Slashdot Mirror
Killustrator Author Required to Pay Two Grand
This
article
on heise-online reveals some more information on the
KIllustrator dispute.
If my understanding of the German article is correct, the lawyer firm of Reinhard Skuhra Weise &
Partner has issued a cease and desist letter to the University of
Magdeburg, employer of KIllustrator's author, Dr Kai-Uwe Sattler.
The cease-and-desist letter complains that kIllustrator's advertising damages
Adobe's brand-name and damages the reputation of Adobe's product. The lawyers
required that the University sign the cease and desist letter, destroy the
kIllustrator-package, name every KIllustrator user, and disclose the profit
they made from it. Finally the lawyers sent a bill for 4686 DM (German Marks, approximately 2000 dollars) not counting value added tax. Should the University not sign,
the lawyers will sue for a million DM (approximately 400 thousand dollars) .
Kai-Uwe Sattler is happy to change the name, but doesn't want to pay
this bill. When he suggested changing the name, the lawyers rejected his proposal saying "Do you know any lawyer who works for nothing?" The lawyers insist on
payment. Sattler regrets that Adobe never contacted him before calling upon
lawyers to ask him to change the name of his software.
Udo Skuhra, who works at the lawyers' firm, refused to talk to heise-online
about the cease-and-desist letter, and refused to state whether Adobe asked his law-firm to issue it.
Update: 07/04 03:30 PM by S :Joerg from Germany sent us a small correction: Apparently the lawyers want any packaging of KIllustrator destroyed, not the project itself. Perhaps they think it comes in a box?
After seeing too many of htese sotries, i would suggest that any independant programmer form a LLC (limited liability corporation) to be the legal representation of your work. This way, if you are sued, the LLC will be named in the suite and any dmages they manage to collect will be the comanyies, not your personal assets. REmember, lawyers are in it for the money and will work both sides of the fence.
I find it curious that the lawyer would not disclose whether Adobe had asked them to pursue this matter.
There is a trend in the United States (for twenty years or longer) for lawyers to "create" cases (usually class action) which are generally greatly to their benefit and not much benefit to anyone else. The tobacco cases are not the best example, but along the same line. One example (without specifics) is the suit over (video)monitor sizes. A case went forward complaining that consumers were deceived by the size specs for monitors - a 14" monitor might only be 13.2" (both the spec and the actual size are diagonal measurements).
The case was won. I and many other consumers were offered something like a $9 coupon toward our next monitor purchase, or $7 cash (IIRC) back if we could prove that we bought a monitor (a variety of brands) within a specific time period. (This was at a time when a 14" color monitor was still a $300 item, IIRC.) (It's possible the offer to the consumer was somewhat higher, my memory is very hazy -- it was just not enough to make me pursue looking for proof of purchase or going out to buy a new monitor.)
Was anybody really harmed by the deceptive measurements? Was any consumer really not aware of what he was getting -- I mean, most people saw a working monitor before they bought one. I'm not saying the exaggeration of monitor size was proper, but who was hurt and who benefitted from the case? The lawyers manufactured a profit out of thin air. The manufacturers paid the lawyers, but made their money back if they stayed in business (and none of them went out of business because of this issue, AFAIK). And, if you go into Best Buy or Circuit City today and ask for a 19" monitor, guess what size it's going to be!
Anyway, I saw the fee the law firms collected -- don't really have any recollection of what it was, but it was big.
Law firms look for cases like this to keep their business' going!
Is there any chance this lawyer acted independently of Adobe? If I were the "defendant" in this case, I'd try to find out. If Adobe denies their involvement, I wouldn't pay the lawyer's fee, because I don't think they'd have legal standing to bring the action they did. (IANAL) It seems that Adobe should be willing to answer the question -- anybody want to take the time to put the question to them?
No. Tell them to bear their own cost.
Trade Mark means a mark used in *trade*. As far as Killustrator the free software is concerned, there is no trade involved as no money changes hands. Possibly a case of passing-off, which would be much more difficult on Adobe's part to prove. The case is not as clear-cut to Adobe as previous comments suggest.
cbroglia@adobe.com
He's the PR rep for Adobe and their Illustrator product. Be polite but firm.
Quote:
Conduct business on the highest ethical basis
Life is too short to be ashamed of anything we do. Truth, honesty, and integrity in all of our dealings with other people allow us to always be proud of our association with Adobe.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Would never work. My ex-girlfriend has prior art.
http://bitey.net/mirrors/killustrator-0.7.2.tar.g
- A.P.
--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Well, if you're an American citizen, you are part-owner of one of Adobe's biggest customers: your government.
.pdf format, created with Adobe products?
Ever notice how many government documents -- federal, state and local -- are in
You may want to politely tell your employees (AKA government workers and elected representatives) that you would appreciate it if they stopped using *your* money to support Adobe.
- Robin
I've had Ghostscript gag on PDFs in the past. You probably want to use xpdf.
It's a good thing that the makers of the Pinto are all sitting in jail for knowingly producing dangerous vehicles and saying nothing.
Oh wait! They're not! Ford was just made to pay millions of dollars rather than say, spend time in jail.
Corporations can literally get away with murder. How is setting up a corporation that distributes a commercial version of the Gimp with an infringing name more illegal than a company that can't pay off all of it's debts and folds?
In cases where a loan can't be paid off, or a big lawsuit does a company in, the investors can only lose as much as they put in.
I don't know about the rest of the world..
I even vaguely remember some radicals abusing corporate protection to protest the fact that corporations have such limited liability.
NOTE: It's a different case entirely if a company takes out a loan that's co-signed by the owner, which is much more common. In that case, you can fold the company and still owe all of that money. Most lenders will NEVER loan directly to limited liability businesses unless they're 100% sure that they're good for it.
Where I used to regard someone like Adobe with complete and utter apathy, I now regard them with hate.
There's a difference between protecting their brand and being insane. They turned a situation that could be solved effortlessly into a messy legal battle. Does anyone doubt that the developer would have just changed the name if Adobe had come along and said "Hey dude, cool stuff, but we're kind of peeved that it's named 'Illustrator', can ya change it? We spent gazillions of dollars promoting the name 'Illustrator' and we feel kind of taken.'"
Christ, this is enough to make me want to infringe on one of their brands just out of retaliation.
Hmm. Could they feel threatened by open source?IIRC, they used to even recommend the Gimp when users asked them to port Photoshop to Linux.
If so, I have to tone down my criticism of Adobe in the previous Slashdot about this issue because, well, lawyers are lawyers, and what they don't...
To my thinking, it changes nothing. Adobe has the ability and responsability to choose it's lawyers and lay ground rules for them. If they believe that this is the wrong behaviour, they also have the right and responsability to call off the dogs and apologize. They haven't done that. From that fact, I conclude that they approve of what is happening. I will change my mind when they take some positive action to remedy the situation.
If we excuse corperations for what their semi independant lawyers do, we must excuse organized crime bosses for what their semi independant agents do as well.
Frankly, the whole thing sounds more like a mugging than anything else.
If someone tells me there are programs called KIllustrator and the GIMP that work as well as their Adobe equivalents and cost considerably less, then I will no doubt be strongly tempted to quit shelling out hundreds of dollars to Adobe. Sounds to me like KIllustrator constitutes competition, and threatening competition at that.
The real question in trademark infringement is would you accidentally buy (or even download and use) KIllustrator because you thought it was Adobe's product? Also, the related question: Was KIllustrator named that in the hopes of creating such confusion?
Meguesses some lawyer not understanding of this concept of "free (as in beer) software"...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Adobe does have the right to go after Illustrator names, but asking for cash as well as the destruction of the source code, the list of users and the profits that have been made on it is beyond stupidity.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
No warranty, not even fitness for a particular purpose should have been enough but unfortunately the GPL doesn't protect you from reality.
Just as the MPAA beat the shit out of the kid in Germany, Adobe will beat the shit out of this next kid in Germany, and after that users will start suing programmers for bugs. It's not about licenses. It's about money.
Pulling this kind of stunt makes Adobe look really bad. It may be acceptable by German law, but in most of Adobe's markets, they look anti-education and anti-individual. If US art schools see this and decide they don't want anything to do with Adobe, Adobe stands to lose much more than $1 million from the schools and students who would learn to use their products. So the logical thing for Adobe to do is pressure the lawyers into dropping the case, and maybe pay them for their efforts in getting Killustrator to change its name.
I think the commercial software world has hard time understanding this "free software" thing.
From one parody of a fascistic security adminstrator, during the war between workers and The Management: "Despite of all of our regulations regarding the corporate network, we found one of these strictly forbidden 'Linux' CD-ROMs from behind the painting in the conference room. We will contact the operating system vendor and try to find out who owns the license to this copy."
I can see it now: A massive operation to find every possible killustrator user, requiring much cooperation from ISPs to find out who downloaded a copy...
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
The lawfirm's playing a nasty trick allowed by German laws- it appears they didn't send the sharks on the developer, they did it upon their own initiative. Adobe looks bad, the law firm looks even worse- and the poor schmuck gets stiffed quite a bit of money.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
i.e. The dog bites you once vs. mauls you...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Right? I've seen the opposite happen in the places I've worked at and elsewhere.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
While I agree in principle, I don't think I can agree that "Illustrator" is generic when it comes to naming software simply because it's a word that existed in the language already--and it seems to me that's ultimately the case you're making.
I'd submit that Illustrator isn't a "generic" description. Generic description would be "Adobe Vector Drawing Program"--or even "Adobe Draw," which, indeed, has precedents similar to the ones you cite: Mac Draw, Corel Draw, Lisa Draw, Cricket Draw (for those of you with long, long memories). But "Adobe Illustrator" seems to be in the category of names like "Canvas" (Deneba), "Freehand" (Macromedia) and "Expression" (MetaCreations, now reverted back to Creature House). All of those words were, and are, relatively common English words, too--but they don't refer to a class of computer graphics programs. They refer to specific computer graphics programs, all of which have been in production for a decade or longer.
While I don't condone Adobe's handling of this (or the approach of allowing lawyers to handle it this way for them, if that's what happened), this is not a case of a company just laying claim to a common word and trying to sue anyone who uses it. This is a case of a company, or their agents, seeing another program in the same field as theirs using a name which is deliberately similar to the name that refers specifically and only to their product in that field.
WARNING: Also I have studied the German law, trademarks are not my specialty and I give no guarantees about the content of this post. (IANAL yet, too)
There are some mistakes in the descripition of the German Law system you made.
Abmahnung is just "cease and desist". Quite okay if you ask me. They can normally only be send out by the holder of the right that was violated (the trademark). But the BGB knows the so-called GoA - Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag. It allows you to act on behalf of someone if it is clearly in their interest. In this case I can see problems for the lawyers if they did not contact Adobe first, because their actions have cost Adobe a lot of PR, not exactly in the interest of Adobe.
The 4600,- DM are probably derived from the "Streitwert" the estimated contested sum that would be fought about in court. Proabably the "Adobe Illustrator" trademark was considered to be worth millions so the legal fees are calculated from there after the German "BRAGO" - BundesRechtsanwaltsGebührenOrdnung - (try babel on that one) a state imposed billing statute for lawyers.
There have been decisions in the past, that sending out multiple form letters to trademark violators does not entitle you to full compensation with BRAGO fees for every case.
Finally the German legal system does give you the right to claim your own legal fees from the losing party before court. (Therefore the BRAGo, can't get more than that from your opponent). This is nice, because poor people can sue before the courts -- unlike in the US of A.
--
Moritz
If you don't issue any warning and come down on anybody who "infringes" like a ton of bricks, the number of repeat offenders is likely to be low.
I don't necessarily AGREE that this is anykind of infringement, but I can see how that might be their strategy.
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
The net effect of this entire situation is that it casts Germany in a very bad light. People are calling for boycott's of Adobe. Since this seems to be more a problem with German law, why don't we just boycott Germany instead.
I'm about the fall into the classic Slashdot trap of offering armchair legal advice, but hey, everyone else is doing it.
Change the name of KIllustrator. While the name 'KIllustrator' may be defensible, it will be hideously costly to do so. Change it.
Other than that, I don't see the authors/University as obliged to do anything else. I hope German law isn't too different from US law in this respect. Absent a court judgment to the contrary, the legal fees incurred for drafting the threatening letter are Adobe's responsibility, not the victim's.
Under no circumstances should the author or University turn over a list of users (assuming such a thing exists). They have absolutely no call to make that demand.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The name is not K-Illustrator, it is Kill-ustrator. This is a clear reference to the different sides taken during the US revolutionary war.
:)
Thus, it is commonly expanded to Kill-us-a-traitor. Clearly Adobe wouldn't want to be associated with anything this appaling, thus it couldn't be an infringment on any trademark they hold.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
But if you read the post I linked to above, you'll see that it is extremely unlikely that Adobe even did hire this firm. In Germany, any law firm can send these letters; regardless of their relationship (or lack thereof) to the real owner of the trademark. And they're then legally entitled to charge a processing fee for the letter. That's what the $2,000 is for. It's a racket.
Before you send that letter, read this post from a German citizen. It would seem that this is an independent law firm engaging in purely self-interested behavior.
For those of you truly boycotting Adobe products, I'd like to suggest some replacements:
For Illustrator, CorelDraw. It's easier to use and more powerful. Much more powerful.
For Acrobat Distiller: JAWS PDF (formerly 5D PDF). Produces better-quality PDF, though with slightly larger file sizes.
For FrameMaker: Ventura Publisher. Ventura has a *much* better UI, more power, and comes with more useful helper applications. Indeed, Ventura is the best long-document layout software available, bar none.
For Photoshop: Corel PhotoPaint or PaintShop Pro. PhotoPaint does much more than Photoshop, though with a slightly odd interface; PaintShop does 90% of what Photoshop does. Oh - and there's also GIMP.
For PageMaker, CorelDraw or Ventura Publisher. CorelDraw is better for artsy-fartsy shite; Ventura is better for more traditional layout.
For InDesign: CorelDraw, again. I'm assuming no one is foolish enough to attempt to use InDesign for long documents: if you are, do yourself a favour and use Ventura. You'll thank me endlessly for that advice.
That about covers all the major Adobe applications.
In *every* case, the alternatives are better than the Adobe product.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Quark? LOL. You *GOTTA* be kidding.
Quark has a barely useable interface.
Quark is so lacking in power that you gotta add *thousands* of dollars worth of add-ins.
And even then, it doesn't have the features and power of CorelDraw (for very short docs) or Ventura (for long docs).
Sorry, bud. You're the one smokin' crack.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Framemaker is the "damn book publishing program."
I'd agree with your assessment of it. And Ventura is the better replacement for it: much better UI, and some important features that Framemaker lacks.
Several textbook publishing companies, several TV guide companies, a lot of catalogue publishers, a few book publishers, and almost every bible publishing company use it.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
You say it yourself: you aren't familiar enough with CD or Ventura to be able to say anything intelligent about them.
p df for an even-handed (no, really, it is: it's very factual and thorough: there is no apparent bias) comparison of Quark, PageMaker, FrameMaker and Ventura.
Important things Quark falls down on:
* multiple undo
* customizable menus
* document zoom
* snap grid
* mixing page layouts in a single document
* straddle paragraphs across columns
* good text frames management
* relative frame anchoring
* multiple-colour gradient, PS, vector fills
* decimal tab align
* all caps, intercaps, small caps, etc
* rotate paragraphs within text flow
* external file linking
* conditional text
* footnote/endnotes/sidenotes
* text fills
* hanging punctuation
* custom underlines
* fully customizable line styles
* fancy-ass bitmap graphic filters
* NO built-in table support
* No cross-referencing
* Limited graphic import formats
* No impositioning
* No print bureau profiling
* NO built-in HTML support
* NO built-in database layout support
* NO links within PDF output
* Limited colour systems support
* NO built-in equation editor
* NO scripting
Some of the things it lacks can be made up for by buying extra, expensive software. And many of the things it lacks can not be added. And many of those lacking features are a godsend to doing professional work.
ftp://ftp.coreluser.com/coreluser/CU65TBL1-LTR.
Face it: you're outlook is severely limited by your familiarity with a *single* product. If you were to free your mind and start doing some research into the features you need and the software that best fulfills those needs, you very likely would never conclude that Quark is the best tool for the job.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
So you basically agree with me, particularly as v5.0 doesn't yet exist.
Quark v5.0 will, indeed, be a good improvement. That still doesn't deny that out-of-the-box, there is better software available.
It would currently take over $10000 in add-on software to bring Quark's capabilities up to par with Ventura... go, price it out: I state the truth here.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"If it's so inferior, why is it used like it is?"
a 8
For the same reasons they used Win3.1 instead of OS/2 or MacOS? For the same reason they use MSPublisher instead of FrameMaker or Ventura?
Because, I suspect, they don't know any better. And many of whom naively believe that their school is teaching them with the best tools, when the reality is they are taught with whatever tools the school can get for free.
[rather long description of how long-doc publishing is made easier by VP, snipped because Slashdot is being a pain in the ass... maybe it'll like a shorter message]
Anyway, try this URL: http://www.coreluser.com/html/vent_table.h tml
(it was working earlier today...)
Also, the Ventura user's group, should you decide to make a go of it:
news://cnews.corel.ca/corel.graphic_apps.ventur
(and if you're doing single-page sort of layout, you'll need to find an enthusiast for Corel Draw, PageMaker, Illustrator or the like. I'm afraid that's just not my gig.)
[bloody slashdot is making it difficult to post responses these days. over 30 submit-button hits to get this in...]
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Discreet's Combustion combines the functionality of Photoshop with that of Final Cut Pro. Video and still image editing and compositing, including the ability to use Photoshop filters jut by dropping them into a folder. Pricey, but very kick-ass.
Congratulations, sir! You obviously possess the necessary qualifications to serve as Vice President of Product Development at Corel. Please report to your office at 8am sharp, Thursday morning.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Yup. And then you have no profits, so they can just take your product. Thanks for the all the hardwork Fellas!
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
It seems that Adope pigheadedly refuses to put style sheets for some unknown reason; if they had style sheets, Illustrator would really be the goddammed best program around. Without, it's just a nice doodling pad. Granted, with artists, Marketroids can sell them ANYTHING since the artists don't know better - this is why AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY (pre-press) HAS BEEN STUCK WITH SUCKY MACINTRASHES, because it WAS SOLD to them.
As of Corel Draw, it seems powerful enough and I quite liked it, until the files would start to disintegrate with time as the Windows bitrot would progress on the system...
However, for web-based work, I'd say that Fireworks is worth looking at; it's a strange cross-breed of Photoshop and Illustrator, with animation frames added (that makes a 4D arrangement of drawings: the normal [X,Y] coordinates, PLUS the [Z] layer, AND the [alpha?] animation frames). But don't use it for print-quality 300 dpi pictures, because, then, it crawls like molasses in liquid nitrogen!!!
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
I would be curious in knowing whether the company that supposedly harmed (Adobe) can ask to have the case dropped, especially if they were not the ones who initiated it, if this 'Abmahnung' stuff is true...
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
more contact info... remember, be nice.
Press/Analyst Contact Info.
Public Relations:
Kevin Burr
VP, Corporate Communications
408 536.3021
burr@adobe.com
---
I post links to stuff here
San Jose Corporate Headquarters
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Tel: 408-536-6000
and remember, be courteous, and follow the advocacy howto. be polite when you ask if they know what their lawyers are upto
---
I post links to stuff here
It's Adobe's fault for choosing a generic word as the name of their product. You can trademark "Adobe Illustrator" but not "Illustrator", that's just a fact. OK, well that doesn't stop these assholes from trying to turn the oversight of some incompetent clerk at the PTO into a piece of ill-gotten intellectual property for themselves by leaning on some defenceless open source programmer who's just trying to make the world better for everybody. Personally, this makes me sick and I for one have lost every bit of respect for Adobe. Can I translate that feeling into action? You bet I can, and by the usual means: coding them out of existence.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Keeping their silence about it amounts to the same thing.
--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Obviously, the lawyers haven't got the faintest clue what their doing (other than the usual protection racket sort of thing).
Offer, instead of the flat $2000, to settle for license to keep the KIllustrator name for 30% of the profits from it. :-)
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
in Germany, you're not allowed to use unfair adverts; 'unfair' is considered anything comparative
You are (now) allowed to use comparative advertising. However, you must be able to back up your statements about the other product you compare your own product to.
So you cannot make a generic comment such as the American Coke/Pepsi ads, you have to be very specific when you use comparative claims.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
about destroying the package
The German article speaks about "packaging" as in "box", and the author points out: Yes, these lawyers think that Killustrator is a packaged product in a cardboard box. They want these boxes to be destroyed.
Funny, isn't it?
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Sorry you missed the largest applications. you only counted the low paying fodder they throw out to the public...
Premiere - The Video editing suite used today. Solution? Buy an Avid.
After Effects - The Special effects for video production.. Solution? The AVID again...
And that damned book publishing program... Version 6.5 is current.. Arrgh I cant remember it... Although I do have 50 floppies for installing it on one machine (real ones from adobe)..
Those 3 apps plus Photoshop are what makes adobe money. The other apps are just their bubblegum apps for the kiddies at home/people who think they know what they are doing.. The Graphics dept at work laughed at us when we offered them illistrator.. they asked if we wanted them to start working with crayons too...
Luckily, the AVid blows away anything adobe dishes out for video editing. (Except I have to give up my cult effects plugins... WAHH!) Time to ask skywalker studios how much for their AvID effect plugins...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
First off there is a major difference between a trademark of a unique name and a generic term. Things like Windex and Klenex are obviously pretty unique while things like Windows and Illustrator are pretty generic. If they had been named Windex Cleaner or Kleenex Tissues and someone made a product called KCleaner or KTissue would they be stealing their name? What next, going to let Microsoft sue over the XWindow name? Or maybe Microsoft and Microprose should have sued each other over daring to steal the term 'micro' from each other just because they both wrote software for micro computers.
Also FreeMWare changed their name to Plex86 some time ago and the VMWare code was 'borrowed' in part from previous code written by those leading the Plex86 project so they'd be quite stretching things to try to challenge over the name simularities.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I guess I think 'Adobe Illustrator' is just fine as a name for a program and a program named 'k adobe illustrator' would obviously be in the wrong. However the term 'illustrator' is very generic and is a term that is very obvious in that it describes the purpose of the program. This seems to me to be more along the lines that both Corel and Microsoft have an Office Suite. One isn't an Office Box of Programs.. because that would be confussing. Both are office suites and each is made by it's prospective owner and it's rather difficult to confuse the two unless your a complete idiot. In similar manner you can have Pacific Light & Power and Atlantic Light & Power and despite the name simularities it's easy to tell the difference and because of the simularites you know what each is supposed to be. Generic terms should not be allowed to be trademarked because they make it easier for people to understand a product.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Freehand 10 is native on OS X and Illustrator is not. Now I have a Reason to switch instead of wait. Bad move.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I just checked through their website and can find no mention of this lawsuit. Also on the main page of their corporate page it mentions that they have annual revenues of over 12Billion USD. And it's main headquarters are in San Jose, California. So why would these german lawyers be going after this guy. Also their Company profile completely clashes with this act. Read their company info page. About Adobe
The everyday usage ones are harder to defend, and are usually limited to a specific context. For instance, the software trademark under discussion isn't just on the word "Illustrator," but specifically "Illustrator the vector graphics software." This is how we can have both an Apple Computer ("Think different") and an Apple Records ("Imagine all the people..."), both unrelated to each other. If you wanted to make an Illustrator, or Killustrator, line of clothing, or brand of beer, or perhaps even a computer role-playing game about a starving artist who goes postal ("Kill-ustrator"), Adobe would have less of a legal leg to stand on. (Though it's possibly still a bit "iffy" in the case of the computer game.) Making a vector graphics program for Linux named "Illustrator" with a "K" tacked onto the front...nuh-uh. That dog won't hunt.
As for FreeMWare--yes, they did change their name. But they started out with a name only one phonic different from VMWare, and worked under that name for several months. They only chose the name, resurrecting and renaming a previous project, after they realized how well VMWare worked, and that there was nothing similar in the "free" software community. As for where they got their code from...think that would matter in a court of law? Think where Killustrator's code came from matters to Adobe? The name and the intended functionality are very similar. You cannot claim that the choice of name was coincidence. Almost any reasonable person, seeing the similarities in these names, would come to the same conclusion--the name is copied in a blatant attempt to demonstrate that the "open source" program is intended to do the same thing as the commercial program whose name it is copying. Thus, it has a potential for consumer confusion (what was that the fellow said in the SSH thing a while back? That he kept getting support requests for an SSH client he didn't even write?), and for dilution of the trademark. Otherwise, why choose a name so similar in the first place?
I've watched this trend of copycat naming with no small amount of distaste and trepidation. I do not fault people for trying to create similar programs--otherwise there would be only one OS in the world, and one word processor, and so on. It just burns me that they intentionally choose these similar names just so they show how clever they can be. "Heh...'Kill'-ustrator. That's sooo kewl!" "It's like VMWare, but it's free--so we'll call it 'FreeMWare'. What's a Freem? Who cares, it sounds neat!" And as sad as it is that the fellow has to pony up $2000 to greedy lawyers, I can't help but feel a bit vindicated that these cutesy names are finally becoming apparent as the liabilities (both aesthetic and legal) they really are. I hope people get the hint.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Again, like I said in another post to this discussion, the problem is not someone naming an unrelated item something similar to Illustrator; it's someone naming a very similar item something similar to Illustrator. This could cause consumer confusion, and thus weaken Adobe's brand equity.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
It's definitely too bad about the lawyers demanding $2K, as well as all those other insane concessions, but that's something they're going to have to work out between themselves. The fellow simply should have known better to begin with.
This should come as a major wake-up call to all the people who make packages with functions and names similar to trademarked programs--the KIllustrators and FreeMWares of the world: Don't mess with companies who have more money and more lawyers than you. You can complain all you want about how incredibly unfair it is, and deeply wrong, and boycott and send nasty letters all you want to, but at the end of the day, they'll win. And don't look to the Electronic Frontier Foundation or the ACLU to help defend you, either--your freedom of speech does not include the freedom to transgress others' property. DeCSS is somewhat defensible due to the ambiguous nature of the DCMA versus the public's right of fair use, but this is quite a different matter--there is no DeCSS-like legal ambiguity about trading on someone else's name to try to popularize your own product.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Hmm, in my simple pocket dictionary, "illustrator" is listed as a noun under 'illustrate'. Which I guess would mean 'somebody who illustrates' or 'something that illustrates'.
Sounds pretty generic to me.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
Sorry, but that's no reason to tone down the criticism of Adobe. I'd, in fact, consider it a reason to step it up. That practice is even more evil than using idle staff lawyers in the same way.
It will be quite awhile before I have anything good to say about Adobe in any context, unless I discover some clear and convincing GOOD reasons for this. And they're pretty hard to even imagine, much less believe in.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've seen convincing evidence, though I wouldn't call it proof, that the term Illustrator was used in the names of programs before Adobe started using the name.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Adobe owns the name illustrator like a bandit owns a pass. He's got enough muscle to keep everyone else out, and can charge any toll he feels like. That's the only right they have.
I am reasonably convinced that if the parties had equal weight and were in front of an honest court the accusation would quickly be thrown out. But large companies buy their own definition of what a law means, so I don't expect that to happen.
Note the extortion: Submit immediately, and fork over only a lot of cash, or fight it and we'll strip you bare. That lays clear the morality behind this action to anyone who is willing to see it.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I doubt that even in law, presuming that both sides had equal representation, Adobe would win. I think that they doubt this too, otherwise they the bludgeon approach?
... well, one can also call them vile, I suppose.
When they open with "Drop the name and pay me cash, if you fight me, I take all you've got." I can't help be believe that their motives are amoung the lowest available.
These aren't people who are trying to negotiate to protect their rights. The closest analogy is to bandits or highway men saying "Your money or your life!".
Any person, group, company, or corporation that uses such an approach can only be called evil.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes, Illustrator is a common english word. But it also a widely recognized mark. When somone says "send me the illustrator files with the log art", everyone infers that they're talking about files created in Adobe Illustrator.
And if my spotty memory serves me well, adobe was the first to use the word Illustrator to describe a vector-based drawing program.
Two things strike me here. First, if the lawyers sending the letter are working for Adobe, it's Adobe's bill. The lawyers weren't hired by the person they're billing, that person isn't responsible for paying them. Second, only Adobe can take action about one of their trademarks. If the lawyers are representing Adobe, then aren't they required to indicate this on the legal paperwork? And if they haven't been retained by Adobe and aren't acting for it, then they've no legal basis for their cease-and-desist, right?
The whole thing smells somewhat of an extortion attempt.
Actually despite using KDE, if this is a trademark violation complaint bought by Adobe I am on the side of Adobe. Unless it can be shown that Illustrator is too generic then there is little excuse for the author not to change the name. When they do change the name, PLEASE, PLEASE choose something without a K on the front -I'd just like my programs to have sensible names. Something like VectorDraw would be fine and is so generic that a trademark case would fall at the first hurdle.
However, in the UK you are able to bring unreasonable charges to the attention of professional bodies. A couple of grand for a single cease and desist letter sounds fairly unreasonable to me.
German law also sounds rather different from UK law in the sense that in the UK you cannot bring about a civil action unless you have 'standing' i.e. you are directly involved in the complaint. What this means is that unless the firm has authorisation to act on Adobe's behalf it wouldn't be allowed to persue this action.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If Dr. Sattler even remotely attempts a boycott of Adobe, in particular Illustrator, I'm sure it won't take very much to deny Adobe of $2,000 worth of revenue.
Two grand is nothing to Adobe. I can't imagine, if they really look at the situation in terms of PR, that it will be worth it to them, especially if Mr. Sattler takes this angle on it. I recognize this is coming from Adobe's law firm, but if Adobe central gets wind of what's going on, I'm sure the next cease and desist letter will come from Adobe to the law firm. :)
(This is all assuming he changes the name of KIllustrator.)
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
If they have not been retained by Adobe, then what they are doing is the equivalent of ambulance chasing. In the USA that is illegal. I don't know about Germany, but if it is not illegal there, then there is something seriously wrong with the German legal system.
If they were not retained by Adobe, then this law firm needs to be put down now. Writing a letter does NOT cost 4686 DM, and any more than that was not necessary in the first round.
If they were retained by Adobe, then the focus shifts to Adobe. If Adobe refuses to deny being a part of it, then it's full boycott time.
While I don't agree that "Killustrator" is an infringement, it is close enough that I do believe it would be appropriate for the author to change the name and just avoid the issue ... had he been properly contacted about the matter. Writing a letter does NOT cost 4686 DM, and any more than that was not necessary in the first round. So whoever is responsible, it is all wrong. And if neither is willing to deny it is their decision, then they are both culprits in blowing a very simple matter way way out of proportion (and our response needs to be equally out of proportion against them).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
200,000? Damn! That would be a LOT of page hits even if they spaced each download down to once an hour.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Questions:
How does the German legal system handle it if multiple lawyers send similar letters for the same issue, each demanding money? How far can that go? Can every law firm in the country simultaneously do it?
Does the German legal system allow the law firms, when acting independently like this, to carry out the lawsuit (e.g. the 1.000.000 DM threat) as well? Or do they have to arrange with the owner of the allegedly infringed property to do that? And if they are allowed to, can multiple firms do that?
I guess we (outside of .DE) could accuse the lawfirm of "Nazi practices" (how would I say that in German?). I don't know if you're allowed to make references to that past there (apparently it's taboo in France). But at least we can here in the USA (even for our own evil history of slavery).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
In light of this I'm surprised that they never went after GhostScript for sounding too like PostScript. Heck, GhostScript even does a better job of duplicating the functionality of its Adobe counter-part, than does KIllistrator.
As someone above said, this may be the act of over-zealous lawyers. Maybe we need to bring a law into this country (USA) that the developer must be given a warning and n days to comply before legal action may begin. Then since the country is run by lawyers I say fat chance.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Boycotts by small numbers of people (ie Free Software geeks) against large corporations are rarely successful (those who disagree are encouraged to send me press releases from Disney where they said they won't give health insurance to gays). However, in this case, we might be able to help this guy out. I think we can take away at least $2000 in sales away from Adobe.
Here's what I suggest. If you were considering purchasing Adobe products for yourself or the organization you work for, delay the purchase. If you work for understanding bosses, explain the situation to them. If you work directly with Adobe representatives (sales, support, whatever), let them know about your decision. Write an email (NO FLAMES - NO UNPROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE - NO THREATS - NO LIES) to Adobe's PR flacks, CEO, head of sales, legal team, etc*. Let them know that you are disappointed in the behavior of their attorneys and you have elected to show your disapproval by delaying purchases of their software indefinitely. Let them know what actions on their part will be necessary before you will resume consideration of their software for purchase. Note that you are not threatening them; you are explaining what has already occurred and what you would like to see occur.
Some possible happy outcomes might include:
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler withdraw their demands for payment from him.
- The lawyers representing Adobe to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler apologize for their own actions (not necessarily on behalf of Adobe).
- An executive of Adobe apologizes to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler for harassing him (If you give someone a letter of marque and reprisal, you are responsible for their actions.)
- A representative of Adobe meets with Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler to discuss their grievances.
- Adobe sends a nice letter to Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler permitting him to use the name KIllustrator.
- Adobe ports all or any (your choice) of their products to Linux.
I think it's important to note (especially since most of us are not lawyers) that Adobe's claim may have merit. The name KIllustrator may infringe on Adobe's trademark. I don't think Adobe should necessarily have to give up the rights it has and is guaranteed by law. Feel free to disagree. Threatening and harassing an honest man, however, is simply wrong.
*Figure out the email addresses yourself; if you aren't willing to put forth some effort, you're useless.
You don't see people cleaning the window with "Kwindex" or wiping their noses with "Gnokleenex" do you?
That's because Windex and Kleenex are artificial words created specifically to be used as trademarks. "Illustrator" is an ordinary English word. There's a big difference.
If "illustrator", the word, is indeed trademarked by Adobe for vector drawing software, then Killustrator will have to go. But "illustrator" is a stupid trademark nonetheless. That's like trademarking "window cleaner" or "tissue paper" instead of Windex and Kleenex.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes. Lawyers should get paid, and not work for free. Nobody should work for free.
What does that have to do with Killustrator having to pay damages? Offering to change the name immediately, which should resolve the trademark issue, means that Adobe's problem is solved.
I don't know anything about German courts... but I am fairly sure that, were this a Canadian court, the first thing the judge would ask would be 'had you been notified prior to this that there was an infringement?' 'Oh, no? Then why is Adobe wasting this court's time'
if you honestly, seriously think Microsoft was behind this then you probably should be seeing a shrink.
In fact, Kimberly-Clark does call their product tissues. They're "Kleenex Brand Tissues;" it says so right on their web site. SC Johnson Wax calls their product line "Windex Glass and Surface Cleaners." Just look at their domain name - www.windexglasscleaner.com.
However, that's exactly the point. Adobe's product is called "Adobe Illustrator." That's even how they refer to it themselves. Adobe is like a brand, Illustrator is like a generic product name (an illustration program).
Adobe : Illustrator :: Kleenex : Tissues
A product called KAdobe could clearly be confused with something from Adobe. But if I sold Mistered's Tissues, Kimberly-Clark surely wouldn't care.
Ok, ok, in general when people say "illustrator" when they're talking about computer software, they mean Adobe Illustrator. I just wanted to point out that Kleenex and Windex both do have a common product name associated with them, but it's just not in common use. Also it pisses me off that Adobe or their representative would send a nastygram with a demand for $$$ right off the bat. If I was the author and Adobe said "we think KIllustrator is going to confuse people, do you think you could pick another name?" I'd say sure. However, tell me to destroy it and pay your legal costs, and I'd tell them where to go.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
I second this. I'm gonna do my best to completely chuck all adobe crap.. including acrobat. XPDF will cover me on the *nix side... what are my Win32 alternatives?
(please.. no bs.. it's there for a few good reasons.. none of which I can think of this very minute... oh yeah, quakeIII).
-'fester
So, anyone think that Adobe does, or might someday, trademark the concept of vector graphics and/or teh concept of vector graphics drawing software and/or the name of any vector graphics software or sub-component or feature of any vector graphics software and/or the "look and feel" of any vector graphics software or the above regarding any other aspect of any other Adobe product... etc. etc. etc.
No. IP law doesn't work like that.
IP is four different things:
Trademarks. Protects the right of a company to register a name and sell goods under it, and drag others to court if the use the same or a similar name for a similar product (the key here is to prevent market confusion and fraud). Unlike other IP, a trademark has to be actively defended to be valid.
Copyright. Protects the right of the author to publish or give public performance of a work/expression. Time limited (generally life+70). Fair use applies (time and space shifting, satire, quoting, etc).
Patents. Protects a novel idea for a limited time. The bargain is that the idea is described in a patent application, and is freely available once the patent expires. Even if someone discovers the same idea independently, the patent is valid. Can be invalidated by prior art.
Trade secrets. Protects against illegal discovery of a secret (breaking an NDA, etc). Independent discovery of the secret is legal, and so is reverse-engineering in most countries.
So, Adobe would have to patent vector graphics. Which would be difficult given the amount of prior art.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
The article specifically states that those lawyers MIGHT BE operating under instructions from Adobe. The thing is, since this is a civil issue, not a criminal issue, they don't really have to say. Basically, someone from Adobe could simply have picked up the phone and faxed those lawyers a copy of Adobe's trademark registration, and a hardcopy of the KIllustrator website.
That's all it takes, unfortunately. Adobe at the time of the article's writing wouldn't respond whether it had initiated the 'Abmahnung' or not, and the lawyers wouldn't tell, either.
Besides - think about it. Adobe would be portrayed as insufferably evil if it had taken matters directly via their own lawyers. By using Germany's somewhat lax 'I warn you, you pay me' system, they can smile benevolently and be silent without any bad press. (computer press aside)
Alex T-B
St Andrews
Hey
In Germany, we have what is called an 'Abmahnung'. This is basically a 'Warning', and can be issued by pretty much anyone who operates a law office of any kind. This 'Abmahnung' is part of the German law system; if you spot any kind of infringement on copyright / trademark or even trade law, you can issue a warning to the infringing party, and send them a bill for your costs. This is extremely common, and a whole law industry subsides on it. Usually, the infringement warnings can be quite justified, but sometimes people get overzealous in their quest for cash.
An example is if you use what's called 'improper' advertisements - in Germany, you're not allowed to use unfair adverts; 'unfair' is considered anything comparative, e.g. you're not allowed to say 'Our car has a higher top speed, better acceleration, and a lower price than the BMW 325i, the Volvo S60, and the Mercedes 230.' If you did, you'd get an 'Abmahnung', even if BMW, Volvo, and DaimlerChrysler didn't sue immediately.
So yeah, it's a sucky system. German society is very free and open in most respects (what'd be considered porn (tits, penises, etc) can be seen on normal network TV and nude beaches are very common, but the BUSINESS system and laws are stuck in the middle ages, biased heavily towards big business. (a bit like Japan, to be honest)
Sorry if this veered off towards explaining German business practices and society too much, but it's important to understand what's going on. Somebody's spotted a trademark infringement and pounced on it. And make no mistake about it: if the guy sues, he'll lose. Hell, so would I if I made a spreadsheet app called KExcel and distributed it, often as part of for-pay packages. (like Linux distros) To 'excel' is a simple word, and can't be trademarked, but in respect to spreadsheets, it can be protected. Brand dilution. It sucks, but that's how it works.
Alex T-B
St Andrews
The German article speaks about "packaging" as in "box", and the author points out: Yes, these lawyers think that Killustrator is a packaged product in a cardboard box. They want these boxes to be destroyed.
How can you "cease ande desist" from doing something you are not doing in the first place? This makea about as much sense as trying to sue a fictional character...
Adobe have the trademarked name for Illustrator and in court Killustrator WOULD lose (Intellectual Property Law and all that) so change the name - end of argument
They would only win if the tradmark registration is valid. Without knowing the full details of applicable IP law you can't even know if Adobe have a case.
If would hardly be the first time for a large corporate sending out "lawyers" letters related to laws which don't actually exist.
Same way that software licences attempt to remove unaliable rights.
They also have a list of trademarks that have become generic.
What is interesting is that with some of these very little could stop them becomeing generic. Since they started off as descriptions of a product.
Should the obvious be any more tradmarkable than it is patenable?
there is a law in Germany that enables every laywer (maybe even everyone, I'm not sure) to 'inform' you about a breach of law you comitted and charge you for this 'service'.
IN which ase maybe the same law would allow him to charge the lawyer for the service of explaining that most of what they request is completly not applicable and impossible...
Say for 4687 DM
KIllustrator is quite blatantly a play on the name "Illustrator", and it is a product in the exact same market segment. This is a clear attack on Adobe.
The name "Illustrator" is both a pre-existing natural language word. Should these be usable as registered tradmarks?
Further it is a description of the function of the program. Again should these be usable as registered tradmarks?
IMHO if someone wants a registerable tradmark they should be expected to use some imagination with naming it.
WTF?
:"Hi we're from biglawyerfirm, and we're going to sue you for infringing trademark, but it'll cost you $2500 for us to draw up the paperwork to do so."
The lawyers, representing adobe, want to bill the uni for their services?
I'd tell em to get fucked and go and bill their corporate master, who presumably authorised their work.
Otherwise it'd be like...
"Ring" "Ring"
Me : "Hello?"
Them
Me: "What!?! $2500! For you to harass me!? No!"
Them: "Er, ok, don't worry about it then, sorry to have bothered you"
Or am I missing something here, and this is just normal (albeit pretty fucked up) legal practice?
** Windows has detected a mouse movement.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Adobe is in the right here! It's called KIllustrator, for God's sake! Any impressionable kid could take that to be a contraction of Kill-You Castrator.
Bravo bravissimo, Adobe. Thanks for Thinking About The Children (TM).
< tofuhead >
--
It is still the dark of night.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
And if your product was released under an open source license, all you need to do is fork the code and carry on, so so what?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Uh, we've seen evidence that Adobe owns the name in the United States of America. We've seen no evidence that Adobe owns the name in the Federal Republic of Germany. Until we do, it's a bit careless to say that 'Adobe owns the name'. Some parts of the world are not yet part of the Pax Amerikana.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
If other types of business can't do it, then why? Doesn't this violate the constitutional principle of "same law for everybody"? Why can't other businesses offer unsolicited "services' and then send bills? Unfortunately, in this case, chances are that Reinhard Skuhra Weise & Partner exclusively makes money with Abmahnungen, so their might not be any privileged client-lawyer correspondence which could be accidentally disclosed...
The catch is, those firms do have no authority to do this, and the "fines" are entirely for their own pockets. Moreover, often if it is not even sure whether the "violation" took place at all: those threatening letters are often sent months after the alleged facts, when the shopkeeper has already re-arranged his display window since long, and can no longer determine/remember whether this or that article was correctly labeled or not.
Scams like this are regularly featured on police information TV programs such as "Vorsicht Falle, Nepper, Schlepper, Bauernfänger". If I were kIllustrator's author, I'd contact Adobe, and ask them whether this "laywer's firm" is actually operating in Adobe's authority. Chances are good they aren't.
Wipe the software from the face of the earth. and name every KIllustrator user
So in the reply letter explain how it is impossible to even know where every copy is (unless Verpackungen translates to physical packaging, not the software itself), but the only known copies reside at the lawyer firm of Reinhard Skuhra Weise & Partner. Demand that they immediately destroy all copies of kIllustrator-Verpackungen existing in the Anwaltskanzlei.
If they don't, then they are the only ones to be in violation of their own demands. Somehow, I think the fuckheads^Wlawyers will ignore such a demand.
Seriously, this will be a test of the university of Magdeburg. If they cave in without a fight, they will never again be considered a viable school for software engineering. All potential students for the next decade will search the reputation of universities, and Universität Magdeburg will be at the bottom of the list. Certainly the university has its own lawyers, it wouldn't cost them much to fight. If they do fight this, they will assure future students of academic freedom, which will attract more of the brightest.
We shall see whether the Universität Magdeburg is a fine school, or just a doomed quivering bunch of cowardly Schafekeitfakultäten.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I see a major problem between part 3 and part 4, namely, Party A did not request nor commission the services of Party C. Party B did not object to the violation of trademark (maybe that consider Party A's use to be ok). My real concern here is that Party C doesn't appear to have to get a contract before they demand payment. Assumably if you dont pay then the force of the state will come into play. This is not what I call free trade.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If you're running Mac OS X, you can use Create! from Stone Designs (www.stone.com) in place of Illustrator, and TIFFany from CaffeineSoft in place of Photoshop.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think, Adobe will get some bad press from a certain community, so in effect the law-firms handling of the case is smearing Adobes name (they could've done with far less negative press by handling the case with a simple friendly letter, and i think the negative press outweighs $2000 for Adobe).
So if the lawyers are acting on their own, Adobe better gets a handle on this fast (Hey, its their IP the Lawyers are claiming to defend, they should have some say in the case) and does some damage control.
The only case, why adobe might really want the case handled like this is to scare away others, and scare the Maker of KIllustrator out of his wits to avoid it going to the courts (where they might loose) at all.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Apparently once you trademarked one common term (Illustrator here) that empowers you to hassle anyone using derivatives of that term too. Now there is only a limited number of words which make sense for a certain class of application, and once all common words ('Illustrate', '...paint...', '...picture...') are used up then what?
I think it's overextending the protection trademarks provide, if they can be abused to prevent any competing product from being labeled with a name that makes half sense.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
"You don't see people cleaning the window with "Kwindex" or wiping their noses with "Gnokleenex" do you? "
You are comparing apples and oranges here, Windex
and Kleenex are not common words, they are trademarks.
Illustrator is a common word.
AdFuel
They were right to defend their trademark. The way they did so, even if it's the usual way it's done in Germany, sucks like a singularity.
The right thing to do, and this is what would happen in most countries, is to bring the infringement to the infringer's attention first. If they fail to comply, then sue. Everything that Dr Sattler has said indicates that this was an honest mistake and he is perfectly prepared to change KIllustrator's name to avoid the infringement. If Adobe's lawyers had taken this course, that would have been that. There would have been some stories on the usual suspect weblog sites, possibly some flamage, but no real hurt done, just some inconvenience for the KDE folks.
Unfortunately, the lawyers chose to fight first. I accept that this is the way things are usually done in Germany, but I must say that I was shocked to find this factoid out. Germany's legal system may find this behaviour "right and proper", but I think most of the rest of us disagree.
I would never infringe on someone's intellectual property on purpose (unless I decided to engage in civil disobedience for some reason, but that hasn't happened so far). However, in my country, if that happens, I know I'll get a chance to fix my mistake. Dr Sattler did not get that chance. Needless to say, I wouldn't like to be an Open Source developer in Germany.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
But then it's still Adobe's fault, for hiring such scum. If they get enough bad press for this, they might pay him off to shut up and drop the suit.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
I agree that KIllustrator should change its name.
However, the $2000 charge is absolutely unreasonable. This issue would have blown over quickly if Adobe had simply said "Change your name or we'll sue you," which is outright NICE compared to "Change your name and give us $2000 NOW or we (or rather, our scum-sucking "independent" lawyer) sue you for even more money."
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
The GhostScript PDF interpreter has been around for a long time. It's called "gv".
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
If this is indeed what has happened here, I guarantee that Adobe has now heard of it, and if the lawyers are acting against their interests, they will put a stop to it quickly (although probably quietly, to avoid a PR issue). The next few days will be telling.
Hey, at least Slashdot is good for something, causing a media circus when you need one :-)
Trademarks are your friend. If you don't think so, you have serious issues.
... AbiWord, for example, is another in this trend of packages that has a unique name, based on a common word.
... also common words.
...
Whether you believe in free software, free speach, or hit-them-with-bats policies, trademarks protect _everybody_, including consumers.
If you bought "Corn Flakes" and they made you ill beyond belief, you'd have a few words for Kellogs. Why? Because we all know that "Corn Flakes" are made by Kellogs, even though they're both common words. It just so happens that common-word and personal-name based businesses are the most successful, not the ones who make up "innovative" and strange names.
I respect Adobe's trademark on Illustrator and feel it _was_ detrimental to their image for someone to purposefully use that name for their competing product, something that would not be allowed between businesses, but we seem to encourage just because the software's free. There may be users who download it thinking they're getting Adobe Illustrator or some variant thereof when in fact they're getting a completely different product.
WordPerfect and Microsoft Word are very different brands, both recognised. Note that there was also WordStar
Adobe's product, however, is named "Illustrator" and not even Corel or Harvard bothered to make products with that name, opting instead for "Draw" and "Graphics"
Get over it
... PS, I think that Adobe should be happy with a change in project name, if not just to "KDE Illustrator" with a link (for really good faith) to Adobe's product page for reference.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Dear Adobe,
I feel that the Illustrator brand is well recognised in the graphics industry for good reason. I feel that you would receive a better response from your competitors, corporate and otherwise, if you simply requested that the KIllustrator project either be renamed or have an obvious statement made that it is not the "Illustrator" offering from Adobe and that it is in no way associated with your brand image.
Michael T. Babcock
CTO, FibreSpeed
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
1. a similar product to their product with similar functions
Killustrator is not a "product" as concerns Dr. Sattler. Dr. Sattler is simply exercising his first amendment rights without attempting to sell anything. Perhaps it is a product for Red Hat, but they're not being sued.
2. has a similiar interface to thier product
Trademark does not protect functionality.
3. Is obviously designed as a freeware / low cost competitor to an existing product thus damaging and undermining their business and product line
Trademark does not protect you from competition.
4. Damaging to their existing copyright and causing confusion in the marketplace
Trademark does not protect copyright, and Killustrator does not infringe Adobe's copyrights in any way. It is legal to "cause confusion in the marketplace" in noncommercial ways, although KIllustrator isn't exactly confusing. Eg: FUD is legal, while fraud is not.
5. Also under the GPL they can go thru the code and check that no where is there any evidence of code resue or copy
True. Openness and confusion are enemies, and trademark law rides entirely on likelyhood of confusion.
6. From memory the fact that it is a non profit or for profit company makes no difference when it comes to copyright and trademark violation
Probably true. What company is targetted here? Answer: A university who happens to employ a professor who spends his free time publishing free software. The university's relation to Killustrator is hardly a commercial one.
I believe that years of corporate orientation have lead us to expect that every activity is commercial. It isn't. Dr. Sattler maintains a "free" body of expression. The fact that companies often do the same thing does not mean that Dr. Sattler's activity is commercial. The fact that an activity replaces commercial activity does not make it commercial.
Under US law, trademark protection against dilution is defined by 15 USC 1225. Germany's law is probably somewhat similar. I suspect that Adobe's trademark is registered in the US.
After reading the law (something I'd recommend for most Slashdotters), it seems to me that the claim of trademark dilution is somewhat iffy.
The key shortcoming is that 15 USC 1225(c)(1) only authorizes an injuction against "another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name" (emphasis added). Moreover, per 1225(c)(4)(B) "noncommercial use of a mark" is not actionable.
I believe that a strong case can be made that KIllustrator is not a commercial use by the good Dr. Sattler.
Even if it is somehow commercial use, then by 1225(c)(2), injunctive relief is the FULL extent of relief unless the person "willfully intended to trade on the owner's reputation or to cause dilution of the famous mark". The idea that Dr. Sattler did this seems rather absurd to me.
Thus under US law, I would doubt this case would go anywhere at all.
Early on I emailed the KIllustrator author and told him that the name was a liability. His response was roughly, "What are they going to do, sue me?". I am in no way surprised by this and think it was moronic to name KIllustrator as such.
Stupid people get what they deserve.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
In which mentality is it considered ehtical that a lawyer who has no mandate from the injured party, goes out, and randomly demands cash from third parties? In other places, this is called extortion. Looks like this law needs some serious Vergangenheitsbewältigung.
To: jcristof@adobe.com, ablatchf@adobe.com, gbabbit@adobe.com
Adobe PR,
I don't view the use of Illustrator in Killustrator as a violation of any trademark or copyright. Illustrator is a generic word in the dictionary and anyone should be free to use that word in their product name as they please. If someone named their product KAdobe Illustrator, I would see your point. As it is, there is OpenOffice, StarOffice, WordPerfect Office, and Microsoft Office, all containing the word Office! Big deal!
Your threat of lawsuit against Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler is creating much ill will against you by "nerds in high places" like myself who can greatly influence decisions on whether to use an Adobe product or a competitors. I suggest you drop this and leave Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler alone.
Charles Leeds
Senior Information Security Analyst
McKee Foods Corporation
Dear God I wish I had mod points...
Check out my sysadmin blog!
For Illustrator, CorelDraw. It's easier to use and more powerful. Much more powerful.
oh come on. if you think that CorelDraw holds a candle to Illustrator you must only be drawing stick-figures. though admittedly Macromedia Freehand is a completely acceptable replacement to Illustrator.
For Photoshop: Corel PhotoPaint or PaintShop Pro. PhotoPaint does much more than Photoshop, though with a slightly odd interface; PaintShop does 90% of what Photoshop does. Oh - and there's also GIMP.
do you work for Corel? that is rediculous! i've been using graphic tools like Photoshop and PhotoPaint for almost seven years and i can tell you that Photoshop is still, by far, the best bitmap editor around. and while i'm optimistic of the GIMP (especially the OS X port), if i can't do proper colour matching, colour separation and CYMK export then it's of no use to me. as it stands now there is no adequate replacement to Photoshop, unless of course you're only doing web graphics.
- j
Who's next, Adobe? Ghostscript?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
For bonus points, yell "Heads up!" at just the right moment.
A couple of quick points about trademarks. You cannot trademark the generic term for the product you want to name. That is, you couldn't get a trademark for the term "pencil" as applied to pencils. You cannot have "Pencil Brand Pencils." Duh. Notice, however, that I did not say you couldn't get a mark in a generic term. "Apple" is a gerneric term for the fruit of the apple tree. So no "Apple Brand Apples." But you may have heard of "Apple Computer." "Apple" is not the generic term for a computer so this is OK! You (or rather, Apple) can have the trademark. But you can't stop me from calling the fruit I harvest from apple trees "apples." And I can take "Apple Cars" in NYC which I can call the "Big Apple" as much as I want. Huzzah!
The word "apple" is a weak mark because it is so commonly used. But as applied to computers it is very strong. Trademarks run the gamut from those that are so weak they suggest what the underlying product is to those that are completely made up and thus very strong. A classic example of the latter is "Kodak," a completely made up word. I cannot sell "Kodak Brand Silverware" even though nobody would thnk it was made by the camera people. Why? Becasue George Eastman made up Kodak and they have a very strong mark.
While you are getting "clued up," remember that context is essential in examining genericness. I doubt you have ever referred to a piece of non-adobe software as "the illustrator software." It's not grammatically correct and worse, it would make a person sound like a doofus.
So, no, the situation you describe where layout people for the New Yorker live in fear of accidently referring to a cartoonist as, *choke*, an ILLUSTRATOR and being sued into oblivion cannot happen. OTOH, I'd like to see a fish animation program called "Gillistrator." That would be cool.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
How the fuck does KIllustrator infringe on the Illustrator trademark?
Somebody setup a Paypal account. Because I want to donate a $100 to this guy's legal defense fund. And Adobe can kiss my ass. My department would not be buying anymore Adobe products. They are trying hard to make enemies with a large development community.
Okay okay, calm down. No dont go sending them dog shit. Just a polite note saying that you do not approve of the way they are handling this. I know I know there is a company that will mail them dog shit for a small amount of money, but dont do it. Its just mean. Adobe Systems Incorporated 345 Park Avenue San Jose, California 95110-2704 USA
What a great idea! I wonder why nobody has thought about doing something like that before?
Step 1: Sign the first cease-and-desist, and haggle with the opposing party over legal fees.
Step [2..n]: Send a nice little letter to the next "n" law firms pointing out that you already have signed a cease-and-desist letter, enclose a photocopy and end the letter by saying "Tough shit. No money in it for you this time".
Yes, that's indeed the way it works. You have to sign the first cease-and-desist (if you are in violation) but the next "n" lawyers won't see a separate cease-and-desist and certainly no money.
-Martin
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
to all concerned:
/. posts a story about our products and activities?
apparently we just pissed off a few million Open Source users and developers. Expect to be belittled repeatedly much in the same way MS is.
To The CEO: Do you want your borg apparatus on the left or right side of your head whenever
-
Just stall them to Jan 2nd 2002, /. can post a reminder and all us Eurpoeans will send them one of our brand new 1 cent pieces. They ain't going to accept pennies from the US, UK, Ireland etc. but they gotta accept Euros. So what do we need again? 200,000 readers at 1c .... hmmmmm this isn't into the hof yet so I guess we better come up with another idea :-(
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
These guys didn't do their homework, did they?
Everybody's going to jump on board with the Linux side of things here, but let's look at the facts.
Adobe owns the Illustrator name. It's not "Adobe Illustrator", it's "Illustrator". It's been around for ages and while not the best product in my eyes it certainly is better at this point that the K-version.
Regardless of platforms or competing or profits, Adobe owns the name. It's not a matter of "huzzah huzzah intellectual property" or anything. Names have been trademarked and defended for years. You don't see people cleaning the window with "Kwindex" or wiping their noses with "Gnokleenex" do you? NO!, because the base name is owned by a company.
As for the lawyers demanding to be paid, they should go fuck themselves. If the author's willing to change the name, he has already made the correct choice. Now, the lawyers have to do the right thing in turn and just leave it be.
Obviously they won't. Somebody go set up a Paypal account or something, maybe the author could do that, and we could contribute a buck each if neccessary.
- Reality. MacOS X will run both Illustrator and KIllustrator. So even by your logic, yes they are direct competitors.*
- Philosophy. Even if they didn't run at all on the same platform, your attitude is precisely what Free software is trying to dethrone - that your choice of operating system or platform is limiting rather than empowering. If App Q isn't available for your platform, bug the developers, learn another OS, look for a substitute, etc. The bottom line is that if learning a new skill is all that stands between you and a task, you've got no reason to whine.
What Adobe did was right and proper. It sucks that this poor schmuck is getting nailed, but if he'd had half a brain he would have expected it. The best post from the last article said, in part,Amen.
*Granted, there are some technical troubles between Apple and Adobe, but you can bet those will be ironed out - Apple users are very important for Adobe. You could also say that the people using Illustrator are unlikely to have the technical chops to get KIllustrator running under X. First, that's only an education problem, and doesn't help your argument. Second, you can bet that better installers are coming for all of user-land Free software).
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
The heise article says "die kIllustrator-Verpackungen vernichten" which means they want him to destroy the PACKAGING (or wrapping) not the PACKAGES in an rpm like sense. So they do not ask for the deletion of the source code or stuff like that just for the boxes or whatever the stuff might be shipped in (if at all - maybe they didn't even check wether there are packages at all).
Just my 0.02, MadEagle
...the day after all the currency changes to Euros.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Please, if you choose to mail them, there are many valid reasons why Adobe should have tried to resolve this matter in a more appropriate manner. But flames won't help anyone.
If you have a well-reasoned letter, send it to rsw@isarpatent.com or isar-patent@t-online.de
Walter
Well if you have the time to relearn a new software maybe, but if you're used to adobe's interface, you'll find combustion really.... weird.tried it didn't like it... guess it's a matter of taste.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
When the lawyers complain, he can say, 'keuros', euros, aren't they the same thing ?
"The lawyers required that the University sign the cease and desist letter"
OK, this makes perfect sense. Adobe has a right to defend their trademark. To this point, I have no problem understanding them, or agreeing with them.
"destroy the kIllustrator-package"
This almost certainly comes from a background of commercial software, where one person controls the source. What do they mean by destroy? Here are three possibilities I can think of off the top of my head:
1) KIllustrator is not distributed by the University or author under that name. This is reasonable, if this is what they mean, but I don't think it is the most probable interpertation.
2) All copies of the software in the hands of the challenged parties are destroyed. Harsh, but also possible. In fact, likely.
3) Wipe the software from the face of the earth. Absolutely impossible. Under the GPL license, people can create derivative works from versions already existing, unless I have misunderstood the GPL. Even the authors themselves do not have the power to retract that freedom, once the code is licensed under GPL. Even if Adobe were to acquire copyright to the codebase, it wouldn't stop the versions already existing from forking into new projects. Which they almost certainly will, under a name Adobe can do nothing about.
(Incidently, those of you who worry about the fact that forking is allowe to occur in open source software, this is an ideal case illustrating why the risks are worth it.)
"name every KIllustrator user"
Again, absolutely impossible. Every developer who as used the code, and every end user? I'm quite sure no one has the faintest idea who all those people are. Someone needs to explain the concept of anonymous downloads. Also, the software is given away free, under GPL. No one has any right to tell people to stop using it. DISTRIBUTING it under that name, yes, but how can using it be an act of trademark violation? Why do they even care? Can someone who knows more about law please tell me why they are interested? (Not rhetorical - I'd really like to know.)
"and disclose the profit they made from it."
Uh - if you count development time and computer equipment, that's probably a fairly large negative number. Anyway, I doubt it can be calculated except on the presumption that there was revenue from somewhere. What else would lawyers mean? (Again not a rhetorical question.) If that is what they mean these guys have absolutely no clue what or who they are dealing with.
"Finally the lawyers sent a bill for 4686 DM (German Marks, approximately 2000 dollars) not counting value added tax."
I don't understand why this isn't Adobe's bill. If the legal system is set up such that lawyers only make money from stuff like this, it's no wonder we have frivilous lawsuits all over the place. This should be a routine part of their paid job for Adobe, if it's Adobe who wants this action taken. If it's ment to be a warning to others, they need to calm down and consider the possible consequences of this "warning" - namely a buch of open source coders determined to write software which will free them from having to pay money to a company who uses tatics like this as SOP. KIllustrator, even if they kill it, is not the only fish in this ocean. Sodipodi and Sketch come readily to mind. They may not be Illustrator yet, but the concept of "good enough" is not to be underestimated.
"Should the University not sign, the lawyers will sue for a million DM (approximately 400 thousand dollars)."
Please tell me that they would have to show this amount of damage has been done. Considering the attitude the courts displayed when Microsoft held up KOffice as competition, I would think 400,000 in damage is going to be just a bit tough to justify. Of course, I may be overestimating the legal system.
"Kai-Uwe Sattler is happy to change the name, but doesn't want to pay this bill. When he suggested changing the name, the lawyers rejected his proposal saying "Do you know any lawyer who works for nothing?" The lawyers insist on payment."
To nit-pick, I believe sometimes lawyers actually will take a case without pay. (It's rare, but I know someone who was helped in a difficult time in her life buy just such a kind soul.) Of couse that's beside the point, but I thought it worthwhile to call them on it - if they can nitpick, why can't we? Anyway the important part is that their only source of income is implied to be from this kind of thing, and not Adobe directly. Also, the attitude of the developer was not sounded out and apparently makes absolutely no difference. Brrrr.
"Sattler regrets that Adobe never contacted him before calling upon lawyers to ask him to change the name of his software."
I would very much like to know if this was Adobe's intention, or if this is some lawyers who just aren't on a leash. Right or not (and in the trademark matter I believe they have some justifible grounds) they are going to get a huge amount of bad press. They may be indifferent to the free software community at large, but this is a good way to inspire the competition of open source people. They may not be so indifferent if an open source Illustrator clone starts to eat away at market share.
What really worries me, however, is that this sets a precident for other action. Whatever Adobe's intent was, we need to be EXTREMELY careful from now on when naming open source products. If this action is effective, open source opponents *cough*Microsoft*cough* will adopt this as a standard technique. Time to get creative.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
There are a lot of laws in the US which state that if you are a defendent and lose that you have to pay for the court the hung you and the lawyers that manuvered the court to hang you.
They hang you and order you to pay for the rope to do it with.
You may be ordered to pay all of the following:
Profits
Losses of the other party (they do throw you a bone in that no one thing can be assessed against you twice by both of the above, e.g. I do something that the court feels takes X dollars from you and gives it to me, I only have to pay X, and not 2X.)
Punitive damages (punishment)
Court costs
The other side's lawyers
Oh, and you (almost always) have to pay your own lawyers even though you LOST. Usually only plaintiffs can hire lawyers on contingency.
Reminds me of the Communist countries which bill the family of an execution victim the cost of the bullet.
Sure adds insult to injury.
And I do believe the paying for an attack against you is mandated or orderable in countries other than the "land of the free".
(Disclaimer: I am a human being, not a lawyer).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator", not "Illustrator". The "infriging" name is "KIllustrator", not "KAdobe Illustrator" (which would be really bad). See the difference?
Confusingly similar is the claim being made. If Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator" that might give them control over derivations therof, but that shouldn't give them power over derivations of parts of the trademark.
And it is REALLY VERY LOW OF THEM to ask for money and not allow the victim to settle for a name change and no payoff to them.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure that Adobe doesn't have a trademark on "Illustrator" by itself. I don't think they should (it is a word), and I sure think asking for monetary damages/fees is outrageous. That is thuggery.
If you infringe a trademark of mine (if I had any), I'd ask you to stop, and only consider going for blood if you refused, were being intentionally malicious, or made a killing off the name (and I wouldn't dig deeper than profits from the name). I couldn't imagine demanding payment for a non-malicious person and/or university who made no money off of it and who agreed to a name change. That is evil.
But in capitalism, evil rises to the top. Only the vicious survive it appears...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Fight Spammers!
"The illustrator", Gilsoft, 1983. Perhaps Adobe need to change the name of their product?
I'm bored, so I decided to do this:
Some "Pioneers":
www.pioneerelectronics.com
www.pioneer.com
www.dailypioneer.com
www.pioneerlocal.com
www.pios.com
www.pioneerfunds.com
www.pld.com
www.pioneertechnology.com
You'd be surprised how many of those companies are infringing on one another's trade marks, yet I hear of no $2000 bills being passed about. Some of them sell identical things.
Why? Oh, maybe because they aren't all called "Pioneer". They are called "Pioneer Technology", and "Pioneer USA", etc...
Adobe needs to get a grip before they get themselves in too deep with the lawyer's money.
Another fun few: Look up companies named "Shepherd", "ATI", and "Trident".
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
THe Open Group would have to call it "X Microsoft Windows" for your senario to work, and they don't.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
First of all, I'd like to look over what they are asking them to do:
destroy the kIllustrator-package
Well, we all know that with respect to the GPL and the people who already possesses the code to KIllustrator, this is like asking the seas not to break.
name every KIllustrator user
And because of the distribution medium, we also know that there is probably no chance of fulfilling this requirement.
disclose the profit they made from it
And we all obviously know that no profit was made from this software. How much money did you pay for KIllustrator on your desktop? That's what I thought.
The *BOTTOM LINE* is that this man, no matter his position, was working for the good of every user that exists. He was creating and maintaining software for free, to be GIVEN AWAY. He wasn't looking for fame, or for fortune. And yet, I see so many people turn a cheek and say 'Oh, but Adobe's product is called Illustrator, so he should pay anyway.' JESUS H. CHRIST. If there weren't people out there like this good man working to produce great software for people who BELIEVE in what I hope all of the people reading this post do, then the open source movement wouldn't be. OK. Granted, he named his FREE software package similar to a commercial counterpart. Like it is the first time. NO, that isn't an excuse. However, I believe that:
a) Adobe could have handled this in a much nicer fashion. The profits off of the platforms that KIllustrator runs on that adobe COULD be making are exactly *ZERO*. I wish to embed this into people's minds, because it is important. Yes, they have a good reason to keep their options open with their trademark, but at this time, what KIllustrator could take from them is absolutely NOTHING. So why not keep it simple????
b) It's been discusses time and time again, but if you, yourself, use any free software, whether at home or at work, and you agree with adobe and it's lawyers on this, you need to start questioning yourself. All I'm trying to say is that good people and good hackers are the ones that work on projects such as these. Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler is just the front man for these lawyers, but yet so many people that thrive on so much of the work that people like Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler do, want to turn a cheek on his temporary misfortune in his case. I'm not even saying that this is the first time, because it's not. It happens all too often. He is one of the many GOOD PEOPLE, working in THEIR OWN TIME, for YOUR BENEFIT. For the BENEFIT OF ALL PEOPLE who wish to have the choice. So tell me, when did he become the enemy? I apologize for the rant, but I believe what was said must be said.
Revelations 0:0 - The beginning of the end.
Central Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland) Adobe Systems Incorporated Christoph Sahner csahner@adobe.com Tel: +49-89-31705-248 really I don't know why there's all this bs. It's Killustrator isn't it?
Of course I'm sure there is a counter example that carries the same amount of common sense as too why Dr. Kai-Uwe should be the target?
Something else more worrying, the article states they sued his employeer and not Dr. Kai-Uwe directly could this possible prompt employers to start having new emloyees sign agreements that they are not to work on Open source projects etc? Another bit of common sense, if I go and steal a car it's not my employeer that gets arrested, it's me, where does this logic come from in trademark law? I though law for the most part was meant to follow common sense.
Ah, bugger this thing smell a little anyway and I seriously wonder if the law firm hasn't just seen a chance to make an easy buck (unlikely I know but it's lawyers we're talking about), if so I don't think it's going to be so easy.
As for new name sugestions I quite like Kartist.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
Who ever suggested mailbombing them?
How 'bout some polite but clear messages indicating that the community disapproves of this action and wishes for them to stop, lest they receive bad publicity and a tougher fight than they bargained for?
Remember, they'll only do this if they think it'll be profitable.
-John
Hi, I work for Kleenix corporation and I noticed you did not have a license to use the word "Kleenix".
...., oh I mean defend my clients interests is what I want.
Since the law says that using the word kleenix is the same as stealing it, we therefor want money that was so called lost by your post. Besides this will make my resume look
http://saveie6.com/
Anyone else get the feeling these are rouge IP lawyers acting without prior approval from Adobe, nor with any clue as to what Open-Source/Free Software is???
I'd say these are IP lawyers that Adobe licensed to enforce their IP in Germany. The lawyers use it as a cash-cow, going around extorting money from any hapless programmer who gets too close. I'd guess not a cent makes it's way back to Adobe. I bet Adobe doesn't even know this is happening.
The worst part is demanding the destruction of KIllustrator, talk about stomping over other peoples IP rights! I was in favour of paying the fine, changing the name, and moving on, but not now. We shouldn't be forced to destroy Killi (R), we need to fight this.
So, how can we politely contact someone important at Adobe and get them to make the lawyers see sense? A case for Bruce Perens, perhaps, to put on his HP hat and go door-knocking?
Failing that, we're going to need a fighting fund. I'm good for a $100.
Remember when Samba nearly nearly ran into this problem? It has happened before, and will happen again.
Expect to see more things like this when the Hauge Convention requires all paricipating countries to uphold laws like this worldwide.
is the part about destroying the package and identifying the users. It would be good if someone could post the actual demand letter. Renaming the program is one thing, but they want the package to totally stop existing and they want to be able to go after individual users?! That's worth going to court over.
If she had known you could get money for name infringement, she would've gone after the developers of BitchX a long time ago.
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
Killlawyers. When does that one go up on Freshmeat?
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler, don't let them abuse you. Changing the name is all you need to do. Don't pay anything.
Adobe, duh!!! This is costing you in bad publicity far, far more than you could ever possibly gain.
To Adobe's marketing manager: I could send letters to all the members of Adobe's board of directors, pointing out your obvious lack of understanding. I think I could make a good case that I should have your job, since I am smart enough to keep Adobe away from financial violence when asking nicely would do the job.
Bush's education improvements were
-
Okay, I did MY part. Did you do yours???
Someone posted the e-mail address of the CEO of Adobe to the Slashdot discussion. So, I sent him the message below. Notice that the attachment I sent was in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. I thought that was a nice touch. Maybe the fact that I am a licensed user of Acrobat will carry some weight.
___________
Subject: Discussion about Adobe on Slashdot
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 20:37:09 -0700
From: Michael Jennings
To: Bruce Chizen
bchizen at adobe.com
Bruce Chizen
CEO, Adobe
Mr. Chizen,
You maybe interested in my opinion below about Adobe's attacking of a man in Germany. I posted it to Slashdot,
http://slashdot.org/
I'm serious about applying for the marketing manager position at Adobe. I wrote an article, "Qualities of Excellence
in Marketing Management" which is attached.
Do you realize that Slashdot has hundreds of thousands of readers, most of whom are very knowledgeable about
computers? You are in a very, very expensive fight. Is that what you want?
Do you see that this fight may negatively affect your ability to hire knowledgeable programmers, now and in the future?
Michael Jennings
_________________
Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler, don't let them abuse you. (Score:2) by Futurepower(tm)
(MichaelJennings at mailandnews dot com) on Tuesday July 03, @07:59PM PDT (#176)
(User #228467 Info)
Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler, don't let them abuse you. Changing the name is all you need to do. Don't pay anything.
Adobe, duh!!! This is costing you in bad publicity far, far more than you could ever possibly gain.
To Adobe's marketing manager: I could send letters to all the members of Adobe's board of directors, pointing out your
obvious lack of understanding. I think I could make a good case that I should have your job, since I am smart enough to
keep Adobe away from financial violence when asking nicely would accomplish the purpose.
__________________
Name: markt01e.pdf
Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
Encoding: base64
Bush's education improvements were
Well, obviously I don't know much about technology issues either then, because I don't see how the platform disparity magically makes KIllustrator a non-competitor.
If I'm a graphic designer, then I want to avail myself of a set of tools that helps me get my job done. If someone tells me there are programs called KIllustrator and the GIMP that work as well as their Adobe equivalents and cost considerably less, then I will no doubt be strongly tempted to quit shelling out hundreds of dollars to Adobe. Sounds to me like KIllustrator constitutes competition, and threatening competition at that.
The argument that the platform difference allays the competition is particularly weak in the instance of graphic design software. Some people have the preconception that graphic designers and artists are "Mac people," but in my experience they are more interested in the tools that best help them get the job done. In modern graphic design, file format compatability makes platforms largely irrelevant (aside from OS learning curves). There are many other business spaces and user types in which platform differences are much more significant (e.g., software engineering; Microsoft wouldn't perceive some Unix IDE as a competitor to Visual Studio).
Comply with the rest of the letter. But when it comes to money tell them to piss up a rope. Point out that there is no money to sue for and they will probably just go away.
StoneWolf
I wonder if this is what's happened here? If so, I have to tone down my criticism of Adobe in the previous Slashdot about this issue because, well, lawyers are lawyers, and what they don't know about technology issues (like enough to know that a program that cannot run on the same platform as another is clearly not a rival, and moreso, that a client might just have chosen a generic name for their product that could reasonably be said to apply to all the products aimed at the same application) they make up in determination and legal maneuvering.
That's not to say it's good that it's happened: Absolutely it is not. Nor is it to say that Adobe are blameless - in my view, they need to keep a leash on groups that operate in their name. But it does at least explain why Adobe have engaged in an activity so likely to alienate potential customers as apparent high-handed corporate bullying of a clear underdog.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Adobe may well have a legal right to protect its trade mark.
However, the way that Adobe (a rich multinational firm) is acting should not only be of concern to the Free Software community.
It is of concern to the whole community; we should all be interested in protecting volunteer organizations that do a great deal of good with very little resources.
Are they acting reasonably? They seem to be acting in a heavy handed way that is not reasonable or sensitive to the situation.
Killustartor is free software developed by a group of volunteers. No one is making a profit from the project. Adobe knows this and should
be sensitive to it.
Open source projects are like charities. They are grassroots charities.
Imagine if some large food manufacturing firm did the same thing to volunteer organization that distributes food to the poor.
With this analogy in mind, what should be done?
1) Change the name of KIlustrator. It was silly to call it that in the first place.
2) Boycott Adobe products, so that next time a multinational firm has a dispute with a not for profit organization it will attempt to resolve
the dispute in a more sensitive way.
Since no one knows the identity of every user of Killustrator, the only way that the University of Magdeburg could identify the users and destroy every copy of Killustrator would be to take over the entire world, force their way into people's homes, search their computers, and destroy all copies of Killustrator -- all without cause or legal grounds. To you, as Germans, this probably sounds like a great idea. But this idea makes us non-Germans uneasy.
The tademark registered by Adobe is "Adobe Illustrator", NOT "Illustrator".
Also, there are MANY generic and other brands of corn flakes called (company) Corn Flakes.
Why? Because THAT is what it is! It seems to me to be a relatively recent phenomenon that corps are trying to use trademarks to gain outright ownership of generic (plain English) words. That was never the intent.
"Adobe Illustrator" is a non-generic term that specifically applies to their product. Obviously that deserves trademark protection. However, "Illustrator" is an English noun, used for many different purposes. And, I'd imagine that if you wanted to be really technical about it, I'm sure that you can find SEVERAL trademarked products with the word "Illustrator" in it that were filed many years before "Adobe Illustrator".
Simply, trademark law cannot grant ownership of a descriptive word just because it's in the name. Otherwise, lawsuits among and by Microsoft, Word Star, and Word Perfect would have been continual.
But then, this is the 21st Century, and who knows what the law is anymore, now that it's so complex and convoluted that an understanding of it is beyond the grasp of the citizens who are bound to obey it...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Well, common sense is the most misnamed term in the language, as it's not very common...
IF KIllustrator infringes Adobe Illustrator (Adobe's trademark registration is not just "illustrator", it's the whole word "Adobe Illustrator) Then this software package is also im violation:
Microsoft Word (infringes Word Perfect)
I'd assume that Word is sold in Germany under that name.
So, some advice to would-be IP lecherous lawfirms: Go after Microsoft! You can't get rich by stealing money from those who have none (which is why your predecessors, the highwaymen didn't rob the poor, but the rich)
Recent success Corporations have had in claiming trademark ownership of plain language nouns and verbs is downright scary. Clear Channel communications, for example, is suing and threatening smaller competitors across the country for calling radio stations "KISS", which is a common, plain English VERB, just like illustrator.
And even worse, the Federal courts are letting them do it. In fact, one Federal court in CA even put a cease and desist order on Clear Channel (ordering them not to put a station called KISS in Bakersfield, where American General Media already had a station with that name), and they promply went out and defied that order the NEXT DAY... The same judge not only didnt hold CC in contempt, he reversed his own order!
Why is Clear Channel so vociferously fighting to own the name KISS? Simple, it's much easier and cheaper to automate hundreds of Top 40 pop (IE, the stations that play Britney Spears and the boy bands), to hundreds of different markets, if they all have the same name!
This should give you an idea how far our courts and government seem to be willing to sacrafice Constitutional liberty and freedom for the mere CONVIENIENCE of a massive corporation!
Trademarks, copyright, and patent law is in the Constitution, which places STRICT limits on their duration and applicibility. Which has been completely ignored by Congress and past Presidents who passed and signed into law the "DMCA" and the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act".
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Hi,
there is a law in Germany that enables every laywer (maybe even everyone, I'm not sure) to 'inform' you about a breach of law you comitted and charge you for this 'service'. There is a whole bunch of this type of 'service providers' that scan the real-estate ads for 'unlawful' descriptions and charge people for telling them what was wrong with the ad (I'm not making this up!) The whole thing got out of hand a couple of years ago and no one in the current or former legislation wanted to do something about this. Mostly because most of them are laywers themselves, I suspect.
Greetings from Germany
Uh....why? Will jackbooted Adobe thugs be coming around to those houses in the middle of the night?
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
As I recall, in Germany, law firms can independently police certain laws and write "cease and desist letters"; Adobe need not have been involved in this. I believe they can also charge the recipient of those letters for their work.
However, it seems that 4684DM far exceeds their expenses. The law firm seems to use the threat of sueing to achieve compliance in order to recover excessive legal fees for themselves. If I were Sattler, I would write a letter stating that I disagree with their interpretation of trademark law and admit no wrongdoing, but that I am changing the name immediately to avoid further legal harrassment by their lawyers. Then I would separately ask the law firm for an itemized bill for their labor (that's what the money is for, so one can expect a bill). I'd check the work and rates with another lawyer or a consumer agency and pay only what's fair and reasonable (I suspect no more than 100-200DM).
I think if this went to court, the law firm would have a hard time recovering more than reasonable costs for writing the letter. I think any case about the trademark would also be hard to make: "killustrator" is a non-trivial variation on a generic term, it doesn't seem "confusingly similar" to "Adobe Illustrator", and furthermore "killustrator" is not a product that is for sale and therefore may not even infringe. Again, talking to a lawyer should help here, since trademarks like "Adobe Illustrator" may be protected differently in Germany.
Hey, these are "independent" lawyers right?
Seeing as Adobe knows nothing about authorising these guys (supposedly) then they could sue these lawyer guys for damaging their reputation - I mean, a lot of us here have suddenly decided to hate Adobe all of a sudden!
--
I never created pdf's at all, and I always hated using them.
It's time to start demanding non-pdf downloads of data sheets, court decisions, etc. Because it will cost them in the document providers who no longer feel obliged to buy something to create pdfs with (and yes, most of these people have no idea how to make a pdf without using commercial tools).
We need to break the vision of pdf as a universal portable document format. Replace it with html, ps, anything that adobe doesn't make money off of.