The End of the Free PCI Device List (Update)

imann writes "For many years, Jim Boemler was the maintainer of a free PCI device table which reference all the PCI ID's of PCI Devices. This service is used by Free Operating Systems for keeping up to date their pci device list. That was a very usefull service for us (i was working in a Linux distro in the hardware suport team). It was wonderfull until the PCI-SIG had their lawyers cease and desisted him to stop this service because of the use of the PCI logo AND name ! You don't have the right to use the three letters P,C,I ! Incredible... So he was forced to close his website. This is a incredible loss for the hardware support in the Free Software world. I hope PCI-SIG will change its position ! Please support Jim." A friend emailed me to point out that many /.ers have been emailing the wrong person to complain....read on for details... Jamal wrote, "The story you posted is causing us a headache. Our CTO, Alan Deikman is being bombarded by emails from people reading that story. Alan is not the person in charge of the PCI SIG, his only sin is that Znyx did host the PCI sig in the early 90s and he was the list maintainer. This was a gracious act and should not be rewarded the way it is now. Infact he is trying to help the gent with that website to see if things get resolved." Alan's email was posted on the page we linked to, erroneously.

Comments

I mean, c'mon now, really

[Mr. Grimm]

Don't they have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website because it has three letters on there?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[First_In_Hell]

I guess not, especially when there is money to be made. Why would these guys want a free website floating around based on their copyrights? It takes away their potential to make any money off of it.

Who would pay them for such a service (if they ever decide to have one) when Joe Blow has it for free?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[JordoCrouse]

Don't they have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website because it has three letters on there?

Isn't this just typical of a scared group trying to save their market? Its the same old story:

10 years ago, they were the darlings of the media. Everyone couldn't get enough of their product. They stomped all other competition (ISA) until they were the exclusive provider in their market space (motherboards) for several years. But, technology advanced, and soon they weren't the best any more (AGP). New products arrived that did things better and faster in smaller space. And though they still have a majority market share, they know that they simply can't keep up.

* shakes head * Its always sad to watch a bus format die...

Instructions for use of this post: Insert tounge in cheek. Read as normal.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[GreyPoopon]

I guess not, especially when there is money to be made.

They aren't asking for any money. In fact, this is one of the most amicable cease and desist letters I've seen. The letter didn't state anything about the information. They were merely defending their trademark. The letter basically offers two valid options. They can either try to come to an agreement to post this information on the legitimate PCI site, or they can remove all "confusing" references to PCI-SIG. Basically, the company just doesn't want its customers to think this is a site that they sanctioned. What am I missing here?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[rseuhs]

No, I don't think it's an evil conspiracy.

It's just about corporate stupidity and pride. Some suit found the website and went crazy, no business plan, no money to be made, it's just about pride, envy and stupidity. And by the way, what else has PCI-SIG to do except surfing the web all day long and bragging about how great they are?

For a better understanding look here, large organizations really work that way.

PCI-SGI may be stupid, but they are not so stupid to really believe they can make serious money on selling such a service.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[bear_phillips]

They could easily have defended their trademark by just giving him permission to use it. Or they could have just called him on the phone. The problem is they sent a shot across his bow by calling an attorney.

What your missing here, is the guy is upset because he has done a service that has helped PCI. When they had a problem with him, instead of just giving him a call on the phone, they send in the lawyers.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

when i can get an AGP network card, or sound card, or firewire expansion card, or anything that's not a video card, let me know.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[The_K4]

Unfortunanlty, when dealing with something like this there has to be a paper trail. SO if they just call him up, and somehow it turns into a big issue they could find themselves in a position where they shot them selves in the foot. Is it right that they lawyers need to get involved and draft a legal letter, no. However it's what they NEED to do for legal reasons. The way I understand this, he was offering a great service, they had a small problem with some of the format he presented the info, they come to him in a legal way to try and get this resolved (nicely) and he desides to shut down his service. Why is he shutting down? Sounds to me like he's shutting down out of spite. Now that's a good response, punish everyone else because your ego got bruised becasue someone else did something the proper way. I know, SOMEONE is gunna feel the need to modify this a flamebait, and if that's how it goes fine. The point i'm trying to make (which is not flame bait) is that there doesn't appeard to be any LOGICAL reason for this service to go away, it just needs a few changes which would probbly take almost no real time to make.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[gorilla]

How does it save their market?

If I'm looking to buy a device, I'm going to be most interetested in it's hardware compability in free OS's. Anything which makes it harder for me to buy a PCI device which works is going to make me less likely to buy a PCI device and instead use an alternative.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[bear_phillips]

No they don't NEED to do if for legal reasons. But you are partly right.

Let's say they called him 2 weeks ago. He still didn't remove the logo, then they had the lawyer send this same exact letter. Lets say it went to trial.

Your right, it may turn in to a he said/she said about when he received the first notice. But who cares. The only way that comes into play is in determining the time of notice and maybe damages. Big deal, so they use Jan 15 instead of Jan 2 as the time of notice. They lose out trying to get two weeks worth of damages.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

AGP stands for Accelerated Graphics Port, so it was never intended to be for other devices. I suppose it could especially now that AGP pro supports multiple AGP slots. But isn't the point that all this stuff (hardware specifications) is proprietary? We need GNU hardware.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Eccles]

In fact, this is one of the most amicable cease and desist letters I've seen. ...except that they have no legal justification beyond the mark for their claims.

This fellow is using PCI descriptively, not branding:
" Pursuant to 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act, a defense to a claim of trademark infringement exists where:

(4) the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark . . . of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin. . . ."

But more importantly, although I can't find a reference, you can't violate a trademark if you are not a commercial concern. I can call that box of facial tissues Kleenexes all day long and there's nothing legally that can be done about it.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights? Who said anything about copyrights. This is about trademarks. There's a huge difference between the two.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Ponty]

You need to get the AGP Dial. It's an AGP card with five AGP slots and a big dial. As you need to use the network or the monitor, you turn the dial to the correct card. Inconvient, but the data transfer is fast as hell.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[GreyPoopon]

When they had a problem with him, instead of just giving him a call on the phone, they send in the lawyers.

I don't see it that way. I see the lawyers being used as a legal framework so that things don't get wierd if there's a problem. The letter was extremely polite, and invited him to give them a call to discuss the issue.

Another important thing to remember is that PCI-SIG doesn't have control over information found in the free PCI device table. As such, they don't want any confusion over liability should some of the information be wrong. One of the listed methods of remedying the conflict suggests that this may have been their primary purpose for getting the lawyers involved.

Here's an interesting point I found. His website mentions that first contact was on January 13, and that it was a threatening letter with reference to a previous communication they claim to have sent. Unless the letter received on Jan 13 is different from the one sent on Dec 30, I don't see the letter as particularly threatening. If they are the same, then I would submit that Jim's reaction is a kneejerk one. A 30 minute contact with PCI-SIG would probably generate a solution that was satisfactory to all parties.

Another interesting point is that he has proof that PCI-SIG was aware of his site for more than five years. During this time, they made no effort to defend their trademark. Any lawyers out there know how this might impact the validity of the trademark?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[bear_phillips]

I don't see it that way. I see the lawyers being used as a legal framework so that things don't get wierd if there's a problem. The letter was extremely polite, and invited him to give them a call to discuss the issue.

The lawyers said "we will not tolerate coexistance with your website in its current form." That doesn't sound very polite to me.

Image that your dog gets out and digs up your neighbors flowers. Would your rather
A: have your neighbor come over and ask you to keep your dog tied up.

B: Recieve a letter in the mail saying "From the law offices of attorney so and so. We will not tolerate your dog digging up my flowers. If you do not stop him we will sue, but I hope to resolve this in a friendly manner."

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[accident]

I thought AGP was an overclocked PCI slot that borrows heavily from the PCI spec.

Also, according to Intel here:

AGP 8x technology is intended to be the last parallel interface step that meets the industry's requirements before transitioning to a PCI Express-based serial graphics solution in 2004. The PCI Express architecture is a high-speed, general-purpose, serial I/O interconnect that provides a unifying standard, consolidating a number of I/O interconnects within a platform.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[lordgert]

What if I did AOL a favor and opened up Instant Messaging for them by publishing specs of all their services so people can write more interoperable software? I'm sure they'd "appreciate" my help, and sue me anyway.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[tigga]

Hmm, rather -

"We will not tolerate your dog in existing form"

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[GreyPoopon]

The lawyers said "we will not tolerate coexistance with your website in its current form." That doesn't sound very polite to me.

It's about as polite as it can be in a letter of this nature. They had to make that statement. It is still a cease and desist letter, and they needed to make it very clear what the alternative to compliance was. As a counter example, the letter also indicates a desire to resolve the matter amicably, and offers the possibility of including the data on the official PCI-SIG website. If I were the author, I'd have jumped at the chance.

Image that your dog gets out and digs up your neighbors flowers. Would your rather
A: have your neighbor come over and ask you to keep your dog tied up.

B: Recieve a letter in the mail saying "From the law offices of attorney so and so. We will not tolerate your dog digging up my flowers. If you do not stop him we will sue, but I hope to resolve this in a friendly manner."

I'm sure you're well aware that this isn't the same thing at all. The case of the dog that dug up my flowers is a whole lot more clear-cut than trademark disputes. Also bear in mind that this particular instance may have been one of many potential "trademark violations" that was being pursued by PCI-SIG. If they had a whole list of situations to look at, it's not surprising that first contact came from the lawyer.

Try thinking on this. It's considered common wisdom to realize that life is only about 10% what happens to you and 90% how you deal with it. In my eyes, Jim failed this test. Completely taking down the website and giving up hurts free OS development a whole lot more than PCI-SIG. However, we can always hope that after careful reflection, he'll change his mind and try to work with PCI-SIG.

Do I think PCI-SIG handled things in the wrong way? Sure! They should have accepted Jim's original offer to put everything on their site. But my guess is that there was a management change or something and that information got lost in the shuffle. However, I still think Jim's reaction was out-of-line. Still, it's his project. He can shut it down if he'd like, although I'd rather see him at least give all the data to somebody else for maintaining.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[jmauro]

Actually any card can be put in an AGP slot. It just seems that almost always it is a graphics card. There is nothing to prevent another card type from occupying that slot.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[skuzzlebutt]

Seems to me a similar situation came up when The Offspring came out in support of Napster by wearing bootleg Napster merchandise, and Napster responded by sending a cease-and-desist letter from the IAAL squad...their 'reasoning' was that legally if you don't show by action that you intend to protect your IP you have no legal right to it.

Or something like that

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

(...)buy a PCI device and instead use an alternative.

like?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[ErikTheRed]

Let them know... Here is the (correct) contact info from the PCI-SIG website...

Contact PCI-SIG
General and Administration:

PCI Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG)

5440 SW Westgate Dr., #217
Portland, OR 97221
Phone: 503-291-2569
FAX: 503-297-1090
administration@pcisig.com

Media & Analyst Contact:

Lisa Sherwin

VTM Public Relations
Phone: 503-297-3704
Fax: 503-297-1090
lsherwin@vtm-inc.com

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[raretek]

"Now that's a good response, punish everyone else because your ego got bruised becasue someone else did something the proper way."

Punish everyone else? Pardon me, but if I was spending my time maintaining a site out of genorisity, and someone sent me a legal notice(and I'm not a lawyer and really would rather not have to deal with one), I would do the same thing.

I have no problem with the rest of your reasoning, which I do find insightful, I just take issue with the way you phrased this, as if this guy is somehow punishing people and being illogical.

You gotta see it from the perspective of someone who just doesn't want to deal with legal headaches.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[kien]

Your analogy breaks down when put into proper context. It would be more relevant if you had said:

What if I did AOL a favor and opened up Instant Messaging for them by publishing specs of all their services so people can write more interopaable software and they didn't object for over six years? I'm sure they'd "appreciate" my help, and sue me anyway.

However in this case, PCI-SIG almost did exactly that. They "appreciated" the effort of a single individual for over six years and THEN sent in the lawyers. PCI-SIG didn't sue though...they just basically threatened to.

--K.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[shepd]

>like?

AGP, USB, firewire, SCSI, ISA, MCA (if you can find it!), and parallel port based devices, perhaps?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[muleboy]

SO if they just call him up, and somehow it turns into a big issue they could find themselves in a position where they shot them selves in the foot.

Instead, they decided to shoot themselves in the foot from the get-go. Brilliant.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[rabidcow]

They stomped all other competition (ISA)

Wasn't VLB the competitor to PCI?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Martin Blank]

A web page could viably be seen as a commercial concern, as it is composed, in this case, of published text, and it may not be obvious that there is not a commercial group behind it. In that case, the trademark can be infringed, and it is the right and responsibility of the trademark holder to defend it.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Skapare]

Paper trail? Sure. Lawyers to make sure the right things are said? OK. But making legal threats and demanding more than is common practice (e.g. merely the text "PCI"). Absolutely not! If some lawyer thinks that is required to protect one's right then either he is incompetent, or all the other lawyers are for having made a system that is totally fubar. Either way, it's unacceptable to normal people.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Criton]

I have to agree PCI-SIG is going overboard Also they are money grubbing come on the a paper copy of the PCI spec used to cost $40 and included a free CD of PDF now they want $1500 for access to online PDFs are they smoking crack. Sorry they are being jerks just look at the price increases . It seems microsaft is behind this one they'll try anything to stop free software. Maybe manufactors should expand agp to be multislot its way faster than PCI and the people holding it are not jerks. Maybe someone should invent a a truely open optical type buss connector since IBM research has made it possible to put silicon LEDs on a chips so an electric/optical hybred buss that would make even PCIX 2.0 look like that of an apple 2 is technically fesable and probley cost effective.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

i can't believe how fucking stupid everyone who replied to this thread is (probably including me)

i can assure you that people are laughing at you behind your backs because you don't get how clueless you are

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

so add a disclaimer - "this is a non-commercial concern operating as a free service to the wider opensource community"

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Dysan2k]

Personally, I thought it was the VLB was the predicessor (sp?) to PCI. I believe VLB was the competitor to EISA. Lord knows, I've been wrong before, though.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, DUMB FUCK
SCSI, ISA, Parallel Port, USB and Fireware all interface through the PCI bus nowadays.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[evil_one]

VLB was the cheap version of PCI - really just an extension of the FSB to IO cards. An inexpensive interem solution. This was rendered obsolete with the Pentium's 64-bit FSB. VLB was limited to 32-bit. (And although was SUPPOSED to clock-out at 40mhz, could be made to run at 50)

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[eckes]

There is a problem with Trademark Laws. In some countries you have to actually defend every abuse of your Trademark, or otherwise you wont get it granted anymore.

If there is a public display of that Logo on a high profile site, it has to be lawfully attacked. But on the other hand, I can think of a easy regulation for allowing the PCI Logo to devices which are actually PCI devices.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think you understand how a PCI bridge works.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Trepalium]

Most of the features that AGP adds to a PCI slot aren't useful for other devices. Very little except a video card can use the GART, for example. Most normal devices are served just fine by the 33MHz PCI bus, and those that need more can use 66MHz 64-bit PCI to quadruple the maximum throughput. There's little chance of ever seeing a non video card for an AGP slot, especially since PCI-X, PCI Express, and the other competing technologies that are being developed now are much more suited for general use than AGP is.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[jmauro]

Even though we aren't likely to see it, it doesn't mean that it cannot be easily done.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really

[Anonymous Coward]

> Hey, DUMB FUCK
>SCSI, ISA, Parallel Port, USB and Fireware all interface through the PCI bus nowadays.

Hey, shitface. I don't reply to ACs, except to insult them.

You fuck your mother. Often.

And you drink her cum. Why? Because "she" isn't really a "she"!

rename it to:

[scubacuda]

not-PCI

Could they still get you on that?

Re:rename it to:

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG What a stupid thing to sue over. You can always use something like pSEEi (PCI) but still WTF PCI devices are on their way out the door anyhow I would think. (Personal opinion) Maybe everything will go to like USB and laptops so we won't have a use for their lame stuff and they are trying to sqeeze the last little bit of $$$ out of their prehistoric technology?

Re:rename it to:

[Wolfier]

Rename it to:

P*I, aka *CI

Re:rename it to:

[Alien Being]

The bus formerly known as Prince?

Re:rename it to:

[You're All Wrong]

I'm sure someone's already trademaked 'PC Eye', else that would work quite well.

YAW.

Re:rename it to:

[twitter]

ICP, (I see pee^H^Hci) list.

Re:rename it to:

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! Your brain hurts too???

Re:rename it to:

[ComaVN]

I Pee. See?

Boycott!

[gmhowell]

That's it, I'm going to boycott PCI. Only ISA, EISA, MCA, and AGP for me. Now, does anyone have a link to a motherboard manufacturer for a PIV that only has ISA slots?

Re:Boycott!

[edbarrett]

NuBus all the way, baby.

Re:Boycott!

[ch-chuck]

Bring back VLB!

Re:Boycott!

[n1ywb]

Dude, you forgot about NuBus!

Re:Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a wonderful 64 bit design for a new peripheral bus that will work with only DRM systems , but you open source clowns don't get it so you don't get it.

Re:Boycott!

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

I'll be glad to get back into the Zorro bus, once the host hardware ownership finally settles down.

Re:Boycott!

[MarkGriz]

Screw VLB. Bring back Qbus!!!

Re:Boycott!

[merlin_jim]

If only it were so simple. All motherboards, even highly integrated ones, use PCI for their interconnects. Your sound card (chip) is on the PCI bus even if its not plugged into a socket. The only things that aren't on the PCI bus are the ones plugged into the northbridge, because northbridges talk to their southbridge via PCI much of the time.

I think the nForce and maybe some of the Intel stuff is an exception.

That said I am letting them know I'm unhappy and will be avoiding PCI whenever possible.

Wanna read the letter I sent? I sent this to: Alan.Deikman@znyx.com

Here. Copy freely. Might wanna change the personal details, but the overall theme is I think quite good:

[blockquote]
This is in response to the Cease & Desist sent to Jim Boelmer, maintainer of the PCI Device ID list located at http://www.yourvote.com/pci/. I'm sure your mailbox is full of mail like this today, so I'll be brief.

I have used Jim Boemler's PCI Device List in the past. In fact I have even contributed to it. I feel that it's existance does not infringe on the PCI trademark, and in fact helps PCI_SIG's brand by providing support for PCI devices in free and open operating systems.

I feel that Cease & Desist letters are dirty and underhanded, and are not the way that a responsible corporate citizen chooses to begin conflict resolution. While ethical, C&Ds are certainly not moral, and do not contribute to the universal good, except in the case where other avenues have been explored first. I believe this case is particularly evil because Mr. Boemler has contacted PCI-SIG in the past about this matter (hosting the PCI device list), and not received any response.

I am a computer consultant at a fairly large company. We specialize in systems management, e-business, and e-branding. I'm sure, in view of your already wonderfully moral way of handling matters, that you'll forgive me if I don't tell you which one. As a result of the matter with Mr. Boemler I will now be strongly advising my friends, family, associates, and clients to avoid the use of PCI devices whenever possible, and will be recommending alternate serial and bus interconnect technologies. I would do the same with my customers if I thought it appropriate. I will also recommend that anyone who does not purchase a PCI device as a result of this writes to the device manufacturer, expressing their concern with the PCI-SIG group, and advising that the device would have been purchased if it were available in another technology.

I strongly urge the PCI-SIG to seek amicable resolution in this matter with Mr. Boemler. This would convince me that PCI-SIG is not so evil that devices using PCI technology or logos should not be used by anyone, ever.

I would like to see the free PCI device list come back into being because, as I said, I believe it to be beneficial to every party involved.
[/blockquote]

Re:Boycott!

[Saltine Cracker]

Flood them with Feedback...

The site wasn't mentioned in the article but you can find PCI-SIG here.

Or just directly hit up their feedback form.

Re:Boycott!

[sirsnork]

Not quite. Almost no Chipsets use the PCI but to communicate between North and South Bridge anymore. They have all developed their own link tech as PCI was too slow.

Re:Boycott!

[raynet]

IB820 (from iBase) Pentium4 mobo has AGP display support, but all extension slots are on external backplane. Just buy one without PCI :)

Re:Boycott!

[Tackhead]

> Screw VLB. Bring back Qbus!!!

Screw that! S-100 bus 4ever, d00dz!

Re:Boycott!

[Blkdeath]

That said I am letting them know I'm unhappy and will be avoiding PCI whenever possible.

I've written a similar letter to the people referenced at this page at the time of writing (which I now understand may be slightly errant, but atleast the lawyer will receive a copy, which is the important part. I may send a follow-up to a proper leading member of the PCI-SIG group should I find a valid address to do so).

Re:Boycott!

[ncc74656]

That's it, I'm going to boycott PCI. Only ISA, EISA, MCA, and AGP for me. Now, does anyone have a link to a motherboard manufacturer for a PIV that only has ISA slots?

Screw ISA...give me Apple II expansion slots! Just think: you could hook up a Disk II and set up your emulator to talk to it. Instead of wasting time playing Solitaire and Minesweeper, you could be wasting time playing Taipan and Lode Runner! VGA, SCSI, and IDE cards are available, too...what more could you want?

Re:Boycott!

[Grotus]

Too bad Alan Deikman's only connection to PCI-SIG is running their mailing list (See Here)

So, find a better target for outraged emails.

Re:Boycott!

[djmoore]

Screw that! S-100 bus 4ever, d00dz!

Weenies. Point-to-point is the only way to wire.

Re:Boycott!

[gmhowell]

No, on an Apple II, instead of wasting time playing Solitaire and Minesweeper, I'd be wasting my time waiting for the freakin' game to load! Although not as bad as the C-64:)

At least you picked the Disk II instead of that bastard DuoDisk.

Re:Boycott!

[gmhowell]

BTW, just bought a mug. Check out my journal for some adventures in homebrewing.

Re:Boycott!

[gmhowell]

I'm trying to.

Re:Boycott!

[gmhowell]

Somewhere, I have a stash of NuBus video cards. I was hoping to get my old Mac II back from someone. Plan was to make it nothing but a freakish X workstation, with half a dozen heads.

Re:Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you were joking but...

I can't look up a link for you atm, but you can buy new motherboards with only ISA slots, they are generally used for industrial systems, but they are available. I saw an ad for them in last months Silicon Chip magazine (Australian electronics mag)

Re:Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you need anything other than XIO (1.6GB/s crossbar switch architecture)

Re:Boycott!

[bfree]

I would think the best place to send the letters is to the PCI manufacturers (and presumably members of PCI-SIG0, especially the ones who actively support FreeOSs and any who reference the database from their site. PCI-SIG are going to crawl back down if their members tell them to, but if a few thousand (or even 50000) people they can write off as a minority group mail bomb them for a few days then they are not going to be too inclined to change based on these facts. As others have pointed out this database isn't a tool for Joe Public so the targetting of our letters has to be to the people who will see the benfit to their own pockets for this site to remain in existance.

Re:Boycott!

[merlin_jim]

Damn. Your letter is much better than mine. "reprehensible" I'll have to remember that... much better than "evil" I think.

Oh well, hopefully they'll get the point. I agree with another responder of my post; we should contact the device manufacturers and let THEM know. Care to draft a letter? I think you'd do a better job at it than me... something laong the lines of "I've used your products and love them, but as you don't offer alternatives to the PCI standard I'll have to stop using them because they're evil and blah blah yadda yadda"

What's the problem?

[evilviper]

Remove the logo, and change the names to ``Computer Accessory Cards" or something else not copyrighted.

Re:What's the problem?

[boinger]

Because it still supports them.

His work helped guide people to use PCI. He spent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket for the love of a product. The owners of that product thanked him for 6 years of work by kicking him in the nuts.

So, maybe you like taking it over a barrel like that, but he doesn't (nor would I).

Re:What's the problem?

[coupland]

Agreed. I submit he should rename his web page the "Pee See Eye Device List", just to piss them off...

Re:What's the problem?

[DakotaSandstone]

I agree. Let's not get in a huff over this. I seriously doubt that the PCI-SIG is out to hunt down everyone who's ever used the letters "PCI". After all, they have a vested interest in people using and loving PCI! Why would they want to squash interest in their bus?

If you read the letter, they don't even sound that pissed about the whole thing. What's wrong with working to "Create a similar database ... which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website," as they themselves wrote?

This does NOT have to be an "us" versus "them" thing!

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

trademarked, there is a difference

Re:What's the problem?

[Squirrel Killer]

Because it still supports them.

Well, given that this is /., I'll forgive you that you didn't read the C&D letter. PCI-SIG's beef with Jim's site is that his "...use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on [his] website is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace..." All they ask is that he stops using the name PCI, the logo, and similar designations. Nowhere does PCI ask that he discontinue the service. Indeed, they even suggest the possibility of continuing the service as-is through his employer (IBM) which is a partner in the PCI-SIG. So instead of playing nicely and continuing the service changed only so that he's not using someone else's trademark, Mr. Boemler goes off on a little profanity-laced tirade. Talk about taking the ball home with you...

-sk

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The owners of that product thanked him for 6 years of work by kicking him in the nuts.

Perhaps the PCI-SIG does have a personal vendetta against that web site (e.g. because some of its members want to maintain tight control of their drivers). But perhaps their lawyers told them they didn't have a choice, due to the "enforce it or lose it" rule for trademarks.

Intellectual property law is a diseased, radioactive monster that should be put out of its misery before it destroys us all.

Re:What's the problem?

[/dev/trash]

Huh?
He gets a C&D. He takes down the Logo and Spells out PCI or calls it a card database or something.

There, he's ceases and desisted.

Re:What's the problem?

[boinger]

It already is 'us' (him) vs 'them' and they started it.

He offered his to them years ago and they said they couldn't run it (CGIs being new at the time). Because of Jim do we (being everyone - open source or otherwise) have consistent PCI support.

The way to say 'hey - your database is absolutely fabulous and we want to pay you to work on it with us. If you don't mind, though, we want to host it.' is NOT to send the lawyers after him. They paid someone to harass him! Their 'friend'!

Why would you ever just bend over and take it from someone like that? Remember, it's their product that he paid to promote out of his own pocket because he loved what PCI was and what it could do for the computing world! Why do that when they're threatening him?

Re:What's the problem?

[DakotaSandstone]

I've worked with the PCI-SIG before, and I've been kicked in the nuts before, and I assure you, this C&D letter is nothing like a kick in the nuts.

This is just an organization try to prevent its trademark from getting "diluted." They sounded decent enough in this letter, why not work with the PCI-SIG on this instead of drawing up arms and getting ready for some needless battle?

Re:What's the problem?

[bradm]

Well, given that this is /., I'll forgive you that you didn't read the C&D letter. PCI-SIG's beef with Jim's site is that his "...use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on [his] website is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace..." All they ask is that he stops using the name PCI, the logo, and similar designations.

Well, given that I did read the letter and the site:

Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers. I think that's reasonable. Perhaps instead of responding to your post, I should hire someone to knock on your door tomorrow morning at 5:30am and scream "Your post was ignorant!". See the difference?

In any case, after ignoring his prior offers of assistance and insulting him, the PCI-SIG needs to offer to buy the list from him, say for about the amount of money he's spent hosting it all these years.

Re:What's the problem?

[boinger]

I did read the C&D, thanks. They also said the name 'PCI'

PCI is what it is. Compare this to automobiles. If you were keeping track of all the automobiles and who made them and some Authoritative They said that 'automobile' and 'car' and any derivative word (like 'auto') were disallowed, what would you call your list? The Mechanized Driving Thingy List? Who would find it?

Re:What's the problem?

[SnapShot]

I'm afraid I have to disagree...

Senario 1: Hi Mr. Web Site Maintainer. We here at Fantasy PCI-SIG need to protect our copyright. Please remove your logo since it may cause confusion in the marketplace. This is a purely legal decision because we both know that the "marketplace" knows the difference between your database and our product, but, unfortunatly the lawyers made us do it. We apologize for the inconvienece and please keep up your good work.

Senario 2: Yo. We will sue you. You mean nothing to us. Our lawyers are fed on the blood of babies and will leave you and your family destitute. We know where you live. We know where you work. When we are through with you your parents won't recognize your corpse.

What was described was senario 2. Maybe I have a thin skin, I'd "take the ball home with me" as well if faced with that kind of letter. This is another case of attacking with lawyers when a little bit of respect would have achieved a far better end.

Re:What's the problem?

[DakotaSandstone]

Allright, good point. They could have been a lot more tactful pointing this out to him.

But, I DO think it's a "prisoner's dilemma" for them too. Maybe they couldn't know that Jim would have acted in good-faith if they had just sent a gentle warning. So, they erred on the side of going to the lawyers. That's their right. It is their trademark.

The question now is: who's gonna be the bigger man on this? Jim could take the high road and say, "allright, you could have been nicer saying it, but let's work together on this," and help establish trust.

Re:What's the problem?

[Cramer]

Maybe you should read it again... as to the sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website by PCI-SIG

They "request" he work through his employer (IBM) to "investigate" basically handing over the database to PCI-SIG for their own website. They didn't say anything about him retaining control, IBM having control, or IBM publishing the website. They make it very clear that they do not want him to continue hosting the listing.

As for their claims of confusion in the marketplace, I find that very unlikely. His database has been around for a long time and no one has confused him as the PCI-SIG. This isn't the only database or listing of vendor and device IDs. Furthermore, no one can confuse these lists with an official PCI-SIG list as there isn't an official list.

Re:What's the problem?

[JoeBuck]

The notion of removing all occurrences of the string "PCI" is self-defeating, as it hampers the ability of search engines to find the site. It would probably suffice to remove the logo, add "PCI is a registered trademark of so-and-so" and "this site has no relation to PCI-SIG". It is galling to have to ask an attorney about such matters. An alternative is to do what's suggested above and to move it out of the US, to a country that still allows corporations to be criticized.

Re:What's the problem?

[Shamashmuddamiq]

No! Just use PC1 (P-C-one). Oh, right...someone's probably already trademarked that, too.

Re:What's the problem?

[DrFrasierCrane]

For those of you just saying, Hey, just change the name of the site, you're missing the point. It wasn't that they asked him to change the site. It was HOW he was asked - under threat of litigation. Why couldn't someone E-mail him and just say, hey, this is a great site but please don't use our trademark? Or even say, hey, this has been a real help, but lets even just talk about your use of the trademark. And then to say, don't even use the term Pee-See-Eye (don't want to infringe!). That would be like you having an informative site about Linux, BSD, or Microsoft but not being able to use the names. For one, how does anyone search for your site? They can't search using "PCI" because *they won't find your site any more!*

Re:What's the problem?

[linuxwrangler]

I remember reading an article way back when about the attorney at Rolls Royce whose only job was to go after trademark infringement. He was proud of the fact that he never had to file suit - often a friendly call was all that was needed to get someone to stop using the term "Rolls Royce". Usually the infraction was some advertising claim like "...the 'Rolls Royce' of chairs/towels/toilet plungers/etc..."

If a trademark is allowed to be used as a common term and the company doesn't take steps to protect the trademark then they can lose it. Witness "elevator", "escallator", "aspirin", etc. Reminding people that a word/phrase is a trademark is just part of the cost of having and keeping one.

This appears to be a similar case but instead of a friendly call to someone who is supporting the PCI cause but perhaps using a trademark without permission, they sic an a**h*** attorney on him - at least that is how it has been presented.

We have no way of knowing that this was the first contact. Perhaps all prior communications had been ignored. I'd like to see "the truth and ALL the truth" before judging.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

you just don't get it.

It is completely unacceptable send a C&D letter without at least contacting him first. I have to aggree with Jim here, fuck'em if they can't behave like functional human beings.

Re:What's the problem?

[Squirrel Killer]

PCI is what it is. Compare this to automobiles. If you were keeping track of all the automobiles and who made them and some Authoritative They said that 'automobile' and 'car' and any derivative word (like 'auto') were disallowed, what would you call your list? The Mechanized Driving Thingy List? Who would find it?

Wrong analogy. The right analogy is if I were to set up a web site that listed all of the Society of Automotive Engineers standards and used their logos and trademarks throughout the site.

Actually, the PCI-SIG is being charitable, I could see them going after Jim via the DMCA or other dispicable legislation.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really going on here is that PCI-SIG wants control of a list of the sort Jim was hosting. They might not have one of their own, but whether they do or not, Plan A is never to ask something of somebody when they can simply fuck them out of whatever it is they want.

Re:What's the problem?

[blincoln]

Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.

The vast majority of people don't care anymore unless they get a letter from (a) lawyer(s). They may have assumed incorrectly in this case, but IMO the PCI-SIG was just cutting to the chase.

Re:What's the problem?

[sjames]

But, I DO think it's a "prisoner's dilemma" for them too. Maybe they couldn't know that Jim would have acted in good-faith if they had just sent a gentle warning. So, they erred on the side of going to the lawyers. That's their right. It is their trademark.

They had absolutely nothing to lose by sending a gentle warning. Had he ignored it, they could then follow up with a stern warning. Since letters like this are all boiler plate anyway, they could at least bother to come up with polite boiler plate.

Re:What's the problem?

[boinger]

But he had been in contact with them a few times. They knew his general demeanor. I mean, he tried to give them the db before!

The site certainly didn't appear to be malicious in any way. If the websites 'matched' even remotely, I could see proceeding more on a legal level. But the logo didn't even 'fit in' on Jim's site.

To revisit the car-based analogies (hehe), shops get to put the logos on their signs, right?

Re:What's the problem?

[lobsterGun]

I would not be at all surprised if the first that the PCI-SIG people heard about this entire situiation was through slashdot.

They retain the lawyers to do things like this so that they don't have to.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Didn't apple solve a similar problem years ago. The phrase butt-head astronomer sticks in my mind.

Re:What's the problem?

[bradm]

The vast majority of people don't care anymore unless they get a letter from (a) lawyer(s). They may have assumed incorrectly in this case, but IMO the PCI-SIG was just cutting to the chase.

<sarcasm>Fair enough. Mind sending me your address? I'd like to have my lawyer respond to your post.</sarcasm>

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

BECAUSE IT'S NOT PCI-SIG'S LIST

He's done all this work on his own time and with his own money, and a corporation ``requesting'' that he hand all this work over to somebody else. It's like they expect him to lay down and drool over the chance to give his work away. It's also like they can't trust him (or anyone else) to have something like this.

He won't work with PCI-SIG because PCI-SIG doesn't have shit to do with this work he's done. He probably doesn't like being condescended to, either.

The rest of the companies out there should take heed. All these people who are doing all this free work that benefits you so much aren't little kindergartners for you to take their work away from them when you want to.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand you're being fairly reasonable. On the other hand, you seem to have no clue about the difference trademark law and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They said cease and desist and he did, right? Now that the rest of us have lost a valuable service, if PCI wants us to consider their products favorably in the future, I'd hope they are as quick to step in to replace this service as they were to quell it.

Re:What's the problem?

[beagle]

Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.

Uh, that's how it works. When you have a problem in the legal realm, you send your lawyer as your representative. There's nothing else to do!

Unfortunately some organizations -- in thise case PCI-SIG -- don't share the communal "information wants to be free" utopian idealism shared by many here on \..

Sure, it would have been nice for PCI-SIG to thank Jim for his work, but the simple fact is that this is not how things work in the real world.

Re:What's the problem?

[Squirrel Killer]

Jim's beef with the PCI-SIG is that they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers. I think that's reasonable. Perhaps instead of responding to your post, I should hire someone to knock on your door tomorrow morning at 5:30am and scream "Your post was ignorant!". See the difference?

Letters from lawyers are not akin to jack-booted thugs waking me up to give me your opinion. This was a legal situation, not an invitation to a party. Maybe if Jim hadn't over-reacted to the letter, there could have been an amicable solution, just like the letter suggested. Yes it would have been nice had PCI-SIG sent a scented SWIK letter to Jim first, but they instead they followed SOP and aggresively defended their trademark. Jim over-reacted, did more than PCI-SIG wanted (they just wanted him to stop using their trademarks), and literally said "Fuck 'em." Way to be mature, Jim. Are you going to take your ball home too?

As for PCI-SIG buying the list from him, that doesn't make sense. The PCI-SIG feels (wrongly) that such a list is unnecessary. Why would a non-profit buy on a list it thinks is unnecessary from a foul-mouthed person who wasn't asked or hired to compile such list?

-sk

Re:What's the problem?

[bradm]

I would not be at all surprised if the first that the PCI-SIG people heard about this entire situiation was through slashdot.

They retain the lawyers to do things like this so that they don't have to.

Excellent point. Now, do you/we consider this to be reasonable behavior? Particularly since there is a pre-existing conversation?

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, PCI-SIG is their trademark, but it's Jim's list.

Jim could also say, ``fuck you buddy. I spent all this work and time and money on this thing, and for you to request I hand it over to you insults my intelligence. For you to have your lawyers do it is unconscionable. Have fun building your own list, if your accountants will even let you spend money doing it, considering that the replacements to the PCI bus are already competing over its carcass.''

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Scenario 1 was the one they used. Maybe you should re-read the letter.

Re:What's the problem?

[Squirrel Killer]

...you seem to have no clue about the difference trademark law and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Actually I do understand the difference between trademark law and the DMCA. Jim was using PCI-SIG's trademake on his site, and as such, diluting the trademark. Having the potential to be confusingly similar, PCI-SIG had to defend their trademark. However, organizations have been claiming DMCA protections on information not unlike what Jim was providing. Please note that I'm not saying that a DMCA challenge would be right, legitimate, or even successful, just that other organizations have claimed such protections over less legitimate information. If Jim thinks this letter was so bad, it's a good thing he didn't consider what they could have done.

They said cease and desist and he did, right?

Right, to a point. PCI-SIG asked Jim to C&D using their trademarks and terms that could be confused with their trademark. Jim, apparently, in a fit of rage, took the whole site down, depriving all of us of a useful service. (Disclaimer: I've never used Jim's list, although I can see it's usefulness to developers, etc... And, I don't even know Jim, he's probably a great guy, but my first impression is his 34 pt. "Fuck 'em!")

-sk

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> [his] website is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace...

Oh, there are so many people "in the marketplace" searching for ids of pci cards ...

Re:What's the problem?

[bradm]

Letters from lawyers are not akin to jack-booted thugs waking me up to give me your opinion. This was a legal situation, not an invitation to a party.

Nice rhetorical image. How do you know I wouldn't send a beautiful person that happened to have a loud voice?

As for PCI-SIG buying the list from him, that doesn't make sense. The PCI-SIG feels (wrongly) that such a list is unnecessary.

How do you know how the PCI-SIG feels? All evidence presented shows that they have an interest in the list.

They should buy it as a gesture of apology for being rude, and because it's in their, and everyone else's best interest. In what world doesn't it make sense?

Letters from lawyers clearly have more weight than letters from organizations, which have more weight than phone calls, which have more weight than emails, which have more weight than IMs. Surely you recognize that.

This would have become a legal situation had Jim not responded to any other attempt reach him, but he was not extended that courtesy.

Had that simple action been taken, not only would the PCI-SIG not have paid for useless legal services, they would have avoided senseless damage to their goodwill.

Humorously, I just heard George W. say "There are too many lawsuits in America!" as a quote from a speech today.

Re:What's the problem?

[Skapare]

Certain uses of other people's trademarks to refer to the trademark owner is common and accepted practice. Having the logo on there probably isn't included, even if linked to the PCI-SIG web site. But using the 3 letters "PCI" in reference to the PCI technology surely would fall into this common practice. The PCI-SIG and/or their land shark went overboard. Had they simply written a proper request the first time around, without the threatening part, and ask for specific changes, and made sure it got delivered, this whole mess would not happen. What they actually did is, IMHO, was essentially a form of disrespect for someone who has majorly contributed to the usefulness and effectiveness of the work of the PCI-SIG. The reaction may have been a bit overboard, but the original action was definitely more so. Maybe someone else will bring a new ball to the game.

Re:What's the problem?

[jayhawk88]

This is the funniest part of this whole thing. If someone is in the position that they actually find Jim's site, let alone understand what he's trying to do at all, they're probably intelligent enough to determine the difference between Jim and the PCI-SIG organization.

I mean, it's not like Ma and Pa Kettle are out there trying to write device drivers and shit.

Re:What's the problem?

[kevcol]

Dakota, I have read all 3 of your posts on this matter and all I can think of to ask you is: Do you just lay down and play dead on everything you have ever worked for or believe in?

Jim could take the high road and say, "allright, you could have been nicer saying it, but let's work together on this," and help establish trust.

For chissakes- establish TRUST? The guy put that work up for all to use for so long needs to be the one to establish trust? Open your eyes!

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably want to earn revenue after the spec is gone. Just like certain BIOS companies that now charge for updates. This could theoretically be a revenue stream for them. If no one makes certain PCI cards anymore, nor do they support certain models, and you need to find information on them, they could charge you 19.95 to access the database. Lame.

Re:What's the problem?

[Squirrel Killer]

Nice rhetorical image.

Thanks, I liked it too. It neatly points out the difference between sending someone an email or letter and sending a goon to his door. (Oops, there I go again with my rhetorical images again, sorry.)

How do you know how the PCI-SIG feels?

I'm making an educated guess. This quote from Jim's site sums it up nicely, "I really thought that the data should be housed at the PCI-SIG, however, so I offered it to them. At first there was no response, then a little nibble. Use of CGI programs wasn't common back then, and they didn't think they could even execute the program, so I never heard from them again." If the PCI-SIG felt the list was really necessary, Jim would have heard back from them, or they would have built it themselves.

They should buy it as a gesture of apology for being rude, and because it's in their, and everyone else's best interest. In what world doesn't it make sense?

Somehow, I don't think you'll rip out your PCI ethernet card if PCI-SIG doesn't fork over money to Jim. Beside, buying a list the group doesn't want and didn't ask for just to apologize for treating a legal situation like a legal situation doesn't make sense in any world other than the Smurf village.

This would have become a legal situation had Jim not responded to any other attempt reach him, but he was not extended that courtesy.

That's just it, this already was a legal situation as soon as Jim decided to use PCI-SIG's trademarks on his web site, he just got away with it for awhile. With the official trademarks, perhaps Jim's site looked authorative and official, if there was inaccurate infomation on the site, PCI-SIG might have caught hell for it. The crux of this situation is not that Jim compiled and published the list, nowhere in the C&D letter does anyone complain about the list itself. The sticking point, however, is the useage of PCI-SIG's trademarks. Had he not used their logo and attributed the "PCI" trademark with a prominent disclaimer, I bet the whole situation would have been minimized, if not avoided entirely.

-sk

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. I just saw the DMCA comment as such a complete non-sequitor I thought I'd say something. On the rest of it, I agree. Nobody's winning as a result of either the initial request or the overreaction.

Re:What's the problem?

[avdp]

They did not "request" they hand over the list over to IBM. They don't even know that IBM would want to host the list. They merely said that he can't use a trademark he doesn't own - however good the intent was. They offered a helpful suggestion, that perhaps, if his employer (IBM) is willing, it could host the list for him in which case the conflict goes away since IBM is a member of the group.

All in all, it sounded like a fairly reasonable legalese letter, and I didn't quite see the need to fly off the handle.

Re:What's the problem?

[avdp]

There is no way to write a lawyer letter that sounds nice, period. This one was as nice as any such letter can sound.

I would have just removed the logo, renamed the list "Pee Cee Eye" (or any creative way to say PCI you can thing off) and everybody would have been happy. It's also faster and easier to do than to write a long rant. But hey! That's just me...

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are people always suprised by this!!!!

A C&D, is just a legal way of asking you to remove the content!!!! NO company is going to be courteous!!! The company I work for gets C&Ds every once and a while and maybe the first few got us all hot and bothered, but now we just remove the content and move on with our lives. We actually enjoy them, because we know someone wasted money on a lawyer, when they could have just called and asked.

Your anology is "ignorant" of C&Ds. Most of them arrive via FedEx around 10AM. I'll give you credit, if you sleep in past 10AM, then you may have a point. Either way FedEx doesn't scream.

As for what Jim should do, just shutting the site down is dumb. He should remove the logo and name. Then wait and see what they say.

Re:What's the problem?

[funkdancer]

That's their right. It is their trademark.

But it doesn't _make it right_, dammit.

Re:What's the problem?

[DakotaSandstone]

Jim took their trademarked logo and used it on his own site. From a strict legal view, he is the one who must act to restore/establish trust. You don't steal someone else's trademarked logo and use it to pretty up or give greater credibility to your own website, regardless of your intentions.

Now, yes, he did it for the best of reasons. And yes, it was bad of PCI-SIG to play this C&D card this early on. The whole situation is just badness. So what do we do? Just bitch and moan, or actually try to move on from where we stand?

So, do I just "lay down and play dead?" I don't think so. I think I'm just talking about a compromise here, which is exactly what PCI-SIG was talking about in their C&D order.

Re:What's the problem?

[DakotaSandstone]

>He won't work with PCI-SIG because PCI-SIG doesn't have shit to do with this work he's done.

Um, except that they are the actual creators and maintainers OF the PCI bus specification! And, oh yes, they also are the ones who hand out PCI Vendor IDs, so they have a DIRECT correlation to his list.

> All these people who are doing all this free work that benefits you so much aren't little kindergartners for you to take their work away from them when you want to.

You're right, good point. I'd say the average response to this issue on /. is that of a 12 year old.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading an article way back when about the attorney at Rolls Royce whose only job was to go after trademark infringement. He was proud of the fact that he never had to file suit - often a friendly call was all that was needed to get someone to stop using the term "Rolls Royce". Usually the infraction was some advertising claim like "...the 'Rolls Royce' of chairs/towels/toilet plungers/etc..."

Well obviously. The Rolls Royce lawyer, like the company, is British. After the phone call the lawyer probably met for with the offendor for afternoon tea where they discussed cricket. American companies thrive on hostility.

Re:What's the problem?

[mkldev]

Actually, the right analogy would be Ford suing a car trader magazine for using the word "Ford" in conjunction with a list of the various models that Ford makes.

Trademark law specifically -=denies=- the right to sue for trademark infringement when the use in question involves selling or describing that company or organization's product. That's why sites criticising various companies exist. They are considered protected speech.

So long as the page has a disclaimer that says it is not associated with PCI-SIG, it would be difficult, if not impossible for them to pursue any sort of trademark infringement action against its author.

Re:What's the problem?

[Black Copter Control]

Perhaps instead of responding to your post, I should hire someone to knock on your door tomorrow morning at 5:30am and scream "Your post was ignorant!". See the difference?

Sounds like the slashdot effect..... (=: but more expensive :-)

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt you can copyright a list of PCI IDs anyway, so all this moaning about "control" is really hot air.

Re:What's the problem?

[arkanes]

If he's been using it for 5 years, with them knowing about it, and they haven't said anything (all of which are true), then they're likely to get thrown out of court if it ever comes to that. Of course, that preculdes him both wanting and being able to afford a legal battle. And, as other people have mentioned, trademark law makes a specific exception for using the trademark descriptively (as in a Ford truck).

Re:What's the problem?

[Uzull]

what about Punch-Card Interface ?

Re:What's the problem?

[JohnFluxx]

> Sure, it would have been nice for PCI-SIG to thank
> Jim for his work, but the simple fact is that this
>is not how things work in the real world.

Yes, well, not all of us want to live in that kind of a world. So while you just accept it as "the way things are", I'll stick to my "utopian idealism".

Do you really find it reasonable that they didn't thank him or contact him, but just threw the lawyers at him?

Re:What's the problem?

[JohnFluxx]

Uh, so why send a lawyer letter then if you can't write one that sounds good?
They could have written an informal email first.

Re:What's the problem?

[Tassach]

...some Authoritative They said that 'automobile' and 'car' and any derivative word (like 'auto') were disallowed, what would you call your list?

The Horseless Carriage List.

Re:What's the problem?

[beagle]

Yes, I do. The lawyers should have been a bit more responsible with the delivery of the first letter, but other than that, yes.

Re:What's the problem?

[WNight]

Lawyers can be paid to draft non-threatening letters, or to look at a letter someone else wrote. All you need to do is make sure you're not doing something a court will interpret as an offer, and you're fine.

Really, the PCI-SIG doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Their trademark could be called generic, and he is discussing something related to just their product, where using their specific name is required. This isn't like he's discussing facial tissue, calling it Kleenex.

At most he might be required to say "PCI is a trademark of ..." and "This site isn't related to the PCI ..."

But they could have easily sent him a friendly letter, one that didn't have any legallese in it, asking him to change it so they'd have an easier time of proving vigilance later on if they needed to take some hostile company to court. And they could have sent a lollipop with it, to show there were no hard feelings. And the letter would be just as valid legally, as starting with a cease and desist.

Do you remember the case five or so years ago where Disney sent a C&D letter to a daycare center that had Mickey and friends painted on their inside walls? It blew up in the news and hurt Disney incredibly when Universal Studios sent a mural artist there to get rid of the Disney characters and paint the Tiny Toons on the walls, for free, and of course with a herd of TV reporters and cameras. Disney started saying "But, we had to," as a defense. It was BS. They could have had the lawyer call up, not introduce himself as "the lawyer" and say that "for legal reasons beyond their control, they can't allow unauthorized use of their trademarks like this. So how about you pay us $50 and we'll send out a guy in a Mickey suit to play with the kids when we sign the deal authorized it"... This way they'd come across as friends, forced to jump through hoops by a silly law, instead of bullies who immediately resort to threats.

I think companies need to learn that while they're used to tossing back and forth legal grenades amongst themselves, a person who can't afford their own lawyer is going to treat it like an attack, without stopping to check if the pin is in.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

"All they ask is that he stops using the name PCI"

You're kidding, right? They can NOT tell (with any legal authority) anyone to stop using the name "PCI". If I buy an Audi, I can tell people I have an Audi, or if I make parts that happen to work on an Audi, I can say, they work on an Audi.

If I have a list that pertains to PCI device codes/vendor IDs, I can certainly use the letters "PCI" in relationship to it. There is no confusion, except for the dolts at PCI-SIG and their lawyer.

Quick

[dmanny]

Jim must act quickly to claim the letters J I M as his own Intellectual property. Then we can find someone named Jim associated with the PCI trade group and countersue.

Re:Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea. They'll have to throw out the legal documents because they use Jim on them and they can't do that because it's copyrighted.

I hate corporate America.

Re:Quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Jim must act quickly to claim the letters J I M as his own Intellectual property. Then we can find someone named Jim associated with the PCI trade group and countersue.

Why not? When Warner Brothers threatened to sue Groucho Marx over the use of the word "Casablanca" in the title of the movie, "A Night in Casablanca", Groucho threatened to countersue over the use of the word "Brothers" in "Warner Brothers".

Re:Quick

[dmanny]

One could only hope that such a travesty would invalidate the legal equivalent of toilet paper.

Upon further thought, I think that we need to come up with some other name, something derogatory, which will all understand to mean the same thing. They may be able to trademark their abbreviation but they cannot force others to use it.

Perhaps we could use the ROT13 text, which I think would be CPV. We could say that CPV stood for "Cohen's Perverted Values" or anything else that fit.

Regardless of whether ROT13 was used, once we had an alternative, we could put up a webserver that offered 'certifications' of other manufacturer's product to this new bus 'standard'. This process would consist of only a rubber stamp. Then we could inundate our favorite manufacturers, who indirectly are the PCI-SIG by virtue of their support, with emails and other annoyances demanding compatibility

This type of interference would cost the manufacturers money and time. Any mention of the Bus Who's Name Shall Not Be Said could be changed in free software source code.

Surely that would cause "consumer confusion" of a far greater degree. I suspect that the motive may well be more sinister -- preventing the distribution of the information in the first place.

IBM, as a member and Jim's evident employer, has a chance to take the high ground in both a moral and public relations sense. By hosting the list, the would win my favor, for what its worth.

I am glad that I am not so hungry as to have to prostitute myself to such a degree as sign my name to such crap.

Solution

[arw]

Hm, I would say, don't buy their stuff.

Err, but..., well..., ähm.

What do we learn from this? Standards need to be free.

Huh?

[IamTheRealMike]

What exactly do they have to gain from this? What do they lose by having more systems support their architecture? This makes zero sense.

And why do my posts start at 1 all of a sudden. The worlds gone mad, and I never noticed.....

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademark law requires them to enforce their trademarks. Of course they should just license it for cheap. I guess the lawyers don't really care about technical issues.

Re:Huh?

[jgerman]

I've often wondered the same thing, what do they have to gain, and the only conclusion I can come up with in these circumstances is that whoever makes these decisions is simply stupid. There is really no other explanation.

I was wondering about my posts starting at 1 as well...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do my posts start at 1 all of a sudden.

me too!!! i thowt it was just cuz i use aol!!!

cul8r!!!

Re:Huh?

[aonaran]

I got a similar letter from Redhat's lawyers for selling umm, someone's Linux distro on CD on e-bay. They sayed go ahead and sell it if you like (GPL licence and all that...) but DON'T call it Redhat or anything that suggests red hat (rouge chapeau, greenhat etc.) I tried to explain that what I was selling really WAS RedHat, burned from the psyche ISOs I downloaded from Redhat, and that I wasn't even really making a profit, just getting the product out there for those who couldn't log in to the damned FTP mirrors. .... they care not if it is actually good for the company in the long run (more users potentially buying support) they only care that the trademark is being used by someone unauthorized.

Re:Huh?

[k12linux]

It seems to me that the hardware manufacturers who actually want to sell to the Linux crowd would be upset. Maybe we can put pressure on them to put pressure on PCI_SIG. After all, money talks loudest doesn't it?

Re:Huh?

[Fugly]

Of course, they've probably already ripped his entire database using http connections from a quick little perl script. (At least I would have before letting my lawyers send a cease and desist.)

Expect the "official" database soon.

Re:Huh?

[Mike Lococo]

What exactly do they have to gain from this?

It looks to me like they're trying to strongarm him into giving them his database for free. You'd figure they'd have their own copy. Didn't they give out the vendor ID's in the first place?

From the cease and desist letter:

Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website.

Re:Huh?

[SquadBoy]

Yup they have done this for a long time that is why http://www.cheapbytes.com sells "Pink Tie" a Red Hat "Workalike" now. :) Pretty clever hack. The point being RH doens not care if you sell CDs made from the ISOs but they do care about it being marketed as such.

Re:Huh?

[jshare]

Trademark law requires them to enforce their trademarks. Of course they should just license it for cheap. I guess the lawyers don't really care about technical issues.

IANAL. That being said, I thought the fundamental issue of trademarks was that you cannot allow others to use them, or you lose them yourselves. That's what I think the AC I'm replying to was saying.

Re:Huh?

[Master of Transhuman]

Oh, I like your sig!

I'm stealing it!

Sue me for IP infringement!

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do my posts start at 1 all of a sudden.

my posts start at 0, suck it up wussy!

Re:Huh?

[blurfus]

... And why do my posts start at 1 all of a sudden. The worlds gone mad, and I never noticed.....

You shall find your answer here =o)

Re:Huh?

[Hurga]

What exactly do they have to gain from this? What do they lose by having more systems support their architecture? This makes zero sense.

There are lawyers to be fed, why should it have to make any sense other than that?

Hurga

Re:Huh?

[Oloryn]

What exactly do they have to gain from this? What do they lose by having more systems support their architecture? This makes zero sense.

Sounds to me a lot like another case of thinking solely in legal terms, and ignoring the likely affects of legal action on the marketplace. Kind of reminds of the SEA vs PKWare lawsuit. SEA won the legal case, but the online community's response to SEA's legal actions shortly turned ARC from the defacto standard archiving utility to an also-ran (when was the last time you had to deal with a .ARC file?).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What numb fuck 14 year old moderator hit that with an offtopic. Stupid fucking kids.

Re:Huh?

[bdktty]

The last time I even heard of an ARC, it was storing two giraffes, two rabbits . . .

We need to tell PCI-SIG

[Halo-]

A lot of users (like me) buy hardware often. If a device doesn't have official support for Linux, I am less likely to buy it... If the kernel doesn't even recognize it... well, they aren't gonna be selling me one.

I can't see how this group is going to come out ahead by doing this. The small amount of money the y (might) take in selling the information is going to be dramatically offset by the much larger amount of money their sponsors/patrons lose in sales.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[billn]

I think you just happened upon a possibly deeper motive behind all this. Who stands to gain the most by Open Source developers not having access to this kind of resource?

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[ilsie]

Of course, if you had actually taken the time to read the letter, you'd see that PCI-SIG is a not-for-profit corporation, and that they want to work amicably to move the list onto the PCI-SIG website. I don't see what's wrong with this, nobody objects to IBM's right to trademark "IBM".

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we all call them whenever we need data on our PCI devices.

Here's their contact info

PCI-SIG
General and Administration
Phone #: 503-291-2569
Fax #: 503-297-1090
administration@pcisig.org

Media & Analyst Contact
Lisa Sherwin
VTM Public Relations
Phone #: 503-297-3704
Fax #: 503-297-1090
lsherwin@vtm-inc.com

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything's a conspiracy, isn't it?

Perhaps they didn't want the impression that Jim's little hobby was an official list by PCI-SIG? Perhaps they want it to be clear that any information on the website is Jims responsibility, and not theirs.

If you look at their site PCI-SIG.com, and find the "PCI-SIG Logo Usage Guide and Agreement" - a rather lengthy and verbose read, but the very first statement is:

"THE PCI-SIG LOGO MAY BE USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE PASSED PCI-SIG COMPLIANCE TESTING AND ARE CURRENTLY ON THE INTEGRATORS LIST."

It also has rules pertaining to which logo can be used with which versions (PCI-X vs PCI2.2 etc)

blah blah.. You can't use other peoples trademarked logos without permission, and that's that.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[FroMan]

Conspiracy.

Granted, everyone else has pointed out that its not that they are trying to shut the site down, but simply gripe about someone else using their precious PCI name and logo for someothing completely related to the issue.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[sjames]

I read the letter. There's a difference between what they say and what their actions indicate. It's a little like firing an olive branch at someone from a cannon (at close range).

People who really want to resolve a situation amicably do NOT follow that statement with a threat. If they had wanted to handle the situation amicably, the letter should have come from a director. It should have indicated their interest in hosting the list in an official capacity and asked (not demanded) that he contact them. Acknowledging the value of the list and his work would be a nice touch. Odds are, that would have been enough.

If they had real problems with his use of the marks, they could have indicated the problem and suggested appropriate ways to remedy the situation (such as please remove the actual logo and add text saying 'PCI is a blah blah blah'). I'll bet that would have been enough as well.

Frankly, every C&D letter I've seen (both reasonable and not so reasonable) was quite rude. They allways read like the 'this is your final warning' speech from the evil space alien. The letter would have been appropriate iff he had failed to respond to an earlier and more polite approach.

Perhaps we should recommend some good books on ettiquite to the lawyers and the PCI-SIG collectively.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to work amicably to move all your furniture to my house, and all your money into my bank accounts. I don't see any reason why it hasn't been done already, so I'll let you have until Monday to get it done.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[HeUnique]

Hmm...

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

administration@pcisig.org
SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO::
host pcisig.org [63.126.46.55]: 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)

I guess they also need a good sys admin ;)

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[grahammm]

So for each card on the list display the logo to which that card is entitled next to its listing. That way the log is being used "in conjunction with products which have passed.....".

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[AntiNorm]

PCI-SIG is a not-for-profit corporation

So is the RIAA.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[Laroue]

The part I found the strangest was that the trademark paperwork is dated September 24,2002. And lo three months later a cease and desist letter. I'd say we write to all our manufacturers and express our disgust.

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[delphi125]

People who really want to resolve a situation amicably do NOT follow that statement with a threat

YOHNMALHY?

You obviously have never met a lawyer, have you?

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[sjames]

Typically, a lawyer does not care how amicably (or not) the situation is resolved. They just want it resolved (in their client's favor). I have, in fact, met exceptoins to that rule!

Re:We need to tell PCI-SIG

[jtkeith]

FWIW, the pcisig.org domain (as opposed to the site, which is pcisig.com) now accepts mail.

What's next?

[Gortbusters.org]

AFK? Sup? How about "yo", or "heh"

Easy solution

[EllisDees]

Just change every instance of 'PCI' on the webpage and documentation to 'Peripheral Component Interconnect' with the first letter of each word much larger than the others.

Re:Easy solution

[Dman33]

Or, since 'PCI' is the #1 way to Interconnect Peripheral Components, you could always call it 'PC1' and just use one of those ambiguous fonts on the website so the 1 looke like an I... god, that is lame... why did I even type this... shit. I am still typing... ugh. Must go home now and sleep...

'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[azaroth42]

From the C&D letter:

PCI-SIG is the industry organization that owns and manages PCI specifications as open industry standards.

Yeah, really 'open standard' when they Cease and Desist people compiling a list of device IDs!

--Azaroth

Re:'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[Xtifr]

Yeah, really 'open standard' when they Cease and Desist people compiling a list of device IDs!

They didn't send him a C&D for compiling a list, they sent him a C&D for using their trademark and logo without permission. And, in fact, as C&D letters go, this one was remarkably polite.

Not all the world thinks that lawyers are inherently evil, and that any use of them is equivalent to waving firearms in someone's face. Many people, especially businesspeople, consider the use of lawyers to be routine. And this case looks fairly routine. Heck, for lawyers, they're positively bending over backwards to be helpful. The guy needs to grow up and act like a professional who knows how the real world works, and knows that it isn't always pretty.

Re:'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the parent:

Not all the world thinks that lawyers are inherently evil, and that any use of them is equivalent to waving firearms in someone's face.

I guess this means there
are some people in the
world that haven't met a
lawyer yet!

Re:'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like the suck-ass The Open Group, how ironic isn't it when a group is completely closed and is named that way.
Not to mention that the fags stole a BSD-gurus domain, see this for the real bizarreness.
The world would be better without lawyer, buy a shotgun today and make this world a better place to live.

Re:'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[gauss314]

My guess is that the author is a lawyer, and is sick of everybody knowing that they give bubonic plague epidemic envy.

Re:'Open Standard' closed by lawyers...

[0x0d0a]

You can use a trademark in all sorts of situations legally.

If I publish a web page called "Apple Computer Is The Lamest Computer Company Alive And This Is Why", I'm perfectly entitled to use the phrase "Apple Computer", even though Apple owns the trademark on the phrase.

needs a merger

[Rev. DeFiLEZ]

What he needs to do is merge with the USB ID list and simple call it "peripheral device IDs". that keeps him out of legal hot water (one would hope)

One more question, what are the chances of a DCMA based C&D letter for having a compiled list of IDs?
I think it is unlikely however I have been proven wrong before with the DMCA.

-rev

But, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were only prohibited from publishing a company name/logo if it was used for profit? Was he making a profit?

Foot, shoe, gun

[salesgeek]

It never ceases to amaze me how easily technology organizations shoot themselves in the foot. Let's punish the developer community making our standards-based hardware more valuable!

That also begs a question - does trademark allow you to prevent use of a word totally or just for marketing purposes. I seem to remember from school that suing someone claiming their product was "a PCI card" that wasn't licensed to do so is one thing, but saying "this card works in PCI bus systems" is quite another... and not actionalble.

Re:Foot, shoe, gun

[LJPeixoto]

He didnt say "this card works in PCI bus systems", he had a "product" (website) named "PCI Vendor ...", i.e., using the trademark.

He could claim that he didnt make profit from the "product" ...

who wins?

[Alejo]

It would be interesting to learn who actually benefits from this move.

Slashdot Article Uses PCI! Uh oH!

[OS24Ever]

Oh! I used it too! i'm gonna be sued! oh no!

Why?

[Rebel Patriot]

Why would the non-profit PCI-SIG care if some regular Joe compiles a list of PCI-IDs, puts them on a website, and uses the PCI logo? Isn't the point of non-profit organizations to overcome adversaties and improve the betterment of life? While they certainly have a legal base for this, doesn't this violate the spirit of a non-profit company, and if so, why can't we remove their non-profit status and make them start paying taxes or something?

It seems to me that since a non-profit company exists to benefit the country (and therefore is not taxed the same), that we, the country, should have some grounds to fight back. WHere are those grounds, and if they don't exist, who has the force to push such legislation through US Congress?

This sucks.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

non profit company is an oxymoron

its either a company, or a nonprofit, both are entities

Re:Why?

[RedGuard]

The PCI SIG need to own the PCI trademark so
they can license it only to companies which
actually conform to the standard - I don't
understand why so many people find this
objectionable.

OT: posts at 1

[RollingThunder]

And why do my posts start at 1 all of a sudden. The worlds gone mad, and I never noticed.....

You too, huh? I just noticed that last night. Guess they decided to change the default state of the checkbox.

I'd decheck for an OT response like this, but that choice seems to have been removed from my hands. :)

Re:OT: posts at 1

[kenthorvath]

Well if we are going to be OT, I want to test it out!

Re:OT: posts at 1

[Fnkmaster]

There's something broken since the Slashcode "update" the other day. It doesn't seem to matter what state the checkbox is in, my posts are starting at 1. It's sort of annoying, because a lot of people don't really pay attention to posts at 1. I'm not a karma whore or anything, it's just strange given that I have maxed out my karma years ago that I'm no longer able to post at 2. I tried posting with the newly labeled "No Karma Bonus" checkbox both checked and unchecked and it seems like my posts are now at 1 both ways.

Re:OT: posts at 1

[ivan256]

They also changed the text next to the box. It now says "No Karma Bonus". I would assume that means if you check the box you post at score 1, and if you leave it unchecked you post at score 2. Right now if you leave it unchecked you post at score one. I haven't tried checking it yet. If this message starts at score 2, they got either the button logic or the wording wrong. If it starts at Score 1 they broke the whole thing... Lets try it.

Re:OT: posts at 1

[ivan256]

Ok, so it seems you don't get the bonus no matter what the state of the check box. I suppose filling out a bug report would be the correct thing to do.. Off I go.

System Normal

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

All Fucked Up.

What has become of this country? This is (sadly) not the first time a C&D letter has been the first volley on some unsuspecting (but well meaning) person.

I'd happily host the website on our web servers (my boss wouldn't care one bit about some lame C&D letter) but the entire list is gone, so much for a mirror.

(begin off-topic rant)
I'll tell you my way out of this mess, win one of those huge honkin' powerball lotteries, then go buy an island somewhere and form your own country. The only problem I've encountered so far was naming it. I had originally thought of the word "France", but I hear it's been taken.
(end off-topic rant)

Re:System Normal

[DingoBueno]

I have the lists as of a few days ago. Let me know if you want them. Try the google cache..

Three Letters

[JZ_Tonka]

"You don't have the right to use the three letters P,C,I ! Incredible..."

AMD and IBM are both three letters too. Should I not be able to use them to promote my website without their permission?

Oh wait, there's a little something called a trademark. Move along.

Re:Three Letters

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you were using them in a free attempt to promote the company's business, you'd think they'd be willing to work it out, don't you?

Oh, never mind... must repeat capitalist slogan: grab it all, own it all, drain it all... move along now...

Re:Three Letters

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the letter, moron. That's what they offered to do, but the guy just spazzed out instead. I swear, when you people have grown up you are going to look back on these days and wonder how you could possibly have been so stupid.

Shutting down the site is overkill...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse me with someone who knows what they're talking about BUT I think it would be OK to use the letters "PCI" if a) one clearly states that "PCI" the trademark of the PCI-SIG and b) clearly state that the site is not affiliated with the PCI-SIG.

How can we support him?

[caluml]

Perhaps, if everyone possible mirrored the site, they might give up.

Or he could move it to Freenet. (Check it out if you haven't. It's full of subversive conspiracy theories - you Slashdot folk would love it)

Re:How can we support him?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Tell him that he overreacted.

There's something a little distasteful here.

[bheerssen]

The trademark was granted only three months ago. It states on it that first use was Dec '94.

Does it really take eight years to file a trademark, or does this seem more like something they did specifically so they could sue other people? Maybe this guy is just the poor test case. Try it on him and if it works, go for a bigger fish...

Re:There's something a little distasteful here.

[Zigg]

The trademark was granted only three months ago.

Makes me wonder if some clueless suit at the SIG decided, upon receipt of his new trademark toy, to play with it by sending lawyers out after its "misuse".

Re:There's something a little distasteful here.

[bheerssen]

Good point, but I could also see their lawyers saying to them "Ya know, if we trademark this...."

And the best line from the article...

[Halo-]

"I'm speaking purely as an individual who has, over the past seven years, made some contribution to the XXX community."

Man, and most of us just take, take, take... Open source, or open pants?

Doesn't quite sound right

[Anonymous Coward]

In the true slashdot tradition, I did not read the article, however:

* PCI is kind of like "kleenex"; It's a common-place word that is used to describe something, usually not a company or organization. If I recall correctly, there was a legal ruling about pretty much this same situation, the plantif being Kleenex. The court did not rule in Kleenex's favor.

* If we really want to get nitty-gritty about it, couldn't he just replace every instance of "PCI" in his site with "Peripheral Component Interconnect bus", thus (all be it wordy) technically describing the DEVICE, and not using the "trademarked PCI name"?

* How does this fall under the "please don't buy our hardware dept."??? It doesn't seem that PCI-SIG even SELLS hardware.

Re:Doesn't quite sound right

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same reason that 3M lost it's trademark on "Scotch Tape". It's what happens when the average person no longer associates the brand name with the product.

When was the last time you heard someone ask for "cellophane tape" vs "scotch tape"

Re:Doesn't quite sound right

[rherbert]

Well, you might call a Plus facial tissue a Kleenex, but nobody's going to call an AGP card a PCI card. Unless you're either a n00b or a moron.

Re:Doesn't quite sound right

[LostCluster]

How does this fall under the "please don't buy our hardware dept."??? It doesn't seem that PCI-SIG even SELLS hardware.

Same technical difference that's brought up when somebody says that the RIAA doesn't sell CDs, they're just a trade group too.

The membership of the PCI-SIG is about every company on the face of the earth who has ever made a device that supports the PCI(r) standard. The group itself doesn't make hardware, but every single member does. Since this is against the interest of every member of the group, the members should have stopped the group's lawyers.

Re:Doesn't quite sound right

[foxtrot]

* PCI is kind of like "kleenex"; It's a common-place word that is used to describe something, usually not a company or organization. If I recall correctly, there was a legal ruling about pretty much this same situation, the plantif being Kleenex. The court did not rule in Kleenex's favor.


Not quite. At present, Kleenex is still a trademark held by Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and they do their best to try to keep it that way, having branded other stuff with the Kleenex name, by making sure never to refer to their stuff as 'Kleenex', but instead, 'Kleenex brand snotwipes', and such.

They're paranoid because Bayer did lose the trademark on 'Aspirin', and K-C isn't interested in going down that road.

I would _guess_ that the PCI-SIG folks are worried about this in that if PCI does become a "household term", I can design whatever board I want, not pay those guys, and call it PCI-- whether or not it actually is. They probably don't so much care about the latter, but the not paying them bit makes most corporations, consortiums, and conglomerations get a bit lawyer-happy.

-JDF

Re:Doesn't quite sound right

[DAldredge]

Bayor lost their trademark because German lost a war.

"Aspirin (with a capital A) and Heroin (with a capital H) were actually trademarks of Bayer up through the end of World War I. However, following Germany's defeat, Bayer was forced to give up both trademarks as part of the country's war reparations. Believe it or not, the trademarks were given up at the Treaty of Versailles to France, England, Russia, and the United States in 1919. They never mentioned that in history class in high school! "

From: http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/aspirin/index.htm l

who said perl isn't flexible?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/PCI/CPV/i

Lost business for PCI device manufacturers

[HeroicAutobot]

Won't this mean a loss of business for those who manufacture PCI devices (and presumably finance the SIG and the lawyers who shut the site down)?

If my OS doesn't support a particular PCI device, it is pretty much guaranteed that I won't purchase that device.

This seems like another example of where vehemently defending intellectual property actually hurts companies more than it helps.

Don't use an acronymn

[phorm]

I can't remember what PCI stands for, but why not just use the actual name of the device, rather than the abbreviation. Or, if it's just the logos that are in question, remove the logos. At first, it seems that PCI-SIG doesn't want the site

They also state that the site could be moved to the official PCI-SIG website. Does this mean that they don't want to seem affiliated, or that they want the credit for the listing?

Re:Don't use an acronymn

[RadioheadKid]

Peripheral Component Interconnect

PCI-SIG Contact Information

[abcxyz]

Here's the URL contact information from their website:

http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us

-- Rick

Call a lawyer

[victim]

Oh for pete's sake. Don't have a tizzy.

Check with a lawyer first, but it probably just comes down to.

• Get rid of the logo. You do not have permission to use it and do not need it.
• Continue to use the word "PCI" but note that it is a trademark of the PCI-SIG.

Re:Call a lawyer

[scubacuda]

Call Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe.

I'm sure they'll be able to help you...

Re:Call a lawyer

[boinger]

You're missing the point.

He was never gaining anything. He was helping them. What they did would be like Ford suing gas stations (if the gas stations gave fuel out for free, that is).

So, pardon the language, but fuck them. Let them choke on what they've sewn.

Re:Call a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm sorry, but are YOU going to fork over the $1,000 retainer to protect something that only costs you more money anyways?

Re:Call a lawyer

[ChaosDiscord]

You shouldn't need to call a lawyer to excercise your right to free speech. Furthermore, he created the site specifically to support the PCI-SIG. They've made it clear that he is not welcome to do so. Why should he go to effort to continue to support a group that treats him like crap?

Re:Call a lawyer

[binaryDigit]

You're missing the point.

No YOU are missing the point, not even close as a matter of fact. Your example should be changed to "a gas station that sells gas for Fords, but who used the offical Ford logo, thereby causing confusion as to whether or not the gas station is a Ford entity being asked to stop using the Ford logo. "

They asked that he stop using their trademark, NOT that he stop publishing the information. Night and day. Read the c&d letter before you go flying off the handle. He could have taken 5 minutes to make the changes necessary to the website to make PCI-SIG happy. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter how "small" a site is, trademarks MUST be defended and rules have to be followed. So if you had a "trademark" on your f*ck-you website and you didn't defend it against people also using it, then you'd lose any protections afforded you by having the trademark to begin with, whether those other sites were helping you or not.

Re:Call a lawyer

[boinger]

Fine, it wasn't a great analogy.

The way to adjust your "friends'" behavior is not to hire a lawyer.

Sure, the logo usage might have been questionable, but that was only half the C&D's "proposal". Discontinuing use of the word/phrase/letters PCI? How is it at all reasonable to hire a lawyer to send a D&C about that?

They have his email. They obviously have his snail mail. They probably have his phone number, too. If they'd have sent a quick 'hey, Legal is fussing about you using the logo' he'd have taken it off. No need to be complete raging assholes about it. Why continue the 'friendship'?

I've had people steal from my sites before (Purity Test) - never maliciously. Just an 'oops' or a lack of understanding of what they should be doing. A quick note fixes everything. If someone ever said 'piss of jerk', believe me - my girlfriend's a lawyer - I would make their life uncomfortable. But that would be last resort.

If it's a question of legality, why not have a lawyer look at your email or whatever? No need to have the cronies doing it outright.

Re:Call a lawyer

[Reality Master 101]

Oh for pete's sake. Don't have a tizzy.

Man, I agree completely. Why are people such fucking weenies? Clearly you can't use the logo, but no one is going to sue you for putting the word "PCI" on your web site.

Grow some guts.

Re:Call a lawyer

[binaryDigit]

The way to adjust your "friends'" behavior is not to hire a lawyer.

We're not talking a couple of buddies, this is a legal entity and this is a legal matter. Maybe the wording of the letter could have been less legalize, or maybe it couldn't (ask your gf), but in this way PCI-SIG can have absolute proof that it is defending it's trademark. Why should someone in PCI-SIG other than legal be responsible for contacting people? They would have to record and voice conversations and if the non-legal person screwed up on a personal correspondence, then PCI-SIG could be hosed.

The type of communications that you are referring to may be fine for a more one-on-one level between fairly small groups/individuals who are not engaging in any moderate scale or above enterprise, but is not appropriate amongst the "big boys". The very fact that the letter offered alternatives vs simply being a shut down or we'll crush you shows that they actually did care about what and how they were going about this, but no one seems to want to dwell on that, better to just get all puffed up.

Re:Call a lawyer

[boinger]

Why did they assume they needed to defend it full force? They could have just asked him, and they didn't. They sent their hired thugs.

And it's not some random fan site, he was providing a service that they themselves could not (even though he offered) and they had supported/encouraged that for 6 years.

Re:Call a lawyer

[Elwood P Dowd]

You shouldn't need to call a lawyer to excercise your right to free speech. Furthermore, he created the site specifically to support the PCI-SIG. They've made it clear that he is not welcome to do so. Why should he go to effort to continue to support a group that treats him like crap?

His lawyer isn't necessary. The requests made in the cease and decist letter are straightforward, would not harm the product, and would not limit its use.

I'd say the group is treating him perfectly well. The only thing they've done that will impact him in any meaningful way (imho) is that he has a (likely flexible) time limit to initiate contact with their lawyers. They specifically welcome him to continue his project, and offer several suggestions on an easy and cheap way to do it.

Re:Call a lawyer

[skintigh2]

What f'ing moron's modded that up? As it is an exact copy of an earlier post, I'll paste an exact copy of the earlier reply:
---

>Remove the logo, and change the names to ``Computer Accessory Cards" or something else not copyrighted.

Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
by boinger (4618) on Thursday January 16, @03:31PM (#5097106)
(http://fuck-you.org/)

Because it still supports them.

His work helped guide people to use PCI. He spent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket for the love of a product. The owners of that product thanked him for 6 years of work by kicking him in the nuts.

So, maybe you like taking it over a barrel like that, but he doesn't (nor would I).

Re:Call a lawyer

[alienmole]

Oh for pete's sake. Don't have a tizzy.

Man, I agree completely. Why are people such fucking weenies?

I'll third that. If people weren't such fucking weenies, a lot of this stuff would just be a non-issue. In fact, if I were feeling trollish, I'd go so far as to say that Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa, and McCarthyism in America would not have happened, if the world was not populated primarily by said fucking weenies.

Re:Call a lawyer

[alienmole]

That's an incredibly childish response, which completely ignores the user base which his site was serving, and ignores the nature of the PCI-SIG organization.

All Jim has to do is get some good advice (some of which can be found on /. today), write a short letter, add a disclaimer to his site, and get rid of the logo. He doesn't even need a lawyer. If PCI-SIG then chooses to try to escalate the matter, then Jim might have cause for complaint.

The world is full of idiots. If you behave like an idiot in response to them, we all lose.

Re:Call a lawyer

[RevMike]

I agree 100%. They do need to defend their TM, but they could have been cooperative about it too.

Dear Sir,

On beahlf of the PCI-SIG, thank you for your efforts to support the PCI community.

Unfortunately, we need to defend our trademarks and your site does use some of our trademarks in an un-apporved manner. A few simple changes should clear up the issues.

1. Please clearly state on your site that PCI is a trademark owned by PCI-SIG.

2. Please clearly indicate that you are not affiliated with PCI-SIG and that they are not responsible for the content of your site.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you should have questions, please call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX. We'd be delighted to work with you to insure that the resource you created remains available to the PCI community while protecting our TM.

Kindest Regards,

Mr. Lawyer

Re:Call a lawyer

[Fencepost]

As others have pointed out, he shouldn't have to spend money on a lawyer for a hobby that provides more benefit to others than to him. If other people want to cover the cost of a lawyer for him, they can volunteer to do so.

Personally, I think the 'tizzy' was fairly justified, and that the PCI-SIG deserves all the publicity they get by having that description up on the page. Perhaps if he gets a personal apology he'll change his mind, but I know in my case that's what it would take - possibly both personal and public apologies.

The real kicker would be if the PCI-SIG didn't have a copy of what was apparently a (the?) fairly definitive database of PCI IDs, including obscure and old ones.

Re:Call a lawyer

[skintigh2]

If I were him, and I had no emotions, and were a true altruist, and I had lots of free time and money, I would agree.

But if I were him, and I had emotions, and I wasn't rich, I'd be really pissed off.

I was involved in a project that were fun, really did me no good but kinda helped others, and cost me a little. It was then turned on it's head by the people I was helping. This:
a) made it not fun
b) made me not want to help the people who were doing this
c) made it seem rediculous that I was spending my time and money (albiet very little) to help them

a) is what killed it for me. I assume that's what killed it for him, too.

I also assume he will hand off the list to someone else once he simmers down.

Re:Call a lawyer

[alienmole]

I take your point, and basically agree, but in the example you mention, the problem was with the people you were helping. In this case, the PCI-SIG organization is not the primary beneficiary of his site, even if it benefits indirectly. That's where I see a difference here. If users of Jim's site were directly making things difficult for him, that would be different.

I think an aspect of this is probably just naivete. If you have a bit of business or legal knowledge, you know that something like this is a non-issue - it can be taken care of in maybe an hour at most, send a letter and make a minor site mod, and you're clean. Getting upset about it seems pointless - you're getting upset at a non-profit organization consisting of member companies whose lawyers are bored and dumb. (Or maybe not so dumb, if they end up getting Jim's content.)

Business is business, especially in America, and I don't think kowtowing to unreasonable demands helps anyone.

Re:Call a lawyer

[revery]

You're missing the point.

No YOU are missing the point,

No, there is no point, or at least there's not one single point. Yes, PCI-SIG had to deal with the legal side of things, and they covered that quite thoroughly. But they failed miserably at the Public Relations side of things. You say they had to send the letter to defend their trademark, and maybe so, but it wouldn't hurt to call him first and let him know it was a legal matter and he probably would have taken it much better. Also, there are other legal ways to handle things than using a C&D letter, like negotiating with him to make it an official site, or to bring it under IBM as they suggested in the letter.

Odd that a technical group would be so clueless

[tweek]

But then again look at the Reflector mailing list archives.

These idiots can't even run the listserv properly. They have countless amounts of spam and virus attempts.

I'm just surprised at how stupid some companies can be some times. Did you know several years ago they actually WANTED to host the hardware list themselves but they couldn't figure out if the ISP would let them run CGI's or not.

Re:Odd that a technical group would be so clueless

[tweek]

Okay I'm going to go out on a limb and ask:

How in the fuck is this offtopic?

Does PCI-SIG have a few people who read slashdot now?

M$ $

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more than likely some M$ $ behind this action.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

PCI-SIG sues all distributers of UNIX for the inclusion of IPCs, for their clear attempt to capitalize on the popularity of the letters.

PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[Snarph]

If you look at the PCI-SIG home page you'll see a little animation mentioning that "Board members are members of the following companies...".

Guess who shows up at the top of the list when you follow the link?

Chair
Tony Pierce
Microsoft Corporation

Well. That explains a lot.

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[Anonymous Coward]

Very smart move from Micro$oft to close down the free PCI device list:

-> less drivers for free operating systems

-> people still buy new devices

-> people have to buy windows to use devices

-> more revenue and market share for MS

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[Anonymous Coward]

Dictature became by burning books and knowledge ...

Good move Tony, Good move ...

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! This is clearly an attack by microsoft on open source.

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[jjares]

President Al Yanes IBM Corp. So I guess he should be well controlled

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[walt-sjc]

Hmm. Could this be considered an anti-competitive move by a monopoly to hinder competitors?

Too bad MS already bought the DOJ.

Re:PCI-SIG Board of Directors

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe.. he seems to be quite oppressing alread, check out this humourous list of things he is from googlism

Ok.

You like gags? Call MS operator

Microsoft corporate operator
www.microsoft.com/mscorp/
(425) 882-8080

Pretend you are a relative of Tony Pierce and get his M$ number. Then post it below this link.

Here is some info from the phone book.

Pierce, Tony L
9633 Mullen Rd SE,
Olympia, WA 98513-9287
(360)456-2758

I think it's the same dude.

let their public relations firm know.....

[Anonymous Coward]

let their public relations firm know..... from the webpage before they take it down.... {posting anon since the company I work for is a member.... we will also let them know through our own internal channels... but here goes]

[http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us]

General and Administration:
PCI Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG)

5440 SW Westgate Dr., #217
Portland, OR 97221
Phone: 503-291-2569
FAX: 503-297-1090
administration@pcisig.com

Media & Analyst Contact:
Lisa Sherwin

VTM Public Relations
Phone: 503-297-3704
Fax: 503-297-1090
lsherwin@vtm-inc.com

Re:let their public relations firm know.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... the page at http://www.pcisig.com/membership/about_us/board_of _directors

shows the REAL intersts behind it...

Chair: Tony Pierce from Microsoft Corporation

President: Al Yanes from IBM Corp.

Executive Director: Richard Baek from Vital Technical Marketing, Inc

Board Members:

Larry Lamers from Adaptec
Dale Gulick from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Michael Krause from HP
Ramin Neshati from Intel
Gary Simpson from Phoenix Technologies
David Dorrough from ServerWorks
Kevin Main from Texas Instruments

oh.. and for good measure.. the whois info
Registrant:
PCI Special Interest Group (PCISIG-DOM)
225 SE Main St.
Portland
OR,97214
US

Domain Name: PCISIG.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Management, Domain (DM3135-ORG) domains@KAVI.COM
Kavi Corporation
225 SE Main St.
Portland, OR 97214
US
503.234.4220
Fax- 503.234.4402

Record expires on 27-Jun-2003.
Record created on 26-Jun-1996.
Database last updated on 16-Jan-2003 15:44:58 EST.

Re:let their public relations firm know.....

[Bigtoad]

Their General and Administration office is about a block from my office!

I think I'll get my bat and go for a little walk. ;-)

Ugh

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

The lengths these people will go to just to get an ego boost.
Xerox. Kleenex. PCI. In the end, they are the same cases, espcially with PCI. If you go out of your way to create a standard, and then get pissed when someone is using/tracking your standard, well. Very weak, will not stand up, if the guy has enough money for it to go that far.
Note to any companies that create a standard and then go back trying to get money off of it. Remember...RAMBUS?
'nuff said.

Now just wait a minute here ...

[binaryDigit]

OK, first, if he's using the "official" PCI logo, fine, stop using it. Understandable if he didn't get rights to the name.

Second, if he uses the word PCI, they surely can't stop him from just using it (which is a lot different than naming his site PCI something or another). i.e. If his site is the "Free List of PC Addon Cards" and he states within his site that the add on cards are restricted to those supporting PCI, then I can't see how they can bust him for that.

Third, in the C&D letter, they end it by saying that they recommend that he figure out a way to possibly have his site under the auspices of PCI-SIG. So fine, they aren't opposed to the concept of the site and they appear (at least on the surface) to be willing to work with him. So it doesn't appear to me to be quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Now if they were saying that he couldn't publish the information contained within the site, now THAT would be worthy of outrage.

Re:Now just wait a minute here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, they're treating him like shit.
If they want to work with him on publishing the data, fine. He'd probably appreciate having the extra $50/month he pays for hosting the site back in his pocket.

But sending a C&D letter and threatening to sue is not the way to start that relationship. Maybe a friendly e-mail or phone call would do.

I understand that they have to protect their trademark. But why do they have to get the fscking lawyers involved right from the start? Those bastards make enough money as it is anyway. How about acting like a reasonable & decent human being first. If that doesn't work, sic the corporate sharks (who are, by definition, not "reasonable & decent" or "human").

What makes it all the more absurd is that he was helping these guys, not hurting or competing with them.

Re:Now just wait a minute here ...

[linux11]

The letter goes a little more something like this:

Me and "Freddy" here, don't consider us rough guys cuz we look rough. We just want to talk to you friendly like.

First, we noticed that most of your posts only have a score of 1. We don't like that too much and think you should only post when you have something worth saying.

Second, your free to use the word "Slashdot" but we don't like it too much if ya use it in the Subject of your posts.

Third, we think maybe you should continue doing your posting via your employeer instead of posting directly.

He was contributing and asking for nothing in return--he had nothing to loose and everything to gain from dropping. Making first contact with a lawyer is not a friendly or political way to recognize that the person your dealing with is giving much more than he has taken. To make the first part of that letter a statement of dislike definately sours things more. After two "warning shots across the bow" of a letter from a lawyer starting on a bad note, it really don't matter if there is a point 2 or 3. Consider how much you would want to continue contributing to Slashdot if you recieved a letter like the one above.

Re:Now just wait a minute here ...

[Escoutaire]

This is also how I understand it.

I don't see that PCI-SIG had much choice here either, as they must at all times defend their trademark, or risk having it revoked.

For example, if they take no action against him, then a later defendant may claim that by taking no action against this site, they created an implied license to use their trademark without permission.

However, IANAL.

Escoutaire

Re:Now just wait a minute here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake up you fool. They want to control his data. Read the fucking letter!

Re:Now just wait a minute here ...

[binaryDigit]

Care to cite the text that proves your assertion?

Trademark law

[larien]

Unfortunately, they have to do this to maintain their trademark. Trademark law is fairly clear on this; "protect it or lose it". If they let this web site use the trademark, another company or individual could come along and abuse it.

What they should do is negotiate something which (a) maintains their trademark and (b) allows the website to continue.

Re:Trademark law

[squiggleslash]

Er, yeah, but he's not attacking or diluting the trademark. The "PCI" in the "Free PCI Device List" actually refers exclusively to products branded with the official PCI brand. It's no more necessary to sue in this case than it is to sue Circuit City for selling a D-Link PCI Ethernet card and advertising as a "PCI" Ethernet card in their catalog.

The C&D letter makes no sense. It's not protecting the trademark.

BTW what's up with the karma bonus thing?

Re:Trademark law

[gclef]

Actually, they may have already lost that right. According to his page, he contacted them about this page several *years* ago. As you said, they have to act once they know of someone using their mark or they lose it. Since they've clearly known about his site for several years, they've failed this test, and have probably legally lost the trademark on PCI.

Now, making this into reality would mean going after the PCI folks head-on, which might not be what this guy wants to do. But, if you were feeling destructive, I bet you could cost the PCI folks their trademark with the evidence he has.

Re:Trademark law

[Bruce Perens]

A lot of people say this about trademark law, but I've had attorneys tell me it isn't true. What you need to do is keep your trademark from becoming generic. To paraphrase the old Sanka commercial's, that's "PCI brand peripheral bus". The word Xerox became generic for photocopy, but I doubt that PCI could possibly become generic for peripheral bus.

Bruce

Re:Trademark law

[tigga]

So if I say I have Nissan car and put a logo on my website might I be sued?

Even if I not sell or produce cars, nor anything related to Nissan? Just because some lawer "might confuse" my photo with a car as Nissan's official website, right?

Re:Trademark law

[CBravo]

Did you ever connect a mouse and say: I pci'd this mouse onto the computer? Or anything remotely similar?

I think PCI is not generic at all.

why close?

[Anonymous Coward]

why not just change whats making the site illegal and continue the site?

Email isn't enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would like to give your message a personal touch why not try contacting by phone...

ZNYX Networks, Inc.

Phone (510) 249-0800
Toll Free Phone (800) 724-0911
Fax (510) 656-2460
Email: info@znyx.com

What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?

[The Tyro]

This article needs to be on a few more websites,

I'd say change the name and thumb your nose at them... this is too valuable a service to lose to some copyright holder and their nitpicking attorneys.

Re:What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Troll,

Please note that copyrights and trademarks and not the same and are not even related.

Re:What did Shakespeare say about lawyers?

[The Tyro]

Hello, AC (an AC calling me a troll... God, I love slashdot)

I'll grant you that trademarks and copyrights are different things, but not even related? Hardly.

You, sir, are a moron.

Go Get 'em Tough Guy

[jcannava]

this is just another example of a big company going after a free service that is actually helping them.

oh wait, they are non-profit. well for a non-profit organization PCI-SIG sure isn't very appreciative of people who help them.

let this be a lesson to all geeks, don't help anyone all they are going to do is stab you in the back as soon as they get the chance.

Re:Go Get 'em Tough Guy

[anagama]

A favorite saying: no good deed goes unpunished

I wonder...

[caluml]

How friendly PCI-SIG is to monopolistic software companies....?

Just a thought...

Check Out Chilling Effects

[scubacuda]

Have you reported this to Chilling Effects?

Search their database for the various notices. You're probably not alone. Others can probably give you advice on where to turn...

He didn't have to close the site!

[chrisseaton]

He didn't have to close the site, only remove the logo. He could have even removed the name (like on the current message on the site). What a coward! He's made is so easy for them. Next time, they won't even think twice. He should have stood up, or at least kept the site going.

Re:He didn't have to close the site!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of "PCI-SIG will not tolerate coexistence with your website in its present form" or "cease-and-desist" did you not understand ?

pr0n?

[mehfu]

I'm speaking purely as an individual who has, over the past seven years, made some contribution to the XXX community.

Before I read the whole page I could not for the world figure out what PCI-devices had to do with pr0n...

It's a sad thing and I know I'd be furious if I had done what he has, and then got this from some asshole lawyer. He deserves all the help (flame the lawyer ;) he can get!

Contact Info

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, but nobody has posted the PCI-SIG contact info:

http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us

I don't know what will be gained by spamming their lawyers, so why don't we e-mail the org themselves if we disagree?

Re:Contact Info

[BadlandZ]

Snail-mail or phone calls are the only things that'll make a difference.

I just wanted to highlight that, I totally agree. They will have 1,000's of email's in their inbox tomarrow, and it's not likely that they will read any of them.

However, phone calls are hard to ignore.

PS: I like begining conversations with lawyers with "hi, just letting you know, this conversation is being taped because I have a bad memory, and don't want to mis-quote you in any way what-so-ever..."

the legal document

[Doppler00]

I read the legal PDF on the website. It seems like the only problem they have is with the PCI logo. Maybe the author just needs a disclaimer on his website stating that he is in no way affiliated with the PCI organization and that the information provided is as-is and doesn't represent the PCI-SIG.

I don't understand why companies can't just be reasonable or at least give reasonable answers instead of just throwing legal documents into people's mail boxes. I can understand the logo thing, but not disallowing the website from posting the numbers.

Does this make the linux source suspect to similar lawsuits then since it contains PCI vendor ID's? What about USB devices?

-Blake Mason

Re:the legal document

[Anonymous Coward]

"I read the legal PDF on the website. It seems like the only problem they have is with the PCI logo."

That is absolutely NOT true. Read the last page of the letter. It CLEARLY states (and I quote):

"so that we can prepare the necessary written assurances that you will
discontinue all use of the name PCI..."

CLEARLY they are claiming they want that web site to stop the use of "PCI". Which is, of course, utterly ridiculous.

If that is the case...

[Nemith]

then slashdot is screwed with the usage of PCI. Just to help out.

PCI,PCI,PCI,PCI-SIG,PCI,PCI
P-C-I

There that should cement the usage of PCI in slashdot. Good day :)

The New Improved PCISIG

[IndoorCat]

PCI Specs used to cost $40, which included a hard copy as well as a PDF on disk. Now they want $475 for the latest hardcopy or $1500 if you want the PDF.

PCISIG has been remade from a standards organization to a source of revenue for the bastards running it.

Re:The New Improved PCISIG

[chopkins1]

Actually it looks like it costs more than that to get the specs. Most importantly you have to be a member - "anyone can be a member" - at a cost of $3000 annually.

Re:The New Improved PCISIG

[IndoorCat]

you have to be a member - "anyone can be a member" - at a cost of $3000 annually.

No, the prices I quoted are for non-members. Members get the specs for 'free' (after paying $3000 for membership that is).

Re:The New Improved PCISIG

[chopkins1]

Ooops my bad. But either way it's painful to the average joe.

Re:The New Improved PCISIG

[llzackll]

Anyone have a URL to this spec PDF ?

Re:The New Improved PCISIG

[Anonymous Coward]

I want that PCI spec too.

Initials....

[Tsali]

How about GNU\PCI? :-)

J.

Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[Torgo's Pizza]

How did a letter stating to the effect, "You know, you shouldn't be using our logo quite like that..." turn into "OH MY GOD! They're shutting me down!"

Look at the letter sent by the lawyers and their main contention is that by using the logo there could be implied some connection or endorsement by PCI-SIG and Jim's site. Heck, the letter suggests ways of keeping the site up sans the logo.

Instead we have Jim going off the deep end saying that he's being forced out. That isn't the case. This isn't PCI-SIG going to the ISP saying pull the plug or using the DMCA in some strange fashion. It's just a request not to use the logo. Heck, all he probably needed to do is state that yourvote.com isn't affliated with PCI-SIG and that would have solved the matter. (Maybe he already did, I haven't checked the Wayback Machine yet).

Seems to me that Jim is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[IndoorCat]

the letter suggests ways of keeping the site up sans the logo

No. From the letter:

"...PCI-SIG will not tolerate coexistance with your web site in its present form."

"...investigate the possibility of creating a similar database...which would be made available on the official PCI-SIG website."

They want him to do the work and themselves to get all the benifit. Screw that!

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[fava]

Did you actually read the letter?

It says:
- Don't use the logo
- Don't use the trademark PCI
- Don't use any names using PCI
- Don't use "confusingly similar designation"
- Shut down your website

It also suggests:
- Create an offical database so that we can
host it on our members only website.

I don't think that Jim has gone off the deep end at all.

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. It's not like they didn't know him. Only a complete asshole will sic a lawyer on you before sending a simple email. It goes like this.

functional human being conversation.

so-and-so: Hey Jim, it's so-and-so from PCI-SIG. We would like you to stop using the PCI logo on your site, ok?

Jim:
sure, no problem. Would a (R) be enough, or should I just dike out the logo entirely?

now compare that to this, the dysfunctional moron converstation

asshole lawyer: hey that Jim's site is in clear breach, he is using our logo without permission

asshole PCI-SIG memeber: Yah. Sue the bastard.

Jim: WTF?

see?

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[Torgo's Pizza]

Well, I obviously read it better than you because they never mention shutting down the website. Aside from saying "we will not tolerate" the use of their logo, there isn't someone standing by the outlet ready to pull the plug.

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[silentbozo]

Not only that, but if you read Jim's rant, his main problem with the letter was that they could have just asked him nicely via e-mail. Instead they sent him a threat instead - this after helping support the PCI-SIG and the PCI standard for 5 years. I'd be pissed too.

Besides, I get the feeling that if they got an "official" database setup, it wouldn't be long before it was restricted to "registered members" only. After all it is a form of documentation, and how do these so-called standards boards get the funding to push their "standard"? Yeah, they charge up the wazoo for "official" specifications (ever try and get your hands on an official copy of the compactflash specs? NOT cheap...)

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[Anonymous Coward]

"We therefore request that you immediately discontinue all use of the name PCI and the accompanying logo, as well as all other names containing the designation "PCI", or any confusingly similar designation."

Translate that into something that says they're only talking about the logo. They clearly consider "PCI" and the logo to be two distinct items and object to the use of _BOTH_.

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[fava]

Actually the letter states:

"be advised that PCI-SIG will not tolerate coexistance
with your website in its present form."

This statement doesn't imply they would like it in any
altered form either. There prohibition against any
"confusingly similar designation" and there desire to
host the list on thier members only site strongly
suggests that they would not.

Re:Jim's reaction is a bit overboard

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't mention it, they infer it.

And that bit about his employer; why on earth would they mention IBM except to let the guy know that they knew who his employer is. If this was just about the PCI Logo/trademark, the letter would not discuss anything further than mentioning the Logo/trademark. Instead, they drag IBM into it and suggest the vendor list would be better hosted by IBM than by him.

Has IBM been contacted about hosting the vendor list? Has IBM agreed to host the vendor list? I seriously doubt it.

PCI-SIG obviously don't want him anywhere PCI, or a list of PCI vendors. His work isn't just not appreciated, they prefer him to stop and remove all of his work. Which he has done.

But I doubt that PCI-SIG thought any of this through beyond their childish "it's mine it's mine it's mine" rant.

PCI was already in use!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the trademark was only granted a few months ago and that a certain Canadian company by the name of PCI Geomatics has been making and selling GIS software since before Intel dreamed up the PCI bus, they are completely and totally stuffed.

Shooting themselves in the foot

[Chocolate Teapot]

I just did a search for 'yourvote' at the PCI-SIG site, and it turned up nothing but positive comments from members of the SIG. P.S. I would have checked the link, but it appears that the SOBs have since been slashdotted.

Just move the bloody database off shore

[jj_johny]

Isn't just like every other idiotic group out there to attack a free service provider before they make arrangements to provide the same.

I would suggest that:

1. Be moved off shore hosting facticity.

2. Reverse the letters or something else in all documentation on the site and loudly exclaim that PCI-SIG is the rightful owner.

3. Just have one of the free speech groups tell them to screw off.

A little armchair analysis ...

[Ninja Programmer]

Who does this hurt? -- Linux (and other alternative OS) developers. Make no mistake about it, it hurts them *A LOT*. While current known PCI device interfaces are unaffected, any new devices that come out will be harder to develop drivers for.

Who is benefitted or otherwise neutral to this website going down? Intel, IBM, *MICROSOFT*, and a few other big name vendors on the PCI-SIG group.

Using the same logic that tells me oil is at the heart of the reason why Bush wants to attack Iraq, I am lead to suspect that Microsoft is behind this cease and desist letter.

Attn. theRegister/cryptome/theInquirer: There are many people that are part of the PCI-SIG group, surely there must be a whistle-blower among them.

PCI isn't copyrighted

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the technology that is copyrighted. The letters PCI refers to a defacto standard interface type used in PC's, and is therefore completely legal to refer to in its technical sense. How else would people know what you are talking about? Jim should have just removed the logo (which is copyrighted) and kept everything else as is. As another poster said, people seem to buckle too easily. What a shame.

Re:PCI isn't copyrighted

[zjbs14]

Actually it is. They had it registered in September. So, all he really had to do was remove logo, change the references to PCI(R) (posting thing strips out entities appearently), and put a disclaimer that PCI is a registered trademark of PCI-SIG and that this site is not affiliated with or endorsed by PCI-SIG.

That probably would have cleared everything up. But it's much more fun to have a fit.

Re:PCI isn't copyrighted

[mark_lybarger]

the page he's put of exercising his free speach really looks childish.

the guys claims that he's invested 50$ per month hosting the site. PCI-SIG is offering to save him money by hosting the information on their site. He still owns the copyright on the database.

Protecting Trademark:

[perrin5]

Even if PCI was OK with the use of the trademark in this specific instance, they HAD to send this letter. If they don't they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they wanted to sue someone who was, say, making a card that they CALLED a PCI card, but didn't match standards.

Now, if they were smart, which I doubt, they could 'license' the use of the trademark for free to the website, but more likely, someone will have to mirror the content w/o any labels to attach it to PCI.

Slashdot's reaction is more overboard than Jim's.

[billn]

It should be noted that at the bottom of the letter they sent, PCI-SIG recommends an alternative option to keeping this information available to the community. Since IBM is a big Linux advocate, this is entirely possible and feasible.

I'm not surprised, however, that the Slashdot slant on journalism went for the panic button.

Move the site, and fight it.

[core plexus]

Hand off the main name to someone else and register in Tuvalu or somewhere outside the U.S. Oh, and fight it. Just getting a letter from a lawyer does not a victory make. As users of PCI, we have rights also, and we also have strength in numbers.

Man Gets 70mpg in Homemade Car-Made from a Mainframe Computer

Re:Move the site, and fight it.

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

You fucking retard - he was using a trademarked logo on his site. He has no rights and shouldn't be supported. You're too fucking stupid to understand this issue so why don't you go tell your mother that you need your diaper changed? Jesus fucking christ, you should stop eating so much shit you fucking assclown! I hate you. You're such a worthless dicknose. I can't believe this horseshit. You obviously have no understanding of the issue but as soon as you read a story where a corporation takes on the little guy, you have to get right behind the little guy. I mean, fuck - you're fucking stupid. Next time your boyfriend is planting his piece in your ass, think about how pathetic your life is you AIDS-infested homosexual. Fuck you!

For all the conspiracy theorist out there.

[chammel]

Microsoft's Tony Pierce is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors what better way to stem the tide of Open Source than to remove a valuable reference tool.

PCI-SIG Board of Directors

Re:For all the conspiracy theorist out there.

[RedHat Rocky]

Uh, Al Yanes of IBM is the President of the Board. Interesting tack to take against your own employee.

Re:For all the conspiracy theorist out there.

[Snake]

Microsoft's Tony Pierce is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors what better way to stem the tide of Open Source than to remove a valuable reference tool.

And, if you look at the same page, on the right, you see President Al Yanes IBM Corp.

You would think that IBM, being relatively open-source friendly, would not order or prevent something like that.

Having read the C&D letter and the site, here is my opinion:

• Guy maintains a free and excellent list of PCI device (at his own expense)
• PCI-SIG decide to protect his trademark to prevent dilution (a not so unreasonable thing to do -- doesn't want to be kleenexed)
• PCI-SIG hire lawyers to do this
• Lawyer sees the PCI list
• Lawyer fires a firmly worded C&D, doesn't even try a more delicate approach
• List maintainer is pissed, and takes the ball home

The fault would be

• PCI-SIG's for hiring such a rude lawyer
• The law school's for not having mandatory 'common courtesy and etiquette' classes

Re:For all the conspiracy theorist out there.

[TeraCo]

Nah, the fault lies with 'Guy' for being a retard and, instead of removing the infringing material, takes his ball and goes home.

Trying to draw parallels between this guy and 'the open source movement' is a grave mistake, because it dilutes the good work that is done by 'Open Source Advocates'

So where is the post saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am never going to use a PCI card ever again. The tyrannical PCI a**holes!"

Com on, I dare ya.

(An AC by apathy, not fear.)

Open source PCI standard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that possible?

(OPCI or OSPCI)

cvs on sourceforge

[RyLaN]

yes, i know this is off subject but.. is anyone else having problems contacting cvs.sourceforge.net? specificly my giFT and WineX cvs's gave me an no contact error when cron tried to update them...

Leaping to judgment

[XianDeath]

I understand the gentleman's complaint and I too would be a bit put out if I received a letter like this after performing what everyone would agree is a public service. However, I have to say that after reading the letter from the lawyers, I feel his emotions have clouded a rather benign request.

It looks to me like the lawyers were explicitly asking for a removal of the logo, as an official logo adds an air of 'authenticity' to just about anything. Ask yourself if he had put the RedHat or Microsoft logo over his information whether after linking to his site, an individual would have realized immediately that it was merely a reference to information regarding MS or RedHat. I think the request was completely valid.

Regarding the use of the actual letters, I didn't really see that strong of an emphasis as stated in the legal missive itself. I don't see how that request is even remotely defensible as PCI is a common use identification of a widely used technology and I don't think that's what they were looking for. If you look at the trademarked logo, you'll realize that all it is, is their stylized letters. I think if he had not been so offended by the fact that he received a letter from OH MY GOD lawyers, he probably could have worked it out.

Leaps to judgment never lead to anything but bad mistakes... just take a look at Bush.

Christian K

Giving in way too easy..

[myrashka]

[Note: not a lawyer - but an educated laymen's opinion]

First the obvious (already stated) - don't use the logo of PCI (XXX works for me - unless the porn industry has TM'd that too..no wait, he'd end up on block lists...hmmm;). The letter said nothing about your content (though it implied it heavily -they probably know they don't have a case there though).

Second, a quick search of the uspto database shows over 50 companies with the name PCI something in the computing industry....is PCI-SIG going after them (I can't believe they're all licensees)? If not, then the TM becomes less enforceable (one of the things about TM's is you have to actively pursue violators of the TM).

Also, the term "peripheral connect interface" didn't seem to come up in the TM searches I did...so you could use that...then reference it by abbreviation. This may be a stretch - but fun to see their reaction.

Try putting "For educational and informational purposes only" at the beginning. Show it's for fair use, not commercial gain.

In any case - way way too easy a give up...Jim - I support you being pissed off - but you're cutting the noses off the people who support you to piss on the idiots at XXX-YYY (the peripheral component interface special interest group - is that a violation of TM?) Show the page while complying with the letter of the C&D - i.e., don't use the logo or the trademark...shouldn't be too hard. Make them work for their money (which will be hard to do considering they're trademark lawyers).

Re:Giving in way too easy..

[mr_data_esq]

Good points all, I think. However, I thought I'd point something out ..

Also, the term "peripheral connect interface" didn't seem to come up in the TM searches I did...

"PCI" stands for "Peripheral Component Interconnect"; try that search and see whether you get anything.

----

PCI is a recently registered trademark of the PCI-SIG. The PCI-SIG is very proud of this, so please don't say, use, or think about the letters "P", "C" or "I" in conjunction with peripherals, components, interconnections, or computers, or some hot-headed trademark lawyers will break your grandmother's kneecaps, after sending you a polite cease-and-desist letter.

Re:Giving in way too easy..

[myrashka]

First - thanks for the correction - you're right (knew it but had a brain fart)...however, results the same - no indication that the phrase "peripheral connect interface" is tm'd either (not that these are exhaustive - but always a decent indicator).

LOL at your sig.

Really Stupid!

[Eric Damron]

PCI-SGI is a nonprofit organization. I thought that nonprofit organizations all worked together for the common good. . . I guess I was wrong.

Oh well. If I know the slashdot community PCI-SGI is going to have to work overtime for the next three months just to get through all the email from outraged slashdotters.

Let's hope that they are big enough to see what boneheads they are and apologize. And while they are at it maybe they would like to spend the extra capital it will take to provide the same service that they destroyed.

Read the article!

[alannon]

Was it really a very good idea to use their logo? Did they make a very obvious attempt to make it clear that their web site was NOT affiliated with PCI-SIG? If you actually READ the cease and desist order you will see that their complaint is that it in its current form, the web site might (unintentionally, I'm sure) seem like an official resource published by PCI-SIG. FURTHERMORE, they even suggested that the author (an IBM employee) work through his employer to develop a database that can be placed on the OFFICIAL PCI-SIG web site.

This means that if he follows through on their suggestions, his resource will become an offical one backed by PCI-SIG. This entire matter hardly seems unreasonable. I certainly wish more companies would make similar offers of, "your unofficial resource for our product is infringing on our trademark, but we'd like let you move it onto our web site instead."

Sounds familiar - Gewgle.com

[pheph]

What is it with companies these days? Gewgle.com has recently received a Cease and Desist letter from Google. More legal details will be posted later.

Possible Solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Other possible names:

- "PC* Device List" (UN*X-style)
- "PCl Device List" (it's a lower-case L, not an upper-case I!)
- "Personal Computer Interface card device list"
- use an image of the connector (surely *some* company would love a bit of free advertising for one of their cards)
- "[censored] Device List" (Feynman-style)

Notice that Micro$oft has its hand in PCI-SIG

[Wizri]

All,

Notice some thing really intersting Micro$oft and puppets have their hand in the operations of PCI-SIG.

Now I shall ask, do you think that it benifits them to cause problems to the developers of ALL Free/Open operating systems out there that run on PC hardware?

Granted IBM, HP and Intel probably can provide access to that list for its own developrs, but what about the idependent developers that made Linux, FreeBSD and such great in the first place.

What a whiner

[FattMattP]

Please support Jim.

It looks like Jim doesn't want to be supported. He complains that the lawyers didn't call him to discuss this before firing off the C&D letter, yet he's not willing to call them to discuss the issue after receiving the letter. He just says "fuck you" and says he's going to give up. He says they want to sue him but a suit isn't mentioned anywhere in the scanned letter. It looks like Jim isn't willing to make even the most basic effort to help himself. Why doesn't he call them and see if he can hammer out an agreement to use the logo, name, etc. in a manner that will be acceptable to both parties?

Calling Mr Cohen

[gnudutch]

Give their lawyer a call and tell him what a bonehead he is for representing these guys.

503.796.2488

His law firm:

schwabe

Before everyone flames everyone over email

[cmehta1]

I suggest people send a polite note to PCI's Media & Analyst Contact (lsherwin@vtm-inc.com as listed on http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us). I think everyone agrees that we would prefer the site to come back, if perhaps with a little TM deference to PCI-SIG.

If everyone flames them out, then all that might do is put their backs up even more, and might actually instruct their lawyers to go for "broke".

This is not to say that Mr. Boemler's "Rants" so to speak are unfair...his going "nuclear" in my opinion is not only free speech, but righteous indignation by someone with the right to be.

Take Action!

[Semite]

On the PCI-SIG website I found the PR rep's name and number. I called, and filed a complaint with her. She said she had just heard about the incident but would contact me when she could provide me with more information. I urge you all to do the same!

Lisa Sherwin

VTM Public Relations

Phone: 503-297-3704

Fax: 503-297-1090

lsherwin@vtm-inc.com

Put it offshore?

[some1somewhere]

Isn't this why more and more people are going to offshore dedicated servers and offshore web hosting? Since they'd have to launch a lawsuit or such wherever the offshore server is, it becomes far more troublesome and difficult for them to successfully close down the site. I can imagine all the great uses for such a service... like the recent X-box hack project... this PCI project... and all other "cloudy" situations. Damn... I'd go offshore just to avoid all the recent privacy and freedom laws (or lack thereof) in the USA now.

Google cache / alternative list

[slavemowgli]

Still available:

• Google's cache of the vendors.txt file (last updated 2002-10-28)
• Another list by Ralph Brown (of Interrupt List fame) (last updated 2002-12-29)

halloween 7

[Anonymous Coward]

"The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions."

Maybe there is a connection!
Artaxerxes

Jim's an idiot.

[scorp1us]

Can't he read that they are only saying tha the use of the name and logo are their only objections?

If he complies, then, as the letter says, is no objection by PCI-SIG.

Enough melodrama already. Just remove the logos and put the site back up. I beleive their concerns are legit. Furthermore they are bound to do this else they lose the trademark.

I think their letter is fair and just.

Contact Info

[Mitchell Mebane]

Contact PCI-SIG
General and Administration:

PCI Special Interest Group (PCI-SIG)

5440 SW Westgate Dr., #217
Portland, OR 97221
Phone: 503-291-2569
FAX: 503-297-1090
administration@pcisig.com

Media & Analyst Contact:

Lisa Sherwin

VTM Public Relations
Phone: 503-297-3704
Fax: 503-297-1090
lsherwin@vtm-inc.com

---

Snail-mail or phone calls are the only things that'll make a difference.

Damn, PCI Vendor and Device Lists Gone...

[Eric Damron]

I should have known it was going to be a bad day when I got up this morning and dropped my toothbrush into the toilet!

Re:who wins? Same as always

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawyers, of course.

What's in a name (or logo)?

[isomeme]

Wouldn't this be easily resolved by removing the logo and renaming the site to something like "rot13-CPV"? Or perhaps "List of IDs for The Device Standard Which Must Not Be Named", to appeal to the Lovecraftian crowd.

Re:What's in a name (or logo)?

[esarjeant]

LOL. funny -- "List of IDs for the Device Standard Which Must Not Be Named".

At any rate, this is a little out of proportion here. As another poster pointed out, you can't start a site and slap the IBM logo on the top of your page -- you would be infringing on a trademark and presenting consumers with some confusion.

How would someone visiting your version of the IBM page know that they aren't really visiting the IBM page?

You can, however, discuss the IBM corporation, products, etc. without appearing to be a representative of that corporate entity. In this case, that is the concern PCI-SIG and I think it would be perfectly acceptable to remove the logo and proceed using a slightly more newsworthy format.

Of course it might not be a bad idea to consult a lawyer just in case.

Re:What's in a name (or logo)?

[JohnFluxx]

Hey good idea. Then when I next go to search google for such a site, I can't find it!

And this site is used a lot more than you might think - I had to use it to update my records for a device I'd bought to be recognised.

Re:What's in a name (or logo)?

[isomeme]

I believe the lawyers' problem was with their use of the acronym "PCI" as a site title, and of the PCI logo. I'm sure having the first body paragraph read "This is a list of PCI IDs" wouldn't cause problems. (If that's not the case, I imagine this very post will land me in court...)

Re:What's in a name (or logo)?

[JohnFluxx]

Probably - but that's not what the letter from the lawyers asks them to change.

Give us your work.

[Skiboricus]

As the final insult to all this is the sentence "We therefore request that you...the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which WOULD BE AVAILABEL ON THE OFFICIAL PCI-SIG WEBSITE"(emphisis added).

What a crock of shit.

We recognize you have something valuable, we want it. Thanks.

I haven't been this mad in a while.

Contacts

[gmajor]

Send a letter to mcohen@schwabe.com AND Alan.Deikman@znyx.com , as those two e-mail addresses are listed as PCI contacts on the Free PCI page. We should let them know our severe displeasure.

The Corporate Founders page of ZNYX says that Alan Deikman "wrote a programmer's book on Unix". If indeed he plays some ill part in this tragedy, shame on you Alan!

Re:Contacts

[gmajor]

I got this reply from Alan Deikman

To pci-sig list members and other individuals in the blind-cc to this message.

I am receiving quite a few e-mails about the situation with Jim Boemler's web site, which he has felt compelled to take down. I wasn't aware of this situation until the first of these e-mails arrived, and having looked into it I think the situation is as outrageous as obviously many of you do.

However, you should all be aware that neither I personally, or my company ZNYX Networks has anything to do with this situation. ZNYX Networks is not currently a member of the PCI SIG. We allowed our membership to lapse a number of years ago since it was obvious we were not going to be active in any standards setting efforts. As for me or any employee of ZNYX Networks, we are not now or ever have been an official of the SIG. If you read Mr. Boemler's web page more carefully, you will note that he does not list me as anything other than a possible contact, since he mentions he is not clear who should be contacted, other than the "shark" that is doing the legal work.

We have e-mailed Mr. Boemler (and cc'ed this message) to clarify our position, and I will offer any aid I can.

To clarify our position, we run the pci-sig mailing list as a general service to the community as a whole the same way Jim Boemler does (did) his web site. Back in 1992-3 when we first started, there were much fewer people around who could set up a mailing list so we did it. As with Mr. Boemler, we don't get paid for it, and we have offered to turn the work over to the SIG since we felt that it is more properly a SIG service, but so far there has been no positive reply. Now I am wondering if I am going
to get a present in the mail like Jim did! (I really don't think that
will be the case, since we don't do a web page, but the parallel is
evident.)

To any REAL PCI-SIG officials: would you care to post a comment?

Alan Deikman
ZNYX Networks, Inc.

New courses in Law Schools ...

[LJPeixoto]

- Ally X Enemy : How to distinguish in 10 easy steps ...
- The Lawyers Interests X The Clients Interests : Which is more important ?

Too tired to think of new ones ... now you try ... :-)

Ok, that wasn't a nice thing to do, but...

[Trogre]

1. I think someone else was behind pushing the group to target Jim's site. Some groups of people would love nothing more than to hurt the open source community. Insert name of your favourite illegal monopoly here.

2. I think Jim over-reacted. Perhaps he didn't realise quite how much not only the PCI group, but free sotware developers depended on his list. In computing, there really is no room for wounded pride.

How about...

[jaredcoleman]

nit-PIC!

I wonder if he'll get another letter 'cause his page still resides in a directory named "pci" ?

How about the SIG board...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the Chair is a Microsoft guy...
that doesn't look good. How about an email
company to complain to each of these board
members. At least 5 of the board members
purport to be from companys that support
open source...

Chair: Tony Pierce Microsoft Corporation
President: Al Yanes IBM Corp.
Larry Lamers: Adaptec
Dale Gulick: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Michael Krause: HP
Ramin Neshati: Intel
Gary Simpson: Phoenix Technologies
David Dorrough: ServerWorks
Kevin Main: Texas Instruments
Executive Director: Richard Baek Vital Technical Marketing, Inc

Just drop the stupid logo

[nurb432]

Problem solved.

Its not needed anyway..

If they think they can sue over PCI, then just add a disclaimer that they are not affiliated with the PCI-SIG.

Seems counter productive too, what is doing that costs them ANYTHING??? If anything it creates business by making the cards more useable.. But that's a different issue totally.

Wow, you miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

As does everyone who modded you up.

You really can't see why it's wrong to force someone to pay a lawyer to check to see if he can maintain a website that helps and supports to very organization that's suing him?

Has our society become so overrun by lawyers that a large percentage of people think it's perfectly alright for the PCI group to sic lawyers on the guy instead of just giving him a polite phone call? What's wrong with you people?

An opportunity?

[William Baric]

Could it be that the PCI-SIG want to start a similar service? After all, if it's useful then there's money to be made...

--
William Baric

P2P can save the day!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put the list on Napster or Gnutella or Kazaa or whatever the hot P2P network is these days.

Kind of weird that you'd have to use a music swapping network designed to illegally trade music to trade a list of ID numbers for an "open" standard, but hey, welcome to the 21st century.

Maybe we could even set up a whole network for illegal trading of specs for open standards! (I hope they don't shut me down for using "HTML"!)

My email to PCI-SIG...

[AyeRoxor!]

To: Alan.Deikman@znyx.com
Cc: mcohen@schwabe.com
Subject: I can't believe you guys shut down the free PCI device table!!!

I can't believe you guys shut down the free PCI device table!!! I'm flabbergasted. I can't think of any possible reason you would do this. Don't you have anything else better to do than close down an extrememly helpful website? The webmaster spent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket for the love of a product. The owners of that product now thank him for 6 years of work by kicking him in the proverbial nuts? We all know it was just a guy helping other guys out, and that he had no relation to your company. What exactly do you have to gain from this? What do you lose by having more systems support your architecture? This makes zero sense. He helped people to use your technology. He pushed your technology! He was free advertisement. And all the time he has been doing this, we have thought of you as one of the FEW, RARE consortiums that were not COMPLETELY out of touch with your users. Well, now we can see that you are. You are only interested in money, and you view all your clients as potential thiefs, and potential defendants. Yesterday you were an example, but today, you're just a statistic. You're just another consumer-crushing entity. Instead of a group that people look to for help, you've become a power-, money-, and blood-thirsty group that people fear because you have no respect for them, their interests, or their rights; only your bottom line. Well, time to push you from the small stack of reputable groups on the right, to the huge, towering pile of examples of immoral societal plagues on the left.

It was nice while it lasted.
Kurt

Re:My email to PCI-SIG...

[zjbs14]

To: Alan.Deikman@znyx.com Cc: mcohen@schwabe.com Subject: I can't believe you guys shut down the free PCI device table!!!

I'll bet he can't believe it either. Especially since all they wanted was the logo removed and it was Jim that decided to take down the site in protest.

Re:My email to PCI-SIG...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet he can't believe it either. Especially since I fucked zjbs's mother down to a bloody pulp.

Change it to...

[me3head]

GNP - Gnp is Not Pci

He's mad!

[SoCalChris]

He's even madder than the poor guy whose home computer got slashdotted after posting the barcode key!

I can't really say that I blame either of them thoguh...

They invited him to continue his website

[MyNameIsFred]

Before everyone gets worked up, read the letter.

Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website

If they were trying to destroy him, they wouldn't have made this offer. In fact, it seems to have some pluses to it. For example, he'll no longer have to host a website, pay for bandwidth, etc.

Re:They invited him to continue his website

[boinger]

Why not sent him an offer letter on company letterhead?

Lawyers, for most people, are a threat. I don't think that's any surprise. They didn't need to say it through a lawyer to make a point or propose something to him.

Re:They invited him to continue his website

[LostCluster]

Right intent, very wrong presentation.

Imagine if an IBM exec called him up, and invited him into his office. The exec then thanks him for his hard work on the site, and says that the PCI-SIG is interested in interested in turning it into an official site of the organization, and is willing to pay him $25,000 to take ownership of the site, promises to give the site a good home on servers that they'll pay for. If he accepts, IBM will offer to maintain the site for the PCI-SIG, and his job responsiblities will be changed so that he'll still be the editor of the site, but now on it'd be on company time with access to IBM's PR and legal resources to help him.

Just treat people with a little respect, and they're more likely to do what you want. Give the money that you're spending on the lawyer to write the C&D to the guy who actually did all the work, and they'd have exactly what they wanted. Instead, he took the C&D at face value and ceased and desisted. Talk about wrong tool for the job...

Confusion, boy am I confused.

[Fizzlewhiff]

When I first went to the website to see the copy of the cease and desist letter filed by the lawfirm S,W,&W I was amazed how much their logo looked like Smith & Wesson's. For shits and giggles I am going to start calling and writing them for questions about S&W firearms and then finally complain to S&W about how this law firms logo confused me into thinking they were S&W.

I think it is time to show some of these law firms how stupid and confused the public really is.

I keep seeing the name Cohen on frivillous lawsuis

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats wrong with the Cohen family?
Why are they such bottom feeders?
I see that name on so many stupid lawsuits.
Can't they find a way to earn money honestly?

The phone number is listed in the letter

[texwtf]

Call them up and let them know what you think.

No where did it say...

[Y Ddraig Goch]

that he was required to take the database off line. All that was required was to cease from using logos and a format that was possibly confusing to the general public. The C&D letter was very polite and offered the possibilty of solution that is to everyone's benefit. C'mon read the article next time.

why register a trademark so late?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but why was a trademark that has been in use since 1994 only filed for registration in 2001?

Call me paranoid, but it's suspicious that after years of not needing trademark protection, they apply for it, and soon after completing registration they go after a site that promotes free operating systems (ie. competition to some of the larger of the 800 PCI-SIG members)?

Or GNPCI?

[Logger]

(G)NPCI is (N)ot (PCI)

Re:Or GNPCI?

[nule.org]

That would mean you could no longer refer to your network card or sound card - they are now know as GNPCI/network card and GNPCI/sound card.

Just kidding - I like GNU (I just thing the 'GNU/' thing is a tad silly sometimes).

Re:Or GNPCI?

[Billly Gates]

I can see a firee argument in my nightmares with RMS foaming on the mouth right now.....

No, THATS NOT the LINUX MODULE NATSEMI RUNNING YOUR ETHERNET CARD! ITs a GNU/LINUX MODULE GNPCI/Natsem running you insensitve clout!

snail mail spam harrasment

[linuxislandsucks]

ah hmm since we had some effect on that spammer form Michigan ..isn't time we used that tatic on PCI and their shark?

okay get your favorite whois tool..

Oh, PLEASE. This is so overblown.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, this is ridiculous. The lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter about the LOGO, not the letters (Jim decided to remove those on his own since he's pissed off). Jim got mad and decided to say to hell with PCI-SIG, yadda yadda. He overreacted. Big deal.

I work with the PCI-SIG and I know them well. This is standard trademark protection, lawyers do this every day. If the PCI-SIG doesn't protect their logo and trademark, THEY LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE IT. In this case they were overzealous (Jim's right, someone should have emailed him first), but he has really overreacted -- he's mad because he has spent a lot of effort on something and not gotten recognition for it. I understand that. We all understand that. Let's all calm down here.

Just because Jim offered something to the SIG 5 years ago doesn't mean they aren't interested now. Why not try emailing the PCI-SIG and talking to them? Their contact info is here:

http://www.pcisig.com/membership/contact_us

MOD PARENT UP

[Petronius]

way to go, buddy!

Oh this is rich, get this:

[coupland]

Copied directly from the cease-and-desist:

"Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website. In the meantime, however, be advised that PCI-SIG will not tolerate co-existence with your website, in its present form."

So basically this is an attempt to steal his content and have it added to their website. Or in other words, we love your content and we want it but we want it for free and if you argue we'll crush you. Sleazy bastards.

Jim Boemler is a whiner

[jcoleman]

Yes, I said it and I mean it.

Nowhere in that cease and desist letter does it say that he cannot continue to host the website and database. They want him to stop using their trademarked logo and name. Having those TRADEMARKS on the website along with his content could very easily mislead someone into thinking that is an official PCI-SIG website. That situation is what PCI-SIG are trying to avoid, and the reason that any company sues for trademark infringement.

Has he heard the first thing from anyone at PCI-SIG or have any concrete evidence that PCI-SIG wants the database out of commission? Jim, please put the database back up; you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Bitching about how they "clearly" want the site gone is not going to win you any fans at PCI-SIG and is only going to hurt the open source community in the long run.

Fight the good fight.

Re:Jim Boemler is a whiner

[thinkliberty]

From the letter "Your website indicates that you are an employee of IMB, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI(R) Vendot ID numbers which would be available on the offical PCI-SIG Website."

HMMMMmmm... It sounds to me like they want him to take down the vendor ID database and put it on the "offical" PCI-SIG website.

Re:Jim Boemler is a whiner

[jcoleman]

The letter says this at the end:

"As such we would appreciate hearing from you within ten days so that we can prepare the necessary written assurance that you will discontinue all use of the name PCI and associated logo and any confusingly similar name or logo."

No request is made to take down the database.

Their methods are the problem

[burgburgburg]

The focus of the letter is a threat of legal action. The placating gesture is doubly insulting because he has been, out of his own pocket, providing a valuable resource to this community for years, one which he had already offered them quite awhile ago. If they had come to him offering to take over the database and thanking him for his efforts, he'd have probably been glad to hand it over. Now, they can rot. The idiots who hired the lawyers and authorized that letter made this an "us" vs. "them" thing. Not Jim.

Conspiracies Everywhere

[9jack9]

Perhaps this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, but the PCI-SIG Board of Directors is chaired by Tony Pierce of . . . Microsoft! According to this CNet story he is (or was) technical evangelist for Microsoft's Hardware Strategy Group. Good strategy.

Isn't there some way around this?

[Mantrid]

Couldn't he have tried:

- remove the actual logo
- change everything to read PCI compatible
- add the TM symbol where appropriate
- say that it's a PCI device 'review' site

But whatever he could've done all that can be said about this is fsck PCI. Reprehensible is all they are...if it was possible to purchase a PC without PCI I would - come to think of it I can probably get a lot of stuff as USB drivers.

This one flunks the "Lessig Test"

[LostCluster]

Apparently the lawyers in this one don't read Slashdot.

We talked about this last Friday. Larry Lessig brought up the point that if a lawsuit doesn't make sense from a business point of view, then even if its a sure-shot legal winner it should not be bothered with.

Here's a perfect example in action. Wouldn't it be in the business interests the people who promote the PCI standard to want to have a site exactly like this. Shouldn't they have set this up on their own, rather than depending on the niceness of somebody outside their organization to do it?

The PCI-SIG may very well be protecting their legal rights, but wouldn't a better solution for trademark protection be to offer to allow him to license the right to use the trademark on his site for the price of $1?

Not really, but they're bigger.

[rMortyH]

You really have to dig on the PCI-SIG site to find the three words, Peripheral Component Interconnect. It's conspicuously absent from the front page. Those are probably too generic to defend, if it stood for something really wierd and logically unrelated like Papaya Canola Interface then it would be more defensible.

For example, you can't trademark Wrench brand wrenches, you CAN trademark Wrench brand apples.

The three letters are easier to defend as a trademark if they're just three letters, not if they stand for something related.

(That's a tough one though, there's alot of action over three letter trademarks right now.)

Either way, three letters are pretty generic, so they probably CAN'T get you on that, strictly speaking, but they're bigger and have more money, and he who has the gold makes the rules, so therefore, they can.

I'm not an expert, but I do play one on TV.

Give Them The Feedback They Deserve Here:

[richone]

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback/

"Cease and Desist Letters" aren't fatal

[Anonymous Coward]

So he was forced to close his website.

No he wasn't. He chose to close it down after someone sent him a letter. As a volunteer, no one has the right to demand that he continue his work. But this action speaks poorly of his maturity.

Other options that he had (and still has):

• He could ignore the letter entirely.
• He could actually communicate with someone at the PCI-SIG and asked what they would like him to do.
• He could have do a little research on trademark law and/or talk to a laywer for a few minutes to find out what the PCI-SIG could reasonably ask him to do.

So he's throwing away years of work because he doesn't want to try any of this?

Go ahead and believe that we live in a world that is ruled by the whims of companies that employ law firms. But consider that your belief may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And next time you receive a letter on law firm letterhead, could you consider reading it with a little healthy skepticism?

Re:"Cease and Desist Letters" aren't fatal

[QuasiEvil]

No, they're not fatal, but they're a sign that you're on the sending party's radar and they may intend to fire their patented Lawyer-O-Matic ray...

As far as the options you present:

1. Dangerous, especially if they do intend to actually waste money and sue for some reason. The next thing ol' Jim receives may be a notice that a lawsuit has been filed.

2. PCI-SIG has clearly communicated what they want him to do, I personally see no need for Jim to press further into what they want. They want him to close down the site and go away. The fact his first contact was a C&D and that whole part about not co-existing with his site made that pretty darn clear.

3. Doesn't matter what they can/can't do. They can still take him to court. For those of us without the money to waste on fighting dumb lawsuits, that makes us automagic losers.

The lawyer takes the tone that anything not officially sanctioned by a corporation (read - has money and legal teeth to fight) or the PCI-SIG in a closed, members-only fashion has no right to exist. (For those that didn't read the original, "We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers...") That's the part that pisses me off more than anything. Why the hell does he have to work through a company? What's wrong with an individual doing this work? Oh yeah, he might actually accomplish something.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's big red text at the bottom. I don't find his response all that lacking in maturity - it's a good way to draw attention to the problem while mitigating your own liability.

PCI-SIG, you're clueless snivling little bastards. Put the collar back on the lawyer, and hand his leash to the marketing and public relations people, as it should be. Since they're a "member-driven organization", I'm hoping certain member companies (IBM, you listening?) make sure this sort of stupidity doesn't go unpunished.

Solution

[free2create]

A Trademark is the exact logo that was trademarked.

Simply using the letters PCI in a font that doesn't resemble the logo is not a problem !

-Rob

Use Open Standards?

[thenarftwit]

Would the use of Open Standards verses this proprietory standards help, or the adoption of some sort of future model of time limited standards where, once a "standard" is used for N number of years (in a technical feild like computers), and/or gets hold of >50 % of market share, that it become an open standard?

Perhaps he should change the name...

[cgenman]

...to FPCI.org

(The F standing, of course, for Free and unaF.U.lliated)

My email to mcohen

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you responsible for this?

http://www.yourvote.com/pci/Scanned_.pdf

Do you even understand the nature of the web site you attacked? This is absurd! The guy maintained a list of product IDs used by PCI card manufacturers. What the hell is wrong with that? How is he supposed to say, "This is a list of ID codes for PCI cards" without calling them PCI cards? Do you think it would be reasonable for Ford to demand that Mustang Monthly stop using the name Ford in their articles?

It's one things to _ASK_ him to remove the PCI logo. It's ridiculous to demand that he stop using the letters P, C, and I. Oh, no. I've typed those letters in a group several times in this email. Are you going to C&D me now? Am I going to have to stop discussing PCI cards altogether for fear of being sued?

People like you give lawyers a bad name. Go chase an ambulance.

Jamie

Re:My email to mcohen

[zjbs14]

PCI is their registered trademark. They have a right to restrict its use in the areas for which it's been registered.

However, I'm sure they could care less if people reference PCI in the course of descriptions, discussions, etc. I think they had a problem with potential (as unlikely as it is) confusion with his site and an official PCI-SIG source of information.

A simple disclaimer on his site would have probable been fine. But he chose to kill the site instead.

The C&D letter

[kscguru]

From the Cease and Decist letter:

PCI-SIG owns the exclusive rights to use the "PCI" family of trademarks ... including the mark and logo "PCI" bearing U.S. Trademark Registration Number ...

Seems to me that they only are staking out legal grounds for complaining about the logo. Never mind that they object to the letters PCI - they don't claim legal ownership of the letters.

Your use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on your website is likely to cause consumer confusion in the marketplace as to sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website by PCI-SIG

So the actual complaint is that PCI-SIG's lawyers are concerned that Boemler's site might be implying PCI-SIG is endorsing his material. I can't guess how many sites include a disclaimer - but if Boemler adds one, I'd think that would handle their complaint.

Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member.

Maybe this is part of their complaint? But this is also playing dirty - they're threatening the guy's job. Not outright, but it's implied. I already don't like these lawyers.

But: (and with the IANAL) PCI-SIG is complaining about the use of the logo. Then they are putting forward the removal of the name and logo as a solution. Scare tactics, they want him to completely cave in ... but they haven't staked out enough ground (yet?) to demand the whole thing.

Dear Jim,

[geekoid]

Can I have the database?

Your friend,
Geekoid.

No snail mail!?

[orkysoft]

Quoth the site:

Here was their very first communication... (they sent me this scanned image as a "confirmation" of a copy they claim to have sent two weeks earlier, but I received no snail-mail).

You only received the scanned image per email, but never signed for the receipt of the letter? WTF!? You could have entirely disregarded the email as a joke, because anyone could have sent it. After all, you never ever got a certified letter from them!

But apparently, you chose the publicity instead. Your site, your database, your choice, I suppose.

Using PCI isn't against the law

[Henry V .009]

A lawyer wrote a silly letter.

Trademark law does not prevent people from using said trademark to refer to the corporation or their products. There is nothing to this except for a suprious cease and desist letter.

how about this for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pcisig.com/developers

Technical Support
PCI-SIG members also enjoy complimentary technical support from PCI experts.
The PCI-SIG has CONTRACTED with QuestTech to provide this technical support.
View more information about technical

http://www.pcisig.com/developers/technical_support

In keeping with the nature of the PCI-SIG as a members driven organization, only current PCI-SIG members will have access to Technical Support.

Really Stupid! Yes, Boemler is

[Squirrel Killer]

If I know the slashdot community PCI-SGI is going to have to work overtime for the next three months...Let's hope that they are big enough to see what boneheads they are and apologize.

Unfortunately, you're probably right about PCI-SIG's email inboxes, but let's hope the Slashdot community is big enough to actually read everything before hitting send.

Here's the Nutshell version: PCI-SIG saw someone using their logo and trademark that they hadn't approved. Never mind the fact that the PCI-SIG is probably funded by companies and people licensing that logo and trademark. The site could have looked confusingly like the PCI's offical site. (Well...maybe, I never used it, so I don't know what it looked like pre-C&D.) This is a serious problem for PCI, especial because they don't control the site. For all they know, the site could suggest adding a PCI card to a computer using a banana and a splash of Jack Daniels.

So they ask they guy to remove their trademarks from his site, nothing more. They even suggested working with his employer, which is a member of the PCI-SIG, to keep the site exactly as is. Then Jim Boemler goes off the deep end because the letter isn't written nicely. Duh...it's from a lawyer, a lawyer could write an invitation to an orgy, and I'd still be intimidated by it. Make no mistake, Boemler pulled the site himself, PCI didn't make him do it, they just wanted to cover their ass.

Since Boemler looks like he's not going to do anymore with the list, maybe someone else could build something from the ruins and just not use PCI's trademarks.

-sk

Re:Really Stupid! Yes, Boemler is

[SnapShot]

Why in the world would any individual go through the time and effort to rebuild this list? Could their be any benefit to them when we all know that some asshole lawyer will eventually shut the site down by claiming some infringment of the Sony Bono DCMA DRM copywrite extension Disney Fritz Hollins act of 2004? As a lawyer (or someone who works with them) I'm sure your response will be "just hire your own lawyer to defend yourself". But, I don't think that makes great financial sense for a non-paid volunteer trying to provide a resource for the community. There really needs to be a "Good Samaritan" law that protects volunteers from corporations and thier lawyers...

Well, let's see...

[Myrv]

A very quick google search reveals

www.amdzone.com
www.amdworld.com
www.amdworld. co.uk
www.amdmd.com
www.x86-64.org
www.amdonlin e.dk
www.amdpower.com
www.amdtwn.com.tw
www.ath lonxp.com
www.athlonoc.com ...

which are all enthusiast that use the AMD name, logo, and talk about AMD but haven't been shut down by AMD.

Re:Well, let's see...

[JZ_Tonka]

I would wager that at least a few of them are either in some way affiliated with AMD, or have permission to use their trademarked names/logos.

Now IANAL, but as far as those who don't have AMD's permission, I would be willing to bet AMD has legal grounds (not saying they necessarily SHOULD) to persue a cease-and-decist order.

C&D Google aswell?

[raverbuzzy]

The database is still avalible using google's cache:

www.yourvote.com/pci/

http://www.yourvote.com/pci/pciread.asp?sort=fulln ame

Does someone want to whip up a quick perl script to extract it all from google?

Also sysinfo contains a 10,000 pee cee eye device database as a textfile within the source.

Censored ?

[chris_sawtell]

The XXX in your rant will cause all the filterware programs to go beserk and cut you off, suggest you change it to PQT or something

yup, the world's sick.

The site formerly known as PCI

[dfcox530]

Why not just change the name to something NOT PCI then the lawyers can go away

Full Text, For You Lazy Bastiges

[theGreater]

Dear Mr. Boemler,

We are writing on behalf of our client, PCI-SIG, Inc., and Oregon nonprofit corporation ("PCI-SIG"). PCI-SIG is the industry organization that owns and manages PCI specifications as open industry standards. The organization defines and implements new industry standard I/O (Input/Output) specifications as the industry's local I/O needs evolve. PCI-SIG was formed in 1992. Currently, more than 800 industry-leading companies are active PCI-SIG members.

PCI-SIG owns the exclusive rights to use the "PCI" family of marks in connection with providing consumer product information regarding product capability and compatibility, including the mark and logo "PCI" bearing U.S. Trademar Registration Number 2623790. A true and correct copy of the Certificate of Registration for the mark is enclosed. PCI-SIG's trademarks are valid and subsisting.

It has recently come to our client's attention that your are using the PCI(R) name and logo on a website maintained by you at http://yourvote.com/pci/. The website purports to provide a database of PCI(R) Vendor ID numbers and devices. Your use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on your website is likely to cause consumer confusion in the marketplace as to the sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website by PCI-SIG. Accordingly, your use of the PCI(R) name and logo constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Federal Trademark (Lanham) Act (15 U.S.C. (S)(S)1051-1127) and unfair business practices underWashington State law (RCW 19.86.020-.090). We therfore request that you immediately discontinue all use of the name PCI and the accompanying logo, as well as all other names containing the designation "PCI," or any confusingly similar designation.

Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI(R) Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website. In the meantime, however, be advised that PCI-SIG will not tolerate coexistence with your website in its present form.

PCI-SIG wishes to resolve this matter on an amicable basis. As such, we would appreciate hearing from you within ten (10) days (i.e., on or before January 9, 2003) so that we can prepare the necessary written assurance that you will discontinue all use of the name PCI and associated logo and any confusingly similar name or logo. If this matter cannot be resolved on an amicable basis, our client has authorized us to take appropriate action to protect its rights under federal, state, and common law.

Very truly yours,

[signed]
Michael A. Cohen

[attached copy of registration and mark]

Pull a Prince:

[oZZoZZ]

The list formerly known as the "PCI List"

Come up with a different name?

[Junior J. Junior III]

If we called it a Piece of Crap Interconnect, we'd all still know what we were talking about. Then just lose their logo and replace it with a picture of some turds sitting in card slots of a motherboard. Now you're legal, and if you're not legal, you're protected because your site is satire/political speech. End of problem.

Bitch to them here...

[Cmdr Taco (luser)]

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback/

Posted Feed back on www.pcisig.com

[Grrreat]

Post your concerns to the feedback on http://www.pcisig.com it will probably get to the right person somehow. Thats what I did.

Even MS KB references this Web site as usefulness.

[antdude]

here (step #7). Is there a list that we can get for PCI information that isn't own by anyone like newsgroups? :(

SIG Logo usage guidelines....

[rubberpaw]

In case you were wondering, the PCI SIG does have logo usage guidelines available on their site. They seem to be rather anal on the details. However, it looks like if you ask first, they let you use their logo and name.

Their logo usage guidelines are at:
http://www.pcisig.com/data/developers/PCI-SIG_Logo _Usage_Guide_and_License.zip.

Yeah. I know. It's a zip. But I don't feel like slashdotting my server today.

Theft of Intellectual Property

[Lochin Rabbar]

Jim Boemler spends time and money to create a database of publicly available information, and this group decides that they want control of this information. So what do they do, the send up a C&D that would never stand up in court. However they also mention:

Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of PCI Vendor ID numbers which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website. In the meantime, however, be advised that PCI-SIg will not tolerate coexistence with your website in its present form.

In other words hand over your work to us, or we will have your job. Wouldn't it have been easier and more ethical just to offer the guy some money to transfer the database to the new site. Why use a stick when you can use a carrot?

Let's analyze this more carefully

[alienmole]

What's wrong with working to "Create a similar database ... which would be available on the official PCI-SIG website," as they themselves wrote?

That sounds fine and all, but the PCI-SIG actually does not have the legal right to shut down Jim's web site. They have the right to prevent him from using their logo, and to require that he put up a disclaimer saying that the site is not official, not sanctioned by PCI-SIG, etc.

Other than that, unless Jim is posting actual information that's proprietary to someone (which has not been claimed), there's nothing they can do about the existence of his site.

What actually seems to be happening here is that they are trying use a trivial logo issue to scare Jim into giving them his content.

And Jim has responded either with incredibly naivete in believing that he has to shut down his site; or perhaps with an excess of guile in playing all hurt about it, perhaps to get attention. All he really needs to do is issue a response letter, remove the logo from his site, and put up a disclaimer so that he can continue using the PCI name in the context of the site - which is perfectly valid! If you're writing about PCI cards, you're allowed to use their name - you're just not allowed to use the name as a way of selling a product or service, misleading people into thinking that you're the official holder of the name.

There's really no issue here. PCI-SIG are being silly, and I can't tell whether Jim's response is simply naive, or whether he's trying to achieve some other goal. I suspect the former.

The letters P,C, and I? Pshaw, that's NOTHING!

[maynard]

Just wait 'till you try using the Letter 'U' and the Numeral '2' together in a song! Like feathers blown out a chicken coop, watch those RIAA suits jump at the chance to sue your ass! Ahhh, isn't democracy and freedom wonderful? --M

I suspect that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this is what comes of a company allowing its lawyers too much freedom to act without needing further authorisation. Companies should learn that communicating through lawyers should only be used as a last resort, not a means of opening up a dialogue.

Aggression is not a solution to everything. Not even in Corporate America.

Except that

[Synn]

You have to show proof that you actively defend your trademark. Proof like this is exactly the sort of lawyer letter they sent out. In a later trademark case they can use this letter to show the defend the trademark.

But the real problem is that people today are so law scared they panic when anything comes at them from a lawyer.

Is getting a letter from a law firm saying, "Our client asks that you please stop doing X" really any different than the company themselves asking you not do X?

With the lawyers at least the letter will be worded in a way as to not be ambigious.

Re:Except that

[boinger]

If you have a problem with a neighber being loud, do you call some big guy with a bat, or do you give them a call/walk over and say 'hey, the baby's sleeping'?

If your neighbor did the former, would you invite them over for tea?

Re:Except that

[fishbowl]

"If you have a problem with a neighber being loud, do you call some big guy with a bat ?"

Unfortunately, the answer is usually "yes".

Usually, you don't know anything about the neighbor, their name, where they work, nothing.
And it's not a bat, it's a gun. And they arrive in groups of two or four.

That is how "neighbors" generally handle it when the people next door get too loud.

Slashdot, the Intelligence Test

[The Gline]

Slashdot has become a kind of unofficial intelligence test, where they give you a completely misleading summary and then you have to write a post that describes in what way they were misleading, and what the real pertinent facts are.

In other words, it's a training ground for analyzing the way most of the mass media operates!

Go Slashdot!

It's all about the logo

[stratjakt]

When you look around PCI-SIG's site, you find the agreement for use of their logos.

First off in the document is this:

"THE PCI-SIG LOGO MAY BE USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE PASSED PCI-SIG COMPLIANCE TESTING AND ARE CURRENTLY ON THE INTEGRATORS LIST."

Basically it's a symbol intended to mark products that have met their technical standards, and are approved by them. Like the "Designed for Windows XP" or "Intel Inside" logos.

PCI-SIG is a group that sits and rubber stamps hardware for compatibility, and the fact that he lists PCI compatible devices using their logo is misleading and actionable. People think his is the 'official' list, and it isnt.

All he need do is ditch the logo, and make it obvious that it's a hobbyist list for OSS development and everything's hunky-dory.

This is a prime example of the OSS community cutting off their nose to spite their face. It amounts to not much more than a tantrum.

Re:It's all about the logo

[binaryDigit]

This is a prime example of the OSS community cutting off their nose to spite their face. It amounts to not much more than a tantrum

What are you saying that certain members of /. and OSS community are prone to fly off the handle, coming to judgements and conclusions without reading all the facts and blindly pushing their own agendas, NO, I don't believe it ;) Which begs the question, why are you hanging out here?

Re:It's all about the logo

[DAldredge]

One could easly say "This is a prime example of the PCI-SIG cutting off their nose to spite their face. It amounts to not much more than a tantrum."

I think it's an inside job.

[Vermyndax]

Hmmm... the lawyer "noticed" that he works for IBM, a PCI-SIG member... and suggests that he work through IBM to post the site...

It's an inside job. IBM wants to shut him down and put their name on it. Betcha.

All pages are still accessible

[akiaki007]

Through Google's Cache...it's really quite easy.

Go to Google and put in 'http://www.yourvote.com/pci' and hit Search and click on the Cache, now, Click on another internal link, copy and paste that, and put it into Google, and then hit Cache, and repeat this process, and you can get something like this nVidia list

If you really wanted that list, write a perl script and save it on your hdd for later reference...of course, I wouldn't go out and publish all this lovely info...

Think logicaly. and it make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

A large company or member of PCS-SIG feels treated by Linux program discovering their trade secert and their business model. That large company needs to find to weaken Linux or distory it abilty to discover their trade secerts. Some one bring it to their attention that this site is relay upon by Linux programers. Thus, this site is like the Anarachist cookbook for terrorist in the eyes of this company(which is most likely poorly managed and has a low stock price). This company woo the PCI-SIG board to have their lawyers send the letter to Jim. Jim decides it would be best to quit the project due to lack of money to defend his right and fair use of a common term used to descibe hardware in every computer.

Thus, the info needed to program the company device is gone and the company's IP is safe. And what more, the company who requested the laywer remains unknown and protecting them from the public.

Poltics, don't you love it?

There IS a business case here!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Close down public lists.
2. Create list on PCISIG in member only area.
3. Force people who need the list to join PCI-SIG creating supporting revenue for the non-profit.
   1. Simple.

PCI-SIG List Admin's Response

[JohnA]

Here's what Alan Deikman, the list admin for the pci-sig mailing list has sent to the pci-sig list as well as individuals who contacted him regarding this issue.

--

To pci-sig list members and other individuals in the blind-cc to this
message.

I am receiving quite a few e-mails about the situation with Jim Boemler's
web site, which he has felt compelled to take down. I wasn't aware of this
situation until the first of these e-mails arrived, and having looked into
it I think the situation is as outrageous as obviously many of you do.

However, you should all be aware that neither I personally, or my company
ZNYX Networks has anything to do with this situation. ZNYX Networks is not
currently a member of the PCI SIG. We allowed our membership to lapse a
number of years ago since it was obvious we were not going to be active in
any standards setting efforts. As for me or any employee of ZNYX Networks,
we are not now or ever have been an official of the SIG. If you read Mr.
Boemler's web page more carefully, you will note that he does not list me
as anything other than a possible contact, since he mentions he is not
clear who should be contacted, other than the "shark" that is doing the
legal work.

We have e-mailed Mr. Boemler (and cc'ed this message) to clarify our
position, and I will offer any aid I can.

To clarify our position, we run the pci-sig mailing list as a general
service to the community as a whole the same way Jim Boemler does (did) his
web site. Back in 1992-3 when we first started, there were much fewer
people around who could set up a mailing list so we did it. As with Mr.
Boemler, we don't get paid for it, and we have offered to turn the work
over to the SIG since we felt that it is more properly a SIG service, but
so far there has been no positive reply. Now I am wondering if I am going
to get a present in the mail like Jim did! (I really don't think that
will be the case, since we don't do a web page, but the parallel is
evident.)

To any REAL PCI-SIG officials: would you care to post a comment?

Alan Deikman
ZNYX Networks, Inc.

Re:surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't surprise me at all.. they're taking over!

Me too

[solidhen]

To whomever this may concern

You have apparently decided to shut down the Free PCI Vendor and Device Lists run by Jim
Boemler. I'm shocked to say the least. This site provides an invaluable service to the
community. I guess I'll have to mail you guys the next time I'm having trouble identifying
a PCI(R) card and getting it to work with Linux and FreeBSD.

In the past when I have run into similar incidents with other companies I have just boycotted
their products and told my friends to do likewise. This situation is diffrent though since I
cannot easily boycott you.

The only thing I can think of is to stay away from the newer PCI cards and only buy legacy
ones since these will have better hardware support.

Sincearly
xxx

PS. Right now I'm having trouble getting a Pinnacle PCTV Rave PCI card working under Linux.
Do you have any suggestions on how I would fix this?

You don't get it....

[Fallen Kell]

He is simply pissed because of the way they went about it. The first contact they make to him is through a threat letter to sue him. He didn't have any other contact with them at all. Things have now come to the point in this country that the first contact with anyone is a threat to sue them. THAT is what he is pissed about.

All the power to him for his attitude and response. Maybe, just maybe, someone will discover that you shouldn't send threats to sue someone who has been helping out thousands of people that use the products that you are trying to sell and promote. He has only been promoting the use of the products and the industry by keeping track of information that probably should have been collected and tracked by the PCI-SIG itself.

Re:You don't get it....

[binaryDigit]

He is simply pissed because of the way they went about it.

Fine, so they didn't do it as nicely as they could have. How about his seemingly immature reaction. Does PCI-SIG's perhaps heavy handed first communique warrant such an immature response? What's worse, is that while PCI-SIG is protecting their trademark and not trying to suppress content, by Jim having such a knee-jerk reaction, HE becomes the one that is preventing this information from being available. After all, it has been said that it's the developer who truely benefits from this (and not necessarily PCI-SIG), so who has he really hurt by not simply complying with PCI-SIG and keeping the info available?

I can understand PCi-SIG, standard legal procedure, maybe not the nicest, but it's the standard. Jim on the otherhand really has no excuse, he should grow up.

Re:You don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard advice when contacted by a lawyer is to do one of the following:

1. Do what the lawyer tells you.

2. Hire your own lawyer.

By choosing the manner of communication they did, therefore, they guaranteed either instant compliance or a loss of several hundred dollars (at minimum) out of the poor guy's pocket.

I'll grant you that he was out of line by using the PCI logo and such. But he's working hard on your behalf; it's not like he's using the logo out of malice or personal gain.

So, stiffing the poor guy for a few hundred dollars isn't exactly the best way to bring up a concern. Again, with a preliminary phone call, people feel a lot less threatened.

Re:You don't get it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot...

Just change the meaning!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should just change the meaning of PCI on their site, and put a key on the opening page to explain this change. PCI can now be "Purposely Confused Implementation", as we have purposely confused the meaning due to legal issues.

Never the less this PCI-SIG definitely gets mega negative points on this one. I wonder if they really just want him to change a few items on the site or if what they are really after is a "donation" (aka blackmail). Is this a US group, or are they founded in North Korea?

DON'T SEND EMAIL TO znyx.com

[CSG_SurferDude]

From the letter that znyx.com just sent me...

Note: I just scanned, and had not seen this posted yet...

To pci-sig list members and other individuals in the blind-cc to this message.

I am receiving quite a few e-mails about the situation with Jim Boemler's web site, which he has felt compelled to take down. I wasn't aware of this situation until the first of these e-mails arrived, and having looked into it I think the situation is as outrageous as obviously many of you do.

However, you should all be aware that neither I personally, or my company ZNYX Networks has anything to do with this situation. ZNYX Networks is not currently a member of the PCI SIG. We allowed our membership to lapse a number of years ago since it was obvious we were not going to be active in any standards setting efforts. As for me or any employee of ZNYX Networks, we are not now or ever have been an official of the SIG. If you read Mr. Boemler's web page more carefully, you will note that he does not list me as anything other than a possible contact, since he mentions he is not clear who should be contacted, other than the "shark" that is doing the legal work.

We have e-mailed Mr. Boemler (and cc'ed this message) to clarify our position, and I will offer any aid I can.

To clarify our position, we run the pci-sig mailing list as a general service to the community as a whole the same way Jim Boemler does (did) his web site. Back in 1992-3 when we first started, there were much fewer people around who could set up a mailing list so we did it. As with Mr. Boemler, we don't get paid for it, and we have offered to turn the work over to the SIG since we felt that it is more properly a SIG service, but so far there has been no positive reply. Now I am wondering if I am going to get a present in the mail like Jim did! (I really don't think that will be the case, since we don't do a web page, but the parallel is evident.)

To any REAL PCI-SIG officials: would you care to post a comment?

Alan Deikman ZNYX Networks, Inc.

Trademarks are established by *use*. . .

[kfg]

not registration. This would be why they take the trouble to point out how long they've been using it.

In fact, one of the steps necessary to register a trademark is showing that you're already *using* it as such.

This prevents the trademark equivilent of cybersquatting. You can't simply go through the dictionary and register every word. It just doesn't work like that.

This is a Good Thing(tm).

KFG

Re:Trademarks are established by *use*. . .

[bheerssen]

Yeah, but 8 years?

Trademark

[zmooc]

It's probably just about the trademark and the logo - they're pretty clear in their letter that they don't like the site in it's PRESENT form. Probably they don't mind about this site at all but they're obliged to take action against it when trademark infringement occurs, and it does since this guy uses the logo. If they wouldn't do that everybody would be able to use the PCI logo without the probably obligatory quality-assurance and we'd get really shitty hardware. For the rest of it all information on that site is probably publicly available and the use of the term PCI is also not a problem - you can always talk about things and call them by their name.

The way this all was explained to us is full of FUD about lawyers and stuff. It was just a letter, not a verdict. And according to the law this letter just had to be sent. And if they want to take it down because somehow they consider collecting PCI-ID's a DMCA-violation then it's time to emigrate from the US. Or start a revolution or something. But for now: nothing to see here. Move along. (iANAL)

Google rules

[Gothmolly]

As always, Google saves the day. Someone save this list, and throw it on Kazaa.
Now PCI-SIG has to go after Google, and Kazaa, and 1000's of Linux users. Someone keep updating the list, pass it around. Don't let it die.

Re:Google rules

[nautical9]

Mod the parent up! I'd love to see this backfire on PCI-SIG by having someone build a similar database, complete with logos and names (but with perhaps a small disclaimer buried in lawyer speak at the bottom).

Also, someone should tell the poor Alan Deikman to forward all the hate-mails he's receiving on to the PCI-SIG folks. It'd be a shame for them not to hear them, as I imagine most people who did send them have moved on to the next /. story.

BTW, you can send yours through their website (true, an annoying little CGI form instead of a tangible email address, but better than nothing).

Re:Google rules

[anlprb]

It's up on gnutella as we speak. Search for www.yourvote.com or vendor.txt the file is called "www.yourvote.com vendor.txt"

How about the innocent approach?

[Spatch3]

I just posted this feedback on the PCI SIG site:

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback/

Hi there. I have just come into some unidentifiable PCI hardware. I'd like to look up the Vendor ID and Device ID's of these PCI cards, but I can find no such list on your site. Do you know where I can find such a list?

Thanks!
Chris

What do you think they might reply to me with?

Re:How about the innocent approach?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their reply will be:

"That information is available only to members of the PCI-SIG(tm). You can find membership information at www.pcisig.com. Thank you for your interest in PCI-SIG(tm)."

Linux Logo

[bstadil]

I agree with you but think we need to do more. This thing has to turn on its head, and put the burden on providing drivers and information back on the vendors.

Just like vendors are lining up and doing whatever needed to be able to put a "Windows" sticker on the box they should be told a set of requirements for them to use the word Linux on their product. Linus owns the trademark and maybe he can be talked into making a one page "rulebook". No compliance with Rulebook no Linux on product.

Problem solved.

It's hard to be helpful these days...

[kwoo]

It seems to me that it's hard to be helpful these days. Set up a site that helps everyone (or at least doesn't hurt those who don't use it), get sacked by a lawyer.

What real and substantial damage does his site do to PCI-SIG? The only damage I can see being done to PCI-SIG is them showing that even non-profit corporations can't be bothered to be polite any more.

As to whether the C&D implies the site should be taken down, I think it obvious that the spirit of the letter is that he should hand it off to a "proper authority" and walk away with it. Given that, I'd go on a tirade that would make his seem more akin to a Sunday sermon.

Is there a worthy competitor or successor to PCI?

Calm down

[randylea]

The PCI-SIG is required to defend their copyright. It seems to me that's all their doing. Other than the web site owner blowing his top (not that I wouldn't), there is no story here.

Yes, but...

[Halo-]

I actually did read the letter, and I do realize the majority of their complaint is about the use of the trademark and logo. I also agree that PCI-SIG has the right to be upset about the use of their logo without permission.

However, the letter also states PCI-SIG doesn't wants the owner of the site to "discontinue all use of the name PCI and the associated logo and any similiar name or logo" It's the details I'm worried about.

IBM will come after you with big guns if you are selling computers and have IBM logos plastered all over your site without permission. And I beleive they have to or they dilute the trademark. But, if I want to write a website called "How to Install Bob's Super OS on the IBM(r) Thinkpad(r) Super Zippy 2000(r)" I should be allowed to as long as I don't imply endorsement.

For example, how could I review a device if I can't use its name? "For this article I install the version of the video card which has connectors about 3 inches long, and looks a little squashed... you know..."

What? No mirrors?

[josh crawley]

WHy hasnt somebody mirrored his data yet?

mPlayer broke a few laws (dmca) but guess where their servers are at.... heh heh heh.

Face it. The USA is really sucking now for computer technology, and the VP of MS is on that board. Wonder why they sent the C&D letter.

Re:CERT ANNOUNCES DHCPD VULNERABILITY!!!!!!!!

[tewmten]

so? just stop using dhcp then, it's not like you need it..

Un-authorized PCI listing

[Anonymous Coward]

err...umm...nice site, and strangely I mean that.

Would have been nice if they asked the first time to:
add un-authorized to the name
remove the logo
quietly hand you 25 thou....

And say thanks.

But with a good lawyer on your behalf that could somehow suggest obligation

Re:All pages are still accessible (on WayBack)

[dmeranda]

It's also cached "permamently" on the wonderful
WayBack Machine with the latest cached copy on October 2001 here

It will at least be there unless Jim (or lawyers) contact them to have it removed.

Everybody should grab your copies now so this information remains public and useful. And by all means give lots of credit to the hardworking Jim Boemler and just remove the offensive PCI(tm) logo.

who can we email

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel bad, I emailed Jim Dykeman and made a polite but indignant remark, who SHOULD we email and yell at???

Alternative use of bitching energy:

[AllynM]

Please feel free to direct your opinions on this matter HERE. If we don't like what they are doing, lets TELL THEM ABOUT IT instead of yelling at eachother in here. At least this way PCI-SIG will _know_ they are pissing their users off.

No rights left?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember my copyright law you have to defende your right within 6 months or else you giv it up. That is in Sweden, but the rest of the world should be alike.

Simple...

[Andy Dodd]

Call him. Talk to him. Once an agreement is reached, bring in the lawyers to say, "Here is a contract for you to sign saying that you agree to the terms you already agreed to verbally."

There's your paper trail.

If negotiation above fails, THEN send in the lawyers. Lawyers aren't so bad when you're expecting them and they're simply finalizing something you've already negotiated.

My dad used to work for the intellectual property division of a large company. (Now retired, and consulting in the same field.) Almost all contact with other companies started with a phone call from him or a polite letter saying in effect, "Hey, you seem to be infringing one of our patents. Let's talk about this to see if we can reach an agreement." If that failed, THEN the lawyers were called in. But in 99% of cases, the lawyers were only called in to tie up loose ends and finalize an agreement after a few rounds of negotiations between non-lawyers.

Re:Simple...

[Hognoxious]

"Hey, you seem to be infringing one of our patents. Let's talk about this to see if we can reach an agreement." If that failed, THEN the lawyers were called in. But in 99% of cases, the lawyers were only called in to tie up loose ends and finalize an agreement after a few rounds of negotiations between non-lawyers.

That must have been a long, long time ago.

seems fair enough

[mholt108]

They just want it to be done in the proper way through the proper channels. IBM are cool with this sort of thing so the service would probably end up being more timely and have better access to specifications.

no, is not helping them

[halfelven]

Do some research, and you'll find out who's behind PCI-SIG. Like, bing names from Microsoft, and stuff like that.
Now it makes more sense, isn't it? ;-)

Offically of course!!!!!

[purrpurrpussy]

I think what they might mean is "bring this to us and we'll make this technology available to our members or perhaps let IBM do it for us".

More importantly - if by using a trademark such as PCI(TM) on a website means that you are going to get this sort of attention from lawyers what are you going to do when decides they don't like your MegaDelux Graphics Drivers for on yer website?. Bitch about the use of their trademarked name? For example - S3. What if they got pissy about data for their chips being all over the web? I mean - it's helped them. I still use a PCI(TM) S3(TM) VIRGE(TM) graphics card (probably TM) because there are bucket loads of drivers for them. Linux, All windows, OS/2, BeOS etc, etc, etc.

Further, would PCI-SIG complain that other non SIG members are using PCI(TM) or the PCI(TM) logo? How many websites use PCI(TM) but aren't SIG members?? How about... errr millions of sites. That's a lotta people to screw!

Even more importantly.... it is souless and sad and stupid and pointless and they are getting paid for it.

(TM) PCI is a trademark of PCI-SIG.

Ever notice that when ....

[Dark Coder]

When ISA faces competition from PCI, the ISA-only organizations sued the hell out of everybody.

When PCI-X faces competition from Firewire, AGP, Serial ATA and the lowly USBv2.0, the PCI-only organization sued the hell out of everybody.

Seems like when an organization is about dying off, they sue the hell out of everybody. SCO, Video cards to name a few.

Smell like a trend?

Re:Ever notice that when ....

[retro128]

Seems like when an organization is about dying off, they sue the hell out of everybody.

Like the RIAA/MPAA? (Putting on my hopeful face)

Other PCI device databases

[4/3PI*R^3]

The C&D letter was saying "Don't use our logo". It even said they could not allow this web page "in its current form". The letter never said this is proprietary and confidential information. It said stop using our logo and our trademark.

There are lots of other PCI database sites:

PCI SIG Official PCI Vendor ID Database Search Engine

Linux PCI Device ID Repository

Craig's PCI Pages

Ralf Brown (old)

PCI-SIG may have had a weak case.

[RealAlaskan]

From the chilling effects website FAQ:

Question: What are the limits of trademark rights?
Answer: There are many limits, including: Non-commercial Use
If no income is solicited or earned by using someone else's mark, this use is not normally infringement. Trademark rights protect consumers from purchasing inferior goods because of false labeling. If no goods or services are offered, there is no commercial use. Product Comparison and News Reporting
Even in a commercial use, you can refer to someone else's goods by their trademarked name when comparing them to other products. News reporting is also exempt.

His list might have been construed as news reporting (Here is the device number of this new device ... ), and definitely seems to have been non-commercial.

Of course, he's quite understandably mad that after he's spent his own money to help them all these years, they have chosen to rudely crap on him. I do hope that he'll continue to make his list available to the libre software developers, but I'll certainly understand if he doesn't want to support the bus-standard-which-must-not-be-named.

my letter

[Anonymous Coward]

The following is the text of a letter I just sent to their PR firm. I urge you all to do the same (certainly if you have to use the site as much as I do!)

I would like to inform you of a grievous mistake that was made recently by lawyers acting on behalf of PCI-SIG. It seems that Michael A. Cohen of Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt, P.C. sent a Cease and Desist letter to Jim Boemler, who was the maintainer of a very useful web site at www.yourvote.com/pci. The central feature of this web site was a table relating the device IDs of various PCI boards to their manufacturers. Though the Cease and Desist letter was targeted at the use of the PCI logo on the site itself, it has prompted Jim to take the entire site off-line.

I know I can speak for thousands of other system administrators when I say that this is a tragedy of the first magnitude for those of us who use and install PCI devices every day of our lives. The device ID table was absolutely invaluable as a reference for finding missing drivers or configuring these devices under other operating systems, and my life and the lives of many other IT administrators will be made much, much more difficult without it.

I suggest that, in your capacity as public-relations advisor to PCI-SIG, you should strongly advise them to sit down and talk with Jim Boemler in order to determine acceptable terms for him to reopen his site (a site which he built and maintained for free, in his spare time and at his own expense, without any help or support from the PCI-SIG). Their threat of trademark litigation against one of the most valuable support sites for the users of their products has done great harm to the community of those of us who use PCI equipment every day of our lives. It would behoove their organization to act quickly before they alienate the entire population of us who install and maintain their products for a living.

Thank you very much for your time, and please convey my input (and that of my many, many fellow PCI users) to the PCI-SIG group.

Sincerely,

some-young-guy
Director of Information Technology
some-young-corporation
somewhere-in-t he-US

(Yes, I used my real contact info. in the letter, but I'm kinda afraid of some of the weirdos who hang around here :)

Change their name

[king_penguin_05]

Instead of closing down he should host the website formerly known as PCI.

WTF! Now where am I gonna find the list?

[MoFoQ]

Man....it's lawyers like them that add gasoline (among other things) to an already enflamed hatred of lawyers.

There needs to be requirements of contact BEFORE they can EVEN file or threaten to sue since threatening to sue is like extortion.

So now where am I gonna find a good list of PCI device vendor list?

Why PCI-SIG wont endorse this

[ilsie]

I've read a couple comments asking why PCI-SIG is so mean and why don't they just give him permission to use their logos, etc. If you look at the letter:


Your use of PCI-SIG's trademarked name and logo on your website is likely to cause consumer confusion on the marketplace as to the sponsorhip, affiliation or endorsement of the website by PCI-SIG.

Essentially, they dont endorse the page because then it becomes an issue of support and accountablilty. If Joe Coder writes a device driver using Device ID X, Vendor ID Y, which happen to be incorrectly listed on this list with PCI-SIG's name all over it, they become accountable when it causes Joe's PC to not detect the device. And then they have to field support issues from Joe, who's first thought may be to contact PCI-SIG, because heck, their name is on the page.

They're Right

[BSDevil]

As many people have pointed out, it's the usage of the logo that's caused (this) C&D letter. And in this case, PCI-SIG is in the right. They have a trademarked logo with defined licensing procedures, which the site is using without permission or license. They complain that that usage may confuse people into thiking the site is affiliated with PCI-SIG: maybe it does, maybe it dosen't. The fact is that he's using their logo without permission. They seem to like his idea of providing a listing, they're just not exactly down with the (implied) association with their organization. And then there's the if-you-don't-defend-it-you-loose-it thing about trademarks and the like...

Then again, there are six letters in the word "PCI-SIG," and if you write that three times (the number of letters in the logo they're complaining about) you get 666 and a board headed by a guy from MS. So find all the conspiricies you want, or have the guy take down the logo from his webpage, do a s/"PCI"/"PCI-compatible"/, and see what the lawyers have to say.

LERT: Legal Emerg Response Team (proposal)

[ivi]

[Deformated after /. reported: "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 34.5)" A STUPID RESTRICTION! Make the box wider & tell us how many chars/line is kosher, damn it!]

I don't want to insult a person who's built & paid for a useful web-based service...

But I -do- want people to show a bit more "chutzpah" in matters like this

Anybody remember the Boston Tea Party?

It was in response to a dumb tax on tea, on the part of remote tax-collectors, & now it is gone.

More recently, Australians won a license-free "Citizens Band" - simply by -not- getting license, en masse.

(And, by all reports, Auusies, tend to be pretty compliant ex-^H^H^H colonists of the UK ;-)

Now, that bit of Civil Disobedience was against government, not the threat of legal action,
so there are differences.

But, surely, we can expect better support & a cleaner result than to just "roll over & die" that this site got.

Perhaps the same kind of response as we might expect, eg when a bug is detected in some Open Source software, would be appropriate; or, why not a:

LERT - Legal Emergency Response Team

1. Volunteer-based (might need to be anonymous)

2. Archive of succesful -response- HowTo's

(a bit like Bennett's play-by-play story of how he got Toshiba to refund $$$ for his non-use of (& non-intent to use) a bundled Microsoft operating
system;
while not a response to a Cease & Desist letter, it was a response to a legal quandry)

3. If necessary, off-shore (ie where legal)mirroring of alegedly "offending" site

It might be nice if such sites were as portable & easy to implement/mirror as possible.

4. IF the site's owner plans to take down
(& not just relabel bits of) the site,
then - for God's sake! - give the com-
munity NOTICE & perhaps (in advance)
an easy way to download its content;
even an udatable snapshot is more use-
ful than a total loss of access to it

5. A team of legal experts (volunteers)
stands ready to advise the site owner
(perhaps under safe disclaimer agreements,
if applicable) on how the letter or
other inputs (from IP owner(s)) might
be interpretted & replied to.

6. Fundraisers generate some $'s for
legal defense (again, if necessary)

etc.

It just doesn't work to walk away from
the fight. Sometimes changing a web page
into one where the icon for, say PIC-SIG,
as in this case, becomes a hot-link to it
& adding a CLEAR disclaimer ("UNOFFICIAL
PCI diveice list" or whateverm nect to it)
would be enough of a response (especially
as a pre-emptive strike, at site-creation)
to enable the site's continued existence.

Is it about showing off some cool new way
to store & provide info... or a way to
provide info support to the Open Source
community.

If it's the lattter, a searchable text-file
might suffice... one that anybody can
download, upload & share later.

If it's the former, then we're shooting
ourselves in the foot & aren't helping
each other as much as we might IMO.

Open Hardware - The Unfought Battle

[k31]

The Open Source movement and its spiritual cousin, the Free Software movement, were started based on the principle of empowerment of the end-user.

Even if she wasn't able to themselves alter software to their liking, the source would give the ability of a trained professional who they hired (perhaps for free, if said professional was "the neighbourhood geek").

However, this plan is thwarted if the specifications to the hardware upon which the software is meant to run is closed. This situation actually occured back in the origins of, I think, the FS movement, involving a printer which had closed software. However, instead of focusing on the pivotal point of open hardware specification (from which any amount of open source drivers and utilities can be made), the movement somehow focused on the second-order problem of access to source code.

Actually, even source code is probally less important than man pages (proper documentation). Did UNIX really thrive on plaintext C code along, or was it "man" that won the day as well?

The problem with the PCI device list, and the Sun CPU, and various video cards and sound cards without Open Source drivers is a problem of closed hardware.

The patent system was actually invented to protect hardware inventions... it should be used, rather than obscurity, to protect hardware. Software, on the other hand, could be a trade secret. Or open. Or whatever. The current situation, however, is that Microsoft Tax is based on their software - drivers, OS, Application Layer, being closed... and they're successful because their API ("man" on steriods in the form of MSDN) is Open!

Why doesn't the Geek community see this, already? Open Source doesn't matter... it will always be a personal choice anyhow... Open Hardware, however, could be made a legal imperative. Which will have numerous benefits:

-Any platform could have driver support, which is the reall barrier to Linux winning on the desktop
-The same embrace and extend techniques which Creative Labs used on Ad Lib could be used on Creative Labs!
-Emulators would be intrinsically legal, and actually, jobs would be created to emulate competitor's projects
-Companies would not go out of business so easily. Be had the specs for the BeBox online, but did not go out of business because they were cloned
-Open Hardware ultimately gave us PCs. And PCs ultimately gave us Linux, Windows, and i386 *BSD ports.
-and PCs also gave us 3Dfx, or realtime rendering on the desktop.

Once Again: Open Hardware is good. Open software, a passing curiousity at best, and irrelevant in the face of closed hardware and the legal, political, and financial weight that backs it.

Not at all uncommon

[kfg]

In fact, I've got a tradmark myself that's just about 8 years old and isn't registered. I've got another that's going on three *decades* old that I've never registered.

In point of fact, *most* trademarks, perfectly legitimate, are *never* registered and of those that are most are years, or even decades, old at the time of registration.

This is the norm.

Ok, it isn't the norm for big marketing outfits like GE or IBM who "brand" their own pee, but the PCI group isn't such a big marketing outfit.

Yes, it's true that the PCI group have registered the mark in order to make it easier to defend it on the national and internatioal level, but that isn't anything nefarious, that's the explicit *purpose* of mark registration. The fact that they've done it now is simply an indication that *now* is when their lawyers belive that such is relevant and worth the time, effort and money.

The reason most legitimate marks are never registered is because it is *never* relevant to defend them on a national scale, like, say, "Joe's Used Cars." However, there's nothing to say that Joe couldn't run his local used car lot for 40 years and then "make the big time" and go national, at which point he might then find it advantageous to register his 40 year old mark, for the first time.

KFG

Re:Really Stupid! Yes Boemler is(Takes 1 2 Know 1)

[BobzNKazoo]

Yes, maybe Jim went a bit too far, but you cannot truly blame him. Here he has invested big bucks and a lot of time doing something for the greater computer community and asks for nothing in return. As payment he receives a letter threatening legal action. Actually here is the nutshell version: CorpLikeEntity notes use of their brand new trademark by User#1. They further note that User#1 is not on their list of OKusers. So CorpLikeEntity jumps to some conclusion and calls their lawyer(s) and have User#1 sent a not-so-nice letter. If you would have read the "rant", this is really an issue about common courtesy and professional responsibility. Unfortunately these days, most folks only seem to think about their rights and the laws that back these rights.(ie: I have rights, but I'm only as responsible as my lawyer says I am!) The comon courtesy approach would have been to call Jim and work out some sort of a mutually beneficial agreement. But that did not happen. So do I blame Jim for the knee-jerk reaction? Not for a minute! PS: In Jim's place, I probably would have pulled the PCI verbage and sent PCI-ORG a bill for services rendered for the last several years. But I'm probably not as nice as Jim.

What about the Linux PCI ID Repository?

[ShawnX]

There still is http://pciids.sourceforge.net/

Which is maintained.

Unless the two databases were different?

-ShawnX

This is what's behind the legal action

[njdj]

This is a incredible loss for the hardware support in the Free Software world.

Yes, it damages the Free Software world. But who would want to do that apart from Microsoft?

Go to the PCISIG website.. Check out the press releases. You'll find one dated June 12, 2002, about the election of a new Chairman: Tony Pierce, of Microsoft.

Shut down the site?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think 1)A disclaimer saying that the site is note affilited and 2) The removal of the logo would be fine. Why must the site be shut down?

Call it "Aonaran Linux"

[yerricde]

So don't call it Red Hat. Call it "Aonaran Linux" and claim in the description that 1. the programs in Aonaran Linux x.x are identical to the programs in Red Hat Linux x.x, 2. Aonaran Linux is not a Red Hat product, and 3. Red Hat provides no warranty or support on Aonaran Linux. As long as you do nothing with Red Hat's trademark that could potentially cause confusion as to the origin or endorsement of your Aonaran Linux product, your use of Red Hat's trademark is probably fair.

Apply Pressure to PCI-SIGs lifeblood

[omaha]

Here is the link to the PCI-SIG membership roster. http://www.pcisig.com/membership/about_us/membersh ip_roster

Everyone needs to start emailing the marketing departments of each of these companies and complain about the actions of the PCI-SIG. Once these companies start feeling the heat you can bet they'll put pressure on the SIG to get them out of the hot water.

Everyone should email and say that we are calling on them to bring about an open resolution to this matter. As the site provides valuable information that helps create a revenue stream for everyone involvoed. (Who buys a card if their OS won't support it?)

Email early, Email often!

Errr...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wondering what was the matter on this topic, I decided to look at the site. I saw at the top of the page Prior Home of the XXX Vendor and Device Lists

I understood why the /dotters were so upset at the closing of the site...

Re:To boulderly go where no man has gone before.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking stinking anus. Do you really believe that every minor dispute requires a C&D especially to a friend or someone who is friendly to your cause. If your friend was using your company's logo on some fan site that promoted your product how would you deal with them. Hire a lawer and send C&D? You would you whore. Oh and by the way use of profanity is more prefferable to violence. After all if this was back in the days of cavemen we would be cracking the skulls of all the useless lawers for using valuable tribe resources and not contributing anything of value back.

Class Action Lawsuit?

[Alien54]

IANAL, but

Somehow I smell a class action suit, something along the idea of unfair restraint of trade.

Maybe some smart lawyer type could force the organization, via a court order, to put up and maintain the database themselves for free, as they forced the removal of the data.

I think this has something to do with monopoly laws, etc. I can imagine some folks would be will to send in their dimes and nickels to help this out.

What passes for gold ...

[Arrrggghhh]

Sometimes I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance that passes for "interesting" or "insightful" - particularly when it is neither interesting nor insightful. 1. To play the game you need to know the rules. So far this discussion is like watching a chess where everyone is standing around arguing about whether castling is legal. 2. You don't play with someone else's toys unless they give you permission. This applies to Intellectual property as well as everything else. He is using their registered trademark without their permission. 3. If PCI-SIG didn't defend its trademark, they would loose it. If you don't enforce against everyone, you can't enforce against anyone. 4. It's the trademark, stupid! Kill the infringing trademark usage and the problem goes away. Yes, you can still use PCI - you just can't use that cute fancy logo that doesn't appear on your keyboard. Letters on the keyboard are font issues. 5. Get a Life! This is NOT a reason to kick anyone - down or up. If the gentleman chooses to close or maintain his site - it is still his still and his decision. Sounds like he's spent a lot of time providing a valuable service to our community and he should be thanked and commended for it. We should be helping him find out how to keep his work going - not whining about how unfair life is. ... Thanks!

ob. mod Parent down post

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause it's made of dickcheese.

How is this posible?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you do a search for PCI on googles news groups you will find the word is used way before 12-0-1994.
(Searched Groups for PCI from May. 12, 1981 to Jan. 16, 1994. Results 361 - 370 of about 8,610)
Second, the trade mark was only registered 2-14-2001?
and last, I though trademarks are just that *marks* as in image as in the enclosed image in the CDO, I don't see how anyone can think that when I say "My pci card in my PC" can confuse that the vendor or that it referse to PCI-SIG in any way?
PCI PCI PCI PCI PCI.
PCI-SIG is a big baby, woo now get me for slander =)

Trademarks

[nagora]

This is a good example of trademark abuse: there is no intent or reasonable possibility that anyone was being deceived by this useage mearly that the logo was being used to make it clear what was being discussed. There is no reason to call this an abuse of the trademark and another good reason why trademark law should be rewritten.

If it isn't fraud then I don't give a flying fuck how much you paid your designer to draw the logo, all that's happening is that someone is spreading the word about the value of your invention and you should be paying for that, not suing them.

Why is it that intellectual propery hardly ever seems to involve an intellect?

TWW

PCI Vendor list - let's put them everywhere...!

[stienman]

You can still get the vendor/device list from Google's cache, though the last update in the cache is from October 28, 2002. The cache contains the main page, as well as some other useful data.

I suspect the wayback machine, while considerably slower, would have the CSV files and a few other items which the Google cache does not have.

Lastly, I agree with Jim that this is a really bad way for a non-profit group to act. I understand the pain of seeing someone you are supporting claim your hard earned work is somehow damaging to them, but suggesting that they'd like to have it anyway. Looking back it's easy to regret spending so much time on something which 'get[s] no respect'.

I hope that regardless of what PCI-sig claims or does, Jim finds a way to keep this valuable community resource available to those thousands who appreciate his effort, time, and money. I hope that it remains a free community resource. I hope that Jim isn't offended by Google's cache, and the possibility that others might continue his work, but I can't stand by and let someone destroy their creation to spite a third party, when that creation is of such value to so many others.

-Adam

State of the Art in Zorro

[hackwrench]

ICY is an IC controller card suitable for all Amiga models equipped with a Zorro II / III compatible bus.
Or am i just short of state of the art of Zorro... It's hard to tell these daysR

Oh, no!

[Obersturmbannfuehrer]

Does that mean Linux is never going to "dominate the desktop" or something?

More SCUM

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for all caps, but another DMCA case we all know of which we can find somemore scum. Here they exhibit a filed a copyright for a material on April 17, 2002, and claim completion was done in 1996. This work is called battle.net, and this is the case bnetd vs Blizzard.

I'm AC because I'm close to blizzard.

Don't U remember "Wall Street"

[matt_martin]

Greed is good
Greed is right,
Greed will kill this country.
(paraphrased juuust slightly)

Am I blind or what

[Anonymous Coward]

Is is just me or is the logo stated on the PDF, not the same as used on the site http://www.pcisig.com ???

And as stated that trademark dates Sep. 4 2002, so what's that ??

For the sake of common good?

[Alwin Henseler]

Over the past months I've seen an ever increasing incidents along the line: "DMCA slapped at " "Copyright infringement threat shuts down " Scientist afraid to travel to the U.S. on fear of being arrested for violating patent laws Some research project frozen for similar reasons And 1 question pops up again and again with me: Wasn't there some original reason for these laws in the first place? Something like "for the promotion of creative works and scientific progress, for the benefit of the public in general"? Does there still exist such a benefit, or what? Please explain if you know any...

Blame the law, not PCI-SIG

[saleh]

The core of the problem is that PCI-SIG has little choice under trademark law -- unless they vigorously persue all infringement, they can potentially lose their trademark. Under trademark law, if the trademark holder knows of infringement and allows it, they loosen their grip on the trademark.

As an extreme example, if PCI-SIG did not pursue it legally in this case, and a few other cases, someone could re-assign pins on the PCI connector, and call their device a "PCI" card. When PCI-SIG went after them, the infringing firm could claim that "PCI" had become a generic term due to PCI-SIG's lack of protecting their trademark, and potentially win the case.

That's why phrases like "xerox machine" or "styrofoam cooler" sometimes result in C&D letters. It's not necessarily that Xerox does not want its name to be synonymous with copiers, but rather they must protect their trademark or lose it.

Re:Blame the law, not PCI-SIG

[Simon Brooke]

The core of the problem is that PCI-SIG has little choice under trademark law -- unless they vigorously persue all infringement, they can potentially lose their trademark. Under trademark law, if the trademark holder knows of infringement and allows it, they loosen their grip on the trademark.

Don't be silly, they didn't have to send him a cease and desist. It would have been easier and cheaper to send him a brief letter thanking him for his work and granting him an explicit license to use the mark, perhaps with some conditions attached.

Re:Blame the law, not PCI-SIG

[saihung]

We are all responsible for our own actions, and saying that "it's only business" or "the law compelled me to do it" is not an excuse for rude or immoral behavior. You are one human being, undivided, and the ethical sense that drives you to be a good neighbor and member of your family should also move you to act in a reasonable way to your fellow citizens. We never, ever can excuse our actions by saying "it's not personal, it's only business"; we are people acting on other people in the context of a human society - everything we do is personal.

but ... pciids.sf.net is what Linux uses

[Big Jojo]

And http://pciids.sf.net is still going strong.

Will those lawyers be going against that next? Because I assure you those IDs appear in compiled binaries of Linux.

I feel like breaking the law

[Anonymous Coward]

PCI !! I like the dark side... I think I'll do it again... PCI !!!

"resorting", pah!

[Xtifr]

they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.

You make it sound like "resorting to lawyers" is some sort of evil, violent deed. The fact of the matter is that real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers. Lawyers are a routine part of the everyday business world, and have been since time immemorial. Freaking out about this merely makes the fellow look immature and foolish.

Hell, that's one of the politest and friendliest C&D letters I've ever seen.

Re:"resorting", pah!

[platypus]

The fact of the matter is that real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers.

Yep. Do you know why?

Because they have their own lawyers, which will then deal with the lawyers of the other side.
No problem here.

Oh, wait, something comes to my mind
This guy isn't a "professional businessman" in the context of his website/database, he doesn't get any fscking money for the work he did on this list. His website won't pay any lawyer.

Get it? When they resorted to lawyers, it was clear that they at least potentially dragged him into a mud he never liked to be in, and never deserved to be in. OTOH they would have lost _nothing_ had they tried to resolve the manner in a less professional bussinesspeopleish way, by just uhm, calling him, perhaps?

Do I think they deserve be rot in hell for that action? Clearly not
Do I think he could perhaps have reacted slightly calmer? Hell, yes!

But to look at this only from the business angle is very distorted, IMO.

Re:"resorting", pah!

[fishbowl]

"...real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers..."

They also don't fold their hands and stop doing business just because they got a letter from a lawyer! When you get a letter from a court saying there is a hearing scheduled for a restraining order, you should be adjusting your schedule in order to be there with or without your own lawyer, but definitely with your paperwork in order, and hopefully with a good understanding of the law in question -- it's not THAT HARD!

The idea that this part of the process will bankrupt you is pretty pervasive, but it does not cost that much to defend yourself in court; especially in these civil cases where the plaintiff really doesn't have a solid case.

If a judge didn't sign the C&D letter, you don't have to do a damn thing yet. You *should* contact a lawyer, preferably one you already have a relationship with. You should also make certain that you can put your hand on every document that might be pertinent to the case, and can load them in a file box for your day in court. Which won't ever come, or might be 9 months in the future.

You show up to every hearing. You make sure there is a hearing on EVERY question, no summary judgements!

In Texas, you can have a hearing on ANYTHING, and for any hearing you can have a JURY. Always take advantage of that. The plaintiff will back off when they realize that every order is going to involve a full day with a jury...

Re:"resorting", pah!

[evbergen]

they didn't have the courtesy to contact him before resorting to lawyers.

You make it sound like "resorting to lawyers" is some sort of evil, violent deed. The fact of the matter is that real, professional businesspeople don't have a violent (and childish) aversion to lawyers. Lawyers are a routine part of the everyday business world, and have been since time immemorial. Freaking out about this merely makes the fellow look immature and foolish.

It may be not immediately evil, but it is agressive, for sure. Perhaps "profesisonal business people" don't have an aversion to lawyers because they bathe daily in the eat-or-be-eaten, right of the jungle world, and have come to like their style (who knows, perhaps even helped establish that style).

So I gather that in your view of the world, growing up means accepting the current way of doing business, and that means pure darwinism, i.e. everybody just fights as agressively as he can to get what he wants, and is obliged by the investors not to care how that is achieved?

That it is that way is one thing, but calling it immature not to agree with it is quite another.

Hell, that's one of the politest and friendliest C&D letters I've ever seen.

Which says just as much about C&D letters in general as about this particular one.

Re:"resorting", pah!

[Xtifr]

It may be not immediately evil, but it is agressive, for sure.

Sure, absolutely, no argument there. The Debian project has encountered several cases of trademark/logo infringement, and we've never gone so far as to call in the lawyers, let alone, to use that as an opening move. But we're hackers and geeks.

So I gather that in your view of the world[...]

I refuse to dignify your staw dog with a response. I donate much of my spare time to the Debian project. What do you do to make the world a better place?

calling it immature not to agree with it is quite another.

There's a big difference between "not agreeing with it", and "freaking out about it". A C&D letter is not the opening move I'd make, and it is an agressive one. But acting like it's the end of the world, and that we should boycott PCI devices in future is simply childish. (Note that I'm addressing the reaction here on /. more than I am the poor fellow with the web page here.)

Re:"resorting", pah!

[evbergen]

So I gather that in your view of the world [...]

I refuse to dignify your straw dog with a response.

It was a bit harsh perhaps, but mostly because of you calling the guy's response childish, which is uncalled for, and because it left the impression that you think having an aversion to current corporate practice is childish, which is even more uncalled for IMHO.

I donate much of my spare time to the Debian project. What do you do to make the world a better place?

I try to tell people that humans can achieve more than animals, if we'd let go of the law of the jungle concept. We're free to choose, after all. I discuss politics with everyone who wants to. I donate money to the EFF and the FSF. I write Free Software. I preach about free software to my business relations, whenever possible. So it may not be much, but I try, too.

XXX Vendor and Device Lists

[biduxe]

Because of the three Letters he choose to replace PCI, I'm not able anymore to access the web page from my workstation.

The proxy at my office have a rule to filter every page wich contains the XXX expression.

I'm trying to guess if moderators will find this comment interesting or funny

Re:XXX Vendor and Device Lists

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, get a new job.. sheesh.. what a bunch of fascist pig admins you got there...

Re:XXX Vendor and Device Lists

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

That's scary.
XXX is often used in source code to mean "FIXME".
Are they on crack?

When Lawyers attack!

[Formus]

It is usually in the best interests of any company to protect their trademarked name, however a company should consider the wider ramifications in the developer comunity on a companies reputation before deciding that an agressive stance is neccesary.
If the lawyers have standing orders to sue infringers upon discovery it may be wise to require them to make a business case before they are allowed to move forward.

Why not just change the spelling?

[Slashdot Junky]

Dear World,

Just change PCI to PeeSeeEye and stop using the logo if it had been in use. People familiar with the site won't care and most will understand why the change was made.

Greed, it's all because of greed!

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

This is not a troll. metamoderate this unfair.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is correct. the letter asks exactly for it, making the grand-parent post look foolish.

The moderator might have been offended by the use of "half-cocked", but that still doesn't come close to justifying a "troll" moderation.

Still in the cache!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The list is still in the Google cache!!

The URL is:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:www.yourvote.c om/pci/pciread.asp%%3Fvenid%%3D0x XXXX
(it may line-wrap on your display)

where XXXX is the vendor going from 0x0000 to 0xFFFF. Not all the vendor numbers are taken.

Can someone grab all the files (vend-{0000..FFF}.txt) and make them available for download so the rest of can mirror?

Threats aren't usually good invitations

[billstewart]

They didn't invite him to continue _his_ website. They ordered him to discontinue _his_ website, but suggested that he could donate his effort for free to them for a website that they control the content of, going through his employer so they aren't even paying for it.

It was a really dumb approach - the right thing would have been a request from the PCI-SIG themselves, not from their lawyers, asking to do something rather than ordering him to stop. It's too bad for the Linux community, because we get at least as much value out of the list as the PCI businesses do, but I can see why he's stopping. And unfortunately the Wayback machine's last entry for it was from October 2001.

What I sent off to the lawyer...consider this...

[PatSand]

Here is what I sent to the lawyer; others might consider taking these actions that I outlined...

Sirs-

Having just read about the Cease and Desist order sent to the above mentioned site, I find it appaling that a non-profit organization would not attempt to resolve the issues more amicably with the site owner.

While you do represent them and ultimately must execute their orders, please pass the following onto your client:

1. Non-profit organizations have typically benefited greatly from such individual efforts to support and inform people. You have significantly closed off a major legitimate source of such information. Unless your organization wishes to maitain such a list for the hobbyist/OSS users, your group has, as I have so eloquently summed things up to management before, "Put a shotgun to your head and started pulling the trigger to see if it works".

2. If the primary reason for the C&D order was the use of the logo, you could have given him a different logo or special permission (with a link to your organization) to use it and created exceptional good will while maintaining suitable copyrights and logo/standards protection.

3. If your organization were a for-profit company, I would be far less interested in this. But a standards organization? Are you going to go after publications which use the abbreviation PCI for your bus architecture next?

As to consequences, I am going to pursue the following:

A. Since I have some influence in buying decisions, I will start having staff investigate choosing bus architectures other than PCI for systems. I won't claim a big success here, but I expect others will also start looking for alternatives.

B. I shall make my Congressional Representatives (House and Senate) aware of this situation and ask them to investigate the matter, especially as it relates to infringing on First Amendment rights and rights of non-profit organizations.

C. I shall ask the IRS to consider reviewing the tax-exempt status of the organization (also through my Congressional Representatives); if they are resorting to actions such as this, I have to think something monopolistic is going on and may require further investigation.

D. I shall advise my technical peers in the Internet of this situation and ask them to have their companies who are members of the organization ask for a better resolution of the matter.

E. I shall post this e-mail and any responses from you or your represented organization on www.slashdot.org for the readership to review and act upon.

I am very disappointed that such an event occurred; I certainly hope that your firm did try and dissuade them from this step and pursue other alternatives. If so, I (and the slashdot community) would like to know that.

Please feel free to e-mail me at this address...

somebody's a windows user

[klparrot]

... idealism shared by many here on \..

Backslash(dot)? Somebody's a Windows user!

Sorry ... :P

Re:somebody's a windows user

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's just referring to the backwards thinking that goes on here sometimes....

Re:somebody's a windows user

[beagle]

Actually the AC is close - I was referring to the left-leaning-ness of many 'dotters.

Cutting off his nose?

[j-turkey]

It sounds like Jim is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

--Turkey

PCI-SIG Fanmail

[ninjadroid]

FWIW, I just sent them this letter of praise:

Regarding your treatment of the PCI Device list at www.yourvote.com/pci/...

Your efforts to alienate your userbase and eliminate a _free_ and useful service are quite laudable, I must say. This is, perhaps, the most pathetic example of lawyering I have seen in my (limited) time.

It should be noted that since the aforementioned list is _not_ a business function of any sort, their mere use of the name PCI does not constitute infringement. If you truly feel that users may be misled into believing that this is an official list, and that this will somehow damage that _wonderful_ reputation you have, then merely prefixing the word "Unofficial" to the title would ameliorate this problem most excellently.

In the same sense that Prima publishing is legally allowed to release unofficial strategy guides for trademarked entertainment products, so to is an ordinary citizen allowed to maintain a database of useful information regarding the PCI standard.

And by the way, what a useless consortium you are. I've been an enthusiast PC user for half a decade now, and was never aware of your existence; such is your usefulness to the industry. I suppose it is befitting that I learn of your existence through these preposterous actions.

Lovingly,
Pete Bessman

He's using their -logo-

[Peter Simpson]

That's the big problem. I doubt the PCI people would care if he used the three letters "P" "C" and "I", to refer to equipment. Thousands of websites do it every day. They also complain about "confusion" between his website and the official one. So, a possible solution would be for him to stop using the PCI logo, to which he has no right, and to post a disclaimer that he has no affiliation with the official PCI group, and is merely using the letters to designate the equipment for which he maintains the database.

Just because the lawyers ask for something, doesn't mean he has to give it to them. A reasonable attempt at compromise may be all that's necessary.

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

[grolschie]

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

Good, because Wayback Cache is OLD

[billstewart]

The Wayback machine's caches on the site seem to date from October 2001, so it's nice that Google's is newer. It's possible that the Wayback machine has some newer data under some non-obvious name; that's a problem with having .asp database-lookup pages instead of static data files.

Missing something...

[Dirtside]

On this page, Jim Boemler says the following:

They hung their case on the PCI logo on my site, but since they claim I don't have the right to even use the three letters "PCI", they clearly want my site gone entirely.

This is confusing, because there's no "case"; the lawyers are simply claiming that Jim's particular use of the PCI-SIG logo and name are likely to cause trademark confusion. Whether or not this is true, I'm not qualified to judge; assuming that it's true, though, all Jim had to do was stop using the logo and put a disclaimer on his page that it is not affiliated with PCI-SIG.

The second part of the C&D letter requests that he work through IBM to basically get this made into an "official" page under the auspices of PCI-SIG or IBM, which is a PCI-SIG member. So what I don't get is, why does it appear that Jim flipped out and decided to take the site down? I'll agree that PCI-SIG's method of contacting him was pretty poorly executed, but they never demanded that he take the site down, and their suggestion that they would rather the site be "official", that they indeed want the data available.

So why does the site need to go away, exactly?

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

[grolschie]

Do it.

Re:OT: posts at 1 (actual explanation here)

[klparrot]

I just noticed this too, and updated my sig. Basically, they changed it so that the bonus is configurable by the reader, like how you can give +1 to friends and whatnot.

Unfortunately, when they made this change, they set the default value to +0, taking away the bonus you normally get. I say they should have set it to the old +1 by default; perhaps they'll fix it in the next update.

Check it out; go to your prefs page and set the high-karma modifier to +1. You should see your posts starting at 2 again. But it doesn't mean anyone else will, unless they've changed their prefs too. :P

Lawyers are easily confused

[Skapare]

Lawyers are easily confused. This is probably why they think the public gets confused so often. If they see the letters "PCI" on a web site, they immediately jump to the conclusion it must be sanctioned and supported by the PCI-SIG, or maybe it even is the PCI-SIG. And boy are they pissed when they find out they had it wrong, which in the case of trademarks, including the fair use of a trademark (such as saying "IBM" to refer to IBM, or saying "Microsoft" to refer to Microsoft, or saying "PCI" to refer to PCI), seems to be quite frequent. I guess that's what happens when you're a land shark.

Sure, but I don't blame him

[billstewart]

He's providing the service to the community to be a nice guy, not just for his own use because he's not hacking PCI hardware any more. It's not like his passion in life that he wants to find an opportunity to express in spite of oppposition. The main people this site helps are people trying to SELL PCI GEAR to open-source users and open-source users who want to develop tools to let them use more kinds of PCI gear. The PCI sellers' organization was rude, and offered to let him give them the benefits of his work for free if he talks his employer into it.

The real question is whether the PCI-SIG folks should fire their lawyers, or whether they should fire whichever one of their employees asked their lawyers to do this, depending on who initiated the action.

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback/

[grolschie]

Let your voice be heard: http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

change the references to PCI

[dfj225]

They should just change all the references to the term PCI on the site to "that port that is smaller than ISA" or TPTISTISA. This way everyone will know what they are talking about and copyrighted terms don't have to be used.

Re: Update

[Anonymous Coward]

The update says:
>The story you posted is causing us a headache. Our CTO, Alan Deikman is being bombarded by emails from people reading that story. Alan is not the person in charge of the PCI SIG, his only sin is that Znyx did host the PCI sig in the early 90s and he was the list maintainer. This was a gracious act and should not be rewarded the way it is now.

"it was a gracious act and should not be rewarded the way it is now". Isn't the same true for the act of setting up a PCI device list?
I think the bombarding of that znyx mail address should just continue... or if they want it to stop, they should stop harassing site builders.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really (Hijack request)

[Black Copter Control]

The amicability of the letter is the saccharine smile of a psychopath asking for your car key so he can park it for you.

" Your website indicates that you are an employee of IBM, a PCI-SIG member. We therefore request that you work through IBM to investigate the possibility of creating a similar database of BCI(r) Vendor ID numbe rs which whould be available on the official PCI-SIG.

What they are asking him to do is to hand over his database to them for free, and allow them to (possibly) make it proprietary. That's probably the real purpose of the letter. I'm pretty sure that they know that use of the three letters 'pci' would never make it past a judge, and that the use of the PCI logo is also queationable.

I'd suggest (IANAL) that he simply remove any copies of the PCI logo and put up a disclaimer that he has absolutely no affiliation with the PCI-SIG group other than the fact that they tried to shut down his website and hi-jack the database from him.

Uhm...Whatever happened to just flipping em the..

[Bowie J. Poag]

Bird?

Between the negative publicity, and and sea of middle fingers, i'm sure things can be resolved peacefully.

Oops. I used the letters "p", "c", and "i"... Fuck, time to call a lawyer!

Cheers,

You mean like maybe from..

[Anonymous Coward]

...now onwards the hardware specs will only be permitted to be given to folks who will sign an agreement saying they will not divilge the data to Linux/*BSD/OSS/etc devevelopers and only use it for a certain GUI OS that we all love to hate???

Overreaction...

[Kjella]

I mean they got some lawyers out there to protect their IP. When lawyers find something that looks fishy, they send a C&D. They don't usually escalate it to a PR rep. (usually the two are just about the only ones that can make "official" statements on behalf of the company) so that he can take a friendly chat. It's not the first, nor the last time lawyers will send a C&D to anything even remotely similar.

If he thinks PCI-SIG (except for the legal branch) has anything against his site, I think he's mistaken. Probably they didn't know about the whole fuzz before they read about it in their inbox or on Slashdot. And while he might have had his site up for ages, and done a lot of good for PCI, that does not matter to a lawyer that sees a violation. And legally, there probably was one. The letters PCI hardly have any copyright, but the logo definately does and I don't see how fair use applies here. I think a lawyer that promoted himself to be judge by letting good sites "slide" would be out of a job pretty quick.

I can see how he's hurt but this isn't very different from fansites for movies / bands / cartoons / whatever that's been asked to stop using copyrighted stuff. I'm sorry, but I don't really see what justifies going overboard like this...

Kjella

What this really means

[divide overflow]

Anyone familiar with trademark and copyright laws understands the cease and desist letter for what it is...something the holders of PCI trademark MUST send to anyone who uses their trademark without first being granted the right to use it.

There is absolutely no reason to read malice into the C & D letter as Mr. Boemler has. The law is very clear on this point...if you don't *defend* your trademark vigorously as soon as you learn that others are using it without your authorization, you can lose your trademark rights. The C&D letter did NOT imply, in any way, that Mr. Boemler had to discontinue his website. The section requesting (note the lawyer's use of the word "request" rather than "demand") he work through IBM was only a suggestion. Its presence in the C&D letter obviously confused people who might be inclined to see its proximity to the previous demand to remove their trademark as an additional demand.

As other posters have indicated, all that Mr. Boemler needs to do is to stop using PCI in ways that violate their trademark.

Re:What this really means

[lwiniarski]

- "PCI"
- You just said "PCI" w/o permission.
- But so did you. You said "PCI" w/o permission.
- You just said "You said PCI w/o permission"
- You just said "You said you just said PCI.."
- You said "You said you said you said you said..
(Stack Overflow..)

Re:What this really means

[divide overflow]

(Stack Overflow..)

Ahh...nothing like a good overflow every now and then. :^)

- divide overflow

Re:What this really means

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You're quite wrong on this point.

The trademark holder does not have to send a C & D, they could have contacted Mr. Boemler and offered any number of resolutions, discussed the matter etc, etc.

Defense of a trademark does not mean you auto-spam with C & D letters. Defense means that you actively ensure that there are no violations, the C & D is only one method of defense.

Mr. Boemler and the rest of the public have good reason to feel an affront due to the fact that the trademark owner went straight to the C & D rather than exploring more civil methods of defending their trademark.

What you are suggesting would be like my having to get a restraining order against anyone I met, in case I didn't want to speak with them. Or better, like a previous poster mentioned, hiring someone to wake you up at 5:30 in the am screaming "YOU'RE WRONG!" instead of just replying here. (I really liked that one, my analogy wasn't so good.)

Re:What this really means

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Just say PCI on your website.

Then have them sue Microsoft because of what IE (or any browser) will render that as.

Re:What this really means

[divide overflow]

The trademark holder does not have to send a C & D, they could have contacted Mr. Boemler and offered any number of resolutions, discussed the matter etc, etc.

As others have noted the C & D is a standard, normal legal recourse for a trademark defense. Although the trademark holder COULD have done any number of things, they shouldn't be criticized for doing exactly what any trademark attorney (or court) would tell them they should have done. It isn't the responsibility of the trademark holder to negotiate with someone who is presumptively violating their copyrights...that burden is on the other party. Doing anything else could be construed as ceding your rights away.

Defense of a trademark does not mean you auto-spam with C & D letters. Defense means that you actively ensure that there are no violations, the C & D is only one method of defense.

Methinks you doth protest the C & D too much. Don't overreact to it. Also:

1. The C & D is the legally accepted first step to mount a defense, and
2. Sending one C & D letter doesn't constitute "auto-spam" in my book.

Mr. Boemler and the rest of the public have good reason to feel an affront due to the fact that the trademark owner went straight to the C & D rather than exploring more civil methods of defending their trademark.

I disagree. Their affront is misplaced. If anything they ought to take issue with the system that makes trademark holders have to behave this way to defend their trademark rights, not with the people who just do what the law tells them they must do. Perhaps these people would be a bit more understanding if they were more cognizant of the law.

What you are suggesting would be like my having to get a restraining order against anyone I met, in case I didn't want to speak with them. Or better, like a previous poster mentioned, hiring someone to wake you up at 5:30 in the am screaming "YOU'RE WRONG!" instead of just replying here. (I really liked that one, my analogy wasn't so good.)

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Your analogy is wildly inaccurate and somewhat over the top. No legal restraints were adjudicated by a court, no yelling and screaming was done...just a short letter asking them to quit using their trademark, drafted by a person who has a license to practice law.

Re:What this really means

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

The C & D is the legally accepted first step to mount a defense, and

The point is not that this is some sort of illegal tactic on the part of the PCI-SIG, nor is it out of the ordinary for going after someone who is beligerently attempting to gain from the trademark assigned to the holder.

If my neighbor hired someone to install a privacy fence and the contractor screwed up and placed part of it on my property, blocking my scenic view, I would have every legal right to call a lawyer and demand it was removed. However, my nieghbor might be a little pissed off at me, especially if he was unaware of my distress.

If I instead called him and told him the situation and asked him to do something about it in a polite and civil way, I do not surrender any legal right to my property.

The same point is valid here, it's a matter of civility and politeness, the C & D is effectively saying that they don't want this person to use the trademark or have any association with the PCI-SIG, that it is beligerently dilluting there trademark and they intend to take legal action if it is not stopped.

However, this is not the intent of the President of the PCI-SIG, as he stated in his reply. If the PCI-SIG grants Mr. Boemler the right to use the trademark, or came to some other agreement, they have in no way weakened their defense in any further violation of their trademark. It's the matter of using a butcher knife where a scalpel would serve better.

If anything they ought to take issue with the system that makes trademark holders have to behave this way to defend their trademark rights, not with the people who just do what the law tells them they must do.

Again, I reiterate that it is you who are not "cognizant" of the law. The PCI-SIG has no obligation to send a threat of legal action to defend their trademark. To do so shows ingratitude towards Mr. Boemler, who through his own time and funds, has furthered their interests and those of their members. A C & D is a threat of legal action and it is impolite to threaten your friends and allies with legal action before discussing the matter personaly first.

If you can't understand how this would be offensive, I fear for your ability to get along with other people. If your parents came and built a fence on your property as a 'suprise gift' and you didn't like it, would you call and ask them about removing it (while trying not to offend them), or would you call a lawyer?

No legal restraints were adjudicated by a court, no yelling and screaming was done...just a short letter asking them to quit using their trademark, drafted by a person who has a license to practice law.

The person licensed to practice law you cite, has the license to sue the pants off Mr. Boemler. Mr. Boemler is a private citizen who has done nothing but help these people and the community with his own time and resources and like many of us does not wish to be dragged into court, it's a hole for time and money. To have his (possibly first) contact with the PCI-SIG officials be armed tanks at the gate, rather than an ambassador is uncivil and offensive.

The problem with getting a letter from a lawyer is that most people, to be safe, will go to their own lawyer to formulate a response and handle the situation in the future. Why should Mr. Boemler be burdened with taking the time to explain the situation to his own representation and paying the legal costs? They are repaying his effort with a slap across the face.

Mr. Boemler even states this is what he is upset about. I guess you've never had a lawyer threaten you, either that, or you're sitting atop a pile of disposable cash that you have nothing better to do with but defend frivilous lawsuits.

Another PCI device/vendor ID database available

[Krellan]

http://pciids.sourceforge.net/

This site has another PCI device/vendor ID database.

Better save it while you can! There are download links available to get the entire table. Since the PCI-SIG has crushed the old yourvote.com site, there's no telling how long they will let this other site remain up, since it has similar content.

You might have the file already!

/usr/share/pci.ids

Download the latest version anyway, so your distribution is up to date. This file provides the human-readable names for tools such as lspci.

OK, here's my letter.

[Simon Brooke]

Don't copy it, but feel free to make similar points. My take on this is this is probably a young, inexperienced lawyer who thought it was big and cool to go in with all guns blazing, and is now (I suspect) desperately trying to dig himself out of the shit. If, on the other hand, PCI-SIG actually instructed him to write in these terms, they deserve everything they get.

Dear Michael Cohen

I appreciate that you're probably getting a lot of grief from strangers today, and probably feel bewildered and a little hurt. You probably feel that you were just doing your job, and that people (including me) are just shooting the messenger.

That's true, of course, to a degree. But in this case it isn't an adequate excuse. Yes, as a lawyer, your job is, in the end, to do what your client instructs. But when your client instructs you to do something extraordinarily foolish and liable to cause grave damage to your clients' own interests, part of a responsible lawyers duty is to councel caution and reflection.

Your clients members are, as a consequence of your action, denied access to a data resource which is vital to them. To replace this resource, which you have by your action denied to them, will cost them many thousands of dollars, delay development of new devices, and cause untold confusion. At the same time, their goodwill and reputation among the technical community on which they depend is in tatters. What possible benefit did you see to your client, and how do you propose that they should go about repairing the damage that has been caused?

After a letter as unnecessarily offensive and aggressive as that which is posted here http://www.yourvote.com/pci/Scanned_.pdf over your signature, saying sorry is not likely to be enough. This isn't a matter of ego, virility, and big swinging dicks. It's a community where people provide resources out of good will and a spirit of co-operation, and you cannot simply go rampaging about in your elephant boots. You (and your clients) have a very great deal of humble pie to eat.

Yours Sincerely

Simon Brooke

Chief Technical Officer, Scaffie Ltd.

Re:OK, here's my letter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your letter actually had a lot of credibility until the "big swinging dicks" comment... that was pretty unprofessional.

Re:OK, here's my letter.

[GeekDork]

In message #5098583 it is written:

I appreciate that you're probably getting a lot of grief from strangers today, and probably feel bewildered and a little hurt. You probably feel that you were just doing your job, and that people (including me) are just shooting the messenger.

That's true, of course, to a degree. But in this case it isn't an adequate excuse. Yes, as a lawyer, your job is, in the end, to do what your client instructs. But when your client instructs you to do something extraordinarily foolish and liable to cause grave damage to your clients' own interests, part of a responsible lawyers duty is to councel caution and reflection.

To prove validity of that, have a look at the Nuremberg Trials where it was decided that shooting the messenger is perfectly legal if only the message was bad enough. OK, now keep the "-1, Flamebait"s coming.

no, they invited him to be fired

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically went to his employer and filed a complaint about him. This is reeeeeeealy ugly.

The PCI people are underhanded. Getting someone in trouble with their boss should be reserved for real infractions, not this.

Why??

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, why. If someone from the PCI SIG just
wanted them to remove the logo, I think they would
have just sent them an email first, But if
Michael Cohen (lawyer) just wanted get as many hours as possible, then he would probably do something like -
a) Type "PCI" into google.
b) look at a bunch of web sites. Mark them down.
c) call the client - "Hey a bunch of guys are
using your trademark illegally. Want me to make them stop?" (Yes, please make them stop)
d) Write a form letter..Mail it registered..make sure all t's are crossed, i's dotted. After all we make $100/hour crossing t's and dotting i's!
e) Collect bonus at end of year for getting extra
hours -
See
http://www.schwabe.com/benefits.asp#compensation

Take off every 'SIG'

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what you doing.
Move 'SIG'
For great justice.

Karma bonus now a user option

[autopr0n]

Go to Preffrences/comments, go down to "Karma Bonus" and set it to one, and sanity will return to the world (for you at least)

another way of looking at this...

[alizard]

Perhaps this is just the PCI organization's way to encourage us to develop for Firewire, USB2, the serial replacement for IDE, etc. as they march into the future hand in hand with Microsoft.

At this point, most Linux users have to choose hardware devices based on what's really supported. If there are going to be no more PCI bus devices supported, we have to buy something else as end users, business, and enterprise owners.

Since the guy works for IBM, perhaps he can tell his company that the PCI vendor association no longer wants PCI supported in the Linux environment and if they want to sell IBM PC hardware that supports Linux, using the PCI bus is no longer an option.

That way, everybody wins, right?

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really (Hijack request)

[mjolner]

I wish I had mod status because I want to mod you up. This seems the likeliest.

Useful standard

[Anonymous Coward]

For me PCI seemed very useful BECAUSE the information available about it: all the peripherals, the standard etc. If they decide to go the way of closing the shop it would be a great loss.

You're wrong

[autopr0n]

Old and busted: Users with 25+ karma have their posts modded up by one automatically.

New hotness: Users with 25+ karma have a 'karma bonus'. The karma bonus is just a bit saying that the post carries the karma bonus. on your preferences page you can go in and assign a value for the karma bonus, this value can be anywhere from -6 to +6, and will be added to the moderation post of any post that has a karma bonus. The default value is zero, so everyone who was posting at 2 now appears to be posting at 1.

It's nice how they let us know about little changes like this. I'm sure they're not getting any email from anyone asking what happened to their bonus.

Re:You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sweet. I always hated the idea of people being able to say their posts are by default always better than anybody else's. Even for OT and stupid posts. They should earn the right every time. Maybe I'll have to start clocking the default threshold down.

Re:You're wrong

[blurfus]

I stand corrected... thank you

How to avoid C&D letters?

[IpSo_]

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about. ;)

Copyright your full name. Anywhere you write it, copyright it. Then if you recieve a C&D letter with your copy written name on it, you have recourse against the company sending the letter.

For a good read with lots of interesting information and laughs, dig up information about this fellow:

David-Wynn: Miller. (notice the way he _always_ writes his name)
http://www.dwmlc.com/

I've heard stories where he has gone to court and ordered the sheriff to put the judge in jail, on many occasions. No he has no special powers, just simply a good understanding of the law and some funky "mathmatical" language. (read the first paragraph on his site) Apparently any one can do it.

Re:How to avoid C&D letters?

[IpSo_]

Err, this might help too:

http://www.dwmlc.com/Docs/copyclaim.html

Re:How to avoid C&D letters?

[wolf-]

I'd suggest a visitor read the "About Us" page pretty quickly. else it all seems like gobblydee gook. After you understand his basic premise, one can begin understanding the writings rather quickly.

Re:How to avoid C&D letters?

[josh crawley]

His writing seems rather Orwellian, doesnt it?

It's also in the linux source tree

[archnerd]

It's also in the kernel source tree: $PATHOFSOURCETREE/drivers/pci/pci.ids

Therefore, I don't think there's any danger of it being lost :-)

PCI Lists -- Current Status

[Jim Boemler]

I'm new to slashdot, so please be gentle. :-)

There's been quite an outpouring of support for me and the Lists since I took them down two days ago. I'm gratified by that -- it's nice to know that what I've been doing has been of benefit to people.
I've spent the last hour or so talking with the President of the PCI-SIG. He's been very gracious, and has accepted responsibility for the lawyer's actions (though more due to his inaction than a desire to get the lawyer involved). We will be meeting next week to discuss how to proceed. While I still consider the net effect to be pretty outrageous (at least until measured against the rest of our litigious society), I want to stress that the President didn't start this ball rolling consciously, and is making a good faith effort to find a reasonable solution.
The SIG has been flooded by mail on this issue, enough that it's keeping them from doing their real work. They really have gotten the message from the PCI community at this point, so I'd ask you to think twice before sending them more mail on the subject. I'll keep the web site updated as things progress.
jim

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[drayzel]

I notice that Tony Pierce of MS is on the Board at PCI-SIG. You may wnat to point out that their Knowledge base article q298837 points customers to www.yourvote.com/pci in order to ID unknown devices. I wrote the article and KNOW for a fact it is used daily be MS support techs while assisting customers.

~Z

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[Gabrill]

Make that " . . . WAS used daily . . ." It's evil, really, but I love it when overcontrolling lawyers get their *sses bit because they decided to make a comission on a useless and frivoulous lawsuit.

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucker moderators wouldn't know humor if it unmasked and interrupted them.

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[wcdw]

Jim, I read the cease-and-desist order, as well as the rant which has replaced the former site. And, well, all I can say is, don't you think you're overreacting???

As far as I can tell, PCI-SIG objects to the use of "PCI-SIG" and their logo, both of which seem to be reasonable objections on their part. Your site is NOT actually connected with theirs, after all.

So why not simply remove those two items and keep this list up? It almost sounds to me like you were tired of doing it, and this was just a convenient excuse.

As far as the letters "PCI" go, it is naive to believe that PCI-SIG can enforce the use or non-use of those letters in any way, shape or form. There are more than sufficient legal precedents which parallel how this mark has become a household word - and even if that were not the case, a simple addition of the appropriate R/C/SM/TM symbol, possibly with a footnote disclaimer, should more than cover the issue.

So all in all I must be missing something, as I just don't see what the big deal is all about.

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[rew]

Hi Jim,

I can't find any way to contact you: No email addresses anywhere. You may want to fix that....

My understanding as a non-lawyer is that they can force you to stop using the logo. They might also be able to stop you from using the letters PCI if you were to refer to something that they didn't want to be called PCI.

So, IMHO, you'd be OK if you just remove the logo from your site.

Also, if they disagree with the content on your site, they have a valid claim to want to distantiate themselves from it. However, you now have written proof that they WANT to be associated with the information on your site: they are saying they want your information on their own site!

Anyway, good luck with the meeting next week!

Roger.

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[leandrod]

> I'd ask you to think twice before sending them more mail on the subject. I'll keep the web site updated as things progress.

So please tone down the text on your site, the way it still is, it is calling for strong action from everyone.

Re:PCI Lists -- Current Status

[Jim Boemler]

You're quite right -- I'm in the other window updating the web site as we speak.

Wayback Machine

[virtigex]

Here is the Wayback Machine's version of the list. Links to the raw data are also in The Machine.

I can see how the PCI-SIG might have a case for objecting to the use of the logo - you usually have to be a member to use that. Attibuting the PCI name might have alleviated the situation also.

Maybe we should reverse all the standard abbr

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let make it copyleft by reverse all the standard abbreviation from now on. Let make PCI to ICP, TCP/IP to PI\PCT, SNA to ANS, ANSII to IISNA, and so on and so on....

It seems like ego versus reality

[Anonymous Coward]

If his true intent is to help the open source community then he should just remove the logo and drive-on. It doe not appear the PCI-SIG was opposed to his collecting and disseminating the information. Rather, they were only concerned with his use of their logo. Remmber, here on slashdot information wants to be free. It seems Jim is holding it hostage because of his ego.

Tradmark info, PCI link

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) defines trademarks and service marks as follows:

"A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product." Furthermore, "a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services."

Also a very intresting link:
http://www.nameprotect.com/cgi-bin/FREESear ch/sear ch.cgi?action=SEARCH&db=PTO&ss=PCI&imageField.x=9& imageField.y=6

Someone wanted a copy of the site??

[Anonymous Coward]

http://web.archive.org/web/20010802034009/http://w ww.yourvote.com/pci/
What a cool thing that wayback machine is ;O)

Re:Someone wanted a copy of the site??

[cwsulliv]

Too late it seems.

why not?

[sister_snape]

Well, I don't think the lawyers could say anything if the name changed to "ICP-backwards". :-)

Re:rename it to: Kazaa-PCI_List

[Gabrill]

Sounds like it's time for a decentralized database.

They are very right.

[man_ls]

Anyone using the letters PCI, meaning Pheripheral Component Interconnect, and referring to computer expansion cards, is violating their trademark.

EVEN MORE SO by even going as far as to use the PCI logo.

PCI-SIG controls the intellectual property of their name. I don't think the issue was that they were associating themselves with the PCI spec group, but rather, that the service was associating itself with said group, without their consent.

Someone could (IANAL) legally use the word PCI in "PCI Computers" referring to a local comptuer store..."PCI Systems" is a little bit closer to infringement that might not hold up. And of course, if you use PCI when referring to anything other than computers (or even just something other than a computer bus or data bandwidth) they've got nothing on you.

For once, this is a case of the company/IP Holder taking appropriate action. And people still get mad.

MS article q298837

[drayzel]

There is a technical article in the Microsoft knowledge base that shows users how to identify their PCI devices using their device ID's.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=K B; en-us;q298837

I wrote this article while employed as a MS Win/ME customer support technician. It refers customers to www.yourvote.com/pci! I referenced yourvote because there is NO other easily availble database-- not even internal to Microsoft! I wonder what they plan on doing now? Ironic how MS is a member of the PCI SIG...

I guess I'll have to go back to my old method of searching the linux source code for device ID's, maybe MS should also update Q298837 :)

~Z

Change the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just call it the

"Peripheral Component Interconnect List" since thats what PCI really stands for?

how about APCI ?

[styxlord]

Allegedly PCI

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really (Hijack request)

[Anonymous Coward]

"The amicability of the letter is the saccharine smile of a psychopath asking for your car key so he can park it for you."

I'll give you ten dollars for every third word in that sentence.

Any reasionable persion would do the same.

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak to people if you have minor problems you call a lawyer when you are preparing for a fight.

This was a vailed threat. Give us control of your web site or we will take you to court for trademark infringment, plain and simple.

This is likely

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't post my name but I'm in charge of the domain for a fairly large transportation company. I won't explain what that means, but simply accept it.

Often, people will post information about our company and its operation. I don't know why they do it, and who cares.

When the marketing people find these sites, they immediately send a cease-and-desist. I try to explain that these people are customers and enjoy our site. That they help our brand by encouraging our customers and fans.

Marketing says "no, it dilutes our brand, there will be confusion blah blah blah" and they piss off our best customers via our legal staff. Its pointless. I think they need something to do with their spare time.

So I go out of my way to make sure marketing doesn't see the sites. Its stupid. It serves no one except someone thinks they're a fucking geniuses and they're not.

Sometimes you're giving people too much credit. Mostly people do dumb things because they're dumb.

Let's call it QDJ

[sunset]

Make it "the free QDJ device table". Rename every occurrence in the kernel and utilities also. We'll all use the "lsqdj" command to see what QDJ devices are installed.

And don't explain anywhere that it really means PCI. Let it become a permanent mockery of corporate stupidity, and let the PCI-SIG forever live with the confusion and embarrassment that results.

They don't even have the word mark on PCI

[Animats]

PCI-SIG doesn't even have a registered trademark on "PCI" as a word mark. You can register a word mark if your word or phrase is unique enough, but that's not what their trademark covers. They only have coverage for their graphic logo design. Probably because the PTO wouldn't let them have exclusive rights to the three letters "PCI". They're trying to file "PCI SIG" as a word mark, and that shows as approved for issue but not yet issued, after several go-rounds with the PTO.

They're within their rights in asking that this guy pull the use of their logo, but beyond that, both they and he are overreacting.

Click here to search trademarks and verify this.

Re:They don't even have the word mark on PCI

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Don't people try and communicate anymore? Yes, some threat of legal action is scary, but it's all these companies know. But just because they are over-reacting, doesn't mean you have to.

I've been contacted by a large company because of some software I'd written. Not be laywers, but direct. However they were bandying about words such as 'illegal use' and so forth.

But guess what? I opened a dialogue with them, and we reached a mutually beneficial conclusion. I didn't need to pull down or compromise my software, and the company in question doesn't get bad rep from me bad-mouthing them on my website.

If you pull down your website because of a flimsy legal threat, you're really no better than them.

Re:They don't even have the word mark on PCI

[0x0d0a]

If you pull down your website because of a flimsy legal threat, you're really no better than them.

Bullshit.

On one hand, we have a large, well-funded organization with a legal team making threats to sue (which is what a C&D letter *is*).

On the other hand, we have a guy who has been volunteering his time and money for years to support all the people in the community. He has been making no money, and costing said organization nothing.

RTFA

[achurch]

Especially since all they wanted was the logo removed and it was Jim that decided to take down the site in protest.

From the C&D (emphasis mine):

It has recently come to our client's attention that you are using the PCI(R) name and logo . . . Your use of PCI-SIG's trademark name and logo on your website is likely to cause consumer confusion . . . We therefore request that you immediately discontinue all use of the name PCI and the accompanying logo . . .

Re:RTFA

[AyeRoxor!]

I R'dTFA. My point is that he felt he needed to take the site down for whatever reason; either because he felt more problems would come in the future, or just to make a point. My point is that this situation did not need to occur in the first place.

Easy there, tiger...

P C I

[Bruha]

If I'm not mistaken thoes letters have existed for centuries?

Dude ignore them! I dont think they hold any patents on the english alphabet.

Archived/Mirrored at least twice!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the data is not completely gone.

Gentlemen, start your mirrors.

hmm

[smash]

Am I the only one who noticed the attached trademark document states that its valid for *10 years* from Sep 24th, 1992?

Ie, its expired?

smash

PCI has a lot of meanings...

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject. Many meanings, such as Per Capita Income.

3 letters

[Anonymous Coward]

PCI

Please note that the above strong lacks any trademark of any kind. To further smuge the name PCI, one needs to use it in various ways:

• I like to PCIify my bus.
• The name of my bus is PCI.
• I have a PCI compatible device.
• The PCI SIG lawyers can kiss my PCI!

Tuff nuggies PCI-SGI folks!

Re:3 letters

[Anonymous Coward]

> Tuff nuggies PCI-SGI folks!

What does SGI have to do with PCI?

A small word of advice...

[localman]

Keep your lawyers on a leash, for god's sake!

Why is it that so many orgnanizations give their lawyers free reign with the public? Lawyers are scary and should be handled like brawny security personel or other "unfortunate necessities" of business. As it is they're practically running PR for many organizations - and they're sure doing a bang-up job.

Cheers

PCI is dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter - 2 years from now they'll be fscked anyways. Bring on HyperTransport I say.

(yeah, yeah, out of the frying pan...)

Besides, it's a generic verb now - not a "tradmark". PCI-SIG might be, but PCI describes a bus design/protocol.

unPCI

[slashCat]

Just call it unPCI or openPCI

Did you even do the search?

[zjbs14]

Searched, found registration 2623790 for trademark PCI owned by PCI-SIG. First line on the registration details under the logo:

Word Mark PCI

So, yes, they do have a registered trademark on the word PCI. To register a work mark, it doesn't need to be universally distinct, just distinct enough in the particular class you register it in.

Re:Did you even do the search?

[Animats]

It's confusing. For trademark #2623790, there's a picture, and "Drawing type" is "Design plus words, letters, and/or numbers". The trademarked form is the picture. Trademarks for which only the text, not the form, matter are typically trademarked with a "typed drawing". You only get one trademark per registration; if you want the word as text and some specific logo form, you have to register both.

It's confusing, because the PTO requires a "drawing" even for text trademarks. But "Typed drawing" means "the pictorial form doesn't matter, we're claiming the text in all formats".

See TMEP 807.09, "Circumstances under which a Typed Drawing may not be used."

You can take a site down, but it remains published

[Yautja]

Don't know why people bother getting other people to take down web sites, really.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011025014320/http://w ww.yourvote.com/pci/

Boycott ;-)

[RAMMS EIN]

Fortunately, I still use a IBM PC that doesn't have PCI. But wait...IBM is another TLA. Argh..

Simple solution

[Zog The Undeniable]

"Free list of expansion cards that fit in white slots"

Not how this works

[0x0d0a]

The way I understand this, he was offering a great service, they had a small problem with some of the format he presented the info, they come to him in a legal way to try and get this resolved (nicely) and he desides to shut down his service. Why is he shutting down? Sounds to me like he's shutting down out of spite

I don't buy it. This might be appropriate if one were to be dealing with another company, but this guy is working out of the same sort of community spirit that powers the open source world. He wasn't making money off this. I think he more than has the right to be treated as a person, with a non-legalistic phone call first.

Furthermore, I completely understand his reaction. He's someone who has put significant personal resources into doing something which helped this company. Are they legally required to be nice in return? No. But I think that it's quite reasonable to expect them to be on simple common courtesy grounds.

Completely different

[0x0d0a]

I don't see what's wrong with this, nobody objects to IBM's right to trademark "IBM".

I didn't see Jim say *anything* about PCI-SIG not being able to trademark "PCI". He was upset about not being able to use "PCI" to name, well, a list of PCI devices.

The difference is that if I make a website reading "Timeline of IBM Software Releases", *IBM* doesn't try and sue me for infringing their trademark.

You can't always.

[gilesjuk]

I know you were joking, but anyway:

Most chips these days have the PCI interface logic embedded into them, that's why you see some boards with just a single chip and a few capacitors.

Even some embedded products with no PCI slots have to use a PCI interface to communicate.

Corporate politics

[0x0d0a]

I've spent the last hour or so talking with the President of the PCI-SIG.

IIRC, isn't the PCI-SIG President also an IBM employee?

Given that, I'm kind of frusterated with the entire "why don't you simply talk with your employer (IBM) and maybe you can give them (IBM) rights to your database" bit that was aimed at you.

Perhaps it sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, but what would you *expect* from someone trying to get control of the database and screwing up to say, especially after the mass outcry from PCI-SIG members, including statements that they will seek the ouster of the responsible party? "I did it carefully and deliberately, and I'm glad about it?" Heck, no. "Gee, I simply sort of overlooked it, and I can't really be blamed, but I accept full responsibility" is more along the lines of what I'd expect, and is what I got.

It simply blows the mind, corporate politicking.

My thoughts are with you -- perhaps PCI-SIG will end up compensating you for some of your efforts over the years, by way of apology.

Re:Corporate politics

[Jim Boemler]

I had some of the same thoughts, but only momentarily. First, the world really isn't full of JR Ewings. Second, having worked for IBM for years, I can tell you that they would wrap themselves into a pretzel to avoid even the HINT of dealing in bad faith. While of course there can always be a bad apple, I've never seen IBM behave in less than an exemplary fashion in a legal venue -- I have absolutely ZERO concern that IBM is behind this.

jim

PIG-SIC

[An Enormous Coward]

Just replace all references to PCI-SIG with PIG-SIC and crash bang you're away again, rock and roll music.

$$$ Armpoles

[Crass Spektakel]

That stobid armpoles should pay him $$$ for his great service which made them earn $$$$$$ and not piss him out of habit.

The Boston Tea Party

[Anonymous Coward]

... was next to nothing to do with overbearing taxation. Quite the opposite, in fact. Just for a bit of background; the average tax burden on the British mainland at the time was 22 shillings, whereas that of your typical colonist would have been around 1 shilling. The Boston Tea Party was actually perpetrated by a host of smugglers, annoyed by the loss of their margins on the importation of tea; it had become legally importable at prices which were uneconomic for smugglers to compete with.

That marriage of economic interests and the bludgeon seems kinda familiar now, doesn't it?

Law requires companies to enforce their trademark

[quax]

If companies do not aggressively enforce their trademark they run the risk of loosing it.

That is why we have to witness appalling things like this over and over again.

If the trademark laws were a little bit less restive in this area, companies would not behave like school-yard bullies all the time. Then again observing M$ success most companies executives probably already concluded that this is just the way to success.

You're missing one big point

[dark-nl]

He no longer wants to host the list. It's gone completely sour for him. Shutting down the site is a simple and direct consequence of that. No ulterior motives needed.

Sure, he could jump through various hoops to keep the list up, and continue to provide this valuable service at his own expense. But why should he?

"PCI": a not so special acronym

[Pat Ent]

Hi!

Here are the first 10 hits of a GOOGLE search for "PCI" (somewhat edited by me). As you see, the Term is not that individual...

1. PCI Geomatics Home Page - Committed to GEO-Intelligence Solutions
   PCI Geomatics is a worldwide-class leader in the geomatics software industry. ...
   Description: Software provider for remote sensing, photogrammetry, cartography, spatial analysis, and GIS.
2. PCI News
   Welcome to the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, with membership throughout the world. ...
   Description: Organizational site includes trade, technical and public affairs information for precast/prestressed...
3. PCI-SIG - Home
   PCI-SIG Logo, ... Free Members Only Technical Support View the PCI-SIG Integrators
   Description: Unincorporated association of members of the microcomputer industry set up to for the purpose of monitori...
4. pci.chadwyck.com/
   [Periodicals Contents Index]
5. pcift.chadwyck.co.uk/
   [Periodicals Contents Index]
6. PLANEX COMMUNICATIONS INC.
   The summary for this Japanese page contains characters that cannot be correctly displayed in this language/character set.
7. pci.chadwyck.co.uk/ [Periodicals Contents Index]
8. PCI Vendor and Device Lists
   PCI Vendor and Device Lists. This page is primarily intended as an engineering resource for people who need to deal with computers built around the PCI bus.
9. PCI Technologies Inc. designs and manufactures custom and ...
   Description: Designs and manufactures filters and traps, as well as test signal generators and splitting/combining...
10. PICMG - PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group
    The PICMG (PCI Industrial Computer Manufacturers Group) is a consortium of over 250 companies who collaboratively develop specifications that adapt PCI ...
    

Bye, Pat!

Apple II slots (was Re:Boycott!)

[n1ywb]

Did the Apple II bus architecture even have a name? I could never quite get over the fact that certain slots could only be used for certain devices. Well except for slot 7. One general purpose slot... On the other hand a lot of shit seemed to be happy plugging into slot 3, like my lego logo card.

Someday maybe I'll bust out the old IIgs again and try to get some answers, just for shits.

Re:Apple II slots (was Re:Boycott!)

[ncc74656]

Did the Apple II bus architecture even have a name?

IIRC, no.

I could never quite get over the fact that certain slots could only be used for certain devices.

You could put a floppy controller somewhere other than slot 6 if you wanted, and it would work just fine. You could do the same with most devices. If your card had firmware in the $Cx00-$CxFF space, you were supposed to use no JMPs/JSRs within that space so that your code would work in any slot. However, established convention was to have certain types of devices in certain slots, especially since many (most?) programs were hard-coded to expect the printer to be in slot 1, the 80-column card in slot 3, etc. That the Apple II looked in higher-numbered slots first when it booted meant that disk controllers tended to go in the higher-numbered slots (6 for 5.25", 5 for 3.5", and 7 for SCSI, IDE, or other hard-disk controllers). The exception was the IIGS, which let you pick any slot as a boot device. (I have a SCSI card in slot 1 as a result...it was in slot 7 before, but LocalTalk won't work if a card is in slot 7.)

Sourceforge has the PCI ID list, as well...

[QS6dot2]

http://pciids.sourceforge.net/

As an intresting note

[Anonymous Coward]

From netcraft:

The site pcisig.com is running Apache/1.3.9 on Linux.

Since they are so fond of trademarks and legal garbage shouldn't they be running a closed source product.

Nope

[Andy Dodd]

It's still the case. It's easier and cheaper to come to a nice agreement than to sue someone's butt off. It also makes it easier to negotiate another agreement if they happen to later wind up infringing on another one of your patents. (Especially since in many cases that someone might happen to discover that they have patents you're infringing on, at which point they countersue and things get nasty.)

Non-Profit?

[Snover]

According to the letter that was (supposedly) sent, PCI-SIG Incorporated is a non-profit organization, which is why this pretty much boggles my mind. What would a non-profit have to gain by threatening to sue some guy that was using their logo and their freaking three-letter acronym that is used on billions of other sites to describe their technology?
Hopefully someone reads this and responds. I'd appreciate it.

Re:I mean, c'mon now, really (Hijack request)

[GreyPoopon]

What they are asking him to do is to hand over his database to them for free

Which I believe he had already expressed a willingness to do... five years prior.

...the use of the PCI logo is also queationable.

I started to say that I don't think nailing him on the PCI logo is questionable, but then I remembered that they've known about his site for more than five years. I wonder how long is too long....

I'd suggest (IANAL) that he simply remove any copies of the PCI logo and put up a disclaimer that he has absolutely no affiliation with the PCI-SIG group other than the fact that they tried to shut down his website and hi-jack the database from him.

I see this as a far more preferable alternative than the path he took.

web.archive of 2001 PCI list

[deckmanz]

For those who would like to see what the page looked like, this is the last one i could find: click here its dated Oct. 25th, 2001

Re:rename it to PnP

[waterbug]

as in,

PnP's Not PCI!

Stupid companies

[Nawak]

Instead of paying lawyers for this letter, they should have paid the PCI-list guy to do his job on a PCI-sig server so the whole 'trademark' problem would be inexistent!
This list is something they should have done themselves! And now instead of supporting it, they do rude moves and make it close!
It's a lose-lose here!

GART

[Paul Jakma]

Most of the features that AGP adds to a PCI slot aren't useful for other devices.

Such as speed and an IO-MMU?

Very little except a video card can use the GART

A device doesnt use the GART, the OS programmes the GART. The GART is an IO-MMU, same as the more sophisticated types of IO-MMUs that can be found on many 64bit systems, eg Sparc64, PPC64 and Alpha. Used to, eg, work around limitations of devices/buses without having to resort to performance sapping tricks (eg copying data around in system memory). eg 32 bit address capable bus and 64 bit system address space, or hardware that cant do scatter gather, or to avoid use of PCI's DAC (Dual Address Cycle -> 64 bit addressing, but takes 2 bus cycles).

So GART, or at least the concept of being able to arbitrarily map bus to physical addresses is not at all limited to video cards. Indeed, IUI, the GART is available to all AGP and PCI devices (presuming they all sit behind the same northbridge).

Main reason, AIUI, that you dont see multiple AGP slots is that AGP is limited to one device per bus. Which would means you'd need dedicated AGP bridge and board traces for each slot - extra expense. And no one makes non-video card AGP devices, so who's going to bother? Though it could be useful for dual-head. Never heard of a board with dual-AGP though.

PCI Database Back On Line

[Jim Boemler]

I met today with officials of the PCI-SIG, who are very motivated to serve the interests of you guys, the site users who have posted here and contacted them directly. It was a positive exchange, and we're still talking about what will happen to the site.

In the meantime, I've agreed to put the site back on line temporarily, with some cosmetic changes. It's worth noting that it was the SIG who wanted to see the site back up as early as possible. For whatever problems they've caused, they are making a good faith effort to solve them, and to be sure your needs are served. They heard you!

So I just wanted to let you know that as more happens, I'll post the situation on the web site. And, I wanted to thank all of you for your involvement, including those who have been critical of me in this. This community is stronger than any of us realized.

jim

seems to be resolved...per email from tony pierce

[mnewton]

just received this a few minutes ago...

[email]
Dear PCI Community,

The PCI Vendor and Device Lists located at http://www.yourvote.com/pci/ have been restored. The PCI-SIG recognizes the value of Jim Boemler's Web site and our officers have worked with him to restore it.

We are committed to working with Jim and the rest of the community to ensure this service is not interrupted in the future.

Thank you for your continued support of our technologies. We will keep you informed with any other updates.

Best Regards,
Tony Pierce
PCI-SIG Chairman

Last Post!

[alpg]

Fly Windows NT:
All the passengers carry their seats out onto the tarmac, placing the chairs
in the outline of a plane. They all sit down, flap their arms and make jet
swooshing sounds as if they are flying.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...