Slashdot Mirror
KIllustrator Changes Name to Kontour
Kelmar writes "I found this story on The Register about how KIllustrator is changing it's name to Kontour. Looks like that is not the worst of the problems though. The law firm that originally sent the notice is also asking for $2000 just for sending the letter. Apparently they did this without the consent of Adobe, who is also not too happy about the tone of the letter."
So the lawyer is acting not on behalf of Adobe, but on behalf of the public. This generally is reasonable (it shifts the burden of enforcing laws from the tax payer to special organizations which are not supposed to do this for financial gain). However, as always, the system can be abused (and you can count on a lawyer to find the most efficient way to abuse it).
Stephan
I did read the story. Both before I posted my comment and after you suggested I read it. Where am I wrong?
Does actual infringement of a trademark not need to be proven? If that's the case, then they could send a letter to McDonald's saying that "Big Mac" might conflict with "Windows 2000" and win another chunk of change. I assume this is not the case, so, if Adobe says there's no infringement, then there's no infringement, and the law firm shouldn't be able to collect any money, right?
Or would this need to be determined via a trial? Has Kontour publicly agreed that Killustrator infringes, or have they changed the name out of the goodness of their hearts, not admitting guilt, to avoid trouble?
[Aside: I appreciate the fact that lots of people don't read the posted articles. However, don't assume that, just because someone makes an error in a posting, they haven't read it. If you see something you think they got wrong, don't simply say "that's not right." Give them details, eh?]
That's what's scary about this. It's a 3rd party suit. The law firm has no connections to Adobe whatsoever, from what I understand. They simply said, "hey, look, this probably infringes," and they send a letter and say "you gotta change it, and BTW, you owe us money now." Adobe never hired them, and they get no benefit (other than a possibly infringing name being removed).
:)
Essentially, it's legalized vigilant--vigalantee--er... add "ism" to "vigilantee."
It is ironic that there exists a country whose civil law is even more screwed up than that of the United States (I lived in Germany for several years and was thankfully unaware of this particular protection racket), something I would have found unlikely after reading about the recent FBI detainment of a Russian software engineer at the behest of Adobe for making public the woefully inadeqaute state of their much-touted PDF copy protection scheme.
This begs the question, though, namely, can the German firm in question be sued for their unilateral actions by Adobe, for (perhaps irreperably) harming Adobe's reputation among libre software users (who number in the tens of millions at this point). Can they be sued in Germany for their actions? How about the United States? And would the suit hold up, given how much Adobe's own actions against those who expose consumer fraud on their part (and yes, the content providors are "consumers" of their flawed copy protection schemes in a very real sense, and are IMHO being sold a bill of goods fraudulantly) harms their reputation among reasonably well informed IT professionals both inside and outside of the Free Software Community?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The law firm used their name. They have been silent about this. They have not, so far as I have heard, issued any public statement saying that they disapprove of the action or of the process.
And I have no evidence that the law firm acted without their general approval. Merely that it could have. And the Register has said that Adobe disapproved or something (the bad PR?) about the case.
Appearantly the law firm acted in a vile, repulsive, extortionist, and legal manner, given German law. There is probably no legal recourse that Dr. Sattler, or anyone else, except possibly Adobe, have. And I doubt that Adobe would bother, since they haven't even bothered with a public statement of disapproval.
I don't think the action was against the desires of Adobe. I think they just wish people would be quiet about it. And given the balence of the evidence, I suspect that the law firm had at least a tacit understanding with Adobe that allowed them to use Adobe's name in such an action.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Nope, sorry KDE and esp KIllustrator is essentially a German production (the master development servers are hosted in Germany) and Dr Uwe Satler works at a German University (Magdeburg). It's only Adobe who are US owned and even they have registered offices in Germany, so US law dossn't apply (unfortunatley in this case, but they don't recognise software patents in Germany [yet] so it's not all bad)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
A german law firm is sending a cease and desist letter to a German citizen(I think) (Dr Kai-Uwe Sattler) at a German university (University of Magdeburg) on behalf of the German branch of an American corporation, by whom they were NOT retained.
And the whole thing is legal in Germany.
While it may be sneaky and underhanded, it's legal in the country where the events are taking place.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
They are suing a German, in Germany over an alleged infringement of a German trademark.
Best Slashdot Co
I hope I'm not the only one that would like to contribute something towards that $2k.
Someone should post an address for donations.
My cat can eat a whole watermelon
When informed of the suit, Dr. Sattler said he would then change the name to "KItsADamnIllustrationProgram,Alright?"
Didn't we hear about the name change in Last Night's Slashback?
Gnot to gnitpick, but the gnext gnaming convention is gno gnicer...
Word(TM). Windows(TM) doesn't Exchange(TM) any letters in the names of their Works(TM). They Access(TM) a Word(TM) directly out of the dictionary sitting on the Bookshelf(TM) in their Office(TM). They've made a lot of Money(TM) doing that, and their Outlook(TM) for the future is even better. A lot better than the Outlook(TM) for Me(TM), anyway.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
There is a car called the Ford Contour. Any lawyers care to comment on the implications of Kontour vs Contour? Any risk of a lawsuit?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Gnot to gnitpick, but the gnext gnaming convention is gno gnicer...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
What a Kweer name. I don't think that a naming Konvention like that is going to help them make in roads into the marketplace.
Imagine, shortening the name instead of changing it.... "killus"....
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
From the article: "It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter, and demand payment from the company on the receiving end of the letter. Apparently some law firms make a good living at this." Not paying up is the only way to stop this business. The university shouldnt pay a dime. Next thing we know even /. is going to be asked for me from some law firm just for sending a letter...
No. Abmahnungen (cease-and-desist letters) can be sent for various reasons, including trademark infringement.
It is also possible to send such letters on behalf of the public, to enforce consumer protection laws, but this can be done only by organizations that are registered as consumer protection organizations, and they only get registered if they're non-profit (I think). Most law firms are however working for profit, and thus cannot sue on behalf of the public.
(There has been a case recently where a "consumer protection organization" has lost their right to sue because they were also doing business for profit. Read this article (german) if you're interested.)
Also, a lawyer can't just act on behalf of someone who is not their client.
It is however possible - and I guess that's what Adobe did - to hire a law firm to "protect your trademarks", and them let them do so on their own, without asking you about each and every case.
Disclaimer: I am German, and live in Germany, but IANAL.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)