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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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!
If it's a symbolic fee (say $1), somebody will probably be willing to cough it up for whatever the open source client is.
On the other hand, it will require everybody using it to be registered with BitTorrent!
If the registry requires the registrees to specify the purpose of using the name, they now have legally agreed not to use the name for any other purposes. Since "distributing adware/spyware" is obviously not an acceptible description, this will make those companies very easy to sue.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
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.
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
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?
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.
You realise he's not hijacking the software, right? The code is OS and will remain so.
What he is doing is protecting his Trademark, not a patent. This way, when sleazy advertising corp 'ABC' releases a new 'Bit Torrent Client' with add/spy ware included, he can sue them to prevent them from using the word 'Bit Torrent' in their name.
Will this effect other OS clients? Doubtful, if you have a publicly distributed app with the word 'Bit Torrent' in the name, you should either change your app's name, or contact Bram about waving the fee.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
I doubt they intend to try to make money from Azareus. I hope what they're trying to do is to clamp down on some of the bastardized BT clients that are around; these are just people grabbing someone else's client code, sticking in spyware, and redistributing.r ent_software
Check the "malware-free" column here to see which clients will likely be "asked" to stop using the BT name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTor
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.