Slashdot Mirror


SSC Trademark Threats vs LinuxGazette.net

Zelligar writes "You may want to check into the brewing trademark issues between SSC/linuxgazette.com and the linuxgazette.net people - linuxgazette is a volunteer gazette, hosted by SSC for a while, and now SSC is taking it over - and threatening trademark litigation to boot! Here is one story and another on the subject."

25 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry. SCO will sue SSC out of business. For one thing, it is involved with Linux. For another, it sounds too much like SCO anyway (both in name and action)

    There can only be ONE company that files frivolous lawsuits about Linux!!!!

  2. Come on... by loucura! · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are required by law to proactively defend their trademark or they lose the protection. This story brings me to conclude that it must be a slow news day.

    --
    Black and grey are both shades of white.
    1. Re:Come on... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're not required by law to proactively defend an invalid trademark. I'd say any "trademark" with the word "Linux" in it not owned by Linus Torvalds has a shaky foundation. It's not like I can trademark "Pepsi News" or "McDonald's Customers".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Come on... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is, they applied for the trademark on October 28th, 2003. This, of course, is the same exact day that the other people decided to split off from them. And this isn't "a few contributors", this is *all the staff*. Basically the only people left at Linuxgazette.com are SSC's people -- everyone who actually worked on Linuxgazette has left.

      So yeah. Something's fishy here. Not sure what, but the impression I got (from the article and the emails posted to LWN) was that:

      SSC basically offered them hosting space for a long period of time.

      Having done so, SSC has basically started taking over recently, changing LinuxGazette.com from a newspaper type website to a blog/slashdot type "Content Managment System" site. This includes them taking older articles that were published under the OPL an removing the copyright notice, modifying articles at will without telling anyone (or even asking), and stuff like that. The only reason anyone noticed they were modifying articles was the original staff kept mirrors of the issues elsewhere, which were unedited.

      The founders/authors weren't happy with this, so they decided rather than fight it, they'd just split off to "the other Linuxgazette" and poiltely request that SSC rename Linuxgazette.com and give them back their domain name.

      SSC decides that hey, since they were hosting LinuxGazette.com, they now own LinuxGazette.*, and trademarks the name in reply to them deciding to leave.

      Am I close? Anyone got any corrections to offer?

  3. Re:Does anyone care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the executive summary:

    linuxgazette.com changed the way their site works by using a content management system. Some frequent contributors decided they didn't like it so they registered linuxgazette.net and copied the logos and name to the new site. linuxgazette.com said that as long as that is the case they will not allow links to that site from theirs.

    This is a silly total non-issue.

  4. This sounds abit overblown by MooCows · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong:

    Summary:

    1. Things changed at linuxgazette.com
    2. Some contributers didn't like it (neither do I), and started their own site.
    3. They were bright enough to use linuxgazette.net (of all places) for their new site. (even stealing the logo design)
    4. linuxgazette.com doesn't like it, and tells linuxgazette.net to start their own site if they want, but not with the linuxgazette name.
    5. linuxgazette.net doesn't agree, and the threats start to fly
    (6. Profit?)

    All very reasonable if you ask me .. what if SCO started using something like "L1nux" for their new OS eh? :P

    --
    The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
    30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
    1. Re:This sounds abit overblown by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here's another view on things. From this view:

      1. Linuxgazette.com is taken over by an entity with the power to do so. (Because it provided sponsorship and hosting)
      2. The original contributors, believing themselves to be the real Linux Gazette, move the site to a different hosting service, grabbing LinuxGazette.net to use as the domain service. They feel justified in doing this because they consider themselves, the actual authors of the magazine, to be the magazine.
      3. Because they believe themselves to be the magazine, they have no problems using the name and logo.
      4. The sponsor and host of the "old" LinuxGazette is taken aback by this and the fact that it had less control over the magazine than it thought, and tells the contibutors to at least disassociate themselves with the original.
      5. Threats fly.

      I suspect the truth lies in the middle. Either way, neither has a legitimate legal claim to the LinuxGazette name unless they've negotiated with Linus Torvalds who owns the Linux trademark. The .net people have probably the easiest exit, and therefore should probably be the people to buckle, not out of legal or (otherwise) moral requirement to do so, but to minimize confusion about what are clearly two seperate entities. That might be something as simple as calling it "NewLinuxGazette" or "RealLinuxGazette", if they feel strongly about what they see as having their publication taken from them.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. Forking a website? by scumdamn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Apparently a group of volunteers has decided to fork the Linux Gazzette website and didn't bother to change the name of it. This doesn't sound like a big draconian company taking over a volunteer publication and beginning to sue everyone in site. It's more of a proper use of trademark law to me.

    1. Re:Forking a website? by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But according to Rick Moen. http://lwn.net/Articles/58065/

      LinuxGazette was founded by a group, it was hosted independantly for a short period of time.

      SSC provided hosting for many years and things got closer. They even paid for some writers.

      Now they are leaving, and taking their name with them.
      SSC thinks they own LinuxGazette, The volunteer group does not.

      I think it will be interesting to see how SSC proves they own the name.

  6. Trademark by nuggz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who owns the trademark?

    Is it a valid trademark?
    If the volunteer organization used the name linuxgazette before it was registered by SSC, it is likely not a valid trademark.

    I love to see litigation happy companies lose and come out behind.
    The Word Wresting Federation against the World Wildlife Fund was fun.

    1. Re:Trademark by loucura! · · Score: 3, Informative

      SSC owns the trademark, the "volunteer organisation" is made up of people who used to contribute to the SSC/linuxgazette.com site, and got angry that they migrated to a CMS, so they split and took the name. That sort of hijacking is what trademark law is for.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    2. Re:Trademark by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you'd like to read their side of the story?

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    3. Re:Trademark by urulokion · · Score: 5, Informative
      I smell something very fishy going on. And I don't the Linux Gazette volunterrs. I wondered who had the trademark to "Linux Gazette". I ran the TM search and guess what I found.
      Word Mark LINUX GAZETTE
      Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Publication of Journal. FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
      Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
      Serial Number 78319880
      Filing Date October 28, 2003
      Current Filing Basis 1A
      Original Filing Basis 1A
      Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
      Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

      There is a trademark registered to SSC. But the application date was Oct 28,2003. The very same day that Rick Moen notified Phil Hugh that they were moving the magazine accord to the LWN article.

      SSC is playing dirty pool not the other around.

    4. Re:Trademark by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      cince when does a company automatically get to claim ownership of something that others created?

      SSC is trying to hijack the ownership of Linux Gazette. It was never EVER sold to them. they graciousally offered to host them.

      SSC are being the asshats. they dont OWN Linux Gazette, they never OWNED linux Gazette, and nothing can change that fact.

      SSC lost me when they made the Linux Journal into the ZiffDavis type crap it is today. the LJ used to be of the quality of Linux Format, a british Linux mag that is the best you can get today.

      this crud they are trying to pull only amplifies what is wrong in SSC.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Trademark by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you had checked the USPTO website, SSC registered the trademark on October 28th, 2003, or after this dispute had begun. The Whois has the domain registration in 1997 by SSC after the Linux Gazette had been publishing for 2 years.

      Issues have been copyright John Fisk, SSC, and the Linux Gazette group. All copyrights are also retained by the original authors.

      Actual ownership of the trademark will be a hairy one to sort out.

    6. Re:Trademark by bizcoach · · Score: 3, Informative
      Exactly why should we care about this dispute?

      Because it teaches to clarify matters of trademark ownership early on. Right when LG started establishing a close relationship with SSC they should have made a contract that clarifies the question of who owns the trademark in case the relationship becomes sour.

      As things are (without contract, and with no payment having been received by the original creators of LinuxGazette in exchange for trademark rights), I think that the linuxgazette.net folks are probably not guilty of any trademark violation when using the LinuxGazette name.

      However, IANAL, and would be interested in reading comments from a lawyer on this matter.

  7. And now the other side of the coin.... by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See http://linuxgazette.net/ for the traditional Linux Gazette. Ah, feel at home? Good.

    http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html is part of their side of the story.

    Personally, I think the CMS site sucks and goes against the spirit of what Linux Gazette has been for years.

    --
    Anything is possible given time and money.
  8. Re:How Stupid by sapone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But what if it was not a copycat site but a site made by some of the people who who ran the first site?

    This is about a volunteer project, and the projecst has split. Who is to say which of the two groups can keep the name and which cannot?

    Sebastian

  9. Re:How Stupid by sapone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > linuxgazette.com was first, and linuxgazzete.net is a ripoff of the .com

    Of course the website "linuxgazette.com" existed before; but now many (most? all?) of the volunteers who ran this project (and who see themselves as "Linux Gazette" have created a new site, since the old one is no longer under their control. The company who once offered to host it now claims to own it. Read the linuxgazette.net side of the story at http://linuxgazette.net/issue96/reborn.html

    Quote:
    "SSC, the company who had been hosting - and, to some degree, supporting - our efforts since shortly after the inception of the Gazette has decided that it somehow belongs to them, to change, adapt - or to destroy - at their pleasure."

    > The law. That's how it works, braniac.
    But how do you know that the company is the rightful owner of the trademark and can do what it wants with it, without knowing about the agreements SSC had whith the linuxgazette people?

  10. Summary & More info by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 4, Informative

    As posted below, more info is found here : http://lwn.net/Articles/58065/

    A lot of people aren't reading the links - here is a summary (again) :

    Linuxgazette.com - originally founded by a group of volunteers.

    SSC offered to host them, whee - works great.

    SSC took over editing at some point

    SSC changed the entire look/feel of the site, trashed the articles at will, and basically started locking out the original founders.

    the founders took their content to linuxgazette.net

    SSC, in the form of linuxgazette.com, is unhappy with the .net folks for continuing to use the name.

    IMHO - SSC should be ashamed for its bullying tactics. They should change the name of linuxgazette.com to something else, and give it back to the founders.

  11. Even more info! by __aazrub2255 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first link on the main article are the SSC guys' comments on this, and the second link is the linuxgazette founders (.net) replies to his comments.

    Here is a link to the linuxgazette.net with their side of the story :

    Linux Gazette, Reborn

    Here are two links to the linuxgazette.com forums - lots of discussion in here from both sides. Be warned that the .com folks WILL DELETE any posting with the linuxgazette.net address in it. The censor stuff as they see fit.

    Forum: Anyone prefer the old site?

    Forum: New Site!


    Note that if you browse around the forums, a lot of things are broken. To view the forums in expanded format, most recent postings at the top, add &mode=2 to the URL. For example:

    http://www.linuxgazette.com/node/view/104&mode =2

  12. Internet Host claiming Internet Publication? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this the case I am reading about?

    It seems that the heart of the creative effort was at first merely hosted by SSC. But then SSC made contributions of its own. Does making contributions constitute ownership? If so, what portion of ownership is warranted? Even if they can own "part" of the trademark, how can they justify an assertion of wholely owning something they did not create from the beginning?

    Clearly there is more than meets the eye, but I feel there is essentially a common clash between commercial desires and those of serving a community. This is commonly mirrored by many things such as the community internet being overtaken by commercial interests at every turn.

    I do not wish to "take sides" but I think it is important to note that since the presence of the Amish in Pennsylvania has helped to maintain the level of tourist income, I think it would be appropriate to hang signs advertising other business activities on all "public faces" of the Amish community. The Amish, after all, owe a good part of their success to their popularity as a tourist attraction. It is only fair that they "give back" by permitting advertisers to hand huge signs from the backs and sides of their carts, wagons, horses and barns. We do not feel that a sign reading, "This barn raised, in part, by Rice-a-Roni(tm) the San Francisco Treat!(tm)" would be at all out of place or out of the question.

  13. Re:Does anyone care? by pantherace · · Score: 3, Interesting
    As mentioned other places, the trademark was applied for the same day the linux gazette staff sent a letter to them telling them they were moving it.

    SSC never owned the LG, and they have been removing at least one copyright. Essentially they were providing hosting. I would compare this to something being hosted on sourceforge.net, and then when you tell sf that you are moving away because you don't like something which conflicts with your ideas about the project, sf registers a trademark and becomes a legal jerk.

    I seriously doubt the above (sourceforge) group would do that, but it appears to have happened with SSC.

  14. SSC does not own the trademark by ClarkEvans · · Score: 3, Informative

    What SSC has is a *application* for a trademark, and no doubt this will be a disputed application. I suggest that the linuxgazette.NET people write the PTO and explain their side of the story before the trademark publishes... although, they probably have several months to do so. Trademarks take quite a bit of time. SSC's attempt to do a last-minute trademark file and then sue is not only mean spirited, but stupid.
    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=do c&state=h prn5r.2.1


    Word Mark LINUX GAZETTE
    Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Publication of Journal. FIRST USE: 19950701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19960801
    Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
    Serial Number 78319880
    Filing Date October 28, 2003
    Current Filing Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Owner (APPLICANT) Specialized Systems Consultants, Inc. CORPORATION 2208 NW Market St Suite 407 Seattle WASHINGTON 98107
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  15. SSC by fingusernames · · Score: 3, Informative

    I too am sick of the greed happening here. Fact: Linux Gazette was started by people other than SSC. SSC later hosted it. That doesn't mean they own it, doesn't mean they own the name. If SSC can show some legal documents saying otherwise, please show them. But I doubt they have such. Unfortunatly, some overly trusting person permitted SSC to register and own the linuxgazette.com domain name. Given the likely lack of other documentary evidence, that may count for something if this actually goes to court. Hopefully the fact that Linux Gazette existed prior to SSC's involvement will count for more.

    Another comment mentioned problems with their LJ subscription. I have subscribed since LJ was a thin little staple-bound magazine. I renewed my subscription yet again, a while ago, but the magazines stopped coming and I started getting bills. My AMEX card had been charged. So I figured no big deal, write email. I got a canned response stating that my payment had not been received. Responded that no, my card was charged, such and such date. No response. So I wrote a paper letter to their "customer service" address, with a copy of the AMEX statement and charge circled. No response. Sent another copy. No response. No magazines. Finally disputed it with AMEX, but too much time had passed.

    Final resort: looked up SSC's corporate records, sent a certified letter to their registered legal address, with copy of prior letter/statement copy, and said please either send my money back, or I will sue you. That got a a nearly INSTANT response, and a phone call. But no apology, just a request to discuss "this issue." They restarted my subscription.

    Given the poor customer service, the direction LJ has taken, and the behavior of SSC in this Linux Gazette issue, I won't be renewing my subscription either.

    Larry