Slashdot Mirror
Fox Lawyers Try To Shut Down The "Why Files"
MarchingAnts writes: "According to this article on eSchoolNews.com, Fox lawyers are demanding that the University of Wisconsin close down its immensely popular science website "The Why Files" (which has been online for nearly five years) because it supposedly infriges on its trademark of "The X-Files" and could confuse viewers of the television show. An offer made by Fox to license "The Why Files" name to the University for an undisclosed fee has been rejected, and lawyers have now said they will start legal action seeking to cancel "The Why Files.""
Their trademark is "The X Files". Now, does that cover "The*[Ff]iles"? If I have a cofee stand called "The Z Cofee", do I have the right to sue anybody called "The Best Cofee" or "The Genuine Colombian Cofee"?
If UW already has "The Why Files" trademarked (which I think they do), then tough titty for Fox unless they already trademarked "The [a-Az-Z] Files." Which they didn't.
But of course, Fox has to whine like little babies since they aren't getting their way.
"WAAAH!!! I WANT UW'S DOMAIN NAME!"
Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
First off Fox owns the "X-files" name and all derivations of it. Period. The law is the law and you must obey it at all times even if it is a law that you think was "bought" by special interests.
m l
hmm, xfm, the x-file-manager was Copyrighted in 1993 by Ove Kalkan - all rights reserved. http://man-pages.net/linux/man1/xfilemanager.1.ht
Does this constitute "prior art" ?
X-windows?
The X-Box?
Windows XP File Manager?
Watch out Microsoft, Fox has your number.
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
With the declining ratins of the X-Files within the past 2 years, this may be just a ploy by Fox in order to boost the X-Files ratings via a publicity based case of Fox vs. "X Files Fan Club" or something.
One of the things to keep in mind is any unauthorized used of X Files (copywritten) items such as logo's, graphics, etc., may be in full violation if you don't have the prior consent of the owners. Its sort of like that warning message that comes up when you play a DVD or VHS movie, which we all ignore.
Sure it sounds as petty as all heck, but there has to be a bit more for the reasoning of Fox going after a school based fan club site which is not mentioned anywhere.
SpeedyGrl Files
360 degrees of Karma
It's a common mistake among /.ers to assume that what applies to one type of intellectual property law applies to all. Nothing could be further from the truth.
More generally, scientists and engineers often make the mistake of thinking that you can look at specific laws and make generalizations from them to similar cases. This works fine in science and engineering. It's what science is all about, in fact. But it's not how law works.
There are no general principles in law, only the specifics of individual laws. Oh, sure, the motivations of lawmakers may cause different laws to seem to be based on the same principle, but you can't extrapolate from one law to another.
More directly relavant to IP law, patents != trademarks != copyrights != patents.
To take one simple example, trademarks cannot be selectively enforced. If you let some people get away with infringing your trademark (and I'm talking here about bona fide trademark infringements, and not the bogus type seen here in the Fox vs. UW case), you may find that you no longer have a trademark, against your will.
People often try to extrapolate, and thus reason that patents and copyrights also cannot be selectively enforced, but this is not so. Patents and copyrights can and are selectively enforced, and the fact that you did not enforce your patent or copyright against one infringer does not weaken it in the least.
Why should selective enforcement be allowed for patents and copyrights, but not for trademarks? No reason, as far as I can tell. There are no general principles at work here, only specific laws, which allow for selective enforcement of patents and copyrights, but not trademarks. QED.
Sorry to ramble on for so long, but it's a common mistake on /.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Well, Fox wouldn't exist without the Simpsons. It would have tanked around 1990 but for that one show. I think the show does have the network by the short hairs (or used to).
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Zilog, the company that invented the Z-80 microprocessor, went through a phase of suing anyone who used the letter Z in their product name.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
First off, it's not even a fan site. It's an entirely unrelated site that is all about science. I thought you couldn't enforce trademarks if they were in another realm of commerce?
Second, it's whyfiles.org. Not Y-Files.com. Not even whyfiles.com. Would anyone in his right mind think that this dilutes the X-Files trademark?
I don't know what Fox is smoking (apparently the cheap stuff), but I sincerely hope they don't manage to win this legal battle. That would be a sad day indeed.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
FOX has done this sort of thing many times before. They've tried to shut down all fan sites for The Simpsons, The X-Files, Millenium, and other shows they air. In many cases they go after sites that contain no infringing materials; sites that contain the name of a TV program, a list of characters, and an episode guide! While the government purports to offer it's citizens freedom of expression, corporate america is clearly of the opinion that no discussion can occur on any topic without their express permission.
Didn't really need /. just to tell me Fox are a bunch of slimeballs. This has been common knowledge for the past, oh, decade...
;-P
Lord only knows how a good show like The Simpsons managed to stay on Fox for so long... IIRC they even had an episode blasting Fox the way they attack everything else... I guess Fox is just asleep at the switch, either that or their legions of Simpsons fans have them by the short hairs.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
It has been found that private actors (individuals and companies) using the courts become government actions.
It would be nice if they had posted the letters, but I would guess that they are using the dilution act. Given that, the claim must fail since it's not a commercial site. There is not even banner advertising.
Fight Spammers!
As long as i get my weekly dosis of The Simpsons i don't care, really.
keep it simple.
See the USPTO's page for information regarding the mark in question:
http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=70 1a4n.2.1
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, collect recurring licensing revenue for life.
Fox offered some money for the site name. It was refused and there is a valid site with users at the address currently. This is probably not a case of domain name squatting.
Therefore Fox decides to sue anyways.
Ummmm.... No.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Whois Results for thexxxfiles.com
The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
information about or related to a domain name registration record.
Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
(1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
(spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
Registrant:
Artel Resources (THEXXXFILES-DOM)
111 Verona Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117
Domain Name: thexxxfiles.com
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
Lux Lucis Administrator (LLA-ORG
admin@LUXLUCIS.COM
Lux Lucis Communications
PO BOX 650
Cupertino, CA 95015
US
805-897-3336Fax- 805-897-3337
Fax- - 805-897-3337
Record last updated on 19-Oct-2000.
Record expires on 05-Oct-2001.
Record created on 04-Oct-1996.
Database last updated on 14-Mar-2001 21:13:59 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.LUXLUCIS.COM 216.33.187.70
NS2.LUXLUCIS.COM 216.33.187.71
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Doesn't this remind you a bit of Peanuts? Good ol' Charlie Brown, boy of common sense, has straight forward views on life, but is essentially bullied into doing whatever Lucy says (be it kicking a football or paying her 5 cent psychiatrist fee) through excessive child mumbo-jumbo/jargon. Lucy should be working for Fox, apparently.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
For example a patent on a horsless carriage might not be enough. You could patent a specific steam powered technology, vs a separate patent for infernal combustion engines.
Thus it is possible for someone else to to develop an independant system separate from the first system, and accomplish the same goals.
A famous case had to do with the reverse enginnering of the IBM Bios, which led to the first 100% IBM compatible PCs. the engineers only had a spec of what the inputs and outputs were, with no other data, and designed a bit of hardware the duplicated the result exactly. IBM sued, and lost.
Given that, i somehow doubt that NCR would have much success vs someone with a similar idea, 14 years after the fact, and sitting on their hands all the while.
It isn't like it was a secret.
BTW, IANAL, etc.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Trademarks are so *incredibly* silly, you know?
;)
One of these days I'm going to trademark every letter in the English alphabet...
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
wrong topic area, too many windows
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
They do send armed thugs and even hitmen after you. Except the difference is these thugs and hitmen are paid for by your tax dollars. They make a decision, get the courts to rubber stamp it and then send gov't agents to enforce it, by any means necessary. Government can and does use force, even lethal force, when people don't play by its rules - which often include obeying the judgement of a court which is just rubber stamping a corporate edict.
It is the more "civilized" type of gangsterism.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!