Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent to Sue Over Trademark
joe 155 writes "The people at BitTorrent are to begin to
protect their rights through lawsuits if necessary: "The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware" They also plan to put into action a system where by people will have to pay a licence fee to use the name in the hope of cutting down on adware distribution."
I know that BT is used in many cases to distribute legitimate, legal content... but an article about BT protecting their intellectual property has to get a little chucle out of you.
Bury me in mashed potatoes.
Wont this just hurt the makers of Free/OSS software? They're the ones who can't afford this type of thing. The adware people are the ones making money, and as such, can pay the fee.
IIRC a Trademark is worthless unless it is defended. Defence against people misusing it is necessary for them to have the trademark upheld in the first place.
"They also plan to put into action a system where by people will have to pay a licence fee to use the name"
Game over.. But for who? Clients like azureus and utorrent, or for BitTorrent itself?
(Coming to a net near you : BitSwirl! Doing Everything(TM) BitTorrent never did!)
Bram Cohen obviously has the right to protect the name: the software is open source, the name is not. But more than that, he's protecting the reputation behind that name. He's not attacking the coders of Azureus, or even tracker-websites like UnrealTorrents that use part of the trademark in their name. No, he's going for people using his trademark maliciously...attacking spyware in the way that is easiest and best for him. Certainly this stirs more pots than just me running AdAware on my Windows box, no?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Have all these companies gone fee crazy? Next thing you know there will be a fee for posting on Slashdot to reduce the spam.
Won't this have the opposite impact, and just hurt open-source cleints like Azureus? Most open source projects can probably not afford to pay the license fee to use the BitTorrent name, whereas big adware/spyware vendors most certainly could (I'm thinking WhenU/Claria, here).
I wish we could deal with these situations in a less-civilized manner. I wish we could go back to locking them in the stocks and as a humorous twist, use their behinds as a pincushion for added effect. I think the intimidation factor would be increased a thousand fold. And believe you me, there ought to be such a punishment for people that hijack OSS software like that to make a sleazy dime.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
You didn't quite read the (very short) FA, before chiming in, now did you?
The idea is that they want to avoid that spyware - and adware pushers freeload on BitTorrents trademark.
Man, I'm sure that Mr. Pavlov would really love slashdot. You only oughta say "Patent", or "Lawyer" or "Microsoft" and the dogs go "Yapyapyap!"
Fascinating...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I can't agree with this move.
BitTorrent is not *just* the name of the software package (and I would agree with Bram on going after people who simply try to trade off the fame of the package), but also the name of the protocol, which many other packages than his own implement and have for some time. That may be unfortunate, but such is life. That protocol achieved public awareness by the number of servents available.
My guess is that "BitTorrent" is no longer trademarkable, given the amount of time that it has been in common use -- common use for a period of time without challenges does negate trademarks. However, the sorts of hobbyist programmers writing BitTorrent clients aren't the sorts who are going to mount a legal fight.
One possible fix would be doing what happened with trampolines. "Trampoline" with a capital "T" is trademarked, but "trampoline" simply refers to the device itself. Perhaps "BitTorrent" could refer to the software package, and "bittorrent" to the protocol. Still, I doubt that Bram would settle for this.
I really hope that people settle on another name for it (preferably with the same "bt" abbreviation) that is the same, instead of the name fragmenting into eight zillion different names (I remember Sony calling Firewire "iLink"...). "ByteTorrent?"
No matter what, it's a frusterating situation, that's for certain.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Trademark law requires that you defend your trademark to maintain it. That's not the case with copyright or patents.
As well, the point is to put a barrier to businesses which abuse the name. This isn't an attempt to stop people from talking about BitTorrent without a fee, or use BitTorrent without a fee.
I don't understand your WTF.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Exactly. My new client is The Program That Used To Be Known As BitTorrent.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name...to distribute spyware or adware
But...aren't these mostly illegal now anyways? Do they really think this will stop anything?
This will only help bittorrent not hinder it. By removing anyone offering harmfull content it will protect users therefore encouraging BT's usage.
There is a recent article - mentioned on
A secondary aspect of the current BitTorrent legal efforts might be to prevent BT from falling into the realm of Xerox, Hoover, and Kleenex: brand names that have been co-opted into common/generic usage.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Wasn't everybody calling it "Torrent" anyway?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Then people will stop calling it BitTorrent ... end of story.
Yes, I think that's kindof the idea.
Liability, and all that.
*ears perk up* What was that about Microsoft patent lawyers?!?
This guy's the limit!
I assume they can refuse to sell a licence to anyone that they don't want to (adware).
I'm sure if your OSS project is any good it will be able to raise $1US to buy a license.
This is all conjecture but that is the way I would do it.
If you read carefully its not that they don't want people calling BitTorrent what it is without paying them. Its them wanting to stop adware companies to making "BitTorrent Client" and then just using his code plus a lot of spyware .
If you search for bittorrent there are numerous sites that claim to be official bittorrent clients and charging fees for the program while adding extra adware bundles!
Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
FTA:
The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware.
That could reasonably be interpreted as anyone using the name "BitTorrent" in association with distributing spyware/adware. I took it to mean that people who distribute such things while using the name to give it a sense of "officialness".
Ex:
"Download our new Notepad replacement using BitTorrent!" [assuming the program had spy/adware]
I thought that was a rather stupid and ineffective way to try and protect a trademark, so I commented in such a fashion. If this is not the case, then perhaps El Reg should add a bit more info to that very short FA.
Exactly. My new client is The Program That Used To Be Known As BitTorrent.
It has gotten tired of that and now just goes by 'The Program'
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It could be a Good Thing(TM) (I know, not free, just mod me down now. .
Or, alternatively, it could be a Bad Thing(TM). It could mean that Brahm Cohen has looked at where he is and said "Wow. This BitTorrent thing I've invented is actually worth money. Shit! I gave it away free! How can I fix that. . . mmmmm. . . trademark fees. . .
No, there is no intellectual property law.
There is trademark law. That say you call you produckt xxx and nobody else can call themself xxx. If you would make a movie and call it the "the revenge of bittorent" Bram would let his lawyers loose on you only for the name.
Then there is copyright law. If you would publish a movie in the cinema called "the revenge of bittorent" you would have to sue bittorent users of violating your copyright by distirbuting the movie over the BT network.
There is also patent law, but that is not involved here. (...YET....)
Anyway, the lawyer win.
Copyright != Trademark
Next troll, try harder
No, what the articles is saying is those people who develop and release BitTorrent clients but when you install thier BT client you also get AdWare/Spyware/etc installed (think other P2P clients like original Kaza, etc) cannot use the name BitTorrent to describe thier client application.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
If you attach electrodes to the dogs balls and give him a jolt every time you ring the bell then eventually he yaps
when you just ring the bell. Perhaps there is a reason why mention of "Patent", "Lawyer" and "Microsoft" casuses the dog to yap. The reason is that the association of those words is much like having an electric current through your genitals. In other words Microsoft, Lawyers and Patents are considered unmitigated BAD THINGS. So you've answered your own puzzlement and satisfied your own fascination I hope. What is more suprising perhaps is that you expect to observe different behaviour to the conditioning. Perhaps it is because Patent, Lawyer and Microsoft have warm and *good*
associations in your mind? I would like to get my hands on the cruel and degrading scientist that hooked up your balls to the machine, because dude, what they've done to you is just plain wrong.
Different name, same thing... Happens all the time in all industries.
Deleted
Opera announced an agreement with BitTorrent the other day. Opera first included BitTorrent in 8.02 and then 8.10 (which was never officially released), but then went quiet about it. Now BitTorrent showed up again in Opera 9.0 Preview 2. Was this because BitTorrent approached Opera and wanted them to pay up? Is Opera the first to pay BitTorrent Inc. for the "privilege" of using the trademark?
This will hinder recognition and development of crappy/incompatible clones that don't implement the protocol well and therefore might cause problems in the BitTorrent network.
...the program formerly know as... !!
Just shut up. Just do it.
Please.
Don't beat the poor dead horse any longer.
Accept the fact that you are a lifeless asexual jerk and kill yourself.
No, he's going for people using his trademark maliciously...attacking spyware in the way that is easiest and best for him.
I'm going to be cynical here and say that anyone who is planning to start extracting money from people is *not* going to say "We're doing this to chisel money from people". SCO didn't say "Boy, we found a great way to freeload off the Linux world, and we're going to try that!" They said "We're trying to protect the work that we've put into advancing technology" or something like that.
Of course they're going to say that they're targetting adware and spyware, no matter what their goals are. To do otherwise would be stupid from a PR standpoint. Do you really expect them to do something different?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Why don't they sue anybody who uses BitTorrent to distribute illegal, pirated copies of music? That might make a positive contribution to the world.
For those who have a hard time grasping this concept, here's an analogy:
Imagine someone took Firefox, repackaged it as "Firefox Plus" with lots of adware/spyware, and Googlebombed their site so that it was the first result for "Firefox".
That's what's happening right now with BitTorrent. People are writing/repackaging BT clients with adware installers and doing their best to push them to the top of search engines. That way they get novice users who don't know any better to install their crap product. Then the novice user says "BitTorrent sucks, all it did was install adware on my PC and run like crap." It's directly harming BitTorrent's trademark, and they *should* be going after these creeps.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
"Most of the big spammers and adware purveyors seems to have lots more money than I do, and than Open Source developers do. Sounds to me like the fee will hit the wrong people."
You'll only get to use the license if your software meets their security standards; ie. no adware or spyware. If you're distributing adware or spyware you don't get to use the name, no matter how much you pay.
I think there's still a disconnect between most commenters, and the purpose of the licensing program. It is designed to stop the bad people from using the name, and to protect the good people. Putting the licensing requirement in place, with the stipulation that anybody who uses the name must adhere to the no adware/no spyware standard, is the essential first step they must take so they can chase the bad guys.
I doubt they will even bother asking for a license fee from the good guys since that is not the point of the licensing program. They are not using it to make money. They are not using it to inconvience the good guys. They are using it with the express purpose of causing grief for the bad guys who soil the BitTorrent name.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
You didn't quite read the (very short) FA, before chiming in, now did you?
Or perhaps he read between the lines in the FA and you didn't.
Do you expect a company that wants to collect license fees to claim "we're going to siphon money from competitors" or "we're going to protect our users against spyware"? Which do you think a marketer is more likely to produce as a public statement, regardless of a company's aims?
That being said, I'm a lot more sympathetic to BitTorrent's position, even if they just want some money, than I am to most other companies trying to lurk until something acquires value and then enforce it. So maybe they're banking on some name recognition, but that changes awfully quickly in the online world, and they *did* produce something decent.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Blizzard was one of the first large companies to use bittorrent to distribute game patches.
However, their patches include warden which is technically spyware. Have they already paid a license fee or are they in for trouble from the bittorrent people?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
> Bram Cohen obviously has the right to protect the name: the software is open source, the name is not.
No. This is an example of a greater pattern of abuse that needs to be addressed soon, especially with GPL3 set to enshine it as acceptable practice.
What I'm talking about is this: Developer(s) toil away and produce Free Software. Software becomes popular. Developers suddenly file a trademark and begin to monitize it. See Linux(tm), Firefox(tm) and now BitTorrent(tm). Granted Linux isn't being heavily monitized YET but the shots have already went across the bow. Firefox has already told me to change the name in my RHEL rebuild. See a pattern? The problem is that the package is only known by its name, which until recently was freely usable so nobody has even given any thought what else to call it. Calling everything "The package formerly known as foo..." just doesn't scale.
I propose we forbid this practice. If commercial interests need a trademark that is understandable, but they should undertake the expense of focus groups to pick a new name and the PR to popularize it. This is especially important with BitTorrent since it is not just the name of a client but also the name of the protocol. So sorry Bram, you are a genius but you are wrong on this one. Pick a new trademark for your client or even new forked version of the protocol you want to lock up in an "IP" box.
Democrat delenda est
That headline really ought to say "BitTorrent to Sue Spyware Makers over Trademark," because as of now about 2/3s of the comments are people saying "BitTorrent is dead because Bram is going to sue uTorrent and BitComet and other legitimate clients! Nooo!" Look, I know this is slashdot and people don't RTFA but you could at least RTF summary. They're only suing scumbags. This is a good thing.
Trademark is specific to a specific 'trade'. So, actually, I _could_ make a move called 'Revenge of BitTorrent', and that would be fine [0]. I just couldn't make a swarmcast filetransfer application and call _that_ BitTorrent (Or, possible any file transfer application - the edges of a given 'trade' are, as always, a little grey).
Thus, I could quite happily sell a hot beverage called Ford, in a cup of a style that I trademark Mercedes, with a Porchse stirring rod, and there's nothing the car companies can do (unless they have a product within the relevent trade spaces).
Classic example: Apple computer and Apple records.
[0] Well, no trademark infringement. The movie would suck, 'cos I'm real bad at making movies.
Spyware makers should pay all their evil millions made by illegitimate programes that the average simple computer can't stop. Bran Cohen has the right to sue, hes only protecting something he built for the good side not to be stolen and given a repuation of being full and bloated with spyware infections like Kazza and Edonkey is know for. And I'm sure everyone on Slashdot uses bit torrent for distributing linux and lots of other open source software. Long live open source and BT.
Bait and Switch?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So they say instead, "Install TitDownloader, 100% compatible with BitTorrent(TM)! FREE BOOBIES!!!!!"
License revoked.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
You may want to read the post title again. I'll make it easy for your and highlight the important word "BitTorrent to Sue Over Trademark". And to help out even further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
You can aswer this one by putting yourself in their position. If you were writing the terms of a licensing agreement, would you put in a clause that said, in effect, that if the software substantially changed, then the license must be re-applied for?
If your answer to this is something like "well, yes, of course... duh!" then you can safely assume that BitTorrent's lawyers are smart enough to put in their own clause.
I've read a squillion licensing agreements in my time (and that's a metric squillion, not an imperial squillion) and they all have these sorts of protections built in. That's why the small print is necessary... there's a lot of stuff to cover.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
A secondary aspect of the current BitTorrent legal efforts might be to prevent BT from falling into the realm of Xerox, Hoover, and Kleenex: brand names that have been co-opted into common/generic usage.
I don't see what one has to do with the other.
First, if you think Xerox, Hoover, Kleenex, and Band-Aid aren't trademarked, you're deluded, and that certainly hasn't stopped their names from becoming common usage.
Second, BitTorrent has already gone that way, and I think it's gotten to the point where you can't put that genie back in the bottle, not that anyone would even want to.
Third, trademarking something doesn't suddenly mean that you're gonna get sued if you refer to a torrent program as a BitTorrent client in your daily speech. It means that random torrent program #4546 will have a harder time officially referring to itself as a BitTorrent client. But the users can call it whatever they want.
Bram doesn't care of Azureus uses "BitTorrent" anywhere. What he's worried about is someone making a program called "SuperBitTorrent++" which is the bit torrent client plus a bunch of malware.
The AC's point was intellectual property. It's in BitTorrent's best interest to protect their own intellectual property (their trademark). It's not in BitTorrent's best interest to make efforts to protect the intellectual property of others (the copyrights held by the musicians, record companies, programmers, game companies, filmmakers, and so on).
Obviously it's a double standard. The fact is that money makes the world go 'round. Bram (and his investors) want to make money. So do the folks behind Kazaa, eDonkey, etc. Just because you write software that helps people save money by avoiding paying copyright holders (the usual "but it can be used to get game patches and Linux distributions, too" clause applies here), this doesn't mean that you have to surrender to some free-love, crunchy granola RMS-style existence where you eschew material wealth. Bram would like a shiny new S-Class just like all those copyright holders would. No shame in acknowledging this.
That's the point that should be made -- not that trademarks are somehow more sacrosanct than copyrights. They're both intellectual property.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Wrong, they still used the term BitTorrent to describe their product without consent.
I doubt you can selectively apply a trademark like that. If bittorrent only goes after spyware/adware companies then bittorrent refers to a ton of very distinct programs. Either it is a brand name, in which case they have to go after all imitators, or it is a generic term and anyone can use it. Otherwise they aren't trying to defend a trademark, they are trying to get control over the bittorrent client market and sit and decide who can be part of it and not.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
On a related note, the Spanish speaking population knows it as El.
Because no one understood that weird-ass symbol that was its icon.
i am a soviet space shuttle
One possible fix would be doing what happened with trampolines. "Trampoline" with a capital "T" is trademarked, but "trampoline" simply refers to the device itself. Perhaps "BitTorrent" could refer to the software package, and "bittorrent" to the protocol. Still, I doubt that Bram would settle for this.
This is complete hogwash. "Trampoline" only became "trampoline" when the trademark holder allowed the trademark to lapse. In all the common cases you can think of (Xerox, Kleenex, Coke), these companies have teams of lawyers running around harassing anyone who uses their trademark as a generic term. Failure to do so allows for "trademark dilution", and can be grounds for loss of a trademark. Learn more at Wikipedia; the discussion page for this article is very edifying.
Wrong, no consent for that type of usage is required. Consider that competitors mention each other's trademarks in advertising all the time. Do you think they get prior consent for that?
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
A trademark is started with common usage more often than not
Nope. Once a term becomes "common usage" for a class of products, it CAN'T be trademarked. However, people don't usually become aware of the implications of a trademark until the term becomes part of daily life.
Many former trademarks have come into common use, but only against the strident protests of the trademark owners.
Can they even trademark "BitTorrent" anymore? Arguably the term has become a generic. You BitTorrent something. You have a BitTorrent client. It's hard to describe a "BitTorrent" client without using the word "BitTorrent".
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
If I were in any position of power at Apple, I wouldn't suggest buying out Apple Records. Rather, I'd send them a modest proposal: a "merger", treating them as equals. I'd say that I like their music and their past business model, but that model is going to be really challenged by the coming all-electronic distribution system. So instead, as Apple's new Music Division, their job would be to pioneer the new future. They'd sign up lots of new startup bands, whose music would be distributed by iTunes. Each band would get $.50 of every $.99 track sold, and would get a .Mac account. A band would be expected to run a web site, a weblog, and the obvious email account, and maybe a wiki. There would be a strong emphasis on communicating with fans. They'd get help as they need it, but they'd be expected to be the pioneers. They'd especially be expected to talk to Apple software developers about new software ideas.
...
Most of the bands would never go anywhere, but this wouldn't matter, because startup and support costs for a band would be low. Within a year or two, they'd have most of the hot new bands, and those bands would be making more money than anyone signed to a traditional distributor.
In 20 years, this Apple^2 company could control the pop/rock/whatever-it's-called-then music market.
Maybe the rest of us should stop worring about the RIAA and start worrying about the coming Apple^2 monopoly
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If companies started using the term "google" to refer to searches that did not involve the Google.com Web site or products produced by Google the company, you bet your ass Google would sue. Trademark owners are required to vigorously defend their marks or else they risk losing them.
There are various popular examples. Aspirin, for instance. At one time it was a brand name -- I believe owned by the Bayer company. But enough other people started using the word as a generic that the trademark was eventually lost, and you now refer to it as "aspirin" (small A).
Breakfast served all day!
In the US, and it primarily consists of three things:
Patent, Copyright, and Trademark.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
findly someone on slashdot with a brain.. reading most of the posts i jsut want to slap the people.. you my friend get a pat on the back..
i think this is a great idea.. it is going to be hard to enforce but is doable and good.
now does anyone know where i can help?
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
everyone here keeps saying that this only applies to the name of the application. then why did opera pay them the fee? the application is called "opera" is it not?
Well, I dont expect to wait long until we see TitBorrents and the like appearing.
1) release something into the open source community
2) ???????
3) Lawyers/profit
Anyhow the chap just had a new baby into the family so fair play and good luck to him on this.
Wrong, no consent for that type of usage is required. Consider that competitors mention each other's trademarks in advertising all the time. Do you think they get prior consent for that?
Coke can say they beat Pepsi in a national taste test, however, Coke can't say thier products IS Pepsi. That is the difference. Not much BitTorrent can do if someone makes a clients and says its better than BitTorrent, but BitTorrent can go after them if they say they ARE a BitTorrent client.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
RoverDaddy, had the AC's posts blocked so didn't see the thread you were in effect responding to. When it comes to what was begin mentioned (saying compatible with a product), I really have no idea how protected a trademark is so you could well be correct about that. Sorry for not reading everything before responding ;-)
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Didn't realize who you were. You obviously have more grounds to speak on this topic than I do. My apologies.
It's about time somebody besides the EFF went to bat for something against the bad guys. On a related note (rights enforcement) there are a ton of GPL violators out there, especially in the arena of small devices running embedded Linux. I wish the copyright holders of the code running on those devices would attempt to enforce their rights against those who blatantly violate the GPL. They usually leave that aspect up to someone else. I like the EFF and support what they do (albeit with smallish donations). I'm starting to wonder how effective they are, though.
I hope the BitTorrent guys are successful against the second- and third-lowest forms of life: spyware and adware. (Spammers are the lowest known form.)
The Linux trademark scuffle that happened last year is very similar to this. Make a product that has "Linux" in the name, you have to pay for a trademark license. If not, you don't need to pay anything. If you have "Foo BitTorrent", you need a license, or if you have "Foo" or "FooTorrent", then there's no problem, right?
I totally understand Bram wanting to preserve his work's good name, but that doesn't mean we can't create BT-compatible clients without his approval.
Great idea, Homer.
On the other hand, I would like to congratulate the scientist who taught the dogs how to type.
So tru. Just ask anyone who's ever used the term "Olympic" on their website, restaurant menu, or anywhere else... even though it's a common adjective, refers to an actual place, etc...
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Lets argue of the legal concept instead of buying Bram a drink. Slap those worthless companies upside the head, make them think twice before infecting me. Spyware is worse than a condom that disolves in water...... would you be mad if Trojan made a legal statement that said if you use our name you have to hold some standards? I think not.