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."
First post!!!!!!
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.
Inshort they got first post!
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.
Then people will stop calling it BitTorrent ... end of story.
Even then, what makes the folks at BitTorrent (Bram?) think that threat of a lawsuit will stop people from using their name? The people they are targeting regularly disregard copyright laws. Will they simply fly straight when it comes to trademark law?
You just need to move out of your mom's basement.
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
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
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."
Sounds like an attempt to supress the players on the field who aren't pitching underhand to the MPAA. Bram Cohen is now just another of the MPAAs tools. He's never going to have the bargining power of Apple(he's not selling a $300 trend) so he's just sold his soul and gave total control to the MPAA.
Well, that was BitTorrent... on to the next P2P system.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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?
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.
Well, the BT folks probably need all the money in their coffers as they can get for their own legal fund.
This is the dawning of the age of aquar...uh, make that litigation.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
what all that money they got was for -- lawyers.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Distributing Spyware/Adware using BitTorrent name = you violated our copyrights, how dare you, sue sue sue.
Distributing copyrighted music, software, games, documents, what have you = we don't monitor the content, we can't be held liable for the evils that mankind does.
My copyright is important, we're protecting users. Yours, I'm sorry, I can't help you defend.
Pot, kettle, you guys may hit it off.
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.
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... !!
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.
So, pirates are already breaking the law by giving away music and movies for free, something that usually means PMITA prison if caught. They're going to stop now because of a "trademark violation?" OH NOES, NOT THAT!!!ONENEONE
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.
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.
What about the BTK (Bind, Torture, Killer)captured last year.
Is this a "trademark violation" of BT?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
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
Bittorrent TM? Sort of like TMing "Warez". I mean, why protect that? People are interested in it in the first place only because they can get warez.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.