Slashdot Mirror
SGI Versus "Open*" and All Things "GL"?
DooMWiz asks: "I am the author of the Open Image Library (OpenIL), an image library under the LGPL license at openil.org. Several weeks ago, I was shocked by the appearance of an e-mail from a Silicon Graphics, Inc representative. Apparently, they are "concerned" that 'OpenIL' may infringe on their 'OpenGL' trademark. I am not a trademark lawyer, nor do I have any real knowledge of trademarks. Even if I had some kind of justifiable way of proving that 'OpenIL' could not possibly be confused with 'OpenGL', I probably would not pursue it, since a college student with very limited resources against giant SGI would be messy for me. I'm really not *too* upset about being asked to change the name, but during the course of this, I sent several e-mails to the SGI rep, and his replies indicated some disturbing news. He claims that he has already talked to OpenCL about changing their name and that he plans to pursue the ever-popular OpenAL, which isn't just a one man operation like OpenIL. OpenAL may have the resources to fight something like this, since it has nothing to do with SGI's business model but is backed by large companies. Lastly, SGI has a trademark on 'GL', and the rep also claims to plan to pursue projects with 'GL' in their names. Projects like GLScene and DemoGL come to mind and may be in trouble. Anyone with trademark experience have any advice on what course of action to take? Dropping the 'OpenIL' name seems like the easiest way out."
SGI Versus "Caleb Jaffa" and All Things "Stickboy"?
I'm gonna miss that site.
Let's see
THEY OWN: OpenGL
THEY BULLY: OpenCL, OpenIL, and OpenAL.
THEY OWN: OpenML
TO BULLY: HTML, SGML, and XML?
Now, I like a Cock as much as the next guy, but lets be realistic about how much 'confusion' there is*
I must be in the minority: There is never any confusion in my household about 'products' that we buy. I read the fucking labels, I read ingredients, I read the manufacturer, I read the country of origin on virtually *EVERYTHING* I buy. If someone tried to sell a "Cock Cola" to me - Id instantly realize that it isnt "Coka-Cola" in a heartbeat. Why? Because I am responsible for myself && (here comes the magic) I can fucking R-E-A-D
The word "COCK" is not the same as the word "COKA". Lets look at an example of this principle:
Are the Following two words the same?
COCK
COKA
;)
Answer: NO. Congratulations, you too are capable of not being confused in the marketplace.
So now your asking yourself - thats all fine and good if *YOU* want to read labels, I dont - i want to be able to 'trust the products' in find in the 'marketplace'. Well, *MY FREEDOM* and the freedom of free thought, free artists, free business, free use of language, free use of images, free use of colour etc etc should never be given to a Capitalist Corporation who intends to extort *MY FREEDOM* in order to spoon feed Consum-o-Trons.
If you cant read a label then you aren't responsible enough to have money, or be in a market by yourself.
The soul exclusion to these ideals is this: Should a person be able to completely replicate the Product Name & Manufacturer Name of a product? No, this would be purposeful fraud. But the 'right' of the Acme Soda Company to protect its good will should never remotely approach the rights of other people to create the Acmee Soda Company because the difference between Acme and Acme e is *OBVIOUS* - see that 'extra' e ? That makes "Acm_e_" and "Acm_ee_" different (also see "COCK" and "COLA" example above). And when given a choice between Capitalist Corporate domineering and a Libre Community - the former should be protected quite vigorously.
Sorry - I modded before posting this,
SubtleNuance
*Always open with a joke - that gets 'em every time....
Not only can OpenIL be confused with OpenGL, OpenInventor and other SGI products, but SGI has yet another library called "IL" which stands for Image Library. It happens that a few people are pushing to open source *that* or at least port to Linux from IRIX, hence the potential (now, my speculation) for an "OpenIL" from SGI. SGI's IL has a fully programmable professional grade image processing pipeline whereas this other OpenIL, AFAICT, is mainly just image format reading and writing and a few image ops. So rather than writing SGI complaining about the trademark issue, why don't you pressure them to open source their own IL and solve the problem that way! :)
Email the CEO of SGI, Robert Bishop. Let *HIM* know how you feel.
bbishop@sgi.com
Please post your replies here on Slashdot so we can see if the top brass is even aware of this.
Search the web, there are probably other SGI execs with email addresses known to the public.
BTW: what exactly is the difference between selling domain names and selling real-estate?
Land doesn't have a name associated with it. I think that the corporate mentality of you having an "open*" domain name is like you setting up your tent, campfire, and smelly hiking boots in the middle of their campus and saying "this is my land now".
Maybe that's a bad analogy, but I can't think of a better one at the moment
That's not to say I agree with SGI in anyway. If they have a trademark on opengl that predates the opengl.com website, they should have the right to it. Having a trademark on opengl does NOT allow them to go after open*.*!
Well, I own "Robin's Limousine" and "roblimo.com," and I operate in/near Baltimore MD USA. What if a Robin Miller in Baltimore (County Cork) Ireland registered "roblimo.co.ie" or called his company "Robin's Limousine"? What should I do?
As it happens, there *is* such a person, and if he ever registers the appropriate domain name and I find out about it, I'll put a link to his site on mine and request the same in return, and offer to buy the beer if he comes to my part of the world, and hope for a similar offer if I go to his.
Perhaps I am not suited for life in the world of Big Business...
- Robin
I believe that SGI's objection holds fair ground. They are not objecting (so far as I can tell) to the word Open, but rather the way in which that word is used. Products with a name of the format Open[2 letters] seems too similar to OpenGL.
something clever
Actually, yet. I do believe that the CEO, Chief Engineer, Software Engineer, Hardware Engineer, and Sanitation Engineer care whether or not some joe blow starts up a project with the name Open or GL in it. Especially if that project is exceptionally sucky or exceptionally wonderful. If SGI allows projects with like names, they risk becoming associated with those like-named projects. Or, even worse, SGIs products could become associated with the like-named projects. SGI wants you to know that if you are using an OpenGL application, you're using SGI technology. They also want you to know that OpenAL has nothing to do with SGI. Because it is fairly widely known that SGI designed OpenGL, many will assume that anything named similarly must also be made by SGI. I know that I did the first time that I heard of OpenAL.
SGI is fighting over Brand recognition. They wouldn't have had this problem if they had continuously marketed their products as "SGI OpenGL" or "SGI OpenMP". That would ensure that their name is tied with the product at all times.
Look at what happened to Bayer with Asprin. No, Asprin isn't the name of the drug. It was a product name that Bayer used. Over time, though, people forgot that Asprin was made by Bayer, and so refered to all asprin-like products as Asprin. Yeah, it's a little different, but many of the concepts are the same. The tech industry isn't imune from it. For years people would say "I've got an IBM computer" or "I've got an Apple computer" when what they really meant was "I've got a TDK IBM compatible computer" or "I've got a Laser Apple compatible computer.
something clever
makes me wanna go out and register open.gl (greenland)...
and make a website about open green pastures.
and then anonymously report myself to SGI.
Inconceivable!
The solution to this problem is simple. There should be a "corporate" top-level domain, with *very high* (like tens thousands of bucks) entry fee, which is pre-paid and trademark-checked on entrance, and there should be "small business" top-level domain, which would be everybody's else playground. Probably, there should be more levels, with prices and measure of protection varying. .corp anyway. And if you are a squatter, you need to be a really reach one to pre-pay corporate rate domain only to be evicted for TM violation. And if you are just a mere online artists happened to have name like Serge G. Irving, you get your sgi.personal and are happy.
.com for whole world is not enough, and "smartees" in ICANN should have realised this decade ago.
.com's for both US and foreighn customers. There should be international corporate domains (see above), and per-country small business domains (.com.us, .co.uk, .com.de, .co.il, .com.whatever).
The reason is simple - if you are SGI and have sgi.corp, you don't care for sgi.hobby if it exist or not - everybody who is looking for real SGI would look it in the
Only the commitee thinking of ICANN and their slowness on the border of brain-deadness prevent the world to have domain system fixed forever. one
Also, US should stop issuing
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
All this is true, but they're doing the right thing in moving to linux for their IA64 products. I'm no IA64 fan, but that's another issue entirely.
When I tell people I'm opposed to all intellectualy property, they tend to assume that to mean patents, and probably most copyright, but they tend to be rather astonished that I include trademark under that umbrella as well. The concept of trademark has become so ingrained in our culture that people have a hard time thinking about a world without it. But it is just another kind of IP, none of which are valid forms of property because they *require* arbitrary application of force by a government.
At any rate, I've always been at a loss for a good example of how the trademark concept tramples on our natural rights.
This is it.
OpenML? Oh, you mean an implementation of the ML language? It's not?! Why, that's damned confusing...
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Frighteningly, that seems to be exactly what they're doing, according to this response by randombit.
This is exactly why current USPT laws need to be changed. The more people who fight this crap, the less likely companies will be inclined to sweep out an entire section of namespace for their own future use. This was all designed to be FCFS, not MLTA[1].
[1] - Most Lawyers Takes All
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
They are?
It sure seems like only OpenIL out of those could be easily confused with OpenGL...
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Check the Open Source Projects, check out the license...
This seems like a small PR blemish for a company that is trying hard to do the right thing.
I dont think they have the right to every project with 'Open' in the name or 'GL' but when I first heard about OpenAL it was obvious to me that they had modeled the name after OpenGL.
Filter
.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
The lawyers aren't always the Evil Inside...
True enough, I have an unfortunate prejudice against lawyers through my dealings with a couple scumbags. I do know one who is really cool, though. Really down to earth fellow, works some pro bono cases, very intelligent.
I concede that this may not be the lawyers' idea, but I suspect it might be.
I think Open* is a bit too broad of a term to effectively trademark. What about OpenBSD? If they want to trademark OpenGL that's fine, but if they want to force everyone with Open in their name to change, well fuck 'em. They just lost a potential customer, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I can't imagine engineers being that petty, management maybe, lawyers definitely.
These companies really need to reign in their IP lawyers before they do permanent damage to their reputation.
I mean, do you really think the CEO or Chief Engineer of SGI gives a shit if some uses Open or GL in the name of their project? Especially if it's free? But these lawyers don't have to listen to them if it's a public company... all they have to do is play on the fears of the stockholders and the executives are powerless to stop them.
All(tm)(tm) your(tm)(tm) trademark(tm)(tm) are(tm)(tm)...
Oh fuck it..
---
Are you talking about the happy face logo with the Mcdonald's M instead of the eyes, that says "smile" below it?
If so, it's probably the whole logo that the (TM) refers to.
Before everyone starts screaming about how we must abolish all trademarks, consider the fact that trademark laws help protect your consumer rights. What if someone decided to cash in on the name recognition of Coca-Cola by selling their own soda product with a very similar name and logo design? They call it Cock-Cola, and use the Coke letter style. They open a concession booth at your local baseball stadium and hang a sign saying "Have a Cock and a smile!" Not everyone will notice they've been duped, and may get a nasty surprise when they open that can.
In the case of Open.L, it does seem like a newbie who knows about OpenGL might think that things like Open[AIC]L are associated with SGI. I mean, I certainly assumed they were styling the name after OpenGL. If this guy who wrote OpenIL had just called it Open Image Library (OIL), he would probably never have had a problem.
Let's be honest, the main reason to style your name in this way is to say that it's something similar in quality or purpose to OpenGL, and SGI does have a right to refuse that association.
Apple was successful in stopping computers from being built with the prefix "i-" in the name. Methinks a judge can be found that will support this.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Some more recently produced commercials and products say "smile"(tm).
Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck. Are you people fucking retarded? Take five fucking minutes to read up on registering a trademark. In order to maintain your trademark YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE YOUR OWNERSHIP OF IT. Companies such as SGI have to maintain legions of lawyers to do just this because they own the trademark rights to things such as OpenGL. Names like OpenIL and OpenAL look alot like OpenGL which has the possibility of causing confusion. Stop whining you fuckers. Trademarks are important because we live in a capitalist society where you're often only as good as the products your customers know you for. If you work for a business that makes money and have even ONE corporate logo then go ahead and respond. Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop whining because someone is enforcing a trademark they pay fucking money for because it represents not only a product but the company behind the product.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The problem with domain squatters is that 100% of the value of the domain they hold is due to the value created by the rightful holder of the trademark. (If that isn't the case, then it's not squatting, QED.) For one person to attempt to make money by leveraging the value of another person's property is fraudulent, and illegal. Domain squatting is theft in the same way that grabbing an unlocked bicycle off a rack is theft. Just because you were there and nobody was looking doesn't mean it's yours to take.
It's an entirely different story if you have a legitimate use for a domain name that might also be claimable by somebody else. For example, hypothetically, it would have been entirely legit for somebody to register "ford.com" to make a web site about crossing rivers at shallow points (as far as I know, nobody did).
A web site that takes fair use about as far as it can possibly go without infringing a trademark is barbienews.com. Note how they are explicitly not domain squatting.
And who ever said domain brokers are good? I presume that a domain broker does not hold onto domain names that belong to trademark holders with hopes of selling them, but rather works with businesses to think of and register new ones. Either way, they're snake-oil salesmen, only one grade of bottom-feeder above domain squatters. Yuck. Let 'em all find honest jobs.
I have to ask:
- why not "ameritechsucks.com" or "ameritechcablesucks.com"? You're not really about "ameritech cable" (more about how it sucks), are you deliberately trying to gain viewers who are looking for Ameritech Cable? I could see how they would be unhappy with that.
- how about a little more readable background and text color? Please?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
But "ameritechcable.com" isn't? That would be an even more open-and-shut violation, wouldn't it?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This is the song about 'the ten little * boys'
// Jens M Andreasen
One a had lawyer, and then they were only two!
mvh
send + more == money?
Well etoy had been around long before eToys was incorporated. In this case, OpenGL has been around for far longer than OpenIL. And while it might be hard to confuse a European subversive art collective with a (formerly) publicly traded dot-com which sells toys, the likelihood of confusion between an "image library" (OpenIL) and a "graphics library" (OpenGL) is substantial, especially since the API of the former is modelled upon the API of the latter.
Big enough to play a bully? That all depends on who you are. I don't have a personal lawyer. I can't afford one. I think of them as plenty big to be a bully. Maybe you're rolling in dough, but don't assume that everyone is.
And when I hear of them acting like a bully (this qualifies) I tend to forget that they may have helped some causes I favor, and remember instead that they are a wanton destroyer. Overreaction, I know, but that's what I'll remember later, after I've forgotten the details.
Anyone, any company, who would viciously attack multiple small projects forfeits any regard I may have previously had for them. (And again I overstate my point. But I feel betrayed because I thought well of them.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
> BTW: what exactly is the difference between selling domain names and selling real-estate?
the difference is that if you are thinking of selling your house, it wont be taken away from you for being a squatter
meridian at tha.net
In a vain attempt to save face, I would point out that in trademark law, there are some number of recognized domains, which I don't care to look up right now but encourage the reader to do so :-) and that all computer code, not surprisingly, falls under the same domain. As all are code libraries, SGI could still validly claim infringement.
Now someone please pass a napkin, I've got egg on my face...
No, of course not. Simple words are not trademarkable, all else being equal (the truth is more complicated), and they can't start suing people who simply use the word "smile" in a novel.
What they've trademarked is the word smile in that font, color, size, and position. You can't pluck that particular graphic (which happens to spell "smile" in English) and use it for your own restaurant, or other purposes, because that particular graphic is trademarked by McDonalds.
Within reason, you could create another graphic with the word "smile" in it in a different font and color and trademark that for yourself. "Within reason" here means that it can't be too similar.
This applies directly to the topic at hand, in fact. OpenGL(tm) as a trademark is limited and people know what it is. Does Open?L infringe? Frankly, if I had to guess, the answer would be an emphatic Yes! Only one letter of difference, and both are graphics libraries? That's just asking for it. My direct answer to this ask Slashdot, bearing in mind that IANAL, is yes, you are legitimately in violation of the SGI trademark, it is quite conceivable that people could confuse OpenGL and Open[ICA]L, esp. as all are graphics libraries, and you should not fight this, because you will quite legitimately lose.
On the other hand, assaulting everybody with "Open" and "GL" is another story. SGI should really only be seen as having "Open" in the context of "OpenGL" and "GL" in the context of "OpenGL". Using on piece or another, especially as both terms seperately are quite generic in nature, should not be enough. "GLScene" and "DemoGL" are far more tenuous claims. In fact, the use of "GL" in this context is so widespread that the argument could probably be made that this has "passed" into common usage... which assumes that it ever did belong exclusively to SGI which I have to doubt.
You should e-mail someone higher up at SGI. There is a reasonable chance that the SGI legal department is doing this without the knowledge of the higher-ups. The people who started this may not necissarily have any understanding of the relationship of your products. There is a slight chance that if you bring this to the attention of the right person at SGI the problem will be taken care of.
Trademark law is a classic case of cognitive over-cogestion ... where there is no perceived contraints, in fact outright overusage due to the government's IP policies. Reality of life ... the human memory is keyed to certain sounds and given that we tend to remember only a small number of short-term elements, there are a limited number of combos which are useful. Now the problem is that the whole essence of branding (cough*mindshare control*cough) is to get people to recall your product name as compared with the competitor's, you can see that this becomes very very messy. It is made even worse by the fact that most people don't give a damn about what goes on underneath the hood of a computer. As a professional term in the graphics industry of the computer software/hardware sector, it has a certain catchet but trying to extinguish or even deliberately persecute (cough*McD[a-z]**cough) the same usage outside that subdiscipline is really pushing the intent of the trademark law (either that of their lawyers are particularly stupid).
... who can remember all the different variants of the Intel chip line? Another particularly nasty social effect is that some symbols are sacred to certain groups (Muslum forbids the use of Koran script as it is considered blasphemous). There been some examples of corporations fencing off the social-symbol commons by trade-marking motifs from aboringinal tribes ... effectively diluting and debasing their cultural capital. I believe (from hearsay) that Lucent got a lot of Budhists upset because their o-symbols was a close variant of one of their religious symbols (any citations on this?). The problem comes in that certain names/sounds/visual symbols have a certain meaning to certain groups and if it is hijacked by another, it is improper. Trademark law was suppose to help resolve it (in the commercial sphere) where a symbol (from guild times) meant a certain level of quality (intangible value apart from cost of material). This was to prevent counterfeiters from reducing the risk premium (excess over cost to account for past failed experiments). However, there is no way of managing this particular namespace as the communications realm is borderless. Hence the pollution from other noospheres where one set of prononents is looking for a set of symbols/shapes to descript their spin on a new concept. Globalisation is only making the matter worse because we now all share the same social sphere and corporations want to colonise new markets by dumping old ads (funny how the US got steel tarrifs but don't worry about pimping Hollywood crap). I really don't see any immediate solution to this problem except maybe gag the lawyers :-).
Software is not a good case where trademark works as there are inifinite combinations of software subsystems/components and if you name every single one it just becomes meaningless
Technical hacks are no patch for social cracks.
LL
Haven't ATI just bought the FireGL line from Diamond? Are we going to get a corporate lawyer fire fight?
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
I think the OPENiL people should be able to keep the name, but they should have:
1) Avoided the use of an oval logo (similar to openGL)
2) Not even talk about open GL which they do in the about page.
If you are familiar with OpenGL, you basically already know how to use OpenIL. Here is a sample code snippet that uses OpenIL:
So basically the command structure is the same the name is similar and you didn't expect SGI to notice?
"ImageVision Library (IL) is a toolkit for creating, processing and displaying images on all SGI visual workstations. The library provides image processing application developers with a complete, robust framework for manipulating and managing images."
I'll bet it's this connection that is the source of concern at SGI.
smile(tm)
WTF!? They trademarked the word "smile"? Makes me sick...
Because that has as many problems as the US system of each side paying their own way (for the most part.)
Someone like SGI is still able to pay a much larger legal bill, but if they do win, you've got to pay for their expensive lawyers as well as the cheap one you've got. Their potential cost goes from $200,000 to $204,000, yours goes from $4,000 to $204,000...
Both systems are screwed. But I can't think of a good system.
Maybe, both sides pool all legal expenses, based on their total wealth. If SGI sued me, their $4B (let's say) vs my $100K, means that one of my dollars is forty-thousand of theirs. That way they couldn't bankrupt me, because my $100K is equivalent to their $4B (or whatever) and we'd both go bankrupt at the same time.
Then after the case a judge reviews the spending, looks at how reasonable the initial claims were, and assigns one party to pick up more of the bill.
There needs to be a way for the poor to sue the rich, and for reasonable suits too. If I want to sue McDonals for something my only hope is to ask for a few hundred million in damages and to get a lawyer to take it on contingency so that when it gets argued down it's still worth it. It'd be easier to sue them for five billion dollars than for fifty thousand. (Say I choked on a piece of metal in a burger and needed medical treatment.)
So there needs to be a way of letting someone without much money access the courts, but you don't want to let everyone sue McD's for made-up expenses just for extortion reasons.
Got any good solutions?
Did anyone complain about people purchasing land cheaply?
Native Americans?
--
--
E_NOSIG
sgi also holds the trademark on OpenML, and is one of several companies involved in something called the Khronos Group which is pushing OpenML as a standard digital media api. This may explain some of the reasoning behind their attempt to change any other Open[A-Z]L.
Hmmmm, I wounder if they sent a similar letter to the holders of the StarTrek trademark. :)
Later,
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
All(tm)(tm) your(tm)(tm) trademark(tm)(tm) are(tm)(tm)...
Shouldn't that be: all your trademark (R) belong to us?
Dear SGI: while you claim to own any name starting with Open,
All your base are belong to us!
So, lemme see if I get this right:
domain squatter: an individual with an idea to make money = BAD
domain broker: an 'organization' that can provide you with a domain name, matching phone number, and legal advice on how to maintain your trademark = GOOD?!?
BTW: what exactly is the difference between selling domain names and selling real-estate?
Did anyone complain about people purchasing land cheaply?
So what about Open Source? Are we going to have to start calling it something else now?
OSNSGI=Open Source is Not SGI?
Amstrad in the UK in the 80's went after every company that started with "ams", then even started on "am"!
Don't know how they did though.
That last one...
Reminds me of an event in the 70's where someone had thrown a brick through the window of a McDonalds establishment. Wrapped around it was a piece of paper with the words "You deserve a Brick today"
---
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
I(tm) agree(tm), this(tm) trademark(tm) thing(tm) is(tm) getting(tm) out(tm) of(tm) hand(tm).
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
I work for a small software firm. We had a product (before I worked here) that's name apparently infringed on some large Unix based software/hardware provider's trademark. Both of the trademarks were registered and technically they registered a little bit before us. However we had docs to show that the name had been in use for some time before.
To cut a long story short, we fought the claim, and it ended up being worth it, because this large company settled with us and gave us a lot more money then the name was worth (to a small little firm like us) and it was a drop in the bucket for such a large company. So, to cut a long story short, consult with a trademark lawyer if possible, or at least a pre-law or law student, and if there is a reasonable chance that SGIs claim would be invalid. If it is, its probably worth it to fight, because you will likely get a settlement that could fund development for a long time.
Spyky
Also, i wonder if there is some sort of way of having claims concerning open source products handled pro-bono by some willing lawyer(s). I wish I knew someone to recommend, but it may be worth asking around.
What about the term Open Source? Would THAT fall under their trademark as well? (As they see it, anyway?)
------------
CitizenC
Hey, if money is the problem then the solution is simple. Reform the legal system so that if anyone wants to sue someone else (i.e., hold a pissing contest) then they have to put up the funds UP FRONT to support the contest! That way Joe Blow and Microsoft can both have the legal counsel they want - and need - to fulfill their little show.
Why not? Money is just a consensual illusion anyways....
--------
Yeah, I'm a Mac programmer. You got a problem with that?
-- thinkyhead software and media
SGI's graphics libraries used to be called "GL" (and also "IrisGL") before they were modified slightly and opened up to become "OpenGL". I think all the function names begin with gl_.
I don't see any signs that SGI is going anybody with the word "Open" in their name. It looks like they are pursuing "Open[A-Z]L", due in part to being the prime creators of OpenGL and OpenML. And in all fairness, when I first saw OpenAL come out, it did seem like people were trying to portray it as "like OpenGL (i.e. in coolness, ubiquity, useful-abstraction-ness) but for audio". I wouldn't say that it was *confusing*, but it was trying a bit to play off someone else's already-established reputation. I don't claim to understand what the legal thresholds for similarity are.
Something to keep in mind before you bash SGI.
--LP, who has used SGI machines in past work but has no other connection with them
But the way they approached us at first, coming in with gun ports wide open, cost them any sympathy we might have had for them
[ObBabylon5 reference]
You know, some cultures show their respect by coming in, gun ports open.
[/ObBabylon5 reference]
:-p
I'm not sure if the residents of "cOPENhagen" would see it the same way, though.
OK.
SGI will not win this lawsuit. Just offer to give the guy like $10000 for the domain. You will save a HUGE amount on lawyer costs and the domain owner (college student) will be happy.
Next problem.
I'm suprised they weren't more concerned that IL sounds a lot like their ImageVision library (also called IL.) OpenIL could be construed to be a version of their Image Library, ImageVision.
I'll have to start a 3D accelleration graphics interface and call it AbiertoBDlG. (or should that be AbraLaBDlG).
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
We can't print this story without paying KDE.
Maybe they just want enough money to sue Apple long enough to keep the Aqua themes.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
SGI makes money from selling tech to geeks working for big companies.
Grandma doesn't need to know.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Since when do those ignoramuses get to call the shots on trademarks?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
"a soft drink called Pepci or Coak would be a bad idea"
Oh fuck Ball Street. If it's not the same type of product trademarks aren't relevant.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Now that is a very good point. I recall that I used to be annoyed by domian squating but I couldn't see anything we could do about it without trampling on rights and individual liberties. Here we see the proof of that.
One thing we might want to do now is consider our stance on anti-spam law. If we make effective anti-spam legislation, what else is going to be restricted? Not that I'm against anti-spam legislation, but it does concern me somewhat.
Sigs are awesome huh?
If you don't rigorously enforce/protect your trademarks every time there's a possible infringement, the trademarks themselves can and will be wiped out.
This is very different from patent law, where a patent may be left idle. The patent holder can selectively choose to defend, license or ignore those who are possibly infringing. (It is for this reason that I am not against patents themselves, but against those patent bullies who find new revenue sources in the courtroom.)
"If you don't agree with the law, fix it." Explore the ways that trademark law can be fixed, and contact your local government official.
[
Hopefully they're not going after people with domains (and slashdot usernames) whose initials are GL...
-----
I think its kinda extreme to claim that corporations are going to chop up the ENTIRE english language--honestly how much do you use the entire phrase OpenGL without referring to OpenGL, granted I agree that going after sites using 'open' or 'GL' not as a phrase is simply crazy, but assuming that trademarks continue to be assigned to phrases or conglomerations of words rather than single words, I don't think we are in any danger of running out of words that can be safely said without risking the TM nazi's appearing magically at your door.
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
http://www.sgi.com/cgi-bin/feedback/index.cgi?entr y=compinfo_community_rel&LEVEL=2&last_url=
I doubt it will help, but it sure as hell can't hurt.
ÕÕ
Well, do you think people who buy SGI's nowadays really know the difference? :-)
;)
Nice one.
The other two (OpenCL and AL) look a bit more dubious.
Thanks for the support (I'm the guy who wrote OpenCL and then was promptly contacted by SGI). The phrase the guy who contacted me used was "clearing out the namespace" for their products. I find it pretty ridiculous, you would have to be a real moron to confuse a C++ crypto library and a C graphics API.
I told them I would change it, mostly because I wasn't really in the mood to mess with even a small company. OTOH, I haven't changed my source tree yet, as I was waiting to see what would happen when the news eventually hit the community.
Too late. I just trademarked "TM" as a means of identifying a trademark. That means you need to put my "TM" after each "TM" you use. (No, you can't get out of it by using a Kleene star.)
Sorry, can't talk now. Got a meeting with my lawyers.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
I remember one of those can't be invoked unless capital is being made from it. I believe it was trademark. How bout we print up T-shirts, 26 of them, a letter on each, sell them, and we can trademark the alphabet, no? Could a variation on this work? If SGI can get GL, I want PL, PO, SM, DZ, KA (random), and is TM taken? ::)
-- taking over the world, we are.
Yeah, and nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito...
---
Trademarks are one of those forever troublesome topics. Fundamentally, trademark owners have the exclusive right to use it, and often to use it on related products. They also have a duty to defend the trademark from unauthorized use, lest they lose the trademark. The intent of the laws centers around creating a name the manufacturer owns, and cutting confusion in the mind of consumers.h tml>Cornell's</a>.
<p>
This begs the question: "What's confusing to a random mass of consumers?" Because the only way to determine for sure is to go to court and to take your chances, trademark law has lots of 'nasty-grams' asking people to change names.
<p>
It's a bit of a problem. Lawyers, generally, are comfortable with settling ambiguities and issues of fact with court proceedings. Non-lawyers feel this is arbitrary and encourages kleptocracy. The attitude appears to be a hazard of the profession, just like developers want to add a little more to the next release.
<p>
We always have trademark law issues show up on Slashdot. Remember Sun Microsystems sending out mass emails to every website with the substring "java" in their names? Or all the fights over ICANN arbitration rules concerning trademarks? Or trying to retake the term "Open Source" as a trademark or servicemark? Because trademarks deal with fuzzy issues like "confusion", there will always be confusion.
<p>
Look a good primer on trademarks, e.g., <a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.
Also, a shameless plug: Check out <a href=http://www.truegift.com>TrueGift Donations</a> to help students turn into smarter people.
Profit motivates invention.
Mr. Kasparov, we believe you are infringing upon the common name of a famous chess player. Since common names uniformly usurp trademarks, we're retroactively registering this name, and issuing you this order to cease the use of our trademark pending name. Failure to do so will automatically result in us not caring, and no legal action being taken to cause you to forfeit said trademark (including but not limited to any merchandise, real estate, and liquid assets associated, themselves infringing, or having nothing to do, with the trademark dispure). Have a nice day.
How about
? (You might even be able to get away with capitalizing the "IL" inside..."Provided by the management for your protection."
Again, I'm not claiming who's right or wrong, but OpenIL could definately make things difficult for SGI. They are trying to move their libraries to open source, and Imagevision is one of them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
In fact, Brian seems to have gotten along quite nicely with sgi. I wouldn't be surprised that they asked him not to call his library MesaGL, or if he asked them if they'd mind and they said "no." In fact, sgi highly encourages and supports Mesa's development. Maybe this is even an opportunity to work with sgi on an open implementation of their imagevision library.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Interestingly, they said the same thing about some other libraries they released - including Performer.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
While I doubt their lawyers even know/care about it, and it might be coincidental, I could understand SGI wanting to preserve OpenIL for themselves. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying the first "Open" product I've ever heard of (and I certainly may be wrong) was SGI's. Shortly after came several other "Open" products. They've actually had the Imagevision Library for quite some time. OpenIL could be an important name for them.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The possible infringement is not two letters, it's two letters preceded by the word "Open". So far, we have not heard from OpenSSH, OpenBSD, or any other "Open" projects, excepting those followed by two letters, one of which is "l".
I'm not saying SGI is write, I am saying that "Open?L" is a fairly well known and usually associated with SGI. SGI, as I and others have pointed out, also have an image library ("Imagevision Library", or ... "il", as all the functions are prefixed), and potentially have another Open source project they'd to call "OpenIL". They also have a digital media library, and an audio library.
While others have claimed the use of "Open" as early as the late seventies, I have yet to see an example. The first time I ever heard of such a use was OpenGL.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SGI is right - if they were planning on open-sourcing their library, they should have done it by now. I'm saying this is all being taken way out of context, and they may have a point. It would be nice, if they were going to release OpenIL, if the guy could give up OpenIL and let sgi continue naming things in the fashion they've been doing. And, if he refuses, sgi should let it lie, and call it something else. But that's just my opinion.
I swear, though, if someone at Slashdot got mad at any company at all, they could merely post some inflamatory summary, no one would read the article, and BAM! 250000 people would hate said company.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Well, I don't worry about SGI, you see, I'm an open minded fellar.. *gi GL e*
Bizar technology?
And once you've done all that... Does most OS software compile? no ...
Someone tell me I'm wrong about all this!
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
use nested, you don't get any of those, b/c all of the msgs are there. if you see one, it will be a fake
___
It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
I think my conclusion after several years of study on these sorts of issues is that the best tools of "small folks" might be education and cooperation. Because many potential defendants have no clue as to the real status of trademark or other intellectual propertly laws, they are destined to fail without legal counsel. On the other hand, if they had at least some legitimate estimation of the legal status of their situation, they would be able to more aptly judge whether they should hold or fold. Thus far in this thread I have seen a lot of evidence of misunderstanding of trademark law. Secondly, I would like to see some grassroots efforts to defend those who have good cases against trademark/IP/rights holders. If there were even a modest organization willing to offer pro bono or low cost legal services to those who've been subject to harassment, the "reverse chilling effect" on corporations would be substantial. No doubt, many lawyers who author cease and desist letters know precisely that their claims wouldn't hold the morning dew on a blade of grass. Unfortunately, the odds that anyone will say so or be empowered to legal fight such claims, are so minimal as to not be worthy of concern.
As for changing the law, I think that would probably be the least effective way to bring about real change. True, trademark holders are somewhate incentivized by the law to protect their marks, but I think this is a necessary part of the law, given the power which is given to those who have trademark rights. Instead of trying to re-balance things by tinkering with the scale, we should consider the weights on each side of the scale and ask whether there are ways to bring them into equilibrium.
Stay tuned for exciting news on these fronts from the good folks at the Berkman Center (tm) at the Harvard Law School (tm). Hehe.
I'm sorry Mr. IronChef, but I'm going to have to ask you not to post as you are infringing upon the Iron Chef (TM) trade mark. If you continue to post, we will of course have to take legal action against you.
Letigiously,
Media Daibatsu
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Yes, a counter-suit is possible. It has been done, and I suspect it often results in victory *if* the original suit failed. I know people who have fallen victim to these... people who levied a frivilous lawsuit to begin with.
How much money you could get back on this, though, may amount to nothing more than repayment for your time, trouble, and legal fees.
Good association! I made a very similar comment on the recent article on anti-spam legislation, but I didn't make the connection. You're right, it all leads to the same thing, juding whether someone's intensions are "valid" or not. Not a good place to be legislating...
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
That's the problem right there. When you start being concerned that people are making money too easily, or unfairly (though it's hard to find a victim in cybersquatting "crimes", IMO), anything you do in the way of prevention is going to have the effect of limiting freedom, which will have an adverse affect on everyone given enough time.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
It does when you don't believe in IP law.
Besides, personally I don't care if two names can be confused. You have registered a name as a trademark, not a regular expression. If these big bad companies want to be sure no one uses a name that comes close let them spend the money on buying as many misspellings and permutations as they are willing to pay for. Ridiculous, yes, but not as ridiculous as telling someone that they cannot use a particular sequence of letters because some company owns it.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
- SGI engineers were generally speed demons. They prided themselves on their code being both fast and reliable. They were said to have put more than 6 months into cleaning up X-Windows before they would release it on their machines.
- The intent (and effect) of the memo was to correct the listed problems -- both in the short term and the long term.
----That having been said, the following quote tweaked a somewhat fond memory for me: Remember that this is 1993, when an 8MB PC was considered big. Even now -- 8 years later, a 256MB home PC can raise eyebrows.
In 1993 we had an IBM RS/6000 named brutus. It was used for volume rendering and we pretty much put as much money as we had left in our IBM account into extra ram for the machine -- 380MB. Quite often, when I mentiond to people that we had a machine with 380MB of memory, people would respond with wide eyes:
I didn't always have the heart to correct the misconception.--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Granted, one of the best-known GL applications was their demo program called 'flight' or 'dog'. Flight was the single user version. Dog was the multi-user version. However, spending $120K just to play a kick-ass dogfight simulator would strike most people as excessive. ($120K = $60K x 2 workstations. you could use many more workstations, if you wanted.)
Hmm. I wonder if this would count as the first multi-player networked immersive first-person-shooter game? but I digress.
In any case: Dog may have sold many workstations that wouldn't have otherwise been bought from SGI, but I doubt that there were many funding applications that actually said 'play dog' on them at the kinds of prices that an SGI workstation sold for back then.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I guess the people at Gamma Lambda are in for it now.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
OpenAL is not a graphics library, as you suggest. It is a 3D Sound library/API, similar in purpose to DirectSound 3D and EAX.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
They will look up your info in the internic database. If that info is not correct, it's more difficult for them.
Just because you, low-end users, and several crackpot, clueless politicians and corporate suits may "assume" incorrectly does not mean that other people will.
Did you look at the guy's web page? Does it strike you as an SGI look-alike? Does it strike you as the type of site that an average user would spend time at? Just because an AOLer might (dumb-assedly) assume that OpenIL = OpenGL doesn't mean that the kind of developer who would actually be at the site would.
--SC
PS. I'd rather be informed of potential corporate rape than just wake up the morning after and wonder why my ass is so swollen.
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Personally, I'd like to know who it was just so that I can avoid ever purchasing anything they ever produce. Care to divulge? Email, if you'd like.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Keep in mind this is a joke, so please don't over analyze this
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Wow - in the time it took me to post this, about 15 people made the same point :)
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
I also just reread the intro to this article and it seems like /. is adding some needless hyperbole. If SGI were on a quest to rid the world of "Open" and "GL", the "OpenSSH" and "OpenBSD" crowd probably would have heard. It's more like our lawyers don't especially like "Open?L", which differs by only one letter from a trademark of ours. That is hardly "going after any name that starts with Open".
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
So basically, what this all boils down to, is "trademark law sucks".
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
While I'm not overjoyed to see that the company I work for is going and doing one of these stupid trademark enforcement deals, this particular one seems a little more on target than some. Afterall, "OpenGL" and "OpenIL" are fairly similar names and they *are* both image manipulation libraries. A little bit of a stretch, but not as bad as, say, etoy. The other two (OpenCL and AL) look a bit more dubious.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
TO those free-software/libertarian types looking to find a way out of the trademark/patent morass I've got just the thing. A completely new language!
This language - called "Desperanto" - is of course issued under a variant of the GPL. Basically no characters, words or phrases either singly or in combination can be published in any form which restricts their usage by anyone else (ie no naughty trademarking).
We are still at version 0.01 of the language with plenty of work to do. (OK. I admit we only have one word at the moment. In english its rendered as "fa'arkOf" - its the sound made by someone upon hearing that yet another commonly used word has been trademarked). While we need lots of help coming up with new words, grammar and syntax, our most important task is converting from latin script to something else. Unfortunately we need to do this to avoid pending lawsuits from companies who are seeking to trademark every single character in the english alphabet.
There are two options for us here. The first is to develop a completely new script (never been seen before...however we face the not-inconsiderable risk of receiving a cease-and-desist letter in the future from a space-faring civilisation whose script closely resembles and predates ours).
The alternative is to use something like ancient Sumerian script (for which we are pretty sure the patent has expired).
Once we've got the script issues sorted, we will have to get Desperanto characters shoved into the Unicode character set. Then we can start pressuring ICANN to allow Desperanto based domain names.
I am in the process of registering the Desperanto project with Sourceforge. I'll let you all know when its up. To quote from the information I submitted with the registration:
"The purpose of this project is nothing less than the creation of an entirely new spoken and written language, unique, with its own script, for the purposes of communicating ideas through the use of characters, words and phrases which cannot, by virtue of the nature of the license to be used when employing the language, be trademarked, patented or restricted in circulation in any way. Since the language itself will be licensed under the GPL (or an appropriate variant thereof), all characters, words or phrases either singly or in combination derived from the language will be encumbered by the same license (and thus be un-trademarkable)."
This sounds interesting. Does anybody have more information about this?
_________________________
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/legal/legal.html
Scroll down to the tradmark info, listed in alphabetical order. Smile isn't one of them, but "We love to see you smile" is.
Dammit, that was a goatse.cx link. Fooled me, unfortunately.
I haven't seen the cup, but I hope you're not referring to their saying "We love to see you smile". Isn't that the correct trademark?m ile/index.html
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/whatsnew/s
Open Inventor starting compiling fairly clean on my debian box last week.
I had to do intermediate installs of the Inventor and InventorXt libraries as intermediate steps, but I'm free from having to deal with the TGS demoware...not that it was too much of a hassle, but I got the Inventor and Mentor books and just wanted to check it out, not have to go through registration, demo crud, expiration issues.
As I say, I hope this is just a "clueless legal dept" thing.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Who's next to be slapped by such stupidity, OpenBSD?
- BTW, I'm purposely not identifying the domain (though it's possible to figure it out) just because... well, frankly, I'd rather not give them the free traffic.
If I promise not to click any of their banners will you tell me?I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
It IS possible. I simply dont understand WHY sgi is doing this. HP OpenView, will that have to change its name too? hehe HP will buy sgi instead I think :)
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
As much as some people seem to hate MS, I never had these kind of experiences with them, so if SGI knocks at my door to change DemoGL into something else and to change the logo, I'll hop ship. It will take time to adapt d3d into DemoGL but I don't wish to support an API which owner bullies users of that API and bullies developers that make that API more succesful. OpenGL development is already a pain with all the extensions and no good central, general documentation for all these extensions with examples and tutorials, unlike D3D. These SGI actions will only make it worse.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Keep up the good work, m8, and don't let them scare you.
FB, author of DemoGL, which is named that way because it makes OpenGL development easier and it seemed logical to me to use 'GL' in the name to point out that OpenGL is the API supported and has to be used by the developer to write the effects in.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
It's hard to understand why SGI is doing this. OpenGL is really suffering these days from the more maturing D3D api, and this will not do any good to the reputation of OpenGL. Projects like DemoGL, GLUT, DelphiGL and others are started because it's necessary to have a platform that makes it easy to develop OpenGL based effects, thus HELPS in supporting the development of OpenGL. If SGI is pushing these projects to change their names, it's very likely that they will abandon OpenGL at all.
For me, if SGI wants me to change the name of DemoGL I will first think of fighting it (I'm in the Netherlands, Europe, dunno if SGI has the trademark here to plus my parents in law are both a judge so free legal advice is at hand ;)) and if I don't have a change then I'll port DemoGL to D3D and will abandon OpenGL at all.
SGI has to understand it's the developers at the moment which keep OpenGL alive. Scaring away these developers will scare away the lifesource OpenGL needs so much these days.
PS: the email address in the header is fake, in case you didn't know that ;)
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Well, actually TSR does, but since they are now owned by Hasbro...
TSR did a role-playing game based on Indiana Jones. The front cover listed a bunch of trademarks they claimed, including Nazi(tm). There were a whole lot more common words, but that's the one I remember.
I'm not sure why they have lawyers going after people with no money when their basic business position is so tenuous. It doesn't seem like good business sense, especially since they seem to be predominantly going after people whom they are trying to court with their open source and linux efforts.
On the other hand, SGI did have an image library called "IL" and an audio library called "AL" many years ago (early '90's). Since taking GL the open route, they could conceivably have a case for OpenAL and OpenIL as trademarks, although if they are going claim infringement, they should have thought of taking those API's "open" years ago.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
no, but almost as ridiculous, they trademarked that use and presentation of the word 'smile'
-the nice thing about flipping burgers in high school - you have more pride than the middle aged guy managing the place.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
No judge would ever enforce a trademark that effectively covered every program with 'open' in its name.
This means that it's just lawyers trying to intimidate people. In our system, it's sadly easy to do that, since most people don't have the money to fight even the most inane of charges in court - and even if they do, the company can find another issue to sue on until the victim is bankrupt.
What about not putting your email address on the page? Then they can't figure out how to send you the nasty-gram that you can't use their trademark. Put on your webpage that if you want people to contact you, they need to put a message in a certain newsgroup on a certain news server or something. Most legal department people are going to have no clue how to do that. Problem is, some of the other people that need to contact your page might not either.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I have a friend who goes by his initials "G.L". Is he going to have to change his name, or make it "G.L.(tm)"?
According to http://www.bcpl.net/~jspath/isocodes.html anyone with a Greenland localised domain is also infringing on their trademark.
Easy, yes. But you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor if you hold out as long as you can. Every time somebody folds under this kind of pressure, it encourages the big corporations to use the same tactics again.
If nothing else, publicize the conflict as much as possible. Grab some free web space and post copies of the e-mails and such. Submit stories to Slashdot to warn others... oh, wait...
Well, fight the good fight, but try not to get sued into oblivion.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
SGI vs. California
In a recent SlashDot story, users of the popular website were made aware of SGI's attempts at closing down sites with the words "Open" and "GL" in them. Siting violation of Intellectual Property, possible confusion of one of it's name brands, and lost revenue.
This apparently was not enough to ensure SGI's survival during this tumultuos time for Tech Companies. In a press conference held just a few minutes ago, SGI's spokeperson Richard Cranium (Dick Head for short) stated that letters have been sent out to millions of businesses who use the "We are Open" signs. Apparently, the letter states "SGI holds the trademark for 'Open', and unless a licensing agreement can be reached, you are hereby required to cease and desist the use of your 'We are Open' signs".
When asked about possible options to small business owners, Mr. Cranium stated "This is California, you better learn to read Spanish and just use 'Estamos Abiertos' instead of our trademarked 'Open' sign."
California Governor Gray Davis was quoted as saying "I am abierto to changes in our culture".
when i see text on a label indicating the brand name, there's that tm right there too... if companys want to have there name in the ip directory listing, they should append a tm. then for everyone it is obvious if you are going to www.microsofttm.com as opposed to anyone else. or ICANNT needs to ceed its authority to the office of trademarks and close up shop, because what they are doing is the job of the trademark agency. domain names are like a damn phone book listing, ... and i dont want to hear, "im sorry you cant have your name in the phone book, somebody has a trademark on your name."
---
There's a simple self test...
Why did you name your product OpenIL?
If the answer is "because it sounds like OpenGL" then you've answered your own question.
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Slashdot still seems to be using the old Silicon Graphics "bug" cube logo. The company is still offically Silicon Graphics, Inc., but goes by the name "SGI" and has a new logo to reflect this. The logo is essentially the lowercase letters, "sgi". Visit www.sgi.com to see the new logo. The cube is gone, let it rest in peace.
Well i tried to.
i went to SGI's feedback page. and i told them politely that i did not think that there behavior was acceptable. Perhaps if we politely inform them that we are not impresseses, maybe they will listen
How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.
Do the following really mean anything? SCSA MCP CCSA CCNA
--I'm not actually after an answer!
I run a non-profit community access network, and when we were looking for a domain name, we wanted one that would sound like the region of the state we were in. We found the domain we wanted, but the .com and .net of it were owned by a large company. I contacted them via e-mail and told them what we wanted to do before we bought the domain to avoid this very situation. One of their lawyers wrote me back a very nice letter telling me that we were free to use the domain, and then mailed me a waiver clearing us to use it as long as we met certian non-commercial terms. They were very nice about it, and in one e-mail the lady I was dealing with basically told me that if we had just took the domain we probably would have gotten one of those "cease and desist" letters. So if you have ANY doubt whatsoever, ask. it saved me a lot of hassle and a potential lawsuit.
I(TM) don't(TM) see(TM) what(TM) the(TM) big(TM) deal(TM) is(TM)!
-Gnight
I used to have a Subaru Legacy 'GL' wagon.....
I work at a small software company that puts out a couple of products. It is interesting to note we had to rename one of our products from DesignExpress to Office Labeler because DesignExpress sounded too much like QuarkXpress. Quark threatened to sue us if we didn't change the name.
Now we didn't put up any type of fight because our company is simply too small and doesn't have the resources continue fighting in court for any extended period of time. The product itself has bears no resemblance to Quark at all, but personally to me the names don't bear a resemblance. Since the change, it has caused us a major headache in support because people think we are still using the old name and can't find any updates for the program. They just don't know the name has changed even though it says right on the webpage.
Of course this happens between companies all the time but it shows how far some companies will go to keep their trademarks or products identities unique.
How much were your legal fees?
Not really a suprise anymore, but yes, someone at SGI has decided to take sgisucks.com. Of course, there is no http server at the address, but the name is taken:
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
.COM, .NET, .ORG, .EDU domains and
Registrars.
.org is still open.
------
evilpenguin@paladin:~$ whois sgisucks.com
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
Domain Name: SGISUCKS.COM Registrar: TUCOWS.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: www.opensrs.org
Name Server: NS1.LAUDERDALE.NET
Name Server: NS2.LAUDERDALE.NET
Updated Date: 24-apr-2000
>>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:58:41 EDT
The Registry database contains ONLY
Found InterNIC referral to whois.opensrs.net.
Registrant:
Worldnet Companies Inc.
1299 East Commercial Blvd.
Floor #2
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334
US
Domain Name: SGISUCKS.COM
Administrative Contact:
WNC, Admin dns@lauderdale.net
1299 East Commercial Blvd.
Floor #2
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334
US
954-453-6000
Technical Contact:
WNC, Admin dns@lauderdale.net
1299 East Commercial Blvd.
Floor #2
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334
US
954-453-6000
Billing Contact:
WNC, Admin dns@lauderdale.net
1299 East Commercial Blvd.
Floor #2
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33334
US
954-453-6000
Record last updated on 30-Mar-2001.
Record expires on 25-Apr-2001.
Record Created on 26-Apr-1998.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.LAUDERDALE.NET 209.203.219.2
NS2.LAUDERDALE.NET 209.236.27.5
--------
Well, atleast as not as rediculous as "overtheverizon.com". Sgisucks.net is also taken, but
--
--
#nohup cat
This is also happening to consumer advocacy groups. A specific example (one with which I am affiliated, BTW) is Ameritech Cable. They provide news and information about Ameritech's poor service and anti-consumer practices, as well as a place for people to talk about their experiences with Ameritech. Currently, they, along with Ameritechdsl.com are getting sued by Ameritech for a number of things. Read all about it here
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
aztek: the ultimate man
No sig for you!!
I agree, it's confusing. But the real problem is SGI's for naming their technology after a "common convention" for open-source naming (Open[a-z]+). For example, if I make windows for your house, I can have Windows in my logo, etc. and M$ can't do crap. M$ was smart, because when they marketed windows, it was always Microsoft Windows - not just "windows". The word "Open" and a 2-3 letter acronym leaves it self open to confusion. So as a corporation, either:
1) Be more creative with your naming so that it's truely unique
2) Use your company name (SGI OpenGL)
So, the real whiners are the corporations, trying to "clear their namespace", AKA making US pay for their mistake.
I would vote that OpenIL be changed to "Open IL" as two seperate words - that's as much Trademark control as SGI should get.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
If you cause SGI to lose revenue on their product by offering a similar product with a similar name, then you are effectively stealing from SGI.
SGI has spent alot of time and money promoting the OpenGL name as a 3d-graphics technology. If you create a graphics product and call it OpenML, OpenXL, etc, you are obviously using SGI's branding to promote your product.
If microsoft introduced an OS called Mlinix, would you have a problem with it?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
What if SGI licensed the trademark to OpenIL for a token fee? After all, trademarks are often licensed (for instance, to display a logo with a compatibility claim), without diluting them. This way SGI would still fully protect its own trademark from real infringement, and not lose face with the open source/free software community which will stay away from its products if it does much bullying of noncommercial uses of obvious names that somewhat resemble its trademarks.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Make 'em wish they'd thought of the name "OpenGRaIL" (or Open GRaphIcs Library) First! Aw crap- I bet I just gave away the next coolest name on the net...
Whoops! I spoke too soon! It Already belongs to "Gene Recognition and Assembly Internet Link "
Oh well...
Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
Years ago I got a call from some sad minion at SGI whose job it was to track down all the web sites publishing the famous 1993 "Software Usability II" memo, and whine at them to remove it. He said I should remove it from my web site, because it was an internal memo that wasn't officially released. I explained to him that it had "already seen fairly broad network distribution", having been widely published on risks-digest, and forwarded all around the internet because it was so hillariously entertaining. Why it's even assigned reading in university operating systems courses! It's a great thing that computer science students should be required to read this "wonderful record of what goes wrong with large software projects".
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Help!(tm) Help!(tm)
Before(tm) I(tm) Do(tm) something(tm) radical!(tm)
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Put on your first page in "nice" 72pt font "This page is not in any way associated with OpenGL, Silicon Graphics Inc., or any other major corporation or copyrighted or trademarked property unless explicitly stated to be so involved." I don't think you could be held liable for stupid people who find that "confusingly similiar."
So no one can use "Open" or "GL" preceded or followed by someting else without it being confusing? Most "end users" don't know what OpenGL is, who SGI is, or anything about either. To them, "OpenGL" is some confusing computer stuff that they really don't care about. Only "computer savy" users are going to know what OpenGL is, and they can typically read a web page.
So no one can use "Open" or "GL" preceded or followed by someting else without it being confusing?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. If you name your software something like, for example, "Open Yadda Yadda," more power to you. But with "Open?L" you're just asking for it.
Only "computer savy" users are going to know what OpenGL is, and they can typically read a web page.
I think you're forgetting a huge chunk of computer users: the `l33t gamers. Half of these guys are dumb as boards, but I'll bet that they all know what OpenGL is. And tell them about OpenIL, and you'll probably hear "w0w! That's 2 letters after OpenIL! `l33t!"
Stupid like a fox!
This seems to me like another case of Slashdotters running crying everytime a copmany steps on what they mistakenly consider their rights.
Let's look at this logically. Is a name like "OpenIL" confusable with "OpenGL?" Sure is. If I heard about something named OpenIL, I'd instantly assume it had something to do with OpenGL, and I might even go as far, as I bet a lot of "end users" would, as to assume that it was from the same people. This is futerh complicated by the fact that the logos are similar enough to perhaps cause some confusion for those not too familiar with OpenGL.
Trademark law was created, and in my mind rightly so, to stop this kind of confusion between products.
My advice? Change the name. It doesn't sound like SGI sent out the big nasties, just a polite letter. They were even cosiderate enough to have a conversation with the guy via email rather than just more threatening letters.
Oh, and Slashdotters? Calm down. Just because a corporation is invoking IP law doesn't make them evil.
Stupid like a fox!
This seems to me like another case of Slashdotters running crying everytime a copmany steps on what they mistakenly consider their rights. Let's look at this logically. Is a name like "OpenIL" confusable with "OpenGL?" Sure is. If I heard about something named OpenIL, I'd instantly assume it had something to do with OpenGL, and I might even go as far, as I bet a lot of "end users" would, as to assume that it was from the same people. This is futerh complicated by the fact that the logos are similar enough to perhaps cause some confusion for those not too familiar with OpenGL. Trademark law was created, and in my mind rightly so, to stop this kind of confusion between products. My advice? Change the name. It doesn't sound like SGI sent out the big nasties, just a polite letter. They were even cosiderate enough to have a conversation with the guy via email rather than just more threatening letters. Oh, and Slashdotters? Calm down. Just because a corporation is invoking IP law doesn't make them evil.
Stupid like a fox!
I am the domain contact for wickednews.net, and its service wickednews, an internet news service.(I administer the DNS for a small internet company) About two years ago, a jerk off lawyer from a company in CA, who will remain nameless because I don't want to get involved in anymore fights with him, called up looking for the owners of the domain and the company running the service. Which we would not give him of course, they are our customers and I have no obligation to give that info out. He decided to come after myself and the other partners in the hosting company. He was claiming that his company had a trademark on the word "wicked" and specically on wickednews. And yes indeed they do, it was pending at the time, and we theorize he was doing due dilegence to scare us into dropping it, to clear the way. We investigated the issue to see if we could fight back, or at least have a rational discusssion with him(he would not dicuss, only continued to say that we had to drop it because of the pending trademark) What we found was that they had filed the trademark a year after wickednews had gone into business, the web site that they claimed their trademark for ahd not come into existance until over a year after Wickednews.net had been in business. They didn't own any directly conflicting domain names at that time. There were at leat 20 other potentially conflicting sites out there. We drafted a very kind and stright forward letter to him sent it certified mail(NOTE: NO legal conversation is offical until you send certified mail, do not talk to them on the phone, or even return emails other than to say put it in writing, a little legal advice I had to pay a lawyer for I give all of you for free) telling him that we did not consider his claim valid and telling him explictly why we thought so. He went away, and has never been heard from again. I would say the same applies in the case above, SGI has no right to come after everyone on the net that has the work Open in their name its too, common...and has a specific context in its meaning that is not associated with any one company. IE. Do they intend to go after every company that claims to manufactur "OPEN"Systems, and OSes, thats a pretty big laundry list and I think some of them have even deeper pockets than SGI. They are tring to bully you and have no basis for their claim, ignore them and move on.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Load of Crap, there is no conflict. This like saying that anyone that uses the word slash in the domain name is conflicting with slashdot.org.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Can you please explain to me - if trademarks are to identify source - why do they not introduce name.class.country.reg?
Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".
Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.
WIPO.org.uk - no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization - WIPO.ORG, part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.
The authorities have bastardized our language - they have taken all words away from us and make them fit for only one use - only as trademark system. It is a very bad system at that, used by only one supplier of each name, out of thousands worldwide.
Extract of 9 October 2000 email to DoC & USPTO:
"Here is an analogy, just for a moment imagine, if you will:
You go to your dictionary and look up definition for the word 'apple'. It says the following:
Apple - a maker of computers. This is the sole meaning; any other use will be a criminal offence.
Nothing at all about them being a fruit used in the world famous 'American Apple Pie'. All words have had their description changed. You find dictionaries have been bastardized, for use as a trademark system. Would you not be outraged that all the words in your vocabulary for everyday speech have been perverted this way?"
/ end
Perhaps you have more common sense - do you understand? Can you see - words belonging to everybody have been given to big business? Like I say, the Apple in the world famous 'American Apple Pie' is now a computer, not a fruit.
WIPO.org.uk - no connection with the World Intellectual Property Organization - WIPO.ORG, part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.
They have always known solution to trademark problems.
.uk Internet Domain Names. The existing Dispute Resolution Service is under review. I sent this open letter:
.car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.
.REG
.com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.
.REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.
Nominet UK is the Registry for
Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization ( WIPO.org.uk )
Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK
The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.
WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).
This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.
First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.
To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."
Saying, "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.
A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.
However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.
ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.
Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.
They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.
Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.
The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve
There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:
Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".
Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.
Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.
It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.
As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.
All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.
Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.
Mandatory Requirements:
1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of
The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg
This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.
If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.
It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.
There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.
There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.
It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?
The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.
In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of
How can someone trademark "Open" and "GL" separately, then sue the pants off of everyone else ? GL could stand for Graphics Library, Good Luck, Generic Luser, Gargantual Lemur, or Greasy Laws. "Open" is just a word. A word is a word is a word. OpenAL is totally outside of SGI's field of work and can't hardly be confused with OpenGL's functionality. OpenIL might be a little touchier since it deals with imaging, but still must we let these corporations trample all over our rights as creators and artists, only justified by the fact that "lots of rich people are too dumb to tell the difference". That's a damn weak defense if anyone cared to ask me.
IANAL, definitely, but does SGI's claim hold any water in court ? Next we'll see Microsoft suing medical orgs worldwide for referring to Multiple Sclerosis as MS. Just don't make sense.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Funny SGI dosen't seem to mind the word Open when the word source follows it. Attacking a community the you want to derive benefit from just seems stupid. Way to go keep this up and you will go back to being the only one making software for your equipment.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
When the U.S. Wins You Win(tm)... This is definitly some All American Bullshit(tm)
I couldn't belive you and went on their site... liked that one: "A link has been set up with Yahoo! to facilitate linkage to the Yahoo! web site". I would never have guessed that on my own.
One thing is for sure, they are Changing The Face of The World(tm), and it's not for the better.
Une bonne journée j'va y r'tourner avec mon bulldozer
Pis l'MacDonald y va passer un mauvais quart d'heure!
Soon, it will become impossible to write a simple e-mail without using copyright symbols left and right.
Since I Open (courtesy of SGI)ed an on-line store on the Internet (courtesy of Al Gore), now you can visit (courtesy of www.visit.com) me easily! I am but One-Click(courtesy of amazon.com) away! You can even get (courtesy of FTP) some stuff if you put (courtesy of FTP) it in the basket (courtesy of www.basket.com)!
sigh.
The "Open" in OpenGL is clearly misleading and an obvious attempt to cash in on the greater renown of established products such as Open Source(c), the British Open Golf Championship(r), and Open Wide(tm: the Dental Association). Let's club together and sue the pants of the sofabs!
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
A name like ImageMesa might make one think of Mesa and then OpenGL.
"if you're at the level of exchanging informal E-mail with someone there, try to keep it at that exchange. "...
A-ha! I smell Redmond...
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Think about a company called WindOS, which is similar sounding to Windows (to a non savvy tech person), now their business is making an OS
There is one small difference though. The primary market for Windows(TM2) is non-tech-savvy people. The primary market for OpenGL(TM3) is tech-savvy people - particularly, people who are already capable of telling an OpenGL from an OpenAL. IANAL, but AFAIK a trademark infringement is typically measured in the potential market for possible clients of the company with the trademark. I think the majority of people using OpenGL have to already have some knowledge of what OpenGL is, and are not likely to be confused and tricked into using something with a similar name.
(TM) "Windows" is a registered trademark of Microsoft (TM2) corporation.
(TM2) "Microsoft" is a trademark of Microsoft corporation.
(TM3) "OpenGL" is a trademark of SGI corporation.
In Norway they went after a guy (lastname McDonald) because he had a hot-dog stand called McDonald's hotdogs...
Lo and behold the day when the ardent socialist realizes that big business is now using his policies to eliminate competition.
Cybersquatting was the least of people's problems. Get ready for some serious fighting over names of Internet sites.
Far from owning the contents of the Oxford Unabridged, our modest investment in connecting words will pay off for us and our investors.
It seems that very soon, anyone who doesn't want to pay us will be speaking like a Hollywood stereotype of a Native American. Or perhaps people will begin writing more like Hemmingway: "I am cold, tired."
And, But Or- they'll get us pretty far.
Look for information on our IPO on our web site.
How long is it, before corporations begin to carve up the English dictionary and we won't be able to use a single word without following it with "(tm)"?
It(tm) will(tm) never(tm) happen(tm)!(tm)(patent pending)(copyright 2001, ignavus)
I am anarch of all I survey.
my reply: Good thing you aren't a lawyer, else you might get lynched [for the record, IANAL either, but such a broad interpretation of the law at hand is somewhat disturbing]
Its a question of markets, and who the 'common' customers in those markets are. OpenGL[tm, to satisfy the bloodsuckers] has two markets:
1. Game players
2. Game creators
Now, the average game player MAY confuse OpenGL with OpenIL, however OpenIL is not likely to appear in the same context as OpenGL [i.e. on the side of a box for a 3D game]. OpenIL is not targeted a J. Random Gamer.
Game creators, on the other hand, may take note of, and make use of, OpenIL [though, if it is GPL'd that likelyhood drops], but they could also be reasonably expected by any sane person to know the difference. If they didn't, I know *I* wouldn't buy a game from them.
Now, SGI does have enough to bring about a lawsuit, hence the questioner's fear. Personally [previosu disclaimer applies of course] I think he could win with a good lawyer, but that is likely beyond his means or desire. My suggestion to him, to avoid having to change the name entirely and tons of documentation with it, is to go from OpenIL to OIL. Same initials, SGI ought to shut up, and makes a handy, easily pronouncable acronym besides:)
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Not long. After receiving a strongly-worded letter from Idealab, FC has had to show the company's name as "idealab! (sm)". Still, Idealab (notice that I'm not complying with them?) is the reigning champion in corporate failures on that site.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Remember when Sun Microsystems cease-and-desisted CmdrTaco because of "Java Invaders" and the usage of the Java logo on Slashdot?
Still, if SGI wants to go through with this, they'll have to hunt left and right for "offenders", like GLDuke, GLTron, GLQuake, OpenType (a joint font standard between Microsoft and Adobe), and others.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
This will surely be an unpopular point of view, but at first blush, it appears to me that you might be infringing on their trademark. OpenIL appears to a suite of graphics APIs like OpenGL. It is also merely one letter away, and happens to use OpenGL's odd capitalization pattern. This doesn't appear to be going after a random use of the word Open, but, in fact, I rather specific use that is intended to invoke the idea of OpenGL, if not actually confuse people.
Of course, I know you were merely making a parody of the name OpenGL, but this does seem to me to be a reasonalble invocation of trademark by SGI.
I have very little understanding of trademark law but I think it is something they have to activly protect else they lose it.
That being said you could ask for permission to use the similar name. If they have an agreement with you they can claim to be defending OpenGL(TM) and you keep OpenIL. To make this valid I'm sure money would have to change hands but maybe you can agree to pay them $100 and they'll agree to buy $100 of banner ad space.
I don't know if any of that would work but I'd like to think both partys can be happy with out being assholes to each other if they will be a little creative.
Leknor
Come on people, this is not Golliath trying to destroy any David that pops up, it's a well established Goliath(tm) trying to get Golieth to change his name. The SGI vs. everything 'Open' or 'GL' is purely speculative - they're going after Open[x]L to protect their OpenGL. Sorry, but the names are pretty darn close, and likely confusing to non-geeks.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
If there is any chance of confusing Wall Street, and in this case there is, they'll get right on it. Plus if they ever decide to expand into non-geek exclusive territory, it serves them well to protect their name(s).
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
They don't, but they can latch onto buzzwords. That's why SGI is fighting to keep control of things similar to OpenGL. They should have the right to protect their investment, within reason anyways, and these names are awfully close. I seriously doubt OpenBSD is in any trouble, but I wouldn't create a company/product called OpenZL or Silicone Graphics, for the same reason a soft drink called Pepci or Coak would be a bad idea. I'm not saying everyone would easily be tricked, but there is a decent chance, at least in the minds of their lawyers (and I tend to agree) that some people will mistake these names.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
1. Seriously, if you're going to allow trademarks on acronyms of two letters, basically you're opening up the world to being owned by 26x26 companies. It wouldn't surprise me if OpenGL went after Free Graphics Libraries because it can be reduced to an acronym that "could be confused with" OpenGL. Heck, rec.comics.superheroes might have to look out in all its Green Lantern threads...
2. Plus, if the lawyers are going to skew the lines between companies that have only one letter difference, what's to stop them from going after companies named with the exact same letters, but in a slightly different order (ie: OpenLG)? A redundant thought, perhaps, but methinks the english language is going to need to expand in order to keep trademark law happy.
3. Finally, it's annoying that in a world of people who make a living who have to be smart enough to know the difference between OpenGL and Mesa and DirectX etc. that they can get away with a silly argument that some small project somewhere can be confused with their product.
Amazing how the earth managed to orbit the sun uninterrupted for millions and millions of years without lawyers. Why do we need them now?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
OpenGL is they're baby after all, and OpenAL and OpenIL could be confused (Espically with the Image vs. Graphic, the great unwashed won't see a difference.) OpenAL IS trying to do for 3D audio (enviormental audio, whatever audio) that OpenGL did/does for graphics, so SGI definitly has a case. What they're IP and trademark lawyers aren't remembering is that mimicing is the highest form of flattery. I guess flattery doesn't go very far with the IP and TM crowd.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Let's not forget about the new consortium efforts to create a "3D standard for the Web." Umm, what about VRML? Or did you guys hose it up so much in legal quagmire as to make it easier to start from scratch?
The use of lawyer letters to scare you into doing something that you don't have to do, and stop you from doing something that you have every right to do is fairly common in the industry.
... yes, I was a child hacker ... but now you know I'm over 30 ...
And considering that some of us had computer programs with Open* and *GL names back in the late 70s and early 80s, I kind of doubt they have a leg to stand on.
Oops
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually make my website for other people to look at.
I've noticed a lot of messages in this thread complaining/defending trademark law. It seems to me in this particular case trademark law isn't really an active player. All that's happened is SGI has sent an email to a student with a threat of litigation if the student doesn't comply. Like most people (and like he probably should) he's backed down rather than seeing if there is any truth in the lawyer's claim. This seems like a pretty efficient tactic to me. If I owned a large company I would probably send out hundreds of similar emails demanding people do things that are in my best interest; there is a very small cost in sending out these letters and absolutly no risk. If someone calls my bluff well all I'm out is the cost of the message and if they go along with what I tell them I get something for basicly nothing.
So is this completely legal? Or is this similar to a police officer saying you better confess or I'm gonna shoot you in the head. Even if the police officer has no intention in shooting this person in the head this tactic is still illegal. Are corporate lawyers bound to any similar guidlines.
Yeah.. I'm surprised we don't have to pay licensing fees to Mirriam-Webster for using the English language. (oops! Now watch... it'll happen!) One thing is for sure.. we (as a race) have to resolve the issues around IP now that we don't need even a piece of paper to copy it.
How do you deal with the classical concept of "theft" when copying someone's IP does not deprive them the ability to still use it?
Wherever humanity finally ends up with this issue, it's going to be darned interesting!
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
I believe McDonalds also sued a restaurant in the UK called "McDonalds fine eating". The last name of the owner was McDonald.
"OpenGL" as whole has every right to be copyrighted, but not the segments that make it up (Being "Open" and "GL").
Why? Because it wasn't their idea! We have to remember things like this, that OpenGL is called so because it is a Graphics Library (which can be abbreviated as 'GL' and was so long before OpenGL came along). And, remember that the Open part refers only to its being open-source. Was OpenGL the first project to use such terminology to show their open-source ways? Hell, no! Yes, they have some right to be ticked. No, they have no right to sue or to copy right as they are. OpenIL, OpenAL, all of you others out there at risk (wouldn't that be about HALF the projects over at Sourceforge?!) FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT! I'll back you up, and I hope everyone else would too. Let's start standing up for our rights. We have the right to make others do what we know they should, and to stop them from doing what they shouldn't. Thats the point of a democracy, as we so call ourselves. If the majority of Americans know that things such as this should stop, then they must.
Forget the politics, remember the people!
And to all the Big Bussiness people out there reading this, I'm talking to all of you. Quit the shit, It's going to stop. You won't last long with your spell of bitchiness.
Anyone else notice that lately EVERYONE in bussiness has been patent and copyright crazy and going completely nuts as to what counts as infringement? Let's stop the bullshit.
I announce that we should start some way to get rid of this crap. We know the truth, but the lawyers and judges don't. How can we fix this? We all know we are the ones that know the truth, and we need to stop bitching about all these problems and start doing something about them. Big trials mean alot, so eventually there will be some "Trial of the Century" over this sort of bullshit, something more generalized than the annoying Napster trials, and we need to do more than sit back and cry or cheer when things go good and bad. Lets stand up and fight, and that means a lot more than just e-mailing our congressmen so they can delete our cries. Do more than cheer on your team in the game, jump on the court and put your feet down, show the world we mean bussiness. We can change the way things work, and we will. Let's not wait to do so.
Enough talk, lets get to work.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
One of the problems of trademark law is that failure to police a trademark can lead to it becomming 'generic' and thus lose the trademark altogether. As a result most large companies hire specialist law firms that do nothing but search for possible violations and crank out nastygrams.
I suspect that what it means is that whoever is in charge of winding up operations at SGI has concluded that the graphics libraries and branding thereon may be one of the companies biggest assets.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I'm wondering what SGI thinks is wrong with (censored by SGI). Why are they trying to shut down (censored by SGI)IL?
SGI would never censor the word (censored by SGI!)
(note: the above post about (Censored by SGI) was a joke.)
Do you like German cars?
I've worried about this a bit myself. I happen to have the same first and last name of an up and coming actor. I've recently registered the .tv domain name (firstnamelastname.tv) and, as these extensions are being marketed toward entertainment media and what not, I wouldn't be surprised if this actor tries to obtain it sometime in the future.
If this should happen, what could I do about this given that any site I may have up does not contain any reference to him whatsoever? Somehow I don't think they'd settle for unlimited leach access to my pr0n and divx collection...
BW has the copyright on the Calvin and Hobbels characters and any unautorised use of them is a infringement of his copyright.
Since BW has refused any licensing, any products with C&H's likeness is illegal (except the licensed copies of the strip itself of course).
If you prodused a product using the "Calvin and Hobbes" as a text and not their likeness this woud be covered under Tradmark law if the frase was trademarked.
Then again, if you somehow linked the product to C&H the philosopfers probably the use of the text woud be fair.
Real question: It seems like an issue is, what is the worst case scenario if you hold out? I mean, basically the fear is always that the big corporate will sue you to death... But if you're saying in good faith, I don't think they have a right to this, shouldn't be possible to hold out until some actual, real legal action is taken, and cave at the point that it is actually going to cost you money/aggravation? Is there a danger in this? Anyone have a real-world example to cite? I mean, there's no point in fighting a battle that can only harm you, but on the other hand I don't thikn a person should roll over simply because they get an e-mail from a lawyer. Like everything else in this world, they'll try the cheap-n-nasty route first. But if everyone digs in their heels, it might at least slow them down. Finally - any precedent for a sort of reverse class-action lawsuit, a kind of class-action defense? Perhaps a counter-offensive, a class-action lawsuit for frivolous litigation (which, face it, 99% of these things are). Maybe the internet needs a resource to connect people who are being bullied by the trademark hounds of a particular corporation.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Well not to be the stickler, but one can see the gripes of SGI for contacting someone about Open*L as it does resemble (namewise) their product, although I strongly disagree with them bullying someone.
Now one of the things I would consider is, if your Open*L product/business/whatever is in line for competition with SGI in any shape form or fashion, in english... IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT, then SGI has every right in the world to bitch.
Think about a company called WindOS, which is similar sounding to Windows (to a non savvy tech person), now their business is making an OS... Do you think Mickeysoft wouldn't have a gripe about it?
Now if they're just typically pushing their weight around, then you could either ignore them, and let them use up tons of funding taking you through the legal system, the creat an outpour of support, if you win the sue the fsck out of them... Or you could comply with them... or....
And this is the best one... Ignore them, I do it all the time when I get threats about stupid spoofs I've done.
erocdrah
360 degrees of Karma
rtmark.com
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
this is a job for rtmark.com. When etoy.org was being taken over by etoys.com rtmark helped ;]. also www.the3dstudio.com beat down autodesk
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
All your GL(tm) are belong to us...
Cue The Sun...
I guess open is closed.
One of the saddest aspects of trademark law, is enforced commercialism.
'Defending' a trademark requires active use in transactions. Bill Watterson, brilliant creator of the award winning Calvin and Hobbes comic strip refused to license the characters - which would have been incredibly marketable - to be used for toys, etc. So, if Bill doesn't want to abuse his intellectual property this way, he can prevent it, right? Well nooooooooo, what we got was obscenities like the Calvinesque pissing kid graphics found on numerous pickup trucks. Why? Because trademark law says if you don't emforce your trademark by using it in trade, you no longer own a trademark. Use it or lose it. You can't create an image and not sell out, because if you don't someone else will sell it out for you.
Interestingly, human personalities can be defended. Tom Waits, who has NEVER participated in any commercial exploitation of his "trademarked" whiskey-voiced bluesy scat voice, sucessfully sued some firm (with a $2M award I believe -sorry can't remember company) for using an Waits imitator in a commercial. Judge ruled that it infinged a style which Waits owned -and had the right NOT to exploit commercially. Too bad Calvin can't sue...
"Part of their shift to Linux was to remain afloat"
Erm, actually, it could ust be that Linux is more exciting than Irix.
I've waited a long time to put Linux on my Indigo 2. Haha! And I still have to wait, because SGI are only putting linux on their *new* workstations and servers.
One day I WILL have a 64 bit linux machine.
Graspee.
"We have a deal that in my room I have the final say about most things and wife's room is her domain. "
So, do you like have two network cards in the living room or something?
Graspee
We're a web design firm. The other companies are a restaurant and a law firm. Since we don't share a marketplace, we can all own the same trademark and we don't conflict with each other.
A good example of this would be if I had created a mining company and produced a robotic digging machine and named it OpenGL (or something similar)... it would be questionable whether SGI's trademark were enforceable.
Now, as far as OpenIL goes, you could argue that it doesn't conflict with OpenGL. OpenGL is a 3D description language, produced and optimized for communication with hardware 3D renderers. OpenIL is an image manipulation library (from what I saw on their homepage)... so their claim is iffy at best.
Add in there prior use. If you can reasonably prove that you were using OpenIL BEFORE their trademark was registered (which I'm assuming is relatively recent that their registration was approved, if they're just now getting around to sending out warning notices), then you can continue to use the name regardless.
Nonetheless, it would be a lengthy, messy, and extremely expensive court battle. I think it would be worth pushing the point, however. Remember, civil cases rarely go to court. If they go to court, then its an indication that the system has failed. So my advice: push the matter. Insist that it's not a trademark conflict, since you're in slightly different markets, and (if applicable) that you were using the name OpenIL before they registered the trademark. At the least, they're likely to offer a decent settlement. You might even get to keep your name!
Also, since this is an open source and presumably not for profit application, do trademark laws apply here? You're not selling anything or even licensing technology (except under the GPL or LGPL or similar agreement)... it might be worth persuing that angle a little...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Clamp onto the name of some company a few years ago, wait for them to buy it from you. Better yet if you can get a generic word.
If they're taking too long to pay up, turn it into a porno site.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Part of this problem may be trademark law itself. SGI has to defend their trademark in order to keep it. You could always ask them if they are willing to award you a limited, non-transferable, license as long as you keep the product free?
Believe it or not, Microsoft ended up doing this once with their BookShelf(tm) trademark. After trademarking the name they came across a program called "Jewish Bookshelf" or something like that which was distributed for free. After a bit of discussion (and some worries about prior art I'm sure) Microsoft ended up offering pretty much an indefinite license for $1. Allowed them to hold the TM and not piss off a fairly large demographic.
In February I got a letter from Mattel's goons telling me to cease, desist, etc because my domain name contained a popular girl's nickname (my name, actually) combined with another word.(link omitted to avoid the /. effect) They even wanted me to turn my domain over to them for free. I worried for a while and then decided to send a letter essentially calling their bluff. Gave them the usual "reasonable person would not be confused" and "this is not a commercial site" spiel, and just last week I got their reply. Now they just want to make sure that my domain/website is free of any and all commercial references, and apparently they will leave me alone.
My ordeal isn't over yet, so I can't say that this is the right way to do it, but it is looking pretty good for me. Had they not decided to be reasonable, I had planned to submit my tale of harrassment to every news site I could find.
My advice is, take it as far as you can. I wouldn't commit myself to a protracted legal battle that you would probably lose, but I would do my best to convince them that my site was not infringing on their trademark. Your case is somewhat different, because my site is strictly a vanity site, which, having nothing to do with Mattel's product, was easy to defend. It was almost black and white. Yours, I suspect, has a lot more grey area. Good luck to you!
I have been reading for some time that SGI is on the verge of dying. Part of their shift to Linux was to remain afloat. I don't think SGI could really sustain lengthy legal battles. That and SGI needs the image of being Linux friendly to win our support.
On another note, I am not too sure that the developers behind 'OpenAL' would fare any better against SGI, unless they had a prior agreement.
From the OpenIL website: "OpenIL utilizes the simple, yet powerful OpenGL syntax by SGI" If that is not a valid domain for SGI to go after, don't know what is.
[news for me, stuff that doesn't matter]
"One of the things I try to focus on with Ask Slashdot questions are issues involving trademarks and the big guy trying to rob the little guy out of a name, or a domain that they may have had for years."
And the *other* thing you focus on is people who are too lazy to do their own homework.
And that pretty much sums up Ask Slashdot.
--
324006
So you wish to get back at an evil corporation by spreading evil? Nice try, dumbass.
"Paranoia is a form of defense,
and stop standing behind my back!!"
- Daniel Eliasson
As I recall they were in the neighborhood of $4000 all told. Didn't cost us anything out of pocket, though, since we weren't billed until after everything was settled.
Come 1996, we got an extremely rude registered letter from the software publisher's lawyer, demanding that we relinquish the name to them or face immediate legal action.
We were both pretty irritated by the way they were making the demand, so we visited a local lawyer who specialized in intellectual property law. She told us there was a good chance the company wouldn't be able to win the name back in a suit since we'd been using it for so long and we weren't participating in the same markets they were. So we had her write a nastygram right back at them, politely telling them that we felt we had a valid claim to the name and they could talk to our lawyer if they didn't agree.
A several-week-long exchange ensued, with both sides exchanging reasons why each of us thought the name should be ours. We actually ended up filing a lawsuit against them, mostly to keep them from doing it first so we could control the venue where the case would be argued. Finally they broached the subject of buying the name from us, and that's what ended up happening -- for a sum of money several times larger than our lawyer's fees.
The irony is, if they'd made us a reasonable offer to begin with, we might well have accepted a lot less than we ended up getting, and they wouldn't have had to waste their legal staff's time. But the way they approached us at first, coming in with gun ports wide open, cost them any sympathy we might have had for them.
BTW, I'm purposely not identifying the domain (though it's possible to figure it out) just because... well, frankly, I'd rather not give them the free traffic.
So it absolutely is possible to stand up to this sort of request. You may end up losing the name, but it's also quite plausible that one serious-sounding lawyer letter in reply to their request will be enough to make them go away. It all depends on how dead-set they really are on owning all these names. On the other hand, I wouldn't bring in the lawyers until they do; if you're at the level of exchanging informal E-mail with someone there, try to keep it at that level if you can.
If they are dead-set, you can at least get something out of it in exchange. If it comes to lawsuit threats you may even be able to find a lawyer who'll take the case on a contingency basis.
In a few of the examples cited, esp. OpenAL. The name is an obvious play on OpenGL's name and reputation. Thus is one of said products sucked, OpenGL's rep could be on the line as well. In this case, it appears that SGI's request is well founded.
By reading the above message, you ("screwed") agree to the following terms set forth by me
("JustCallMeGawd").
(1) Under no circumstances will "screwed" discuss
or repeat any text in the above message with
anyone not bound by this legal agreement.
(2) "screwed" agrees to pay a subscription fee
of $900.00 US for every week that said message
is remembered.
(3) "screwed" acknowledges that under the DCMA,
"JustCallMeGawd" retains ownership of any ideas expressed or implied by the above message as well as any information (aka thoughts) inspired directly or indirectly by said message.
(4) Should any of the above terms and conditions be violated by "screwed", "screwed" will remit a fine of $100,000,000.00 and "screwed"'s eternal soul to "JustCallMeGawd" within 14 days.
"Of course I speak multiple languages, I know C++ AND Perl." "Spanish?!? Spanish? I don't need no stinking Spanish."
SGI's goal here is probably not so much to stop the OP from using his trademark as to go on record as having taken note of his usage. If SGI ever actually sues for infringement of the mark the defendant will claim that it has fallen into the public domain and drag in every utterance that could by any stretch of the imagination be said to be similar. SGI would like to be able to show that they have dealt with these, and producing a letter "expressing concern" would do so. IMHO the proper response to a letter such as that received by the OP is a letter politely explaining why your usage does not infringe. In many cases you will never hear from them again. There is no need to panic until you receive a registered letter clearly threatening to sue, at which point you can either call your lawyer or just give them what they want.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.