Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canonical Targets Ubuntu Privacy Critic

Posted by Soulskill on from the probably-should-have-thought-that-through-a-bit-more dept.

New submitter bkerensa writes "A member of Canonical's Legal Team recently sent a email to a critic of Ubuntu's privacy settings to insist he stop using the Ubuntu name and logo, even though it falls under 'fair use.' Micah Lee is the CTO of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and maintainer of the HTTPS Everywhere project. When Ubuntu began adding commercial results in its Dash search software, Lee wrote about the privacy concerns and created a site called Fix Ubuntu to show people how to turn it off. Canonical's legal department has now sent him a letter asking him to 'remove [the] Ubuntu word from you[r] domain name and Ubuntu logo from your website.'"

8 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Dickish move... by jddeluxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....but what would you expect???

    1. Re:Dickish move... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      He probably meant to reply to the grand-parent (founder of this thread), but instead misclicked on the racist reply (which is no longer as high up as it used to be, given the obvious moderation it received...). His post is relevant to the thread ("it is a dickish move" => "lawyers have to be dickish, or they lose their trademark"), just not to the immediately preceding message (that racist bullshit)

      Or are you just annoyed at the tangent/personal experience (Ubuntu T-Shirts)? That's stuff that just happens in a conversation, that's how conversations evolve and stay lively and interesting!

  2. And the response is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/

    Ubuntu just lost a lot of street cred. Not only is the response appropriate (remove the logo, nothing else), attacking a site dedicated to fixing your product via legal means is not the way to get the Open Source community on your side. When your main product is based on Open Source, that's kind of like shooting yourself in the leg and wondering why the gun is making you bleed out.

    1. Re:And the response is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they aren't silencing critics.

      I know that's going to be the popular meme in this discussion, but they aren't. They are asking that their trademarked name be removed from the url and that their trademarked logo be removed from the site. That's entirely reasonable defense of their trademark (*) and in no way prevents the author from still posting the _content_ of the site.

      * Trademark law, unlike copyright, must be defended or you weaken your trademark to the point of losing it. Look at Kleenex and Xerox for examples. If you become aware of infringement of your trademark and allow it to persist, you weaken your ability to defend it in the future. Thus, if they don't defend the trademark infringement that is happening, they risk losing it. Pure and simple.

    2. Re:And the response is... by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this isn't a site promoting an alternative distro or selling a product. It's site about Ubuntu. So how does its presence weaken the Ubuntu trademark? It's like saying that this post weakens the trademark because it uses the term "Ubuntu". I bet Canonical won't bother going after http://ubuntu-artists.deviantart.com/ or http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/

      --
      soylentnews.org
    3. Re:And the response is... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they aren't silencing critics.

      I know that's going to be the popular meme in this discussion, but they aren't. They are asking that their trademarked name be removed from the url and that their trademarked logo be removed from the site. That's entirely reasonable defense of their trademark (*) and in no way prevents the author from still posting the _content_ of the site.

      * Trademark law, unlike copyright, must be defended or you weaken your trademark to the point of losing it. Look at Kleenex and Xerox for examples. If you become aware of infringement of your trademark and allow it to persist, you weaken your ability to defend it in the future. Thus, if they don't defend the trademark infringement that is happening, they risk losing it. Pure and simple.

      I don't think they're taking this action because they're concerned that their brand is being diluted or co-opted or made generic. "FixUbuntu" is specifically about fixing problems Lee perceives Ubuntu to have. He's not using the name Ubuntu to mean Linux in general, or all open source operating systems, or operating systems in general. Canonical is acting like United Airlines in their battle vs. untied.com, that is to say, using trademark protection as an excuse to squelch criticism. And they're getting similar results.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  3. Re:Fair Use? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You can says that Ford sucks without infringing on Ford Motor Company's trademark.

    You cannot just build a better car, and call it a Ford...

    Now, the question is: is this guy selling/providing a better Ubuntu (not allowed...), or is he just criticizing Ubuntu (allowed).

  4. Re:How do people defend Canonical? by dugancent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unity is the Linux equivalent of Metro. It doesn't look like it, but it does suck like it.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me