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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

rename it to:

[scubacuda]

not-PCI

Could they still get you on that?

Re:rename it to:

[Alien Being]

The bus formerly known as Prince?

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!

[djmoore]

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

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

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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?

[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.

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

[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.

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.

'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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

[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

[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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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...

Or GNPCI?

[Logger]

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

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps he should change the name...

[cgenman]

...to FPCI.org

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

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.

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

The site formerly known as PCI

[dfcox530]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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)

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

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!

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

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.

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

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...

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

[grolschie]

http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

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

[grolschie]

Let your voice be heard: http://www.pcisig.com/feedback

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.

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..)

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.

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

[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

[Jim Boemler]

You're quite right -- I'm in the other window updating the web site as we speak.

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.

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.

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.)

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

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!