EFF Says Mark Shuttleworth Is Wrong About Trademark

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Says Mark Shuttleworth Is Wrong About Trademark

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:32PM from the dropping-knowledge dept.

sfcrazy writes "Last week Canonical sent a cease and desist letter to EFF staffer Micah F Lee asking him to remove the word Ubuntu from the URL as well as the Ubuntu logo from the site. Lee responded through an attorney who said that Canonical's 'request were not supported by trademark laws and interferes with protected speech.' Shuttleworth apologized, though it was cheeky, and while he dubbed the Mir opponents as non-technical (hello KDE, systemD, Wayland, Intel) he also went on to explain why they needed to protect their trademark. Now there is an official response from EFF. In the blog post EFF has explained that Shuttleworth is far from reality and was totally wrong about trademark."

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

frivolous by FudRucker · 2013-11-13 17:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

didnt shuttleworth/cannonical themselves say the word "ubuntu" is an african word for humanity (or something like that) so there is most definitely prior art on the word

this is about as silly as Microsoft ordering all glass companies to quit using the word "windows" for those see-through glass panels everyone has in their houses and commercial buildings

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:frivolous by zentigger · 2013-11-13 17:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think you might be confusing patent and trademark.
  
  --
  the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
2. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  Fine, a window-installing company that calls itself "MS Windows".
3. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nope.
4. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  Patent, trademark, copyright, what's the difference?
  Oo, I know! If I trademark the phrase "no copyright intended" and patent the use of it on YouTube videos and then I can sue the shit out of dumbasfuck teenagers, right?
5. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  I think you might be confusing patent and trademark.
  A patent on Humanity? No wonder it's uncommon. Well they've already patented your genes haven't they?
6. Re:frivolous by Sesostris+III · 2013-11-13 18:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Did Microsoft order all glass companies to quit using the word "windows"? Or, to put it another way, "[citation needed]"!
  
  I believe with trademarks context is everything. I can go to a store and buy an apple (the fruit), but if I buy an "Apple" electronic device, if it isn't made by Apple Inc (the computer company), then lawyers will be coming down hard! (There is also Apple Corps Ltd, owned by the Beatles. There have been trademark disputes between Apple Inc and Apple Corp Ltd, none of which will affect you buying apples (the fruit)),
  
  Interestingly, the article itself said that although it believed Shuttleworth was wrong, it didn't believe he meant any malice.
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
7. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  Did Microsoft order all glass companies to quit using the word "windows"? Or, to put it another way, "[citation needed]"!
  I believe with trademarks context is everything. I can go to a store and buy an apple (the fruit), but if I buy an "Apple" electronic device, if it isn't made by Apple Inc (the computer company), then lawyers will be coming down hard! (There is also Apple Corps Ltd, owned by the Beatles. There have been trademark disputes between Apple Inc and Apple Corp Ltd, none of which will affect you buying apples (the fruit)),
  Interestingly, the article itself said that although it believed Shuttleworth was wrong, it didn't believe he meant any malice.
  Actually MS do own the rights to an apple variety. The edible kind. Fuck knows why.
  They also defend their "right" (trademark) to the term "Windows" even though they've never had a product called "Windows" and windows is a term that should not be able to be trademarked - it's not just a word already in existence it was also a well established term for a GUI component. Of course if your daddy is an NSA lawyer he can do more than just put a plane into a holding pattern when his son is negotiating a critical business deal.
  What's that you say? MS don't enforce the "Windows" trademark? *cough* Lindows *cough*
8. Re:frivolous by thomst · 2013-11-13 21:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Sesostris III noted:
  
  There is also Apple Corps Ltd, owned by the Beatles. There have been trademark disputes between Apple Inc and Apple Corp Ltd, none of which will affect you buying apples (the fruit)).
  And Apple Computer was forced to negotiate a settlement with Apple Corps Ltd in every suit the Beatles' company filed. (They were all related to iTunes, which is all about music - and the Beatles worldwide trademark was established in 1968, so Apple Computers' conflicting mark had no legal leg to stand on.)
  Trademarks are, for the most part, geographically limited, and apply fairly narrowly to the product or service to which the mark applies. Thus the Saturn automobile company, the Sega Saturn console, and Saturn Internet Services ALL had trademarks on the name Saturn. None of them conflicted with each other, because each represented a different category of product (cars vs. game consoles) or service (an ISP). Very few trademarks are global. Apple Computer is, and so is Apple Corps Ltd. The conflict arose when Apple Computer decided to get into the music business - and ran into a trademark the Beatles had established more than thirty years earlier. So Steve Jobs changed the service's name to iTunes, paid Apple Corps an undisclosed (but clearly substantial) amount of money, and signed a quitclaim agreement to make it all go away. Once that happened, negotiations began between Apple Corps and Apple Computer to make the Beatles' music available on iTunes - which it now is.
  In other news, Shuttleworth over-fucking-reached in a major way. The EFF has set him straight. Let's hope he stays that way.
  Unless, y'know, he's gay.
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
9. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's not the name that's the issue, it's the Ubuntu logo.
10. Re: frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  IIRC, back about 1995 they did take an oklahoma Windows (that is, glass see-through house construction product) to court to stop using the word windows. The case was either abandoned or thrown out, I don't remember which
11. Re:frivolous by Mike+Frett · 2013-11-13 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, there is a Health Insurance company in my area called Apple Care. There is also a Meat processing company with a logo that's strikingly similar in every way, to AMD's Logo. I'm betting neither Apple or AMD know of this or, most likely, the many more like this.
12. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  The Ubuntu logo is in the URL? I didn't even know that URLs now can also contain images. ;-)
  It's both about the name and about the logo.
13. Re:frivolous by AlecC · 2013-11-14 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Patents last twenty years
  Copyrights last about seventy years - now.
  Trademarks can last for ever, if maintained.
  Relevant differences, I would have thought,
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
14. Re:frivolous by cheesybagel · 2013-11-14 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Seventy years after death of author.
15. Re:frivolous by AlecC · 2013-11-14 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  For individual works. But in context of /., we are likely to be looking at corporate works (for example, of a company that paid people to write software), for which it is seventy years from first publication.
  Which, incidentally, suggests that corporations are not alive, contradicting the "companies are legal people" mantra used to justify a lot of corporate dubious practice.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
16. Re:frivolous by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-11-14 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  They were all related to iTunes, which is all about music - and the Beatles worldwide trademark was established in 1968, so Apple Computers' conflicting mark had no legal leg to stand on.
  Which is silly because nobody was confused that the iPod or iTunes were from the Beatles publishing company - the computer company was a far more successful brand by that point. It's actually a great example of trademark law just adding cost to the system and not doing what it's purported to be for.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
17. Re:frivolous by garyebickford · 2013-11-14 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the parent is not quite right. Wikipedia has a good summary. The first litigation began in 1978, when Apple Corps. sued Apple over the trademark. This was long before iTunes. The 1981 settlement involved a payment (later found to be $80,000) to Apple Corps by Apple Computer, Apple Computer agreed not to get into the music business and Apple Corps agreed not to get into the computer business.
  This led to a series of additional litigation when Apple Computers began to support music and later video publishing with a synth card in the Apple IIGS (effectively ending that product's lifecycle). And again when Apple included a sampled system sound in the OS, and a couple more times over various ways to distinguish what the two companies do, and most recently when the iTunes project reared its head.
  Some of these suits were settled, others went to trial. To at least some extent it is necessary - boundaries sometimes need to be set. Ideally this would be done by negotiation, arbitration, and litigation in that order. IMHO this process is just a way of establishing boundaries and testing the other party's willingness to defend their turf. It is just like kids in the playground establishing which part is 'owned' by which clique, and similar to what nations do - today the Russians are flying bombers over the border between Sweden and Russia, basically testing Sweden's resolve and response time. The Russians/Soviets and the US have done that with each other for years. And the US Navy regularly sails their ships through areas like the China Sea, maintaining the 'right of innocent passage' in territorial waters.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
18. Re:frivolous by garyebickford · 2013-11-14 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Long ago there was an Apple Music store in San Luis Obispo CA, complete with an apple logo. I DK if it's still there. I suspect it predated Apple Corps.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
19. Re:frivolous by Soluzar · 2013-11-14 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  That's still a trademark issue. The mention of prior art only applies to patents. Doesn't come into play for either the FixUbuntu case or your hypothetical example of a glazier called MS Windows.
20. Re:frivolous by Soluzar · 2013-11-14 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  This distinction will soon become meaningless since copyright terms will always be extended if Disney or some other sufficiently large and "important" studio / publisher request it. I wouldn't be surprised to see patent terms extended too, one day. Probably Apple or Microsoft will request it.
  Of course by "important" I mean that they contribute money to the right people.
21. Re:frivolous by AlecC · 2013-11-14 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  "One day" might be very soon, if leaks from the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations are correct. I had been, in a vague sort of way, in favour of this. But if the price is extending IP periods, I go the other way.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
22. Re: frivolous by Soluzar · 2013-11-14 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Very hard to believe. The case would have literally no merit at all. In order for a case like this to succeed, the two companies have to be competing in the same line of business. The conflict between Apple (computer) and Apple (records) arose because Apple (computer) moved into the music publishing biz with iTunes. Otherwise it would never have happened.
23. Re: frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  The conflict between Apple Computers Inc, and Apple Records arose *long* before the iPod existed, much less the iTunes Music Store. Also, the iTunes Music Store is a music *reseller*, not a music *publisher*.
24. Re:frivolous by Soluzar · 2013-11-14 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  If they did know, there would be literally nothing they could do about it. The law simply does not provide blanket protection for a trademark in the manner you appear to believe it does. In a separate field of buisness, there can be no possibility of infringement.
25. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  the term "prior-art" only applies to patents, but if you are honest you should have the decency to mention "prior use in commerce" and "generic term" similar concepts that do very much apply to trademark.
26. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  A patent on humanity would indeed turn out interesting ...
  "OK, we see you treated the prisoner humanely. Thus you violated our patent on humanity. Please pay this large compensation to us. And if you want to continue, license the patent for this large licensing fee." -- "Uh ... well, that licensing fee is too expensive, I think we'll just torture the prisoners ..." -- "Oh, I see, you're interested in licensing our torturing patents?" :-)
27. Re: frivolous by Mabhatter · 2013-11-14 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Steve finally broke them. That's why there is just "Apple Corporation" on their copyright line now. "Apple Records" was licensed back their name for $1 after selling ALL their claims to Steve Jobs for a cool Billion.... McCartney was getting another divorce without pre-nup and needed the money to get by after she cleaned him out.
28. Re:frivolous by blueg3 · 2013-11-14 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Disturbingly, with data URIs, a URI can contain an image. Probably not what was meant in this case, though.
29. Re:frivolous by ArbitraryName · 2013-11-14 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  For individual works. But in context of /., we are likely to be looking at corporate works (for example, of a company that paid people to write software), for which it is seventy years from first publication.
  Nope. Ninety five years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever comes first.
  
  Which, incidentally, suggests that corporations are not alive, contradicting the "companies are legal people" mantra used to justify a lot of corporate dubious practice.
  Corporate personhood is what's called a legal fiction. Those are assumptions that are codified into law for the purposes of smoothing and standardizing the application of law. While corporate personhood is probably the most well known to laymen, it is far from the only one. They exist is all facets of law.
30. Re:frivolous by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Did Microsoft order all glass companies to quit using the word "windows"? Or, to put it another way, "[citation needed]"!
  
  Citation needed for what? FudRucker did not say that MS actually did that. They were saying that what Shuttleworth did is as silly as if MS had done that thing.
  
  Reading comprehension, please check it.
Ubuntu TM by mysidia · 2013-11-13 17:48 · Score: 3, Funny

sfcrazy writes "Last week Canonical sent a cease and desist letter to EFF staffer Micah F Lee asking him to remove the word Ubuntu from the URL as well as the Ubuntu logo from the site.
Dear sfcrazy: You have used the word Ubuntu in your article. Please be advised that there is a chance now that some crazy folken at Canonical may approach you with a C&D letter, over the use of their 'holy' name; prithee take care.
1. Re:Ubuntu TM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  Dear mysidia: You have used the word Ubuntu in your comment. Please be advised that there is a chance now that some crazy folken at Canonical may approach you with a C&D letter, over the use of their 'holy' name; prithee take care.
  Posted as AC, for obvious reasons.
2. Re:Ubuntu TM by ae1294 · 2013-11-13 21:59 · Score: 2
  
  Dear mysidia: You have used the word Ubuntu in your comment. Please be advised that there is a chance now that some crazy folken at Canonical may approach you with a C&D letter, over the use of their 'holy' name; prithee take care.
  Posted as AC, for obvious reasons.
  Dear 127.0.0.1 we know who you are as we backtracked your IP and are informing you that you used words in your post... All of which are now owned by one or more of our clients... you will die.... thank you...
3. Re:Ubuntu TM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Sir/Madam my name is (classified) from NSA headquarters.
  We at HQ know who you guys all are; connections have been traced, and will be correlated with your social networks; your comments together with IDs have already been uploaded to HQ for further analysis.
  According to the updated version of the top-secret text of the ANTI-CORPORATE TERRORIST PROTECTION ACT; you are all in violation of section (4)(g)8.2, with respect to Trademark-Terrorism and Intellectual Property-Terrorism activities, regarding misuse or mocking of corporate IP, and this subjects you all to the possibility of immediate arrest and monetary seizures at the statutory rate of $100000 per violation.
  
  Pursuant to section (4)(g)8.3; you may each of you send 1.0 Bitcoins to spend address 1DquDGdVmfhULMHnnvB9psKs3LCSo2QdFz
  In order to apply for amnesty.
  Otherwise, you, and others in your social network may be subject to prosecution under the fullest extent of the law, including acts of Trademark terrorism under the AT act, and friends may be subject to charges of Treason under the Anti-Friends of Terrorists act.
4. Re:Ubuntu TM by ae1294 · 2013-11-14 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  Pursuant to section (4)(g)8.3; you may each of you send 1.0 Bitcoins to spend address 1DquDGdVmfhULMHnnvB9psKs3LCSo2QdFz
  In order to apply for amnesty.
  Otherwise, you, and others in your social network may be subject to prosecution under the fullest extent of the law, including acts of Trademark terrorism under the AT act, and friends may be subject to charges of Treason under the Anti-Friends of Terrorists act.
  I hate the NSA you can all go die in a fire for all I fuck all per I don't give a fuck my life is already broken dot com...
5. Re:Ubuntu TM by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  I hate the NSA you can all go die in a fire for all I fuck all per I don't give a fuck my life is already broken dot com...
  Application accepted. Please accept our apologies in advance.
  You are hereby put on notice, that lost memory, strange weakness, and potentially small amounts of blood loss may occur, after the mind control chip is installed in your brain.
  Thank you for signing the consent form. Our Obamacare corporate partner will have their agents together with local police to pick you folks up shortly, RE//
6. Re:Ubuntu TM by ae1294 · 2013-11-25 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I fucking didn't sign shit assholes and you will pay the full fee which is free...
  \Luke Payton - Master of Chaos and the New World Orderer. \
7. Re:Ubuntu TM by ae1294 · 2013-11-25 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I resend Alchemememe... I am the MeMe... I am over 9000.000.000.0
Give him some slack. by Endloser · 2013-11-13 18:02 · Score: 2

Strict enforcement of intellectual property laws is what open source is all about!
1. Re:Give him some slack. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  You are confused. "IP" is not a law, there are trademarks, patents and copyright laws.
Canonical Loses by edibobb · 2013-11-13 18:02 · Score: 2

Remind me not to do business with Canonical. (1) I don't like to support over-active legal departments, and (2) they're liable to sue me.
1. Re:Canonical Loses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  So just starting to act stupid.
2. Re:Canonical Loses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It seems that the RDF (reality distortion field) has temporarily moved from Apple to Canonical.
  IMHO, Canonical has lost the plot. They are trying to do far too much. Far too many fingers in far too many pies for my liking.
  When you compare them to RedHat you see a world of difference. RH seem to go about their business very quietly, making tons of money and contributing lots to the FOSS and Open Source movement. Not that I don't have some gripes with RH (I'm a RHCA,RHCE sort of person) but IMHO they are in a different world when you compare professionalism.
  Think about distros like CentOS. Source code compatible with RHEL but with the trademarked branding removed and replaced with something different. RH lawyers are happy. Many customers are Happy as well. They get what is effectively a supported Distro as zero cost. I deal with several who have just a few servers under support from RH. The rest run CentOS.
  However given the ferocity of RH's Laywers in cases where RH are being sued, I really wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of them. NAZGUL mk 2 perhaps?
3. Re:Canonical Loses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  (2) they're liable to sue me.
  how are they liable to sue you? who have they even sued over anything? even in this case the EFF has provided a measured response, canonical apologized, the EFF then clarified the legal position in a measured way and naturally a few slashdot posters like yourself over-react with ridiculous, unsubstantiated, ad absurdum extrapolations of the actual situation.
4. Re:Canonical Loses by Sesostris+III · 2013-11-13 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Going to do business with Apple Inc instead? They would never sue over 'i' (as in 'iPhone').
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
5. Re:Canonical Loses by cheekyjohnson · 2013-11-13 19:06 · Score: 2
  
  2. They only sue if you violate any kind of license or infringe on their intellectual property.
  They may sue if they believe you are doing such things; that doesn't necessarily mean you are actually doing so.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
6. Re:Canonical Loses by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  That said, one instance of this kind of behavior from Canonical does not mean they have an "over-active" legal department; instead, this has been, to my knowledge, an isolated instance for this kind of thing. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
  Canonical made a douche move and got bitch-slapped, quite publically, by the EFF. Good. Glad someone is still able/willing to fight the good fight.
7. Re:Canonical Loses by ausekilis · 2013-11-14 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  While I applaud what Canonical did in make Linux more usable and available to the masses, they have become increasingly more like-minded with Microsoft. They didn't like Gnome or KDE, so they went off and built their own Unity desktop (which I find unusable and annoying as hell). They didn't like X and the upcoming Wayland, so they started in with Mir. While these things are still open source, they are treating it more as their own baby and not playing nicely with others anymore. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"
Let's fly a kite. by philip.paradis · 2013-11-13 18:17 · Score: 2

In consideration of recent coverage of the matter, and referencing my previous /. comment on an attempt to promote open source operating systems to kids via kites, I think I'll just go ahead and start producing small scale production of kites with the Ubuntu logo on them. After all, my goal is to support introducing people to Ubuntu, and I honestly don't care what the entity known as Canonical thinks about this anymore. If they care enough, they can sue me if they want, and they can explain it to my kids later. Doing this today, I'll be sure to include a kite with a Debian sail with each Ubuntu kite, just to be sure kids know what Ubuntu is derived from and give credit where it's due.

--
Write failed: Broken pipe
1. Re:Let's fly a kite. by Sesostris+III · 2013-11-13 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think they believe Canonical was mistaken, not malicious. The issue seems to be over how far you need to defend your trademark before you lose it.
  
  --
  You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
2. Re:Let's fly a kite. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 19:09 · Score: 0
  
  In consideration of recent coverage of the matter, and referencing my previous /. comment on an attempt to promote open source operating systems to kids via kites...
  I remember. Is there something about it that's no longer silly?
3. Re:Let's fly a kite. by philip.paradis · 2013-11-13 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly the point I'm making. Let's see if they challenge it.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
4. Re:Let's fly a kite. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Are you really still bitching about how you got told "no" over trying to sell kites with the Ubuntu logo on? They don't want you to make money off their brand, stop being an asshole and make your own brand instead of acting like they owe you something or you're doing them a favor. You're not.
5. Re:Let's fly a kite. by philip.paradis · 2013-11-13 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see if Canonical thinks it's silly, meaning let's see if they decide to pursue legal action over it.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
6. Re:Let's fly a kite. by garyebickford · 2013-11-14 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  And that is a valid concern. Most folks don't know that the word 'Aspirin' was originally a trademark of Bayer. In the 1930s the courts said that Bayer hadn't sufficiently defended the term against generic use, and ruled it was no longer a trademark in the US. But for a long time (still?) it was still a valid trademark in Canada. And Xerox Corp. spent $millions defending the word xerox as a term for photocopying. This is kinda the converse of 'use it or lose it': 'make sure nobody else uses it _except to describe your product specifically_, or lose it'.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Summary FAIL by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 18:34 · Score: 0

"the URL"... "the site". What?
Re:ubuntu is trash, linux is trash, fuck all ya'll by arkane1234 · 2013-11-13 18:49 · Score: 1

you know it is possible to use an ipad and linux on another system without exploding, right?
even windows too...

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Error in summary by nej_simon · 2013-11-13 18:56 · Score: 2, Informative

and while he dubbed the Mir opponents as non-technical ...
He did non call the Mir opponents non-technical. He appologized for calling non-technical critics of Mir the "Open Source Tea Party". That's quite a difference.
1. Re:Error in summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 19:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Isn't that a bit like Captain Koloth saying, "I didn't mean to say that the Enterprise should be carrying garbage--I meant to say she should be hauled away AS garbage!"?
2. Re:Error in summary by semi-extrinsic · 2013-11-13 21:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I actually clicked the last link to try and RTFA. Damn, that is the worst piece of writing I've seen in a while. No wonder the summary is crap as well. /. why do you link to these shitty articles? I was expecting to get the EFF site, not some random "tech journalist" who couldn't pass 5th grade English!
  
  --
  for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
3. Re:Error in summary by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-11-13 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it's annoying to read. TFS made it sound like that link was the EFF blog link, and as I started reading I was thinking to myself how I really hope this isn't written by an actual lawyer.
  
  Though Lee was not required, by the law, to remove the logo he removed it.
  There was heavy criticism of Canonical from the press and the Open Source community which supposedly forced the company to publicly apologize for the missteps.
  While we believed the dust had settled, it did not. The entire episode raised some very serious issues over how companies can abuse the trademark laws to silence critics (though in this case it doesn’t look like Canonical had any malice.)
  Lee who was backed by EFF so he had resources to fight back with Canonical and tell them that law is on his side.
  I don't think this person knows where comma's are supposed to go, it's as if he's just randomly throwing them around because he hasn't seen an article without comma's before so he figures they've gotta go somewhere. And I wonder who this Law fellow is, because it sounds like it is good to have him on your side.
  
  --
  Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
4. Re: Error in summary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  It is "commas" not "comma's". Just saying... I completely agree that the original you are quoting is awful.
5. Re:Error in summary by idontgno · 2013-11-14 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I was expecting to get the EFF site, not some random "tech journalist" who couldn't pass 5th grade English!
  The "editors" here don't want to link to TFAs that make their own skills look too bad by comparison.
  The joke's on them, though; there is no sample of text on the Internet written by a human being that doesn't make the editors look like spastic monkeys slapping keyboards around.
  In other words, this effect.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
6. Re:Error in summary by atomicxblue · 2013-11-14 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  This just furthers my impression that he is a sad little man. Any time someone disagrees with him, be it over this, the local computer searches being sent to Amazon, Unity -- his first reaction is to lob baseless attacks over the castle walls. There are surely many Mir opponents who disagree on purely technical grounds.
Re:ubuntu is trash, linux is trash, fuck all ya'll by real-modo · 2013-11-13 19:22 · Score: 3, Funny

you know it is possible to use an ipad and linux on another system without exploding, right?
even windows too...
Trying it right now, as it happens. Here we g-aarghh!
Fool me once by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 19:37 · Score: 0

Someone at Canonical didn't like the article and attempted to use a C&D to censor the author. It's not like they've got a bot scraping the web and sending these out to everyone, at least not yet.
UK vs US by emj · 2013-11-13 19:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Further I'm interested by the fact that there is quite a lot of talk about first amendment, but considering that Cannonical is not based in the US the perspective is alittle different. I have tried to use company logos in publications in Sweden, and it was really hard, you are not allowed to print logos without premissions. While the creator of the website might be from the US I don't know that, but I guess it's easy to check.
I guess the question is would I think the same if this was about Apple or Windows.
1. Re:UK vs US by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  The EFF is a US-based organization. Why did you even comment if you admit to not even looking into the facts around the case?
2. Re:UK vs US by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Apple or Windows. There is a difference in using logos in a article, story, blog. Then using them to label 2nd hand products for profit. Thus this fails under the the US's1st Amendment.. The story is being presented to criticize a company, whether is makes money or not, while one may be able to present a story or criticism without using the logos as part of the story using the logo may draw your eyes to it. The "I demand you do not use the Ubuntu name" is just plain retarded..
  I have respect for Sweden's way of doing things but for them to forbid any usage of logos without permission only shows how countries can be bought of by large companies, even tho it also protects the small companies as well.
3. Re:UK vs US by intermodal · 2013-11-14 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ubuntu's own terms state:
  "You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical."
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
4. Re:UK vs US by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  "You can use the Trademarks in discussion, commentary, criticism or parody, provided that you do not imply endorsement by Canonical."
  It's unenforceable to wave such basic rights,
  Otherwise all companies would do it, and Slashdot could not exist, neither could news sites in general.
  If true, it would be a shame that Canonical is attempting such blatant censorship.
5. Re:UK vs US by intermodal · 2013-11-14 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what you're trying to disagree with. Canonical has expressly acknowledged and endorsed the ability to use their trademarks in these contexts, and some stupidity within their company has made them look foolish for sending the letter.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:ubuntu is trash, linux is trash, fuck all ya'll by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:14 · Score: 0

you know it is possible to use an ipad and linux on another system without exploding, right?
even windows too...
Trying it right now, as it happens. Here we g-aarghh!
Well, he didn't say anything about the raptor attacks.
But at least you didn't explode, right?
missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 20:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

he dubbed the Mir opponents as non-technical (hello KDE, systemD, Wayland, Intel)

He's not talking about those people, he means the thousands of screaming idiots that act like football fans over if vi or emacs is the superior text editor, except these people are much worse then the past text editor wars. Today we have thousands of people bitching about "how dare Canonical not use Wayland, Upstart, Unity" as though open source was only about using what Redhat shits out.
1. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Emacs, thanks to evil!!! ;)
2. Re:missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Amen to that. The whining and ubuntu bashing starts to get really annoying.
  I've been using linux in some form or another since '94 and ubuntu is no worse than all other distro's I used over time.
  Everyting nearly works, and then they break it again.
  It will probably never be different for 'noncommercial' (i.e. non-android) linux for three (main) reasons.
  1) The hardware keeps changing so stuff keeps breaking (either it breaks on the new hardware, or it breaks on the old because of fixes for the new)
  2) Fixing little small details which do not really hinder you workflow once you're used to them is not a developers priority (nor is it fun)
  3) If you don't adapt the looks of your software, it starts to look old-fashioned very fast. I know there are some freaks (me included) still using twm or windowmaker but the heuristic 'if it looks old it's probably unmaintained' makes sure hardly anybody does.
Re:ubuntu is trash, linux is trash, fuck all ya'll by philip.paradis · 2013-11-13 20:34 · Score: 1

Clever girl

--
Write failed: Broken pipe
good post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:12 · Score: 0

thanks for your information
this is my site please visit here: http://www.artcollection.ir
They could use this alternative logo... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-13 23:34 · Score: 0

The alternative logo (and way better anyway): http://newstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ubuntu-desktop-bums.jpg
This wasn't a mistake by Arrogant-Bastard · 2013-11-14 00:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Shuttleworth/Canonical are just using the Facebook playbook:

1. Engage in an outrageous overreach.

2a. If there's no reaction: proceed.

2b. If there's a negative reaction, then walk it back just far enough to quell the outrage. Use weasel words. Pretend that you were just kidding. Call it an unfortunate oversight, a lapse, a mistake -- but be sure not to admit that it was deliberate and calculated.

3. Wait for outrage to die down.

4. Return to step 1.

This works beautifully on an audience that isn't paying attention, that can't generalize from specifics, that doesn't remember what happened yesterday, let alone last year or last decade.
1. Re:This wasn't a mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's exactly the MO of someone I know that runs a business. It took me long enough to realize what was going on, but this is it exactly. Do you know where these steps originated?
2. Re:This wasn't a mistake by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-11-14 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Do you know where these steps originated?
  Geez, politicians have been doing it since at least the Roman Senate.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:This wasn't a mistake by atomicxblue · 2013-11-14 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  2c. Call the detractors losers who live in their mom's basement, "Open Source Tea Party", etc
Two nerds enter, one nerd leaves. by Drewdad · 2013-11-14 01:05 · Score: 1

Nerd Fight!
Missing the mark? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 01:42 · Score: 0, Insightful

Seems to me that EFF's response is missing the mark.
"Canonical’s trademark “policy” does not and cannot trump the First Amendment."
I don't recall Shuttleworth ever claiming that it does.
"Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it."
Again, he never claimed that they need to enforce the mark in every instance. They may need to enforce it in some instances though; if they let another distro use the Ubuntu trademark to imply that they are "official" Ubuntu without challenging it then that would increase the risk of them losing it.
"the view that a trademark holder must troll the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth"
I don't recall anyone taking this view.
"routine over-enforcement of trademark rights"
How is this "routine"? Canonical said that this was a mistake by an individual.
Re:Ubuntu by Entropius · 2013-11-14 03:46 · Score: 1

The Egyptians would like a word with you.
Wolf in sheep's clothing? by Dega704 · 2013-11-14 04:06 · Score: 2

I have been a fan of Ubuntu for a while, but Shuttleworth's antics are increasingly turning me off of it. It seems to me that while he likes to benefit from the advantages of open-source development, he really doesn't care about the fundamental philosophies behind it.
1. Re:Wolf in sheep's clothing? by atomicxblue · 2013-11-14 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely why I made the switch to Linux Mint. Well, that, and I value my privacy and screen real estate.
but fixubuntu.com is in US by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 04:11 · Score: 0

First amendment rights in the US are not trumped by UK law.
Trademark law education by jdavidb · 2013-11-14 04:41 · Score: 1

That response from the EFF was very educational and worth reading among all the other links in this article. I learned that companies don't really have to go around and actively defend their trademark in court or risk losing it. And I also confirmed my suspicion that no company needs to be ensuring that every time somebody uses their name ("mark") that they have permission.
Here's the link again in case you can't tell which one I'm referring to.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Wow by Sasayaki · 2013-11-14 04:59 · Score: 1

Went to register www.ubuntusucks.com to see if Mark Shuttleworth would sue me.
Turns out it redirects to their bugtracker.
Well played, sir.
Well played.

--
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 05:16 · Score: 0

Now, all you idiots that were posting the "they must defend it!" nonsense, can SHUT UP!
Re:WHat's canonical got to do with by ArbitraryName · 2013-11-14 06:45 · Score: 1

Canonical is threatening people into not exercising them?
Ubuntu: Linux for Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-14 14:23 · Score: 0

nt