.
Oh my that is an amusing story. What a bunch of goons.
*everything* is Orwellian to cats.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
There is a big difference between owning a made up word and common English
No, there isn't. Not as far as copyright law is concerned. It's not so much that the phrase "for dummies" is copyrighted, but "XXX for dummies" as the title of a do-it-yourself type publication is. And copyright law says that unless you defend your copyright, no matter how little it will actually affect your business, it becomes invalid. If you choose to ignore one minor instance of copyright infringment and go after another instance, all the second guy has to point out to a judge is that you let the first guy get away with it. Then he wins, and you lose.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
Whut?!? This isn't Slashdot Porn? Hmmm... maybe I won't be needing that, er, "water"-proof Flexboard after all.
I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
'I say "Go back on the attack!"
If they were NSW solicitors making knowingly making threats they know
are baseless in law you could have a go at them for professional misconduct - I suspect US lawyers must be subject to some restraint but this may be asking too much.
Good stories - it would be good if the mainstream press took it up.'
So it seems that we have nothing to worry about
BTW: we've had 30k page views today =)
You beat me to the punch, IDG is only playing the bully in this scenario. One would expect their lawyers to be competent enough to recognize a nonprofit website or email (apparently they took offense to a mailing list email sent with "for dummies" in the subject) as noncommercial and exempt from the trademark law. When their nasty form letter lands in your email send them a reply. Be rude, be sarcastic, or be polite, but let them know you are familiar with the applicable laws.
Andrew Borntreger
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
just when i thought of a good nick... Check out Rodney Mullen tribute
In the response that IDG gave they said that they owned the trademark on "For Dummies" in respect to books and printed material.
That means that anyone can use the "For Dummies" phrase to refer to other products classes. So for example if I where to make a really easy to use video recorder I could market it as "A Video Recorder for Dummies" and even call it "VCR for Dummies"
Perhaps the most famous computing example is the word VAX, which is a trademark of both Digital (Compaq now) and whoever it is who makes the VAX vacuum cleaners. Same word trademarked twice because of the different product areas.
Now last time I looked a web page was neither a book or printed material, in which case IDG have not a leg to stand on.
JAB.
As someone who was writing books back then, I'd like to clear up a BIG misconception in this post. When IDG launched the "for Dummies" book series, it was because they were the first to actually take the final step to do so. When the first "for Dummies" book came out, that book concept (and variations of that specific title, btw) had been proposed to various publishers by somewhere over 100 different authors. IDG did NOT invent the phrase, or even the book concept. All they did was accept some book author's proposal, which took off like a rocket (they were NOT expecting it to do so well - the success of the series was a complete surprise to IDG). That they followed up, and marketed the hell out of the book concept is good execution. But to give them credit for "inventing" the whole "for Dummies" thing? Gimme a break.
Of course, we're talking about Australia here, which has totally different trademark laws, so it's rather irrelevant. Still, I'm tempted to put up an "IDG lawyer baiting for dummies" page on my web site with true-life examples of how to bait IDG lawyers into acting like idiots :-).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
But if I want to put up a non-commercial site called "Macintosh Follies" or "Baiting IDG Lawyers for Dummies", that's protected use under the trademark law, because I am not using it in commerce -- i.e., there are no goods, services, or moneys changing hands.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
As for free stuff on the Internet being competition against printed "how to" guides published by IDG, awe, poor baby! Unfortunately, "competition" != "commercial". Without an exchange of goods, services, or money, there is no sale insofar as contract law is concerned, and if there is no sale, there is no commerce. A gift does *NOT* qualify as commerce, BTW, because it is one way (no exchange).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I suggest you quit trying to snow people with your shady two-stepping. If there is no exchange of goods, services, or money, there is no commerce. A gift (giving away something for free, with no good or service received in exchange) is *NOT* commerce.
This isn't rocket science. This is Business Law 101. That's why the relative renting my land in Louisiana pays me $1 per year for the privilige... otherwise, there would not be a valid contractual transaction, no commerce, and various nasty legal consequences that I won't go into here (issues of liability for his actions, basically).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The Aussie site, with the fantastic parody book cover, is parodying *after the fact*. Their original web page wasn't at all a parody.
Correct. It was not protected as a parody, it was protected by virtue of being non-commercial. Now it's protected by being non-commercial AND a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
4.A does not protect that use, but they don't have to meet a, b, AND c, just a, b, OR c. Thus, the attack was unnecessary, and had it gone to court, they could have won ONLY by default when the defendant could not afford justice in court. That's why I have a problem with it.
And the real problem is that Stallman can't now call for boycott of "for Dummies" books, because no person worth calling to would read, let alone buy, book with such a title anyway.
And anyway, there's a new trend of "Complete Idiot's guide to...". The next ones should be "Hydrocephal's Encyclopedy", "Dumbass Guide" and "Imbecile MSCE preparation course"... I love such a desire for truth from those people, even if they let it go only in a bookstore.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Personally, I'm glad Jon Katz didn't get involved in the letter-writing. Not only would it contravene the Geneva Convention, the web-site would have become a deadly weapon, capable of mass destruction of brain tissue.
I =DO= agree that simple, gramatically-correct phrases made from words in an existing dictionary and used in a syntactically and semantically meaningful way should NOT be trademarkable. There is FAR too great a risk of accidental "guilt" and control over free speech. (The 1st Ammendment doesn't protect you, as it's only concern is with Government control, not corporate.)
IMHO, it's cases like this that convince me that trademarks would be better =AS= marks or symbols, not words or phrases. Under those conditions, the brand would be uniquely identifiable, but there wouldn't be all this confusion.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Subject: IDG's relationship to me and others
To: IDrewelow@idgbooks.com
Date: 07 May 2000 15:24:29 -0500
[ An open letter. Anyone has permission to redistribute this letter, verbatim, for no fee. ]
Dear Isabelle:
I am an author that has just completed my first book with IDG, the Linux Programming Bible. I had been very pleased with the way IDG handled the book, process, and legal matters -- until now.
It came to my attention today that you personally, and IDG in general, are sending threatening letters to many members of the Free Software community (of which I am a part) that happen to use the phrase "for dummies" in casual conversation, e-mail, or the title of a webpage.
I must vehemently object to this harassment of my colleagues. These things pose zero risk and no possibility of confusion with your series. If they were printed and sold in bookstores with a yellow cover, I'd easily support your claim.
I feel that this attempt at censoring people that are just trying to do good in the world is despicable and feel that I will have to re-evaluate my future plans to write additional titles with a company that actively is trying to crush members of the Linux community unfortunate enough to use a common English phrase in the course of their daily communications or online documentation.
The specific cases to which I refer include the "Real Beginner's Guide to CVS" guide, which happened to mention farther down that it is "affectionately known as 'CVS for dummies'". I additionally noticed a post on the Slashdot.Org online forum today where you are apparently going after a non-profit group in Australia for using the phrase on a website.
I am left to wonder if I myself may be the target of your pressures by unwittingly using a phrase such as "for dummies" on my own website, in my own e-mail communications, or even on the phone.
I would ask at this time that you ceasee this unwarranted harassment of the good people on the Internet and instead focus on the people that are actually trying to harm you, if any.
I additionally consider it only proper to inform you that I have created a webpage containing the words "for dummies" at http://www.complete.org/news/957731761/index_html
Sincerely,
John Goerzen
jgoerzen@complete.org
References:
One site you succeeded in bullying.
Today's Slashdot story.
An earlier Slashdot story detailing your attempts to censor e-mail.
Which details other cases of your oppression.
Another person you succeeded in censoring.
"For Dummies" is a stupid series of books with a stupid title, IMO, but obviously successful for IDG. You can't tell me that people that made up a site or whatever entired "blah blah for Dummies" weren't inspired to do so by IDG's books.
Sure I can. When I was an undergrad in the late '80s (before IDG) we used to refer to the courses given by department X for non-majors as X for dummies. (Statistics for Dummies, Physics for Dummies, etc.) You can't tell me that IDG wasn't inspired to call their books "for dummies" by exactly this usage.
Jesus, what part of "the law says they *MUST* do this" don't you understand?
It's not a choice. If IDG does not enforce their trademark, they *completely lose* their trademark.
At which point even a knob like you would be able to publish a bright yellow book with garish black graphics titled "How to Masturbate Yourself to Success for Dummies," thus causing confusion in the marketplace.
And if you actually took a minute, you'd discover that the legal department of IDG was bloody polite and patient.
The problem is not with IDG. It is with the law: it is stupidly written and forces companies to take action that they would, in all likelyhood, prefer to turn a blind eye to.
The only point you make that is at all legitimate is that it *is* appalling that a series that insults its readers can be so successful. That, however, would be more a failing of "How to Keep Your Self Respect for Complete Fucking Halfwits" consumer public.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
IDG owns copyright of the "For Dummies" phrase for use on 'Books and Printed Matters.'
IANAL, but I rather suspect that the court interpretation of this is that you can not use that phrase as part of a title; and that there's a good chance that you can't use it in body text in a way that suggests that it is the title of a work.
I'm quite sure you can use it in speech, in parody, and in off-hand comments like "ILOVEYOU is a virus for dummies!"
IDG just has to make sure that it isn't used in a way that implies that the phrase is part of the title of a published work. Otherwise, they can't control the use of the phrase in the use of titles. Which, in turn, means anyone can create a "for Dummies" series in competition with them.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Non-profits are *not* explicitly excluded. Just because Mountain Equipment Co-op, a co-operative outdoor equipment supplier, is non-profit, does *NOT* mean that they can name their house-brand boots "Scarpa", their semi-permeable raingear system "Gore-Tex" nor their low-impact handbook "Hiking for Dummies".
And nor does "not making money from it" necessarily count. Though the original web page was not for-profit, it was distinctly in competition with IDG Books, in that it was a published "how to" guide.
Once again, IDG's legal council is absolutely correct in understanding that they must insist that their trademark not be used as a title for a publication, lest they lose control of their trademark.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I wish I could move some of my +5 marks to the above posting: it's the first I've seen that has a comprehensive counter-argument that has some grounding in reality.
If anyone has a moderator point or two left, *PLEASE* mark CBM's post up! It's needed to counterbalance my own posts!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Touche'.
However, IDG's beef isn't with things like the fantastic spoof that Aussie site did with a fake book cover.
It was with another work, which certainly doesn't seem to be a parody. It's a more-or-less accurate description of how to do screenprinting. It is mildly amusing, but it certainly isn't a parody.
It may have been intended to be non-commercial, but it still failed under 4.A: the Internet certainly can be considered to be comparitively promotional, and offering advice in a humourous manner does compete with the "for Dummies" series.
Again, IDG gains bugger all in harassing people. But they *must* do it, because the law demands it.
The *law* is the ass, not IDG!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I believe the satire laws do apply.
The Aussie site, with the fantastic parody book cover, is parodying *after the fact*. Their original web page wasn't at all a parody.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Jon 'maddog' Hall, author of "Linux For Dummies," speak and explain your PoV. How can you, as an advocate of Free Software and therefore Free Speech, lend your name to a company that does this to people?
Andrew G. Feinberg
Also, the value of "X for Dummies" is that it identifies books that require no prior knowledge and little effort to get a job done. Well, there are lots of books like that, many of them much better than "X for Dummies". So, let people know about good alternatives and recommend them on your web pages. As in
That's both a very useful and a perfectly legal use of a trademark. Of course, if the "for Dummies" book is actually the best, give it credit.Since a web discussion forum doesn't usually constitute a product, it isn't covered and IDG doesn't have a leg to stand on (other than by intimidation).
Furthermore, it's questionable whether companies ought to be able to protect parts of trademarks or whether there is any basis for that in trademark law. They don't have trademark on "SMART_HOSTS for Dummies", so it is questionable whether they can claim that trademark at all, even if this were a trademark issue.
Noncommercial use doesn't "infringe", so IDG is under no obligation to "police" the use of that phrase. And trademark protection for common English phrases (like "for dummies" is) is limited anyway.
I'm as big a fan of satire as anyone, but in IDG's defense, one of the great satirists of all time, Ambrose Bierce, was badly bitten by a failure to protect his 'title theme'
Bierce's 'Devils Dictionary' (modern title) mocks society so trenchantly that it's hard to believe parts of it were published as early as 1881
His newspaper made him use the more reverent "Cynic's Word Book" as a title for his column and his wit became so famous and popular that by the time his book came out, the world had been flooded with The Cynic's This, The Cynic's That, and The Cynic's T'other. His book, swamped out by its own imitators, sold poorly.
It's public domain now (available at e-text sites -- alas, many also distribute stripped down demo versions of modern commercial e-packagings. Make sure you get the complete original). Though some of his quips suffer from over a century of unattributed borrowing, there are still gems on every page. It would have been a best seller, if people could find it among all the dross.
"... for Dummies" may not deserve the same accolades, but if IDG chooses to use this amusing (well, it was amusing in 1991) demarcation for its series, it's just as valid as SAMS, PhotoFacts or Chilton's. Half the reason people want to call themselves '... for dummies' is to steal a bit of (now tired) wit -- which pretty much tells you what to expect from the rest of their 'parody' or 'instructions'. The fact is, most '...for Dummies' like most "Cynic's Whatnot", are just capitalizing on the popularity of someone else's concept.
That's not to say that some of the parodies aren't quite good -- but it wouldn't be hard to change the title a bit, for *greater* parody effect. Stealing the trademarked element of the title is neither essential, nor particularly clever.
_____________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Okay, I can understand all the stuff about owning trademarks, but sheesh... gimme a break! I must have missed the original story, or else I plum forgot about it. As sad as it is for the folks getting the letters, it is funny.
I got such a letter a few years back when I was having a fight with Jones Intercable. They did not fix my cable to my satisfaction, then they never showed up when they were supposed to, so I set up the Jones Intercable Sucks website. I took their logo and modified it. It was pretty funny looking actually - if you never saw their logo it was kind of a movie marqee looking thing with a satellite dish.
Well, I made the satellite dish look like something you would find at the worst of junk yards, and I really messed the movie sign looking part up. It was quite a piece of work actually. I was proud.
Well, the site was up for like two weeks when I got this email from them demanding I take the image off there. I guess they did not appreciate my joke - but it was their own fault as far as I was concerned. They started it when they were giving crappy service. The image was truely a work of parody - nothing more, which I explained to them. They did not seem to understand.
Well, to show them some good will I did take the logo down, but I kept it just in case. They had the cable fixed a few days later. I dropped the cable completely six months later and went to Dish Network.
I am still proud of my "trademark infringement" because it sure as hell got their attention - especially when it showed up as one of the first ten documents when you did a search for Jones Intercable on almost all of the search engines. I think it was usually right below "Investor Relations" or something.
Some folks just have no sense of humor...
But only if a violation is occurring! And PARODY and SATIRE are NOT violations, and their lawyers should damn well know this! Therefore, there is nothing requiring defending.
Trademarks have nothing to do with what you can say only what you can title things. I can't start making TVs and calling them "Sonys", I can't stat a company called "Sun" with and OS called "Solaris". I can't make a website called "Slashdot." Why should I be able to?
There is no restrictions on thought inherent in this, you are still allowed to think, and speak, publish documents with the words in it, you just can use the words in naming your own products.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dude, I could not write a bunch of crap code in an OS and call it 'solaris', or take mySQL and sell it as IBM DB/2, that would be stupid. Why should people be able to title there websites "whatever for dummies"? Its a perfictly valid trademark, and it dosn't stop you from using the word, just nameing stuff after it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Perhaps if you'd read the article before spouting of you would know that they are not attacking a parody site, they politely asked a site called "Screen printing for dummies" to change its name.
Really, What the hell is so hard about doing like, 3 minutes of research before making completely uninformed posts about something? I'm surprised your post hasn't been modded up as 'insightful' yet. It is so fucking annoying to see post, after uninformed post spouting completely useless, wrong garbage. Why is it so hard for you people to even bother to learn what's actually occurring? Its as simple as following a link!
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
This is a prime example (along with things like etoy, and the suing of clan MacDonald), of why trademark law is just as rotten as its "Intellectual property" cousins patent law and copyright law. The simple fact is that, regardless of their intentions, the final result of ALL of these things is censorship.
People claim that Trademark law is around to protect customers from falsely branded products, which sounds noble enough, until you consider that nobody ever bothered to ask the individual consumer whether he wanted to be protected or not. Somebody just decided that the poor stupid consumer needed this protection, and so it should be forced on everyone.
In my case, I don't want to be protected against confusing other books with IDG's "For Dummies" series, just like I don't want to be protected from confusing art collectives with toy stores or family trees with hamburgers. But society has decided that I should be just the same.
It is completely doable today, using OCR and Digital Signatures, to create a product that scans webpages and images for trademarks and checks meta-data for the trademark owners signature. No law would be necessary, and the user could himself decide what level of protection he wanted from confusion (none, a small warning text, full suppression) and which trademarks he cared about being protected from otherpeople using. But how many people here think that if such a product came out tomorrow, the companies that today tell you that Trademark law is "for your protection [naive little inferior person]" would be OK with abandoning it on the web?
Not one, because like patents and copyrights, trademarks are no longer about protecting comsumers or society. They are about protecting the interests and power of the capitocratic society, and keeping the individuals as the dumb consuming machines the corporations need us to be.
I say screw them.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Now, mind you, this was a humor site that is now known as Cthulu for Morons
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
What? You mean ABC hasn't copyrighted the words "Who wants to"? I bet it won't be long, then.
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
bah. s/copyright/trademark/g
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Oh come on, do a little homework before you're off kissing corporate ass. Not only is for' dummies' common english words and not original creations they've been used a million times in print and belong to a title of a book from the 70's.
Second, satire, parody, and reference allow the use of trademarks/copyrights with both commercial and non-commercial uses.
This gets even worse when non-profit or personal web pages use the term and IDG, and other corporate bullies, get to show off their legal muscle.
I don't buy 'we're protecting our TMs' line, when most uses fall under fair use. The issue is about making sure customers get to the proper IDG website when they type the words 'For Dummies' into any search engine and not some site that might give them free information of *gasp* criticize their product or politics.
Every outlet that sells IDG's for dummies books has another set of books with the same bright neon lettering/font about the exact same topics written for the exact same demographic except they're called 'The complete idiot's guide to...'
I've always seen this as a ripoff of IDG that might confuse some consumers, but the lawsuit will never happen as the Idiot's guide people will point out 'for dummies' has had lots of prior use and marketing books to people who consider themselves clueless is nothing new. Because Idiot's guide has money for litigation they're left alone.
IDG will pick on the non-corporate entities because they are completely defenseless. This has nothing to do with protecting trademarks, its about controling what comes out of a search engine after you type 'for dummies' into it and trying to build credibility with an obviously fake, stolen, and unoriginal trademark.
If I came out with a soap right now called 'Hi Bob' and sued everyone who used these words in an e-mail or placed it on a website, on the grounds that if people could get away with saying 'Hi Bob' all of the time any old fool could release 'Hi Bob' soaps at a lower price and destroy my investment, then would I still have your support?
Perhaps this is indeed the fault of the law that if I was dumb enough to hinge my entire branding on a relatively common phrase, I would be obliged to harass people to keep my trademark - but that begs the issue, why should I be allowed to make that a trademark? Its not like Xerox, Linux or Kleenex - which were unique words unlikely to be said by anyone with coherent speech, and are 'brand names' because they are a UNIQUE differentiator.
Other posts rightly point out that a number of educational books and car repair books with 'for dummies' came out first. They didn't seem so bothered about IDG doing it. Perhaps they have a decent product.
Now, if my 'Hi Bob' soap had a picture of my Bob character on the packaging, and Hi Bob was written in a particular color/typeface combination, and someone came out with something roughly similar and tried to sell it, then I should go after them, no question - its a deliberate attempt to rip me off. Were the sites in question blatant attempts to rip IDG off? Hardly.
So, I do not think that those two words are a valid basis for a trademark any more than 'Hi Bob' is a trademark. McDonalds sued a scotsman called McDonald for opening a shop here bearing his own name, and won. Who do you think came up with THAT name first? Does someone called McDonald have the right to open a shop bearing his name?
If I remember, a man called Ronald McDonald had a go at McDonalds for infringing his personal 'brand' but he lost, probably because he does not have the same legal power in $$$
I'm behind these guys all the way. As people, if we do not set a precadent defending ourselves, then companies will steadily trademark ever more catchy sayings, until the use of the English language becomes a legal minefield for both marketers and normal people alike.
The other day I saw "Sex for Dummies" and "Parenting for Dummies." I kid you not. Apparently even though there are laws against trademark infringement etc, there are none against irreparably harming the evolution of the species for corporate gain. I don't know about you, but the last demographic I want breeding are the people who buy "... for Dummies" books.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't think so, but everybody knows that 'Nerds' are a sugar coated sugar candy, which naturally means we may get sued for using the word.
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Dear Mr. FFFish,
I am writing you to inform you that you are in violation of my companies (BigCo, Inc) trademark of the phrase "more or less." - As most know, the term "more or less" has, for over 10 years, been associated with BigCo. If you, an average slashdot poster, do not remove your post containing the terms described above, we will be forced to threaten to sic our lawyers on you...and, thusly, you will realize that we have a helluvalot more money than you - and so it's cheaper for you to bow to our will, rather than lose every cent you have paying your lawyers to fight for what is actually right (@ right, and all terms associated with right are a registered trademark of BigCo.)
Sincerely,
Dick McCheese
BigCo, Inc.
Ummmm - we're talking about a piece of the fucking language. Just because people weren't using the term "for dummies" as a joke/buzzword prior to 1991 doesn't mean that IDG can just grab a trademark on it...honestly...this is just ri-goddamn-diculous.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Trademarks that are diluted into generic terms go to the public domain.
Will I retire or break 10K?
rocks for jocks
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I think this is really a free speech issue. We're not talking about a competing product here, just Joe Shmoe using a trademarked phrase.
The usual corporate butt-kissers will say "this isn't a free speech issue, the gov't isn't doing this". Bollocks. Neither I (nor octopod) has signed any contract with IDG...but if we use those "for dummies" words and persist, IDG will use the power of the courts to try and shut us up. Who gave IDG the right to do that?
How is that different from Janet Reno hauling you into court for publishing stuff the gov't finds embarassing? Oh, I guess the person prosecuting the case is better paid, and it only takes a majority of jurors rather than all of them to screw you over
Violating the 1st Amendment for Dummies
"The government allows free speech. We've subcontracted the enforcement to the private sector, since they don't have these quaint restrictions."
Just asking...
Which part of "law which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion" and/or dilution" didn't you understand?
I understand that completely. What part of:
"The following shall not be actionable under this section:
...do IDG's legal council not understand? I agree that they must dilligently pursue any infringing use, but non-profits are explicitly excluded as are parodies and reporting.
The morons at Pegasus Mail demanded that I rename
my program "pmail" because they thought it was
confusingly similar to their product name. They
had an even weaker case, but unfortunately
because I can't afford a lawyer, said evil people
won. Grrr.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I wonder if the opinions of the /. readership would be different if a new company named O'rily published a booked called "Programming Perl" and it had a 2 humped camel on the cover.
Phrases I'd like to trademark:
We're the F in FU!
X for Syphilitic Monkeys (ie Quantum Field Theory for Syphilitic Monkeys)
Where would you like to go tonight?
Your place or mine?
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Right. But to imply that it is a 'blatant infringement' when satire and parody are CLEARLY NOT INFRINGEMENTS is almost bullying.
They are required to defend their trademark WHEN IT IS BEING INFRINGED UPON. IT CLEARLY IS NOT.
They are required to protect their trademark, or lose it. If you check out the links at the bottom of the page, you'll run across some interesting, such as reference to a book that used "for dummies" before IDG did.
/. readers put up trademark bait for IDG?
Now, the trademark infringement doesn't seem to apply to non-commercial or parody sites. (Or Slashdot, since it's reporting about it.) However, IDG feels it neccessary to chase these people anyway. They're paying people to do this.
So, what would happen to their costs if all the
Credit certainly must given to IDG's lawyers for their politeness. However just because they are polite doesn't mean that one should simply acquiesce. Particularly when the lawyers are wrong in their beliefs about the alleged infringement.
Trademark law specifically excludes non-commercial use of trademarked words, as has been pointed out in other posts in this discussion. So while IDG's request was polite, it certainly was not reasonable. The website owners were clearly within their rights to refuse it.
If you are walking down the street and someone comes up to you and politely requests that you hand over you wallet and all your vauables, should you comply? Or would you be justified in telling them to get lost?
Ideology is for ideots.
. .would companies fight so hard to sell to so many dummies.
___
Once a trademark holder is notified of infrigement, they must protect their trademark or the trademark can be lost. It's not really their choice. I just wonder why any laws protecting satire don't apply here?
Please excuse the ambiguity of my previous post. I was wavering betwixt humor and a real post. But I would like to clarify a couple of things:
1)I am not of the opinion that the "for dummies" trademark should have ever been granted in the first place. "...for dummies" is/was a relatively well used term prior to IDG's trademarking of it. As I said before, while not everyone was using the term, it was most certainly out there...so there's a prior art argument.
2) The real threat of IDG is not in the trademark. That is inconsequential, assume they do have a right to carry this trademark, and they don't have a legal right to infringe upon a non-profit (etc.) organization's ability to use such a term. That's all fine and good - but we're talking about the real world. As happens most often, Company A says to person B, "Take blah down!" Person B says, "Fuck off, I have the right to have blah up!" Company A says "Take it down or we'll sue you." Person B has to think VERY hard about whether or not they want to risk a small fortune to fight off Company A even though they know they're in the clear. It's the old - "do it or we'll bankrupt you in the process" routine.
It's not right...but it's the way things work.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
More than 200 years ago it was decided that parodies are covered by freedom of the press. IDG's legal skylarkings are analogous to ABC suing NBC whenever SNL does a fake millionare episode.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
The last bookstore I owned had heavy O'Reilly traffic. (It's nice to sell something that you can believe in - 98 of my top 150 selling computer titles were O'Reilly). Anyway-- I took the O'Reilly spoof t-shirt design (Porn in a Nutshell) from attrition.org, and made 100 copies to give to our regular customers. When the O'Reilly representative came round, I showed the shirt to her -- and she broke into hysterical laughter. So I gave her 5 of the t-shirts, and asked her to give one to Tim. I figured that if they had a problem, I'd hear about it. No calls, although a couple of her colleagues sent an email to thank me. Later that year, Tim O'Reilly himself dropped by during a party for Eric Raymond. The t-shirt was prominently displayed on the wall -- and not a complaint was heard. Draw your own conclusions.
Being a "victim" of an IDG cease and desist campaign, i would like to correct the notion that they only go after commercial, non-parody, "infringing" sites.
I used to host a webpage called "Unified Field Theory for XXXXX" (XXXXX being something i'm restricting from saying, due to "trademark" law). This was hosted at an EDU (non-commercial) site.
This was a CLEAR parody work using a modified version of an IDG book cover.
When i responded to the C&D request (threat) (for which i was given THREE days notice to comply, which is NOT a polite request in my view), I indicated that i considered my work to be covered under the non-commercial and parody clauses. IDG's lawyer responded that there was no such thing, and again demanded that i comply (again with a 3-day allowance).
When i yet again replied that this was clearly a parody work, i was told that since IDG's "...for dummies(tm)" series was itself a humorous entity, a "parody" claim could not be held.
This is utter and complete bullshit, but i, as many common low-life, am not ready, willing or able to put up a legal fight. (thus the site came down)
The whole point here is that IDG was trying to supress my clearly negative views about the entire "...for dummies(tm)" series. They can do so because they have a well-funded cadre of highly-paid legal bulldogs. It doesn't matter if they are in the right or not.
remember the "Radio Shack" Tandy holds the trademark rights to the word "Shack" issue? It is a clearly valid criticism of the PTO that they are willing to allow trademark of common language terms. These TM's should NOT be allowed to stand.
BTW, non-commercial alone isn't necessary. See the case of Penthouse magazine's parody "land's end" (iirc) catalog. It was in a commercial context, yet ruled non-infringing.
P.S. this legal bullying is one of the reasons i believe that a substantial portion of punitive damage awards should go toward funding the "public defenders" office instead of just paying off greedy lawyers and plaintiffs. This would help balance out the little guy's ability to stand up to corporate bullying)
I thought the whole reason why products have names like Coca-Cola or Kleenex is that by creating a nonsense word, the word isn't one in common use and so can only refer to the product in question. But "for dummies" hardly originated in 1991. In fact, if the phrase hadn't already been entrenched it would make no sense for IDG to use it in their titles. It's a pity that nobody has dared IDG to sue them.
IDG more or less invented the "for Dummies" phrase. It certainly wasn't in popular use before about 1991, when IDG started publishing the "for Dummies" series.
It is their unique distinguishing product name. Their trademark. And in order to retain ownership of the name, they are legally *required* to send cease-and-desist letters to everyone who titles their works using the "for Dummies" phrase.
Pick up one of those cheap wanna-be-an-author magazines down at the local bookstore. You'll find that three-quarters of the advertising is from companies protecting their trademark: Xerox telling writers to use the phrase "photocopy"; Kleenex telling writers to use the phrase "tissue"; and so on.
It's no different than if someone were to start offering "Red Hat BSD", "SUSE Windows" or the "Slashdot Porn: Sluts for Nerds. Stuff that creams ya!"
Anyway, it's stupid and irresponsible for Slashdot to be resurrecting this non-issue. IDG is doing what IDG *must* do, not what it wants to do. The law is written in a way that forces them into this position.
And by all appearances, they are most polite and patient. Give them a freaking break.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
It might be required by law, yet still be insane.
How many combinations of two words in a common language can I trademark? How many would I require to gain control over (if not how it is used now) how the langauage will develop?
Remember that language is used in forming exact thoughts. If you can not form certain new word combinations, you are restricted of forming an expression. This results in either finding a corresponding alternative expression or not finding a formula for the thought to be expressed as.
Well, if you have read 1984 you know instantly what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be that bad, but it might still be pretty ugly. Like the fact that ILUVYOU victims are dummies, and it is a Virus for Dummies, yet we may not call it such! So we might not learn of it.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
"For Dummies" is a stupid series of books with a stupid title, IMO, but obviously successful for IDG. You can't tell me that people that made up a site or whatever entired "blah blah for Dummies" weren't inspired to do so by IDG's books.
English is a rich language. Certainly they could come up with something similar that wasn't infringing, like "Screenprinting for braindead titheaded fuckwits" and not have to worry about infringing on some trademark...
Looking over the actual website, it is just me, or is it also difficult for you too to contain sniggers at this whole thing?!
Their pursuit of 'blatant infringement upon IDGB's internationally protected trademark "For Dummies®"' (Perhaps it was the ® at the end?), not to mention the fact that they forced changes to a site about Irish Step Dancing, or that they 'constantly track the web' for 'illegal' occurrences of 'for dummies' sounds like an amusing PR disaster waiting to happen for IDG.
They give the example of hoover being a brand dilution. (In the US I hear a lot of people Vacuum instead of Hoover®). I don't see what problem having everyone think of your brand for something as generic as vaccum cleaners, or for that matter books. As long as it is easy to differentiate a genuine 'for dummies®' from a homage, then they should consider it voluntary brand building - especially from not for profit sites.
If 'For Dummies®' is the first thing I think about when I want an easy technical reference, and I know that those yellow IDG® books are the the originals, then guess what i'm going to buy? Since they are apparently spending so much effort and money building this brand, the name should only be a part of the mix that customers associate with them. If the Irish step dancing site had a yellow background with a sign® etc then perhaps we are coming closer to confusion.
It's not really about protecting us poor consumers from confusion, however - especially in this case, since you would have to view your customers with extreme contempt for their intellegence if they think everything contianing 'For Dummies' is part of their product line, or even a good substitute for what is in their product line.
I agree that if someone came into the technical books market with a 'for profit' product, or even something that was on sale for any kind of money, and it copied the visual branding aspects as well as the name, then they should have some right to stop it, to protect market share.
But treating customers with contempt, by implying their sheer stupidity, and by acting like a bully® in one of the principal forums where their brand equity matters, is both insensitive and stupid. The more people they harass about this on the internet, the faster the word is going to spread that these people are total arseholes.
So, I suggest that all us Dummies® exercise our market power and intellegence and go and buy something different in future when we need to learn or teach someone about something. Spread the word.
Apparently, IDG only has a case against for-profit organizations. Here's a quote from the page:
It seems that IDG was either unaware of this or felt that people's ignorance of the law or fear of litigation would allow their tactics to prevail.IDG's use of "phantom" trademarks may not be allowed. Phantom marks are those that contain elements unspecified at application time, like ".... for Dummies." Apparently trademark applicants are allowed only one trademark name per application.
I found this little tidbit in a USPTO newsletter here.
There are still a few questions. If IDG already had their application approved by the USPTO, it may be harder for "infringers" to defend against it, even with the court ruling. Also, IDG may have legitimate claims to specific titles like "The Internet for Dummies" or even just "For Dummies," but anything "for Dummies" seems right out. As the federal court says, such phantom marks do not serve the public good, since there are too many potential infringing variations.
I did a search on Melvyl, which searches all the UC's, and also Stanford and a couple other universities' libraries. I found three pre-IDG uses of "for dummies" in the title of a book.
;c28 cm.
Author: Sclar, Deanna.
Title: Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical
advisor. New York : McGraw Hill, c1976.
Author: Sclar, Deanna.
Title: Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical
advisor. Rev. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Author: Winenger, Dwight.
Title: Music for dummies / Dwight Winenger. Desert Hot Springs, Ca. :
Minuscule University Press, c1981.
Someone ought to buy the rights to "Music for Dummies" and use it for a music web site. I'm sure it would really piss off IDG, since it isn't going to be good for public relations to sue someone who was using their "trademark" before they were.
I found one book using "for Dummies" published in 1997. I'm curious what IDG has done about this. My guess is that it's non-commercial, and so out of their reach.
Author: Morebeck, Nancy Justus.
Title: Census for dummies : a quick guide "by example" to use indexes,
soundex, CDs and the census ; includes a soundex coding card /
by Nancy Justus Morebeck. Vacaville, CA : N. Morebeck, c1997.
Description: [7] leaves : chiefly ill.
Notes: Title from cover.
What's interesting is who is the author of the Auto Repair for Dummies published back in 1976:
1. Sclar, Deanna.
Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical advisor.
New York : McGraw Hill, c1976.
2. Sclar, Deanna.
Auto repair for dummies / Deanna Sclar ; Don Donesley, technical advisor.
Rev. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1983.
3. Sclar, Deanna.
Buying a car for dummies / by Deanna Sclar. Foster City, CA : IDG Books,
c1998.
Series title: --For dummies.
She's now writing for IDG.