Slashdot Mirror
IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Plump
X-Sender: plumpy@magic.hurrah.com
To: plug@Northwest.com
Subject: [PLUG] PLUG: Cease and Desist (this means you David Welton)
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Sender: owner-plug@Northwest.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: plug@Northwest.com
Heh. On 10/23/1998 David Welton made a post with the subject "SMART_HOST for dummies". Apparently IDG Books didn't like that so much. They found
the post in the PLUG archives and emailed the owner of skylab.org (a fictional character named Joe Dietz) telling him to remove the page.
Anyone got advice about what I should do? Ignore it? Reply asserting
that I'm not responsible for the content (am I?). Or...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Allen Plump | Snorks + Kr0n =3D yip yip yip! |
plumpy@skylab.org
"Salsa jazz music reminds me of the time my grandpa ate his left ear."
--Joe Dietz
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:26:11 -0500
From: Isabelle Drewelow
To: dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
Subject: your web site
October 28, 1999
Joe Dietz dietz@SKYLAB.ORG
BY E-MAIL
Re: Smart_Host for Dummies
Dear Mr. Dietz,
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. ("IDG Books") is the publisher of the well-known and well-regarded "...FOR DUMMIES" series of reference books and products.
It has come to my attention that you are using the subtitle "Smart_Host for Dummies" in a chat room on your Web site at: [link ] While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
As you probably know, IDG Books publishes and distributes globally a line of reference books known as the "...FOR DUMMIES" series. This series has been in existence since 1991 and has been translated into 38 languages. In addition, there are many other successful FOR DUMMIES products including calendars, audio books, musical compact discs, toys, games, and clothing.
IDG Books has made a substantial investment in promoting the identification of this trademark to its distributors and customers, and currently has registrations in many countries.
Because of the significant efforts that IDG Books has undertaken to promote and protect its trademarks, and because of the potential for confusion and/or dilution, we trust that you can appreciate our concerns. For your information, dilution is a relatively new area of law which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion" and/or dilution. Some famous examples of trademark dilution are Kleenex tissues, Scotch Tape, Xeroxing and Aspirin, as these marks were not protected by their respective owners and, today have become almost generic terms. At IDG Books, our goal is to prevent such "generalization" from happening to our trademarks.
Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably. Accordingly, we request that you change "Smart_Host for Dummies" to a non-infringing title and provide IDG Books with written assurances that you will refrain from using its trademarks in the future. We look forward to hearing from you by November 10th , 1999.
Very truly yours,
Isabelle Drewelow
Trademark Coordinator
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
(Note: It is really a mailing list, and not a chat room, but the fact that they think it is a chat room scares me even more)
Slurp, slurp...
swalow every last drop
In my own terror, I flew away towards the chicken. The sun wast trying to run the water to my bowling ball
It won't end
(*#*FDNe888fnm 38490 384rj eirj(*_(*9wp
Give it to me hard
3333333333333
This is the type of stupidity that gets me to "just say no" to someone. I will watch, but if this true, IDG will get a package from me containing the books of theirs that I already own.
...everybody start using "...For Dummies" in every on-line message they write.
That was the most polite and kind trademark letter I have ever seen on Slashdot or anywhere else. I wish more lawyers were that nice with their 'cease and desist' letters.
"(Note: It is really a mailing list, and not a chat room, but the fact that they think it is a chat room scares me even more)"
Maybe they need to read "Internet for Dummies"?
Only in America could you trademark something as generic as XXXXX for dummies. Really disapoints me that we have come to bickering over that. Maybe I should just move to Nauru. DOWN WITH THE CORPORATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't help thinking that these guys trying to publish books for dummies is sort of like the blind leading the blind.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
5555555555555555
66666666666666666
666
It's dead, jim.
Seems to me that the same arguements apply here. If he were to modify the archive, he would give up content nuetrality. Seems like a good reason not to. Worst case would seem to be that he might eventually be ordered by a court to change the archive, but then he could still claim content nuetrality, and a court would seem to be hard pressed to apply any fines when he points out the bind and claims good will.
So they called it "Bacteria R Us".
Ooops... better call the duty lawyer
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:26:11 -0500
From: Isabelle Drewelow
To: anonymous_coward@slashdot.org
Subject: Your Slashdot Posting
October 28, 1999
anonymous_coward@slashdot.org
BY E-MAIL
Re: OpenGL for Dummies
Dear Mr. Coward,
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc. ("IDG Books") is the publisher of the
well-known and well-regarded "...FOR DUMMIES" series of reference
books and products.
It has come to my attention that you are using the subtitle "OpenGL
for Dummies" in a chat room on your Web site at: http://www.slashdot.org While we wish
you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with
respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
As you probably know, IDG Books publishes and distributes globally a
line of reference books known as the "...FOR DUMMIES" series. This
series has been in existence since 1991 and has been translated into
38 languages. In addition, there are many other successful FOR
DUMMIES products including calendars, audio books, musical
compact discs, toys, games, and clothing.
IDG Books has made a substantial investment in promoting the
identification of this trademark to its distributors and customers, and
currently has registrations in many countries.
Because of the significant efforts that IDG Books has undertaken to
promote and protect its trademarks, and because of the potential for
confusion and/or dilution, we trust that you can appreciate our
concerns. For your information, dilution is a relatively new area of law
which requires the owner of a trademark to protect it against "erosion"
and/or dilution. Some famous examples of trademark dilution are
Kleenex tissues, Scotch Tape, Xeroxing and Aspirin, as these marks
were not protected by their respective owners and, today have
become almost generic terms. At IDG Books, our goal is to prevent
such "generalization" from happening to our trademarks.
Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and
amicably. Accordingly, we request that you change "OpenGL for
Dummies" to a non-infringing title and provide IDG Books with written
assurances that you will refrain from using its trademarks in the future.
We look forward to hearing from you by November 10th , 1999.
Very truly yours,
Isabelle Drewlalot
Trademark Coordinator
IDG Books Worldwide, Inc.
I've refused to buy any "For Dummies" or "For Idiots" or "For Microcephalics" or whatever for a long time. My theory is that you either need a much weaker or a much stronger self image than I have to purchase one, though I imagine they make excellent gifts for that hard-to-please in-law.
He is not using the "Dummies" name in any way for a handle, username, website or anything else. It was simply a proposal for a "Smart_Host for Dummies" book in reply to an earlier message. Both of the messages (the original and the 'offending' messages were on the Portland Linux Users Group *mailing list*. It appears on the website as do all messages to the list beucase they are archived.
Apparently, companies are now suing over the rights to use their names as thread-subjects? You know, I'd like to propose that someone publish "Dummies Guide To Being An Uptight Corporate Fascist Asshole", but I wouldn't want IDG to sue me
Patents and copyrights have been no more infringed than if I were to post a message to a mailing list about how I wish Pepsi would come out with their own brand of coffee.
Anyone who still isn't clear on this, do yourself a favor and visit the proposed response from Michael himself:
http://www.sklab.org/~plumpy/idgreply.txt
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone publish a book entitled "Sendmail for Dummies".
-------snip--------
Here's my version:
-------snip--------
That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that someone, either IDG or another publisher, publish a "...for Dummies" style book. As you know, your name recognition is exceptional, thanks to the great series of books that you have published.
-------snip--------
RP
Sometimes I wonder if people who say things like this have ever read the first ammendment. D00d: IDG is not the government.
Early in my first year I gained the rights to such phonetical noises as ma-ma and "P-I-E pie". Later in my development I began to use such parts of speech as verbs and nouns. Recognizing these as keys to profit, I trademarked those as well as any pattern matching [a-zA-Z0-9]* . Fear not, I am not attempting to trademark the entire English language and character set, that would mean hampering my communications with you.
I cheerfully relinquish the trademark rights to
- Pronouns
- The Articles
- The verbs is, as, are, were, been, and does
- Conjunctions
- The prepositions of and for
- Individuals may use their birthnames without penalty
I believe that the vocabulary that I have listed is sufficient for most daily communication.Me is and are of and with I but for you,
John F. Hurst
I'm glad that maddog's book/pamphlet was free, I don't think I'll be using cash with these guys.
Ok, then it seems fine to trademark that for a book on computers or IT but can they really appropriate the use of it in language? Did I just violate their trademark just then?
I would suggest searching (perhaps in newspaper archives) for examples that predate their trademark. Perhaps use in headline would be a very strong argument.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You NEVER lose your copyright unless you don't renew it after a certain period of time (I think it's 70 or something years now). You can lose rights to a trademark, such as "Milking consumers for all they're worth ... for dummies", which means that others can use your trademark without threat of possible legal action. But they definitely can't publish your work and call it theirs, which is an infringement of copyright law.
me two
Ok, so there's a trademark problem, and so they have to change the archive. What about the original e-mails, which could be sitting on people's computers still? OK, the lawyers probably don't know of their existance, but is it legally different?
(or, if the lawyers did know about the e-mails, would their response be to e-mail the users and ask them to change the subject lines of the stored e-mails?)
One wonders what would have happened if this had happened in Usenet, and they had, say, come across it in Dejanews. Could Dejanews be required to change their archives? Could the original poster be required to send out a cancel (bearing in mind that not all newsservers honour cancels)?
Could get tricky...
(nb: IAdefinatelyNAL)
--
Repton.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Just a note, but people will take you more seriously if you can keep "trademark" and "copyright" seperated :)
But seriously, you are right in the other aspects. The real way to "fix" this is to get the laws change, which likely won't happen because lawyers are predominantly the ones who are making the laws.
Unfortunately, joining the US congress is akin to the Kiss of Death to somebodies career. This is why almost every congress-person, indeed almost everyone in government, is generally retired and independantly wealthy, or a career politician. This is why doctors and other professionals generally don't run for office. As soon as the legislature is in session, they have to leave and most of their clients will leave for other pastures.
So what's the solution? I have no frickin idea. I just think the root problem has to be fixed before attempting to get anything done, or else the "solutions" will be corrupted and things will always remain the same.
"Tax preparation software eliminates errors your[SIC] may make...." From IRS home page.
Methinks that the misunderstanding here involves confusing publishing with merely posting, as it applies on the web. If someone sent a letter to the editor of a print publication using the phrase "..For Dummies", the editor would probably insert the necessary '(tm)' or whatnot. Clearly, a mailing list moderator or a webmaster of a site like slashdot can't easily do this....
... Unless(tm) You(tm) Write(tm) A(tm) Simple(tm) Perl(tm) Script(tm) That(tm) Adds(tm) These(tm) Marks(tm) Everywhere(tm).
(on your end, you'd want to do the reverse translation)
Please don't listen to this guy, I love your reply. It's a reasonable, logical reply.
Ask Sanford "Spam King" Wallace why he stopped using the title. The phrase "Hormel's lawyers" will be sure to come up.
Actually I was upset that "Linux for dummies" came out. I always made the statement about, "Windows for dummies", "Windows for idiots", "The Non-Geeks Guide to Windows" and then I would say "Do you see a trend here?" Noting that *nix was for the advanced intellectual, and better than the rest. But than IDG had to go out and publish "Linux for dummies" and ruin it for me :-(
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Because everyone knows that of all the linuxes in the world, Microsoft Windows 2000 is the best linux of them all, right? ;-)
I suggest a response along the following lines:
Dear Ms. Drewelow,
Thank you for your letter of October 28. While we understand that it is your job to defend your trademark, we feel that you are asserting an overly broad right to a common phrase in the English language that was in wide use before IDG ever existed as a corporate entity. We do not choose to use the phrase "XXX for dummies" because IDG made it popular; it was a popular phrase before IDG existed as a corporate entity. For this reason, your task of preventing the dilution of the term is probably hopeless; the term is quite diluted already since so many people use it without thinking of IDG books in any way.
While the courts have limited commercial speech, we are not engaging in for-profit activity here and freedom of speech is an important value to us. As private individuals we do not believe that you, or the Congress, has the power to stop us from using the phrase "for dummies" however we choose. We therefore respectfully decline your request.
We assure you that we will not compete with IDG by publishing a book with "... For Dummies" in the title, and we will not in any way imitate the "look and feel" of your "For Dummies" book series.
You must spend a lot of time wondering about the irrelevent. Yes, Ive read it. Feel better.
btw. What the hell is a D00d?
Tea
And it was Funny, not Troll. sigh... maybe having a sense of humor should be a requirement to becoming a moderator
If you're going to send that, then I suggest reading "Civil Actions for Dummies"... several times... all six thousand volumes.
In case you haven't noticed, these people are attorneys. They are paid hundreds of dollars an hour by corporations like IDG just to stomp on people like you. Just writing that letter probably cost IDG a cool $300. If you get pissy with them, then they will drop the hammer on you.
They honestly don't give a shit if you're polite to them or not. What they care about is protecting and preserving the intellectual-property rights of their client, IDG. Snippiness is completely irrelevant to them.
If you want to avoid a long, prolonged flamewar with a lawyer -- and when lawyers flame, they do it in ways that your pocketbook will feel -- then I suggest writing back a polite, professional letter.
This is not Usenet, and you do not get style points for creative flamage.
(The page linked to here is a description of an e-mail exchange with IDG's lawyers; at the bottom of that page is a link to the "offending" site.)
looks like you forgot to read the "First Post for Dummies" book...geez...
I would have thought that having a term become a generic part of the language would be more flattering, than protecting your rights to it.
Just think, I need to go buy some Kleenex (Kleenexes?) I walk into a store, and voila, there's a whole shelf of them. Nevermind that I just needed tissues.
"They're all saying the word ..." ... I've said it..." ... We've said it ... We're all saying it."
"Stop saying it. AAAArghh!
"You've said it! Aaaaarghhh!
-beme
-beme
1971
They are demanding that a comment with the title "SmartHost for dummies" be stripped from the archives of a mailing list. Do you think that the 1st Amendment has been repealed?
Now, if someone produced a book with a yellow cover called "SmartHost for Dummies", yes, that would be a trademark violation.
Folks, let's not forget that these are the LinuxWorld folks. In other words, we are their customers. I reccommend we all just write some nice polite (I'm serious) letters of protest.
Visit:
IDG Expos, the people who bring you the LinuxWorld Conference.
LinuxWorld, IDG Expos' sister company.
Be sure to mention that you heard about it on Slashdot. That'll grab their attention.
Marlboro
me too
I'd agree with you if this were posted on a serious discussion, but an article like this deserves to be dealt with appropriate humor. While the post in question was trite and vulgar, it made me laugh out loud and was on topic at least, so it deserves a few points up IMHO.
I'd personally prefer being able to weight scores (or at least sorting) by which aspect was moderated up. Some days (or topics) I'd like to see only funny posts, some days only interesting/informative ones.
Oh well, all in all moderation is good. I tried reading without sorting by score or showing moderation points the other day. It was much worse.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
We aren't discussing two friends muttering darkly about "driving for dummies" when someone cuts them off as they drive to lunch, we're talking about a document which was written in tangible form and is persistent in an archive. They *have* to respond to tangible and persistent documents like this. As an extreme case, what would they call *their* book when Microsoft hits the dust and people are looking for documentation on how to set up that program? I really do not see what the issue is here. Change the title to "SMART MAILER mini-howto" (or whatever) and be done with it!
me too
but I'm not gay . . . what about a "for dummies" book on that?
I guess the Spanish Inquisition began by asking politely, before they got around to the red hot pokers and thumbscrews. So if, instead of replying:
"Maybe.."
to the polite enquiry:
"Do you renounce Satan and all his many demons..?"
The hapless enquired-of had responded:
"Now see here, you regressive and pathetic excuse for a clergyman, seeking to trick us poor peasants into falsely confessing to all manner of trumped-up demonic practises - you can take your red hot poker and stick it where the sun shineth not"
Whilst at the same time, swiftly clouting the inquisitor in the testicles with a spiked mace, then the middle ages could have been a way more pleasant time to live. (And there must be a lot of sub-12 year old juveniles hereabouts judging by the reaction on the list.)
WSP+++
batlev@hotmail.com
If you respond to them at all, just say "There is no misuse of your trademark on my site," and nothing else. If you carefully explain why they are wrong, you give them something to attack, which will put you in a weaker legal position if it comes to that (which it shouldn't anyway).
My personal rule is to ignore all threatening correspondance that does not come from actual lawyers ("Trademark Coordinator" bitches don't count).
Slashdot Polls for Dummies
OFTC: By the community, for the community
I don't think you quite get it..
Nobody called thier list "XXXXX for dummies", someone posted a message to a mailinglist, and in the subject line put "SMART_HOST for dummies." The person who is archiving the list is being threatened for something they didn't do, by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, because they are keeping a transcript of what someone else said.
Nobody is going to change the name of the list, because the lawyer isn't asking them to change the name of the list, and because the "infringing mark" doesn't appear anywhere in the name of the list.
>Reason: Lawyers don't like to be insulted.
>Although others feel they would not be nearly
>as polite, I caution you to be even more so.
>Both security and lawyers DO NOT have a sense
>of humor.
"Do not trifle with wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger"?
(all trademarks, copyrights, etc are the property of their respective owners, yada yada yada...)
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
I'm guessing it's something that comes straight out of one's @$$.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The question seems to be whether use of a "trademarked phrase" in conversation can be considered trademark infringement. I can't see how it can be (for one thing because it seems utterly stupid). Maybe they're trying to consider chat room messages as "published media" (and yes I know it's not a chat room, but that's what they think).
what strikes me as interesting is the fact that IDG really feels that threatened by an internet mailing list. The last time I checked, knowledge could not be patented. I suppose that they have also patented the word "dummy" too... -cabr1to
----------
Plenty of comapnies rue the day when they lose such important brand identification.
Yeah, but they should be happy, too. It gives them incredible brand recognition. I think that every company's dream should be losing their trademark from dilution.
--
--
"In Cyberspace, no one can hear you be sarcastic"
x for dummies existed in common use long before it was a book title. Screw them.
I wrote a bunch of books for the old M&T Press. When IDG purshed M&T a few years back, I immediately pulled all of my books (to which I had retained copyright), regaining the publication rights.
I know other authors who've worked with IDG; the company is domineering, ignorant, and downright cheap and greedy...
This, BTW, is a good example of why intellectual property is important: By owning the copyrights to my works, I was able to prevent them from being reprinted by an objectionable publisher.
for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies for dummies
According to Amazon.com (TM)and their patented one-click shopping... nope.
Auto Repair for Dummies
Hardcover 2nd edition (March 1990)
Ten Speed Pr; ISBN: 0070558841
or "How we learned to stop doing constructive work and sue everyone we can"
Ya think IDG will go for this as their next big title?
He needs to be polite. Not to kiss their heinies.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be: "That message is really nothing more than a suggestion that IDG publish a '...for Dummies' book on the topic of Sendmail. This was not meant to dilute your trademark, rather it was a specific request for a book in your series."
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
If this guy wrote a book and called it "SMART_HOST for Dummies" I could see the reason for legal intervention. That would be like me publishing a book named "Stallman for Dummies" (God knows we need that:). This is a chatroom... How do these two things interrelate? IDG is basically saying that if they start manufacturing a pen and call it a "Blackhawk", United Technologies has every right to come after -them- for trademark violation because that pen is destroying UT's helicopter image. Come on IDG, give us a fucking break.
Phenym
(From "Here's the law in question" thread below)
I suggest you ignore all those replies that think your letter sounded "kewl". If you send them this letter you will only sound unprofessional and childlike. Though they may not sue you this is not pushing the balance in your favor. Your letter should be intellegent, professional and firm. You can come across as if you are looking down on them for being stupid if you just point out their errors in an intellegent non-insulting way.
anywho, good luck
Hi, mostly a good reply, but remember you are talking to lawyers here and to paraphrase MIB "No m'am the legal profession do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of"
For the most part their initial letter seems to be a polite relatively non-threatening (aside from the fact that it came from a legal firm) request that you correct an apparent potential dilution of their highly valuable copyright.
They have notably failed to mention any proposed legal action they may take against you and their closing paragraph does indicate a wish to resolve the matter amicably "Therefore, we hope that this matter can be resolved quickly and amicably."
I would suggest that you alter the paragraph:
to read as follows: This has the double effect of acknowleging IDG as the holders of the TM and removing a potentially offensive reference to their lawyers.It would probably also be worthwhile to include an explanation of the nature of the archives and pointing out A) That you have no control of the contents of the archive and B) that the controversial material is part of a publicly archived message (and as such is protected under the 1st amendment) and is not listed in any way as a subject of the site itself.
Stating in closing that you are happy to enter into discussions with them regarding this problem would not only be polite but also demonstrate that you are also willing to find an amicable solution to the problem.
This strikes me as somewhat condescending, but that's just me The fact that they are fictional entities does not protect the real person behind them from legal action.Silver
Now there's a great new signature. I'm gonna put that in my .plan, *and* on my home page *and* on every post I ever make ever ever again.
Ok, maybe not.
R
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Okay, so what if I post frequently on all the Perl newsgroups and constantly refer to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies"? This is legitimate trademark dilution. IDG would have every right to ask me to stop, and if I didn't they would certainly sue me.
Furthermore, they SHOULD sue me. If I get everyone referring to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies", brand recognition is damaged and IDG has wasted quite a few marketing dollars. There's a reason why companies spend huge sums of money on advertising just to get us to remember things like names and logos.
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Plenty of kinds of speech are not protected by the first amendment. If you don't believe me, go into an airport and yell "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" Then, when they arrest you, argue that you were just exercising your first amendment rights and see if they let you go.
By the way, in case you think otherwise companies care deeply about what is said on newsgroups, as well they should.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
Well, a few months back http://www.spamcop.net recieved a "polite" letter from Hormel telling them to remove a picture of a Spam container from their page, and the guy who runs the page got rid of it and posted the letter on the website.
All your bays are belong to us!
If it's "pre-diluted", that would make it an indefensible trademark, would it not?
Trademarks are only allowed to be terms not in general usage -- thus I cannot trademark "car" and make demands upon everyone who uses the term...
-JF
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
I agree, although I doubt many will agree. It would go against the mob mentality that seems to be slashdot these days.
I wonder what slashdot would be like if we were talking and interacting in a virtual world instead of posting messages? Would we be lynching all of "them"? Them being your choice of lawyers, businessmen, or stupid people.
If you are under any *REAL* threat, then Andover will have the same problem as there likely now >100 posts containing the word "For Dummies"
Um... It might constiture infringement, but not because it should. The law can be pretty dumb sometimes, and IP is one of them. His/Her point was more than interesting, it was inspiring. I wish everyone was as moral as s/he is. -Dave Turner, AC of convinience
Why do you feel the need to respond to them so immaturely? What they sent to you seemed polite in every way. Honest mistakes happen all the time; most mature adults have learned to repond to them graciously rather than in a childishly antagonistic way. I'd suggest politely pointing out that they were mistaken in that it was just a message title (as well as a request for such a book to be published) and not a chat room. Do you really expect to gain sympathy from anyone above the age of 12 by displaying such juvenility?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sure, it's a Maxwell House ad, but I didn't use it in the the context of an advertisement for something. It was an incidental comment made by someone, and it happened to get captured as a very small part of a larger work.
Now, let's continue and suppose that the documentary is aired by PBS, and some lawyer from Kraft Foods saw it and considered taking action against PBS, or perhaps myself, as the producer of the work.
Now one might argue that this is very different, because it was aired on PBS one time and now it's over. OK, let's take it one step further and suppose that PBS liked this documentary so much that they decided to sell the video. There they go, blatantly using Maxwell House's slogan to sell their video, erroding the brand recognition that in which they have invested so much.
Is this the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Me too, and I see no difference between the two.
Along the same lines, if somebody out there is looking for a delicious and nutricious project, I'm sure you could find a slogan or something in CNN's transcript archives, which would be pretty much the EXACT same thing as we're talking about in this story.
BTW, I suppose my using the actual slogan in this posting is just as serious an infraction, so I'm sure Kraft will be jumping on Rob and the Boys real soon.
That's my take,
RP
>copyright
:)
It's a trademark, not a copyright but you are exactly right.
A trademark can go bye-bye if it is abused. A copyright can not.
A copyright can only become void if the owner places something in the public domain, or the copyright expires. (which happens after 75 years IIRC)
-JF
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
Comments? Sure.
I'm on the same mailing list. (Look for ``llywrch" in the records, & you'll find my real name. FWIW.) I just read about this episode at lunch. A few hours later, it's a hot topic on Slashdot.
Observation one: the wheels of justice may move slow, but the Internet's are turbocharged. All the more reason to think before acting.
Observation two: IDG has a weakness or two of their own. If a couple of people are exchanging email on a mail list about needing a book like ``Sendmail for Dummies" or ``SNMP for Dummies", & IDG goes after them for perceived Copyright Infringement, how likely are they going to get support for their next title from the Internet community?
(Have you heard about the abusive interview with Pete Rose? Did you also hear how the entire NY Yankee's team decided they would refuse all interviews with the journalist responsible?)
Observation three: Joe Dietz does not exist? Shoot. I had always thought he was one of the Usenet Freedom Knights on n.a.n.[eu]. Or maybe he *is*, & is the most respected one of that ilk.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Sure, it's a losing battle, but corporate lawyers get paid by the hour, win or lose.
Oh, no, let's allow them to prevent us from using the words ".. for dummies" in any conversation of any kind. In fact, I can promise right now that I will never, for the remainder of my existence on this earth, use that phrase again to recommend to anyone that they buy ANY BOOK from a company that stomps all over people in this fashion. It's very simple. I would imagine that a siginificant percentage of their sales comes from word-of-mouth. After all, if the book helped you, you recommend it to others.
If they want to cut that off, that's fine. They can shoot themselves in the foot if they want. "Shooting yourself in the Foot for Dummies." "Putting your Foot in Your Mouth for Dummies." "Cutting off your Nose to Spite your Face for Dummies." Who gives a fuck what the legal validity of their position is -- their behavior as a publicly visible company is repulsive. Let it fall on 'em like a ton of bricks. Like the McLibel suit, they may be able to win the battle in court, but they'll ultimately destroy their image in the court of public opinion.
And remember, it's a company. This means that its only weak spot is its wallet. Hit them where it hurts the most -- tell all your friends to buy O'Reilly instead!
-------
Dear mrs. Drewelow,
I have seen the letter that you sent to the administrator of the mailing list who was unfortunate enough to have subscribers who sent an email with a "for dummies" subject to his list.
I must inform you that I am outraged by your uninformed decision to hold someone responsible for archiving an email message that came by on his list and threaten them because of "trademark dilution".
I hope that you will learn a bit about the situation and apologize to Mr. Dietz.
kind regards,
Rik van Riel
PS. If you choose to proceed with your cease and decist policy in the uninformed matter that you are doing now, I promise you that I will advice anyone against buying one of your books. This policy, when continued, will be a good source of income for Tim O'Reilly and other, properly behaving, publishers.
After all, who will buy a computer book from a publisher who has shown, in public, that it doesn't understand a bit about how the internet works?
At least in the EC the copyright for original works is the life time of the creator plus 70 years. After that time the work enters the public domain. There is no way to extend copyright beyond that time.
In countries outside the EC the copyright usually lasts 50 years after the creator's death. This is in accordance with the Bern convention.
Just kidding... 8-)
Sure why not. I saw "Divorce for Dummies" at a bookstore the other day.
that IDG is diluting their trademark by us of the work "Xeroxing"
How about the "...for blood-thirsty patent lawyers" series.
Wouldn't they first have to prove that they'd been actually harmed financially? They've already got a big PR black eye. But that's not going to interest a judge. I doubt seriously they'd get far, so if there was a way to just tell them that this was a "joke" or something similar, they'd probably get it.
Or maybe someone should write "Humor for Morons?"
Yes, but they are attempting to USE the government to suppress someone's freedom of speech.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Does sarcasm alone constitute parody?
If so, then I think Slashdot is safe...
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing trademark dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." Hosting an archive of a discussion group at a noncommercial user group website cannot constitute dilution, period.
It seems that they don't understand that this is an archive of a mailing list and that what they call a subtitle is just the subject lines of some emails that various individuals have sent. Just be nice and point that out. Make fun of them here instead of in the letter.
Yes, trademark erosion is a bad thing for the companies whose trademarks get eroded. If your boss tells you go order a Xerox machine, are you going to make sure that it is from Xerox corporation? Or are you going to get a copy machine, perhaps the one with the best price or niftiest features, but maybe made by some other company? Same with Kleenex, Band-Aids, or, for that matter, Unix. People are buying products that they are calling by their brand name, but the company who makes that brand is getting nothing for it. That's bad for the company, and in many cases bad for the consumer. If on the other hand (let's see if I can think of a brand that hasn't eroded yet...) your boss tells you to get an APC Smart-UPS UPS, you will probably not just get a UPS, but one made by the company that produced the supposedly high quality products, and definitely high quality marketing that made the term "Smart-UPS" stick in his head.
The interesting thing is that most of the time, trademark dilution comes from a companies inability to get people to refer to their products as "{brand} of {item}". It would be much more straightforward and not brand dilution if you were to refer to "Band-Aid bandages" or "Xerox copiers", but when a brand goes from being an adjective to being a noun, the company is screwed.
IDG has some interesting issues here. Their product isn't getting "nouned" to death, but their trademark is certainly getting diluted. Unfortunately, there's not much a company can do about trademark dilution, because it mostly happens in people's minds. Eventually, they start getting overzealous, until there's nothing left of their trademark, and they eventually give up.
There is room for debate on this one. If someone other than IDG published a book called "Sendmail for dummies", it would clearly be a trademark violation. If someone created a website with that title (sendmailfordummies.com?) I would consider it trademark infringement, others would not. In this case, it's the subject of an e-mail, and I wouldn't consider that infringement. Others would. The point is, it's debatable, as we're proving by debating it right here and now.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
IDG doesn't "have to do this". Attacking anyone who uses in any way the phrase "for dummies" with potential legal threats isn't ethical behavior; the fact that (under trademark law) they might lose their rights if they don't is not a good excuse.
IDG's lawyers should behave responsibly; if that means they lose their trademark, too bad!
What should really happen, of course, is that the trademark law should be changed so that trademarks don't have to be defended so aggresively.
But bad laws shouldn't excuse bad bahavior.
Thanks for letting me know about this.
;-)). The form mentions you can send messages to Sarah Hansen, Corporate Communications.
I hope IDG (AND their lawyers) are reading this - by now we've mentioned "for dummies" (trademark of IDG being protected by overly stupid lawyers) so much they probably are.
It's sickening to see a company that pretends to be "in touch" with technology as IDG, and then hires lawyers to assail the very culture that gives them much of their livelyhood.
Well, only thing I have to say is that I've been a client for 12 years and you'll never see another penny from me (not even for Linuxworld). See if your corporate offices like that.
They only listen to money, folks, so it's very simple: Boycott them until they have no money to pay those sharks or they apologize and promise not to do it again.
I allow for them to apologize to give them the benefit of the doubt; it's probably a "pointy-haired boss" (trademark of Scott Adams - gotta be careful these days) who got a little carried away with some stupid lawyer firm - or the lawyers themselves trying to justify their salary.
I have many, many IDG publications, including "For Dummies" books... About 10 or 15 books plus many, many "....World" magazines... I'd say to the tune of at least a few hundred dollars over the years.
BYE BYE IDG...! Nice knowing you while you still knew how to please your customers instead of how to alienate them (though your magazines were always better than your books)!
Also, at he idg.com site there's a form for communications titled "Trying to reach someone at an IDG company?"
You might want to drop in and leave your impressions (be nice but firm - and you might want to refer them here to get Andover and Rob in trouble
- No Sig Today
commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing
goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
1125(c)4(B)... They haven't got a leg to stand on.
> pretty minor thing to trademark.
So, does this means that I can sue every chick I screwed and got pregnant for copyright infringement????
That's just it... they *don't* understand. The spirit of the letter is, "You have chosen to use our registered trademark as the title of your 'chat room', and we would like you to call it something else". And they're completely wrong. If they would research it the slightest bit, they would realize that what they found is a record of things that were said by other people. They obviously don't get that at all.
RP
I'll raise you a "...for Microsoft Apologists" series.
I really hope Isabelle hasn't read Sex For Dummies, we don't need people like that procreating.
Introducing the latest book about trademark
infringement. Now it's easier than ever for even
the inexperience infringer to tell off a trademark's owner.
I think it has potential.
Heh..
Hey, let's get a wave going here! Ok, everyone start posting so we move this giant thread to the left now!
I still buy WHAM-O frisbees :)
Here is the funny part... not anyone can call their facial tissue Kleenex. Only Kleenex can.
On the other hand, almost EVERYONE says that they are "Going to get some Kleenex" when they may be just getting some other facial tissue. This is actually a BENEFIT to companies seeing as how most people also then say "I am going to go to the store for some Kleenex" which would probably make them more likely to actually BUY Kleenex brand kleenex. Heh.
As far as Aspirin goes... I guess dilution was a bad thing... since I thought aspirin was a generic term, like acetominophen or ibuprophen... although I appear to be wrong. Weird.
Anyhow... if Bayer did/does have a trademark for Aspirin they should be able to sue other companies who use the term... and it seems odd that they haven't. Anyone know more about this?
From the USPTO records: Word Mark ...FOR DUMMIES Owner Name (REGISTRANT) IDG BOOKS WORLDWIDE, INC. Owner Address 919 HILLSDALE BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 FOSTER CITY CALIFORNIA 94404 CORPORATION DELAWARE Attorney of Record GEORGE H SPENCER Serial Number 75-280117 Registration Number 2273310 Filing Date 04/23/1997 Registration Date 08/31/1999 Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING Register PRINCIPAL Other Registration Info. 1759840; 1831298; 1837859; 1852364 AND OTHERS Published for Opposition 06/08/1999 Type of Mark SERVICE MARK -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ International Class 042 Goods and Services computerized on-line services, namely, providing a web site containing information and databases on a wide variety of topics, online shopping services and >>chat rooms; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.11.00; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.11.00 (Emphasis added) They are trying to bend the situation for the purpose of making your e-mail list appear to fall within the class of their trademark when it does not. They're being little fucking asshole liars to further thier situation, you might want to check with a lawyer on that one. Greedy ass bastards. Fuck 'em.
BS. What they are complaining about is equivalent to you and I having a verbal conversation about their trademark. Are you saying that you believe that the use of "...for Dummies" in conversation dilutes their trademark? By that logic, I can't talk to you about UNIX either. Does my previous sentence mean that SCO is justified in sending a cease & desist order to Rob Malda or Andover?
Ha! I've turned you all in! I posted an e-mail to www.idg.com and told them about you nasty 'ol trademark infringers!
I think what happened must be that this Isabelle Drewelow, who sent the cease and desist order, didn't understand the nature and intent of the web page she had found by typing "for dummies" in the AltaVista search field. She must have though there was genuine trademark infringement going on.
The best course of action would be to respond calmly, politely and informatively (even dropping the sarcasm). Not everyone who doesn't grok the 'net deserves our ridicule. (Whether such people should be cruising it in search of trademark violations is another matter.)
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
#include
...For Dummies registered trademarks of IDG Books. Bristol-Meyers is a trademark of Bristol-Meyers-Squibb. Xerox is registered trademark of Xerox Corporation. Sendmail is a trademark of Sendmail, Inc. and/or Eric Allman. Surak is a trademark of Paramount Pictures. Please don't sue me, I'm very poor. :)
For the most part I agree with your statement. However, while, as previously stated I'm not a lawyer, I'd have to say that common carrier status is really, really tough here because we are talking about a mailing list. AOL lost this battle at least once already.
Although there is recourse. He could simply claim fair use, which is protected to some extent under trademark laws. For example, I could write a review in magazine about a Corvette, or even compare, say a Dodge Viper to a Corvette, and neither DaimlerChrysler nor General Motors could sue me for trademark infringement because I was reviewing their respective products. Even if I stated that I thought that GM should produce say a "Corvette Lite" which would be low-end version of the Corvette to combat the Mustang, for instance would not be infringement for the same reason. This line of reasoning could be easily extended into saying that the author of the message thought that IDG should produce a "Sendmail for Dummies (R)" is the same thing.
You do have to see it from their point of view, though. Xerox (R) has had the same problem for years because people say "why don't you xerox a copy of that for me." When things become common usage, the company can lose their trademark rights. The message from IDG mentions Aspirin. Aspirin used to be a trademark of (I think) Bristol-Meyers but they lost that because people began referring to any headache pills as aspirin. Now anyone and their mother can all their product aspirin.
AOL is a trademark of America Online, Inc. Dodge, Viper and DaimlerChrysler are trademarks or registered trademarks of DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Corvette, GM and General Motors are trademarks or registered trademarks of General Motors Corp. Mustang is a trademark for Ford Motor Company. IDG and
My journal has hot
The correct address would be: http://www.skylab.org/~plumpy/idgreply.t xt
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Lessee... we have books for dummies and books for the complete idiot, but it seems to me that we are missing out on another segment of the market. How 'bout: Cisco Routers for the Completely Shitfaced...
s/HOWTO/For Dummies/;
Get this exciting new book from Tradmark Dilutions International Publishers Inc.
I'd like to see every message complaining about moderation or the inclusion of a given story by the editors automatically get a -2.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
You can be assured that they'd look into it :-)
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
Taking Down the Internet in 30 Minutes for Dummies
IP Spoofing for Dummies
World Domination for Dummies
Attrition.org Gallery
Credits: Attrition.org
--
-- ken williams
Copyright for Eternity, God Allmighty (Alpha and Omega). All Rights Reserved.
Ok people stop speaking, writing, crying, reading, squatting, bubling, cursing, whispering. Well in resume just SHUT UP! Or else legal action will be taken...
Who the hell moderated this up? Did anyone of you actually read the article/letter? It may well be that if IDG creates a pattern of failure to defend their trademark that they may loose the right to, HOWEVER, as there is no concievable way that this example constitues infringement this post is just wrong. Unfortunatly I've already posted to this thread so I cant moderate it down, but you can bet if I ever see it in my meta-moderation menu it's getting an UNFAIR.
15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." End of discussion.
kay, so what if I post frequently on all the Perl newsgroups and constantly refer to "Learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies"? This is legitimate
trademark dilution.
I think that's pretty weak. It's still just emails. If you consistantly reffered to "learning Perl" as "Perl for Dummies" you'd be talking about "Perl for Dummies," and noone would have a clue what you meant. (Is there a "Perl for Dummies"?)
The first amendment has nothing to do with it. Plenty of kinds of speech are not protected by the first amendment. If you don't believe me, go
into an airport and yell "I'VE GOT A BOMB!" Then, when they arrest you, argue that you were just exercising your first amendment rights
and see if they let you go.
'Fighting words' and other exceptions to the first ammendment have well established precedents. this doesn't come close. They present no danger except in the imagination of a tradmark laywer. And you accused me of pulling out the big guns for a small issue.
Y'know, obvious one-liners like this really don't deserve to be moderated up to a 5...
... what do you want to bet it goes down again by the time I finish this comment?
And, y'know, coarse humour doesn't deserve to be moderated down to -1. There's no reason not to let it float around at 1.
It's a waste of everybody's time and moderation points to be bouncing this up and down like that, and since this thread started I've seen this head go from 5->4->0->5
Really, trying to moderate -anything- 'funny' above a two is pretty wasteful because it'll either be 'unfunny' 'cause it's lame or 'unfunny' 'cause it's offensive and everyone who has a different sense of humour is going to moderate it down. (Conversely slamming coarse humor to -1 is going to get bounced back up with a vengeance) so... go find something better to do with those points, like an insightful or two...
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
I would venture to bet that these morons can't do shit about this as it is non-commercial.
Stupid fucks.
Copyright ends after the creators death + 70 years. Or 95 years from publication for corporate authors. We have Disney to thank for the most recent extension from 50 and 75 because the Mickey Mouse copyright was reaching the previous deadline in 2004. And we all know that a public domain Mickey would be the end of the world as we know it.
The idea of copyright is much different than trademark. Trademark is intended to allow brand differentiation and avoid consumer confusion. Copyright is intended to allow creators to benefit from creative work in exchange for eventually releasing that work to the public domain. Although at this rate it looks like 20th century works will never enter the public domain. Extentions have been made at an average rate of 1 year per year since 1962.
If anything, copyright terms should be going down, not up in this fast changing world. If you care about this issue read http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/what.html. It's an eyeopener.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
First off, I just want to say that this is the most reasonable lawyer-letter I have ever seen. No threats. No references to "treble damages."
...
t ters-9904.html
They explained the issue in non-threatening, plain english, and requested -- not demanded -- that the site be changed.
Such civil behavior should be commended! Especially in this day and age.
What is at issue here is the 1996 Federal Trademark Anti-Dilution Law -- the sort of law that makes lawyers' eyes dance with visions of long trials and big paychecks. It's a very vague law.
This law provides special protection to "famous" trademarks -- and the definition of "famous" is left to be battled over in court.
In summary, you are perfectly free to start a company to manufacture "Apple Golf Balls" without infringing on Apple Computer's trademark, because, basically, Apple's holds the trademark for the word "apple" in computer products/services, but they never manufactured golf balls. That's why "Clue Computing" can coexist with Hasbro's "Clue" game. Clue Computing trades in computer products/services, while Hasbro trades in board games. Trademark ordinarily refers to the combination of a mark, and a specific trade.
Under the new law, this does not apply to "famous" trademarks. So, you could not start marketing "Kodak Golf Balls", because the court would rule that since the trademark "Kodak" is so deeply associated with the Kodak film company, the word "Kodak" on other products, such as golf balls, would create market confusion. If you saw "Kodak Golf Balls" in a store, you would probably think, "When did Kodak start manufacturing golf balls?"
What IDG is claiming is that their "... for dummies" trademark is now so famous that anything in the world with "... for dummies" will cause market confusion with their line of books, etc.
Whether this is true or not would be a matter for the courts to decide. However
One provision of the 1996 law states that in order for use of a famous trademark to be dilutive, the defendant must make commercial use of the mark. I don't think that IDG would be able to prove this, because I don't think that it happened.
They were under the mistaken impression that the "... for dummies" title was the name of a chat room. If this was the case, then they MIGHT have a case, if they could show that the person who created the chat room was attempting to draw in readers, by using the public association between the "... for dummies" trademark with the idea of a tutorial book aimed at beginners, and was providing a tutorial work on Sendmail.
However, this was a simple message in a message thread, where the author idly wishes for a "Sendmail for dummies" book, that does not exist. There's no commercial use of the mark. The author of the article wasn't using the mark to draw in readers, or to sell products.
So I think that IDG isn't justified in pursuing the matter.
Reference:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/ma
Heh.
Section 1125(c)4:
The following shall not be actionable under this section:
...(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
IANAL, but I believe that they do. One thing you have to watch out for though is that trademarks are often also "ficticious names" and as such certain kinds of parody could be libel.
If your boss tells you go order a Xerox machine, are you going to make sure that it is from Xerox corporation? Hopefully if that's what he wants he'll be smart enuf to state it in a why that leaves no doubt. On the otherhand if he is vague, you might buy a Xerox brand copier just in case. Actually I hear xerox as a verb much more than a noun. Usually people say "copier".
;)
...for dummies in conversation. Tho I for one think the phrase is too general for them to have been granted the trademark in the first place. Although it's not quite as bad as DC trying to trademark the "Super" part of superman.
I personally always buy Kleenex brand kleenex, because most of the others are either to coarse like sandpaper, or too slick, (cant scrape the snot out
As far as IDG goes, I dont think they're loosing anything, they've got far higher recognition than the Idiot's guides, and trademark doesnt restrict anyone's right to say
Masturbation For Dummies
Cheese Porn For Dummies
Goat Raping For Dummies
Gun Slinging For Dummies
Mass murder For Dummies
Serial Slaughter For Dummies
Torture For Dummies
Satanism For Dummies
Thelema For Dummies
Vampirism For Dummies
Canibalism For Dummies
Idiocy For Dummies
Comunism For Dummies
Socialism For Dummies
Facism For Dummies
Racism For Dummies
Hate For Dummies
Love For Dummies
Death For Dummies
Birth For Dummies
Interesting usage of easy cheese For Dummies
Amiga For Dummies
Stupidity For Dummies
Get a fucking clue For Dummies
How to Piss people of, and make enemys For Dummies
Did I miss any? For Dummies
del c:\micros~1\*.*
The newest book from IDG: COPYRIGHT LAW and TRADEMARK LAW are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS --- FOR DUMMIES!
I guess now is as good a time as any to mention my ironically titled manuscript, hitting the shelves at a store near you next week:
:)
"The complete idiot's guide to copywright law for dummies in a nutshell in 21 days and 24 hours."
Let the cease & desist orders begin
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Me, Too!
From a Sun Microsystems bug report (#4102680):
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Actually, I think it was "DOS for Dummies" that made "XXX for Dummies" a popular phrase. At the time that that book came out, it was novel to have a computer book aimed at that level. Which is why it was wildly successful, which is why it spawned a publishing empire of its own.
>K
Hmm... Is IDG going to issue a 'cease and desist' order to Mr/Ms Anonymous Coward now?
-Grandpa_Spaz
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Here is the e-mail I sent to Isabelle Drewelow. In my job I am often asked to recommend books for begginers, and the IDG books always seemed like a quick tool that anyone could use. Not anymore. I hope more people do the same, since they are not protecting anything and do not even seem to have all the fact. Reactionary move at its best.
Begin sent e-mail----------------------------
I just learned about you and the company you work for complaining about and threatening to take legal action against a person for posting an e-mail that someone else wrote that had the subject line "SMART_HOST for dummies"; as an avid fan of "... for dummies" books I have a suggestion for your next one. "How to lose business for dummies", because you seem to be very good at it. I will no longer purchase any books from your company. You think it is OK to protect your "rights" by not letting an e-mail subject line say "...for dummies" but you can publish books, with other names in front of "... for dummies". I don't think that pushing this to far is very good for business, I know that I will be recommending to any company, or Governmental agency that I do contract and actual work for, not to use any IDG books, since requesting them or suggesting new titles for books may tend to get them sued.
End sent e-mail------------------------
First of all, we're talking about trademark law. Trademarks and copyrights are very different things.
Second, claiming first amendment protection will get you nowhere in a trademark infringement suit. If it did trademarks would be totally unenforceable.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
I have a vague recollection of a Lego campaign many years ago that tried to change the way people talked about Legos IN CONVERSATION. It was targeted at kids, and the gist was to stop calling them "Legos" when talking amongst yourselves - instead call them "Lego Brand Building Blocks" or something like that. Obviously it failed.
Anyway, maybe it's not that similar to this Dummies ruckus, but a corporation trying to change the way people talk in conversation is frightening.
Ahhh! I'm going to hit the margin help! I'm running out space I can't breathe! Oh my god this the end!
running a business for dummies.
>I wonder if they've heard of the Fair Use
>principle? Or maybe parody?
Everyone seems to be confusing copyright and trademark law! Repeat after me: COPYRIGHT LAW and TRADEMARK LAW are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
"Fair Use" does not apply to trademark law. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say for sure whether or not parody is allowed and what the requirements are if it is.
Jon Frisby, Senior Internet Software Engineer,
Personal Site (MrJoy.com)
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
IANAL, but I think it's perfectly reasonably to trademark the ...For Dummies as a book title theme. It certainly wasn't in use in that context, and I'm fairly certain that context is an important part of trademark law. Ford Mattresses doesn't infringe on the trademark of Ford Automobiles.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
>> The real way to "fix" this is to get the laws change, which likely won't happen because lawyers are predominantly the ones who are making the laws.
I see a solution coming sometime in the next 100 years. It's called revolution. I honestly think that there will be some form of national revolution in the USA, and when that happens, the victors can change all the laws they want.
Searching for '"for dummies"' on altavista
returned 91897 pages.
That'll keep them occupied for a while.
How do you retract a mailing list post?
2) OK, I'll make sure I never say "...for Dummies" again.
Offer them a copy of YOUR book "Blowing Me For Dummies"
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
You may want to make some reference to the following (which was posted above by an Annonymous Coward and which could prove very, very useful when e-mailing "dummy" lawyers):
"15 U.S.C. s 1125(c) governing trademark dilution provides at subsection (4)(B): "The following shall not be actionable under this section: . . . Noncommercial use of a mark." Hosting an archive of a discussion group at a noncommercial user group website cannot constitute dilution"
I sent an e-mail to IDG and this is what came up on their website after it was sent:
"Thank You
If you mail can not be delivered, it will be returned to the email address you provided."
Try "your" not "you". Just what you want in a publishing company that does what could be considered "technical books".
Masturbation for Dummies calloc() for Dummies PrimOS for Dummies Tenex for Dummies Twenex for Dummies DGUX for Dummies mmap() for Dummies Murder for Dummies Cow Milking for Dummies Rape for Dummies mov [bx], 10h for Dummies Bullshit for Dummies Dumb for Dummies dsfhjklfhk for Dummies blaha ablahsahsashashjkfasfhkldf for dummies ya whatever, fuck corporate america, they fuck us... this sort of behavior should and NEEDS to be punished using whatever means necessary to protect our freedoms (more like to win back).
If IDG insist on publishing books for this somewhat obtuse market, I think they are likely to be out of business quite soon, anyway.
Me? I'd publish books "...for People Who Can Read (tm)."
WSP+++
me seven
me 3
free speech?
Daniel.
Me too!
...for dummies dummies.
Brought to you by Extending cascading comment fields for dummies when replying to stories about the dummies that work for the
That's right... anyone remember the i486?
..and on we go..
Which, to a conservative lawyer charged with protecting assets, is reason enough to send the letter.
That doesn't mean that the service provider has to take the action requested, just that IDG wasn't necessarily out of line to send it. Unfortunately, the service provider (and THEIR lawyers, gack) now need to do an independent analysis of trademark dilution law, and see whether they think it's worth worrying about in this situation, and whether they want to take a stand for federal law about First Amendment free speech and against federal law about trademarks.
But what the service provider can't do is just ignore the letter and claim that he's not responsible for all content. As the Netcom/Scientology case showed for copyright law, a service provider must take action once the rights holder has notified the service provider of the existence of the infringing material. This is probably also going to be true in trademark situations -- NSI, for example, has taken this position for years regarding domain names, and time has proven their lawyers correct (if irritating).
But whatever that action is -- leave it up, take it down temporarily and investigate, or leave it up after deciding the rights holder is all wet -- it is definitely an ACTION -- the service provider takes a silly risk if he just ignores the issue when raised by a party like IDG that has the money and motivation to press the point.
A slashdot classic...
EOF
You can lose your trademark, NOT your copyright.
Dave
Does anyone else here see the irony of this message thread? Somebody uses the words "for dummies" as a message title in a discussion. The lawyers pounce on the site and demand that the thread be renamed or removed.
And yet here we are, all merrily commenting away on a discussion board, using the phrase "for dummies," just begging the Dummies company to come after Slashdot. I wonder if this thread will be accessible in the archives a month from now...
As far as protecting their trademark goes, I think going after some webmaster because his users were talking about the "Dummies" books is just plain silly. Sure companies have the right to protect their trademark, but does that include stopping people from talking about the trademark? What about parody/satire?
Guess I'll be hearing from IDG sometime soon... Maybe I should have titled this post "Slashdotting for Useless Bloody Loonies".
Just another idea
yeah, me as well
http://linuxpower.cx/idg.sucks.html
It would be ashame if copies of this page made it into search engines, thus making IDG's life very hard.
I hope the mainstream media picks this up.
hehe this is great
Hey, they're getting close. Have you seen any of the Complete Idiot's series?
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
No, he is at no legal jeopardy in the first place, because:
- He is a "common carrier", and as such, not responsible for the content
- The usage was clearly non-commercial, and as such, is not actionable
IDG is clearly in the wrong, and he should tell them so.Segfault.Org is dead. Long Live Segfault!
MY GIRL'S PUSSY
NATALIE PORTMAN'S CLIT
NAKED AND PETRIFIED
YIFF
if you have read this far, you are gay.
are you saying im gay?
I don't speak Legalese, so my translation may not be accurate, but
While we wish you every success in your work, we must raise certain issues with respect to your use of IDG Books' federally registered trademark.
This sounds to me like they might be under the impression the poster is trying to publish such a book. I notice its still not up there, but the I would suggest any combination of the following:
1. Verify that the lawyers are aware that the user was merely expressing the need for someone (by the title, IDG) to publish such a book, and that the poster was not in any way suggesting anybody other than IDG use the trademark. It may be that they thought someone was selling or announcing publication of "SMART_HOST for Dummies", instead of expressing the need for IDG to publish such a reference. Of course, with all the talk of trademark dilution, it probably wasn't a misunderstanding.
2. If its not a big deal and not too time consuming, just cease and desist. Hate to suggest you submit to the corporate beast, but can you afford not to? If its easier to change the subject to "need for a SMART_HOST How-To book" (if that's not a trademark too?), you may want to do that.
3. If not too difficult, maybe offer (or preemptively) note that the "For Dummies" is a trademark of IDG and maybe link to their site. Good for their business - appease the lawyers.
4. I would notify them that you've received their message, that the mail is automatically archived, and that while you aren't responsible for the content of posters, you are taking the appropriate steps. Before doing any of this, though, you may want to goto step 5 first.
5. Most importantly, IANAL, so consult a real lawyer and get their opinion if you can't work it out with IDG. Heck, they might even tell you that with the correct disclaimers, you don't have to do anything (we are not responsible for user's postings?). Can't hurt to check anyway.
Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but it really doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem.
RANT:
This sounds awfully similar to a certain American online service (but I won't name names) who thought they owned a phrase similar to "You have got mail."
Maybe I should trademark "I'm thirsty(tm)" and strike it rich by bullying people. Does copyleft have a trademark counterpart, like an openmark or givemark or something like that. If not, what does go into trademarking something? Oh well, one day the corporations will let us speak English again, right? Right?
Well, Gotta go!(tm) Still, Best of luck!(tm) with IDG(r).
Oh yeah... Legal notice for dummies:The "For Dummies" slogan is a diluted trademark of IDG, Inc.
"Kill the head and the body dies." - Hunter S. Thompson
It's never fun getting threatening letters from lawyers... and it's certainly tempting to respond in a similar way to yours. But it's NEVER a good idea!
The lawyers will accept exactly ONE answer "Yes, we have complied with your demands". That's it. You may be right and they may be wrong (although in this case, I'd guess that IDG has the advantage) but it doesn't matter at all at this point.
Questions concerning who is right are resolved in court. In a case like this (trademarks) where there is substantial legal precendent to support the lawyers, you can bet that they will go foward.
Now are you prepared to pay for the court costs? Do you even know how much the costs are? Is it worth paying those costs just to keep the title of an email?
I understand what you're going through right now and I'll admit that I get a similar reaction in the same situation. However, it is almost never worth getting dragged to court for something that you aren't willing to stand behind on principle.
yes
Copyright protects all original creations that can be considered independed works. Their usage does not matter. The poems written to desktop drawer, webpages etc. are protected just like the newest Hollywood blockbuster if they are creative and independed works. The defenition doesn't have anything to do with artistic merits.
There is actually two types of copyrights: commercial rights and moral rights. The moral rights are not well known in the US. I'm not sure if they are recognised at all there, but in the EU they are as real as the commercial rights.
Commercial rights mean that the author has exclusive rights to
The commercial rights can be transfered/sold to some one else.
Moral Rights mean are divided in to
The moral rights can not be sold or transfered
I'm not a lawyer.. I'm just attending a course about Copyright in information technologyif you have read this far, you are gay.
me too!
d
e
f
g
Maybe Saddam would buy this one.
im bored now.
fdaaaaaaaaa
I don't think so!
Cowchip Tossing for Dummies (tm)
/. for Dummies (tm) :)
Nose Picking for Dummies (tm)
AOL Frisbee for Dummies (tm)
Brain Surgery for Dummies (tm)
Psycology for Dummies (tm)
Astrophysics for Dummies (tm)
How to Write Dumb Self-Help Books for Dummies (tm)
How to Call Customers Dumb and Get Away With It for Dummies (tm)
I could go on...
recursion for dummies (for dummies(for dummies(for dummies)))
If IDG doesn't go after this sort of use of their trademarked phrase, they indeed do risk the loss of their trademark. Plenty of comapnies rue the day when they lose such important brand identification.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
Of course, if this rule of thumb were followed, then half of Microsoft's product line would fall under it. (SQL server {I remember using that as a generic term to describe a database that used SQL}, Internet Explorer {Again, "exploring the internet" was already a generic phrase}, etc..)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Hey! We need better X-windows support for infinite scrolling!
This is exactly the sort of zero-discretion legislation that's making things so much fun in the workplace and school. "Hi, we're human, we can think, but would prefer not!"
And, besides, you have to admit that this is a very polite message. "We understand why you're doing this, but we can't let you do this, and here's the reasons why. Can we be amicable about this?" (Well, amicable for lawyers, anyways.)
As far as I know, you can't be sued for content that your users put on your website. You are not responsible for their actions.
As for whether you're legally binded to remove that, I'm not so sure either.
Any lawyers?
Of course, maybe they were so obviously not an attempt to infringe on the trademark (and were parody besides) that even IDG's ambula^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers didn't take an interest...
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Now make a Mona Lisa!
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the concept of a product called "... for dummies" a slight on the customer? Anyway, how far can this go? It seems any phrase, word, or letter can be registered as a tradmark that can then be used to bgeat someone about the head.
I have sense decided to let only "Dummies" renew their IDG subscriptions. I don't think I'll renew my company's InfoWorld subscription. (Like it's such a big loss to not have to read Bob Metcalfe OP/EDs!)
I personally like the term Dumb Ass instead of Dummy. It has a "ring" to it. I started using it regulary after watching Red on several episodes of "That 70's Show". Would this still infringe upon there trademark?
400! Yeehaa!
I'm waiting for their upcoming "...for Fucking Morons" series.
Moderate me down. I'm off-topic and using foul-language.
law for dummies, lawyers for dummies, corporation for dummies, landmark decisions for dummies, court for dummies, lots of other stuff for dummies. (Notice that I posted under "anonymous coward?"
What a crock!
blah, blah, blah
IDG should check out "The Complete Idiots Guide to Publishing Books for Dummies"!
Any volunteers to help produce this site?
This is the funniest reply letter to a lawyer threat that I have ever read. Very polite in its sarcasm and itself demonstronstrative of parody. I would have liked to see the lawyers' reply to this.
If I had moderator access, I would up the above post another point. (hint, hint to those that do) But I don't so this recommendation will have to suffice.
Ideology is for ideots.
> chat room, but the fact that they think it is
> chat room scares me even more)
I guess the IDG lawyers have been spending more time reading "Wine Tasting for Dummies" than "Internet for Dummies"...
Idiots who love dummies who love lawyers who sue dummies...on the next Jenny Jones
The problem is that when the trademark is diluted, anyone can call their "facial tissue" Kleenex. You'll note that Bayer is no longer the only company selling "Aspirin". I'd site the original maker of the "Trampoline", but I have no idea who that was--Acme Trampoline Co.? They're probably out of business now.
I didn't know what a meme was, so I asked five friends. They didn't know what a meme was, so they asked five friends.
Woohoo first post! Just tell them to go fsck themselves. As I see it, this is an auto-generated page by a program that takes a mailing list's archives and webifies them. The person who is nice enough to webify the archives is not responsible for what an individual posts on the mailing list and then makes it to his page. If they are that hot to have it removed, make sure they cover your expenses to go in and hack the html to remove it. As I see it, not yer problem.
Slashdot is for dummies. I can't wait for Rob and the buys to publish the first "Best of Slashdot" then I might actually read some of this shit.
(Sorry if I posted just the subject before.)
IDG has a Contact IDG page that you can use to tell them what you think.
On the www.dummies.com page, they also have an email address custserdum@idgbooks.com that you can send to.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
so reply telling them that any IDG publication that makes use of the word 'sendmail' must be withdrawn and pulped immediately, as you have selectively and unconditionally withdrawn their permission to use your mark.
not that it would make a blind bit of difference. this sounds like the sort of legal posturing that companies indulge in just in case they later need to point out that they did so.
The "...for dummies" books aren't that bad for a quick intro to a subject. I've found them rather annoying, however, with all the constant puns and stupid one-liners.
What if I wanted a book called "OpenGL for Dummies"? Are they saying I'm not "allowed" to ask for it like that?"
Not really. Have you noticed that lots of frisbees don't say "Frisbee" on them? This is because Frisbee is a registered trademark. Yet people call all flying discs frisbees (you'll notice that the phrase "flying discs" sounds stupid, which just proves my point), and the name Frisbee is no longer capable of causing brand association.
Any effort Wham-O put into marketing the Frisbee is lost. Now they probably don't sell many, since so many other companies sell competing products and nobody differentiates them based on brand.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
I continue to be amazed that any organization clued enough to host LinuxWorld Expo can be stupid enough to send out a bark letter like that.
I wonder if they've heard of the Fair Use principle? Or maybe parody?
Grrrrr.
You'll get sued!
Do you know how many times each of you have infringed this trademark?
Resist the urge, don't say it! They'll take your house, your car, and your pigs!
This is a discussion forum! Aaaahhhhhhh!
:) Silly lawyers...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, friendly, yeah, polite, blah blah. Why should we suffer idiocy from supposed professionals? They should be made well aware of the irrelevance of their claim and it seems to me they have been made aware in a sarcastic but not inappropriate way.
When knee-jerk legalese spews forth from reactionist lawyers and intersects with the layman's normal life, the lawyer probably expects a good dose of ridicule. And for good reason.
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
It's perhaps a little too late for IDG to claim an exclusive lock on "Dummies." There's Alexander Pope's Dunciad; there's Charlie McCarthy, and then, of course we have Ronald Reagan. Dan Quuayle, and George W. Bush. So maybe IDG has a case to prevent me from publishing a book entitled, say, "Existentialism for Dummies" but obviously they don't get to own the word outright.
You know, their books aren't half bad, from what I've read in bookstores, but I downright refuse to buy a book which refers to me on the cover, in big letters, as a "dummy," any more than I would volunteer to appear as the butt of a TV show designed to profit by my humiliation, such as the Jerry Springer show. I can't understand why anyone would be willing to put up with crap like that. What gives these IDG jerks the right to talk down to me this way? I mean, kiss my ass, IDG.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Here's mine.
You suck!
Just one in the "... Lawyers for Dummies" series!
If you wanted to play the infinite 'mee too' joke, there was no reason you couldn't put your replies on the same nesting level so it didn't cascade and ruin the entire rest of this thread.
Way to go - I hope you are happy.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
"...is gay" Wonder how much that would cost? I think a line of "...is gay" merchandise would bring mucho moolah. And since the phrase "...is gay" is so bloody common in conversation, I could stand to make tons more cash from lawsuits.
Actually it costs them next to nothing to mail those form letters. They have lawyers that do nothing but do searches for "for dummies" -idg or something like that. Considering you're small potatoes and not making a penny off the disputed trademark I recommend sending them naked pictures of Emmanual Lewis as this is a scare tactic and nothing else.
-Legion
etc...
INTERCAL
For Dummies.
Now that's a book I *would* buy.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
hello
Maybe someone who understands the difference between a chat room and a mailing list should write a book for these publishers called " The Linux Culture for Dummies" or "For Complete Fucking Idiots"
HI.
-- Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality.
The nerve that now he has to reply and provide "written assurances".
The callousness of it all!
Screw 'em!!!!
I say everyone send an email to IDG and tell them to get back in line.
==============================
Windows NT has crashed,
I am the Blue Screen of Death,
Just keeping things going...
just plain stupid.
This is the first sign of the beginning of the commercialization of Linux.
There is little case for someone using "foobar for dummies" in a website. The only hope would be if he was doing it as a parody as a joke or he was doing a review of such a subject. It's best he just retitles it, apologizes, and moves on.
Aspirin used to be a trademark of (I think) Bristol-Meyers but they lost that because people began referring to any headache pills as aspirin.
Actually, that's Bayer (as in Bavarian), and the trademark still holds here in Germany. This led to a great deal of confusion on my part when I first moved here since I couldn't understand that all the other kinds of 'aspirin' were never referred to as 'aspirin' despite the fact that they consist of the exact same chemicals. This is true even in common speech.
Of course the other side effect is that a packet of 10 (yes 10!!!) 300 mg. (or is it 500 mg.?) Aspirin(tm) costs about U.S. $6. Draw your own conclusions as to who profits from this kind of trademark enforcement...
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
The point being that the author of the post was referring to IDG`s `..for dummies` series when he wrote it. So IDG don`t really have anything to complain about, as they would have realised if they`d actually read the article. This is probably some generic mail that gets spewed out every time their search engine gets a hit on "for dummies".
Now, if I want to talk about this topic and indicate so in my subject line, have I violated a trademark? We could recurse infinitely. Perhaps so that everyone understands when and when not to use their trademark, they could publish "For Dummies For Dummies" Personally, I really need these things spelled out.
i recommend having a friendly chat with them and explaining a few points:
a) it's an email list
b) SMART_HOST iirc, is defined in sendmail source and has been so long before IDG started using it.
c) is it really trademark infringement? Red Robin is a restaraunt chain. is slashdot now infringing on their trademark?
just a few words for thought.
-d
I hope this topic does some good. Like catch the attention of someone who can actually influence saner trademark laws.
I think this is just some overzealous lawyer that put For Dummies in a search engin and got to the web site. The fact that he/she calls it a chat room furthur demonstrates the person's lack of understanding. Stupidity has not stopped people in the past and I wouldn't be suprised if this person takes legal action on behalf of IDG. Maybe you can put something at the bottom of the page that says "We have are not related to IDG". No one is making any $$$ here so I don't think they have a case, but then again I am not a lawyer.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
"4 dummi3s" Their. That enough change to make them happy? I really don't know what freedom of speech/press is coming to (I'm assuming that still applies to the typed word, I may be wrong), but if their is no actual copy infringment (i.e. ... money being made or general ripping-off) their isn't any dissolution going on. That law is for copy infringment of branded names, not witty references. Next thing you know, we'll be paying Hallmark 50$ to sing 'Happy Birthday'.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Can't they just say it's a parody and be covered that way?
Truly pathetic. Reminds me of a friend who was babysitting neighborhood kids and had Disney send a cease and desist because of the Goofy sticker on her front window. Oy!
That was fsking hilarious.
Bad Command Or File Name
If you haven't checked out http://www.bway.net/~hunger/litigation.html yet, please do
Here is what I am probably going to reply with.
Any comments on that?
That's what we need!
jf
The cartoon on the "... for dummies" books looks like Waldo to me, maybe IDG is infringing on that trademark.
I couldn't help it... Though it just might be a best seller.
This field is obligatory
You'll note that Bayer is no longer the only company selling "Aspirin".
They still are in Germany. See my post above
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Ack! We've created a monster!
Whoa.. in 800x600 I see like one word per line.. Nifty!
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff
SB.
Now thats would be a good book title. I cant wait to see the "for motherfuckers" series. Brad
I've been through a similar issue to this with Compusa and I can tell you just give in. They have deaper pockets and people whose only function in the company is to sue people like you whom they feel are a threat. Thye may seem dumb but they also have resources so watch how far you push them. You might try contacting them directly and trying to resolve it amicably but if they are stern then chances are they feel they have a good case and will put you through hell in the courts if you don't just give in. Course if your into it and know what your getting into and want to make a statement stand your ground and tell them to go pounce end. But be fore warned you will be in for a hell of a ride.
A quick look at www.teclab.com seems to have a message for the errent publishing house.
I hope that IDG realizes that the money they paid a lawyer to write that letter far outweighs the cost of a thread on a LUG mailing list that everyone has long-since forgotten. the administrator of the group is completely not responsible for the subject lines... take that one to court and you'll get laughed right out. There is ample precedent in the US case law regarding the absolution of ISP's for hosted content. Its a small jump to apply the precedent to administrators of other communications media. Secondly, GET A LIFE!!!!!!!! haven't you people at idg got anything better to do?
on the bright side of things, at least we know now that the "dummies" books really are written for dummies, by dummies.
Wasn't there a patent on the process by which oxygen and carbon dioxide was exchanged in the lungs? Find out who owns that patent and have them demand that "specific" people submit written assurances that they will stop breathing immediately!
...for the folks who screwed up the Mars probe.
Ideology is for ideots.
Someone over at IDG needs to tighten up the reigns on its legal team a bit.
When pinheaded lawyers simply cruise the web for trademarks looking for people to sue its a good bet the president of the company needs to buy "Managing for Dummies".
When there aren't checks and bounds on emails such as this sent out of a company the size of IDG its a good bet that someone in the company needs to read "Setting Standard Operating Procedures for Dummies".
When IDG fails to appologize for the obvious faux pax its a good bet thier public relations department needs to read "Eating crow for Dummies".
And in case my spelling is at its usual worst, you can bet our bottom dollar that I haven't read "Spelling for Dummies".
http://windows.scares.us
I wrote an essay in english class year called "molotov cocktail bomb making for dummies" should I cease and desist too?
We can hit the rest of the dairy group next. I wonder if the IDG people are going to try and e-mail everyone in this tread. BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
This is crazy!
I do see their point... but what they're trying to do is restrict the use of '...for dummies' in conversation, i.e. in common speech. The use of '...for dummies' in the mailing list does not smack of deliberate infringement - simply of using the phrase to indicate the level at which the content is aimed.
In other words, '...for dummies' has become incorporated into our language to some extent. It's pointless to try to combat that by preventing people using it as a generic term in their everyday lives.
I could suggest that general use of the term amounts to free advertising, but I'm sure IDG regards trademark erosion as too great a threat to consider that an advantage.
SA.
Maybe IDG's lawyers should see if IDG publishes a law book for dummies. They qualify, I think.
Polite? I don't think so. They are requiring the submission of written assurances by 10 Nov or an implied law suit will follow. "Can we be amicable about this?" is a PC way of saying "Do what we say or we'll sue your butt.".
www.realdonkey.com
heh.
Should we get into types too?
IIRC, the trademark and copyright laws only apply to products that are being sold and not to individual speech. So the real question here is whether a web page/mailing list post is to be regarded as individual speech (and therefore protected under the first amendment). I believe that courts have already ruled that web pages are an expression of free speech although I cannot cite any specific cases.
Any lawyers out there that can shed light on this?
Shane Brauner
Take a look at the subject of this news story.
'IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies'. And this is alot more like a chat room than the mailing list.
Hey, let's just give ole IDG the Slashdot effect, and if possible, e-mailing right from their Web site comments and suggestions about a possible new IDG title, something like "Dilution for Dummies".
Let's see if I get a similar letter from IDG now. I wonder if IDG knows the difference between a web discussion forum and a 'chat room'. While one can understand legitimate defense of trademarks, no rational person who saw a message on a mailing list like that would think that the author was intending to infringe upon IDG's trademark in this case. Unfortunately this type of taking things too far seems to happen too often. The logical conclusion is either that there are a lot of irrational people out there or that people just plain don't get it.
lkasdjfakl;sdjf
I say we all post a BUNCH of news to a bunch of newsgroups with "for dummies" in the title and see what they do to Deja.com ... they do the exact same thing as this mailing list archive.
This is nuts! I can't believe that someone actually passed a law that can even remotely suggests that IDG could take action against someone using "...for dummies" in a forum posting.
As for trademark erosion, why are these companies complaining - personally I'd see it as a good thing. If everyone in the world habitually uses your product name, that firmly establishes yourself as the Premier brand. Say I wanted to buy a "hoover". No one else in the world can make vacuum cleaners called "hoovers", so surely it's a good thing for the company that makes them?
I Will. I'll do it, I will. This is your day, Arthur Pewty. From now on, it's Dummies in all my subject headers.
I've read a couple "for Dummies" books. The info is the same as other books. They just add in lots of really bad jokes and cartoons.
I can't help but think that there's a niche market of complete fucking morons who need their own series of "... For Complete Fucking Morons" books as well. Maybe someone should look into this and pick up a trademark...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Lets see if I can get sued for having a discussion shall we? Are they going to sue someone for talking about a "...For Dummies" book in a meeting because the titles then showed up in the minutes, later posted online?
I think not.
Sounds like someone in the legalese department hasn't made the mental leap between a discussion and a publication, as it applies to mailing lists and their web archives.
Several people have said that you can't loose a copyright if it is abused. That isn't strictly true. If the owner of the copyright knows of the abuse and fails to take reasonable action defending it, they can loose their copyright, and the material enters public domain. A specific example of this happened when David Eddings had to shut down a MUD based on his books. The creators of the MUD wrote him to tell him what they did, and he sadly had to tell them to shut it down. He did, however, very kindly explain why he had to defend his copyright, and pointed out that if he hadn't heard about the violation he wouldn't have been forced to shut them down. So to sum up, kyes Virginia, you can loose your copyright.
FIVE HUNDRED!!! WOO HOO!!! WOW!!! Yes, yes, I'd like to thank all the little people that made this monumental achievement possible. Thank you. And have a happy Halloween!! BWWAAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAA
wow
This has got to be some sort of record!
-- Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality.
The trademark laws they were refering to are US specific. Is there any indication that they did/could have done the appropriate research to find out if the post originated from or is hosted in a country that is affected by these laws?
Seems to me it _might_ another example of US corperations employees assuming US=World
More please...
And an interesting one too!
why?
Come up with your own cliches. ;)
Err, um, all trademarks are trademarks of the people of whom they are trademarks.
I really did not find it all that immature. Why not have fun with it? What are they going to do?? He has not done anything and it will cost them in the long run if they persue this. Besides nobody likes to be slammed in the court of public opinion. I hope IDG has gotten wind that a small portion of the public is watching thier silly display. Life is to short to not have fun with stuff like this. Remember he did nothing wrong. What would be even more fun though is maybe not tell them those entitys are fictional so we can watch them chase thier tail but that might be pushing it. Relax and laugh a bit.
I think that a reply to IDG directly with the "letter" in the message along with a message saying something to the effect of "well if you can't discuss your books, maybe we don't need to BUY your books!" And then go to say you will organize a boycott of their books etc.. Because they were being D***s about the use of the "for dummies" in a disccussion thread.
The best place to hit companies is in their pocket book!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Who teis this Joe Dietz fellow? Poking around the skylab.org site, I found this: Joe Dietz Quotes He sounds like an interesting writer. Also, it seems that he has written one or two books for IDG!!
Okay IDG, come get me, PLEASE. How can any single company hope to copyright * for Dummies, isn't there ANY laws against that? They can only own the copyrights for phrases /they've/ used correct? Not ones they haven't. Please tell me i'm correct or i'm going to go out and copyright A* B* C* D* E* F* G* H* I* J* K* L* M* N* O* P* Q* R* S* T* U* V* W* X* Y* and Z*; then i'll own the copyright to every word in the Anglo world! Seriously though, can they even hope to get away with this?
flarp
Tell them that when they publish their "complete" (like any of the line is near that)
:)
Trademark Dilution, Patent Infringement, and Domain Name Conflicts for Dummies(TM)
and send you an evaluation copy. Then and only then, will you respond to their ludicrous response
Hey! I wonder if we could draw something cool with our cascading posts.
me 16?
There. Now that this comment is posted on /. maybe they'll get a letter too. Wouldn't want them to feel left out.
Mike
Like Grandpa always said, "It's mine, I can wash it as long as I want to."
MG
Did any of you go over and look at the thread that triggered this? It's about 10 messages, the first of which was posted by "heinlein" (his real name) describing his experiences setting up sendmail's smarthost. It's just the subject line for a message. Sheesh ...
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
IDG provides the company I work for with a lot of books. It says in the book that these are the registered trademarks: The ...For Dummies logo, and For Dummies and ...For Dummies are the registered trademarks and can not be used without their permission.
I have a big bag full of two cents and I'm coming your way.
fellow linux revolutionaries:
i am initiating a class action lawsuit against IDG for violation of civil rights and other discriminitory practices.
furthermore: anyone or any company that disses linus, linux, or tux will be met with similar consequences.
http://www.linux-is-mah-bitch.com
it might have been fun emailing the trademark coordinater
teehee
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html section 4 describes what does not come under 'dilution', non commercial use.
Insane.. one of the more memorable moments of Slashdot :)
It's no big deal, and that was a nice letter.. Change the name and let them have their cookie..
As they said, they have a brand image and alot of time and money sunk into it..
It is pretty goofy as the list in question is about as low profile as possible, but how is some lawyer suppost to understand that.. Or some judge..
You've had your fun, add this as a chapter in the list FAQ, move on.. Call the list 'smart_host star wars mickey mouse barbie for sweat'n to the oldies'..
Umm, is there a book that can give me a quick overview of what's available in the IDG catalog? thank you
I remember reading somewhere about a small-time publisher that Coca-Cola tried to stomp all over for using the words "It's the real thing" in an advertisement for a book they published. The president of said publisher wrote a nice little reply about the tradition of the small press to resist being bullied into censoring what they put out, and how Ben Franklin was a printer and helped write the first amendment and so on. And then he ended his letter pointing out that they were quoting what a book reviewer had said about their book.
Coca-cola stopped harrassing them.
Unfortunately, it's something that has to be done. IDG has to exercise due diligence in protecting their trademark, or risk losing it. The fault lies not so much with them as it does with the Trademark Office, but even the Trademark Office I can't blame too much. I mean, once the encroachment begins upon a trademark, where do you draw the line? Sure, it seems like publicly archived e-mail is fine, but what if you name an instructional page "X for Dummies"? Or a web site? Extrapolate ad infinitum.
To sum up, sure, it seems like a bitch thing to do, but it has to be done, and rightly so.
-jay
I have no idea.. (Hey Rob, do we get a price if this wraps around the screen twice?)
I hate cleaning my cat's litter box. There must be an easier way.
'nuff said
Uh oh, Rob. I've posted the phrase "Slashdot for dummies" here in the Slashdot CHAT ROOM not once, but twice now. How does it feel to know that you will be sued?
Makes me think that there should be "Trademark dilution for Dummies(tm)" and a "'For dummies' for dummies(tm)" books, so that this sort of thing shouldn't happen. If only I could mention that to someone without getting sued for trademark dilution.
I'm sorry, but I believe a precedent has already been set with regard to common english terms such as this in the AOL "You've got mail" suit. It was ruled that AOL did not own the rights to the commonly used english phrase. Likewise, anything for dummies is also a commonly used english term. The only thing they could legally fight would be an actual book titled "... for dummies".
;^P
Earlier in the posts, someone used Kodak as an example of how dilution would play into this. However, the word Kodak is not a common english word - it's a specific name of a company. Just like "Intel" or "Ibanez" or "Fubar4U". These "words" are not simply defined in a common dictionary, they are specific names for an entity.
This is the distinguishing detail, as well as - like the original poster stated - the term was used as an email subject to a mailing list. Even with the Trademark dilution laws, I can't see how IDG could possibly have a leg to stand on.
A simple, professional, response, indicating the above should quell any desires to persue this matter by IDG.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
This is a thing of beauty. I cracked up when I saw this.
For not being a lawyer, you seemed to have hit the point. you're supported matter of fact: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html section 4 describes what does not come under 'dilution', non commercial use.
Here's a summary of
http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/dilution.html
Note that Dilution is not valid for non-commercial marks
---
"Blurring", by which the connection in consumers' minds between the plaintiff's mark and the plaintiff's goods or services is weakened; or
"Tarnishment", which means that the defendant's use is unsavory or unwholesome, or the mark is used in connection with inferior products.
However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.
Available in more colors than there are starfish in a swimming pool! ORDER NOW!
The randomness continues.
Of course, now /. has a web forum with a title XXXX For Dummies. Which, unlike the original archive message, really is something set up consciously by the web site owners with a title which infringes on the trademark yadda yadda yadda. Of course, it's still not commercial, so it's legal. But if the IDG lawyers were overzealous enough to go after that, they'll definitely be overzealous enough to go after this. [TMB]
Freedom!!
6
More freedom!! :)
Actually, they have good reason to worry. Their particular trademark comes to mind as an example of one that will be easily stepped on.
Prior to the introduction of the book series, I, personally, can't recall an instance of the common usage of for Dummies. But, since their introduction, the term is used very widely to describe instruction from first principles with reduced jargon.
They have no hope of retaining it unless they defend it. Furthermore, unless they defend it vigorously, they are under great risk of being trampled by ever growing common usage.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
501
Even more freedom :) :)
mee too...
Personall i think IDG should drop the issue, because their point is like arresting me for using "Windows" in ordinary conversation. Nevertheless, they do have the right to question use of their phrase.
Ethically, it is a different issue. With moral consideration, IDG should toss their suitage aside and drop it for the sake of humanity. Although such a response would never happen in the corporate world.
Just my simple thoughts, dpn
Dan Noe http://resonator.physics.sunysb.edu/dan/
... seems like a good book for the bosses and women in the world
This is the type of stupidity that gets me to "just say no" to someone. I will watch, but if this true, IDG will get a package from me containing the books of theirs that I already own.
I think organizing an action like this would be very effective, but it would probably be sufficient just to let them know they've got a lot of people pissed at them.
The calculation behind this kind of behavior is this. My trademark is probably not (actually almost certainly is not) being infringed, but if it is infringed later, the defense could slip this into to a pile of evidence that my trademark is invalid. If I lose my trademark, it will cost me a lot, so its worth while to have my lawyer send these folks a threatening letter to save me aggravation later.
This is bad high school debate club tactics. Don't let any point go ever.
What's missing in this calculation is the force of public reproach. Let's allow that the alleged infringment weakens the value of the trademark in some kind of vague and indirect legal way. On the other hand, indiscriminate use of legal threats should damage the trademark in a direct commercial way, to wit: making the public think the trademark's holder is a shmuck.
To that end, polite (so you don't get branded as a red or a member of the lunatic fringe) letters are the most effective tool to fight this.
This is how the Amnesty International model works. Bad behavior, be it tyranny, infringement of free speech, or garden variety alcholism thrives in secrecy, and depends on people not noticing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Perhaps under the (IMO ridiculous) systems of conteporary corporate law, IDG has to do things like this to protect its "brand name".
But if a company actually tried to sue someone for infringment in a case like this, they might get their fingers burned. It might not be as spectacular as McLibel, but it's heading in that direction...
Fixing copyright
How to extend a REALLY long thread for Dummies!
Yeah!
`cracking'?? PFFF..
Hooooooooboy!! a debate over who wants to be labeled as stupid. rather funny.
Im outta space! Help!
With all of talking about the "for dummies" books now ROb may just get a letter as well.
It's not over yet either. Let's keep those replies comin'!
...change the name of the forum to "Hitchhiker's Guide to Sendmail". (With the words "Don't Panic" in the subject line in large friendly letters.)
Maybe Douglas Adams isn't such an asshole.
--JT
It's truely a sad day when of all things a phrase mentioned in a mailing list gets the compaines legeal dept. as excited as a group of 13 year old boys with a peep-hole into the womans shower room.
Personaly I think that companies are making sport of the whole law-suit threat in gerneral. Lets see who can sue over the dumbest damn thing this time, all bets are open. Worse yet is how far will it go? Will it get to the point where you can't even type the letters together of a registered trademark in a chat channel?
If so I say we attempt to remind them, that without alot of us, they wouldn't own that collection of letters they think they own in every way. So, company sues 6 year old for using thier registered name in the bibliography of his science project, do what ppl used to do back in the day. Protest their ass. Stop buying their products and then sue them for being stupid and greedy. Not the best idea, I know, but what the hell. It's just my opinion.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
520
521
522
523
Come to me Jane..
524
yeah damn you mr anonymous coward!!!
525
Gotcha :)
That would be content dilution and waste of bandwidth, prosecutable under U.S. law 1125 section A)1.c)iii. You will shortly receive a letter from my lawyers.
Thank you for your cooperation,
C.M.
C.
526
It just won't stop. Pretty soon this thread will evolve into a life form.
527
Not in Kansas.
But notice that the site now carries a disclaimer above the title. It was a hilarious response, but IDG got all it really wanted from this group, an acknolegement of it's trademark.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Looks like they haven't read "Trademark infringement for Dummies."
Either way, it's best summed up as this little piece of art.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
528
(define (recurse for-whom) ((recurse for-whom)))
(recurse "dummies")
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
Anyone know where to get "American Sign Language for Dummies?"
A rather less politely-worded letter was sent to the maintainer of Ulysses for Dummies, a spoof of Joyce's novel, early last year. The hilarious and thorough reply concluded, 'Frankly, we're going to keep the site just as it is, and the successful IDG Books " ... for Dummies" series will just have to learn to live with it.'
I don't think so; since Slashdot is now owned by AndOver.net they actually have some cash to hire lawyers, and/or countersue for frivolous suing.
I'm sure IDG is only trying to bully a person who presumably doesn't have enough money to hire lawyers for a case like this.
Anyway, it's Auto Repair for Dummies, by Deanna Sclar, and it's a classic. Too bad Deanna didn't get on IDG's butt about the title...
On the other side, a friend of mine is one of the authors of the Windows 98 Bible. Then IDG decides to call their book by the same name, even though they were asked to change the name of their later book.
Personally, I would tell IDG to go to hell.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
529
AOL's trademark/copyright??? on "You've got mail." and "Buddy List" didn't hold up.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
Effective Corporate Legal Warnings For Dummies
Sure throw in a couple book suggestions to them, just to try to help them make back any money they have lost paying this "Tradmark Coordinator":
"Commiting Financial Suicide for Dummies"
"Buying Clues for Dummies"
"Reading for Dummies"
and suggest one for her too, just because your a good Joe:
"Name Changing for Dummies"
"Job Hunting for Dummies"
Hell they've probably already written half of those already.
http://windows.scares.us
Heck, everytime they reply to us with email we could continue to sue .....
This is indeed the most appropriate approach.
Never EVER give out more information than is necessary... (too late if they read this list).
Best case scenario, they will take a second look
to make sure they are right and realize their mistake.
A minimalistic reply is always your best approach for first response.
Good Luck
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
I don't think trademarks work quite this way. The domain of the For Dummies trademark certainly protects its use in the titles of books (ex. somebody probably could not write a book called OpenGL for Dummies as another poster suggested). However, the use of the phrase For Dummies in conversation, i.e. bulletin board or chat, in the discussion of or suggestion of anything, in commentary on the book, etc. are all covered under parts of trademark law equivalent to Fair Use (I don't know the specifics here, but you can for example compare your product to somebody else's trademarked product by name). The problem here is that this is simply an archive of a public mailing list. You can't apply your trademark to stop discussion of your product, or of products similar to your product (requesting a For Dummies type book on a particular subject). Nobody published a book and used the name For Dummies in the title. Nobody even electronically published a piece of documentation and said it was a "For Dummies" documentation (this is one case where their trademark concerns might hold some water, if somebody actually had written such a thing). I will not stomach corporations trying to restrict people's right to discuss products or anything they want to discuss using their trademarked names. I will mirror the damned email if I want to. I am archiving a public discussion, and if IDG wants to sue me to attempt to control the evolution of the English language, they are welcome to try (IANAL, but I certainly know some).
Eeeewww!!
Next thing you know, we will have the Complete Idiots Guide to Macdonalds Hamburgers for Dummies, (released under the End-User-Lisence-Agreement).
How far can trademark protection go before it is simply ridiculous? My uncle owned a cookie chain in Montreal until recently (M. Felix & Mr. Norton) for a while, which trademarked 'cookie bouquets'. When he sued another company for using his trademark, he got countersued for stealing the other company's idea.
Trade marks are a Bad Thing(tm) for the average citizen. Note that the world's most recognised symbol isn't the christian cross, or the star of david, but the coke can. How far can trade marks go before they are out of hand?
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Ugh. I'm sorry fellow geeks. I don't know how this got moderated up, but this wasn't my intention.
Maybe there should be a limit to how far something could be moderated up as "Funny".
How much can you restrict the use of a term you've trademarked? This isn't a publication or anything else 'for sale' -- it's even less 'for sale' than a newspaper article. Could M$ sue me if I wrote a newspaper article with the title 'Microsoft Smurf' or something? I hope not!
-Lars
use Windows.
Kind of makes you feel stupid just reading this, doesn't it?
I hope no one goes through all my old mailing list posts and sends me threatening letters for every (TM) and (R) I forgot to put next to every product I ever mentioned... sigh.
I wonder if IDG published "Auto-Repair for Dummies" in 1990?
600!!!! DING DING!!! Ring the bells!! It's time to celebrate!!
602
530
531
hahaha
Yikes! I hope /. posts the responses they get from IDG.
I hope IDG gives us some acknowledgement for all these great book ideas we're coming up with for them.
That'd be cool. Heh.
And this is what it says:
0 5&mode=nested entitled IDG and 'Trademark Dilution' For Dummies.
...
This letter is in reference to the story at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/10/28/16362
IDG has in the past shown extreme heavy handedness and lack of cluefulness in dealing with people on the Internet who use "for dummies" in their everyday speech. The reason stated is usually "to avoid trademark dilution". Poppycock. A quick search of the Library of Congress will show books published prior to 1991 which use the suffix "for Dummies" in the title, and were not published by IDG books. The trademark was also part of the English vernacular for centuries before IDG took hold of it and started to overzealously defend it. I am not a lawyer, but I believe the term relevant to trademark law here is "prior art". I mean, trademarking "for Dummies" is like me trademarking the word "The". And sending harrassing letters to people on the Internet for saying "for Dummies" in their speech really shows what kind of people you are.
I used to recommend "for Dummies" books to folks I knew who wanted to learn more about computers. No longer. I'll recommend O'Reilly books from now on, just because that company seems to be able to exercise some common sense in defending its marks. I will also no longer attend IDG events, and will check my magazine subscriptions to see what I'll be cancelling my subscriptions to.
In closing, I've got a good joke for you:
What is the difference between a bucket of shit and an overzealous lawyer? (scroll down for answer)
Answer: The bucket!
You know what the sadest thing of this whole situation is?
The web got this guy into this mess. The same medium which was designed to let us all share information is what allowed IDG to spend 5 minutes with a search engine and turn up this supposed dilution of their trademark. So, indirectly, this person has had their privacy violated by IDG: They are donating their time, as a service to a community of people, maintaining a public record. IDG took advantage of that by targeting them for a comment made by someone else in a public discussion forum.
But, what's on IDG's web site? Advertisements. Where is the info on IDG's ethics? Where on their site can you find IDG performing any kind of service to any community at all?
Where is the web site that would allow me to observe congress in action, browse the congressional record, or make my opinion felt directly to the congress so as to have some small influence on the process by which are laws are formulated? How can I see a record of from whom representatives have received contributions? Where is the site that details the (valuable?) service that congress provides to us?
Information like that will never be on the web; Either those people have vested interests in preventing us from ever seeing that sort of information, or else it dosen't exist.
It makes me think that the net is only about sharing information if that information isn't valuable.
"Let me control a planet's oxygen supply and I don't care who makes the laws" -Great Cthulu's Starry Wisdom Band
Why wouldn't NATO protect Chechnya from Russia, just like they did to Albania, eh?
FreeBSD
Sorry I seem to disagree with most of the posters on this thread but I'm afraid that this time you are all wrong ;)
If we recognise any form of Intellectual property you have to respect this.
When someone hears the phrase "... for dummies" people think of that brand. They have invested time and money in getting this recognition.
Here I believe is the key. The subject "SMARTHOST for dummies" is obviously technical - thus there could easily be confusion - and as such I would expect the author to cease and desist.
If we take the different example "Roadkill's R Us" then I would side against the "R Us" people as "Roadkill" is obviously a parody and fair use, as its subject matter is so different to that of their brand.
On the subject of this affecting first ammendment rights... it could be considered theft of resource (that resource being the branding of their products).
Anyone who disagrees with that will of course also say that spam is not theft of resource.
Red
Actually Toys R Us is no better. They've attacked numerous hobby web sites that use "R Us" in the title, and intimidated webmasters into taking their creations down.
I recall they attack Roadkill R Us or something like that. I don't know the outcome but I remember it went back and forth a bit with the lawyers refusing to back down. Fscking blood-suckers.
Point idg to
this or maybe this or quite possibly this.
You get the picture.
Fill in ad-infinitum with the trademark of your choice and send the resulting url to any lawyer who is giving you a hard time, and tell them to shut down that site first.
Does anyone know where I can get a donkey jenny?
Aftershock 2!!
First off I wouldn't buy a "...f*r D*mm**s" book if my ass were on fire. :)
What this letter tells me is that IDG doesn't want the term "f*r d*mm**s" (I don't wanna get sued for using the real term) used in common conversation. The author was not selling a book called "SMART_HOST f*r D*mm**s". He was speaking over electronic device, and used the phrase. IDG wants to control the very mention of its product. I find this aggressive, intrusive, and hostile. In short, I don't like it.
If anything, the email was a sort of advertisement for those bloody books. I'm sure the good folks from "The C*mpl*t* Id**t's Guide..." book series would be glad to have that kind of name recognition.
If IDG doesn't want me using the name of their book series in conversation, I won't use it. And if I can't use the term, I can't reccommend their books to anyone, which suits me fine.
Marlboro
Publicity Backlashes for Dummies
I don't really see how reading a cascade can define one's sexual preference.
From what I've gathered, the original questionable "for Dummies" use wasn't a "chat room subtitle" at all, but the subject line on an archived mailing list. How stupid does a lawyer have to be not to tell the difference? Or is the phrase "for Dummies" really illegal to use in private email?
What exactly does IDG expect people to do? Not use the phrase "for dummies" without footnoting it in private email? Hunt down every recipient of that email to make sure none are making a public archive of it? Or since they're going after the archiver, do they expect him to run every mail message through a million-entry trademark pattern search before converting it to HTML?
Ironically, though the title of this Slashdot article could be considered an infringement, and isn't an automatic archive of a random email, but was a deliberate word choice by an employee of Andover, a for-profit corporation. If IDG's lawyers don't drop out of hypersensitive mode soon, I know whom they're writing to next...
5w33t. asfgfgd rwtrrey y yrtuyrut
Falling on your Sword for Dummies
whatever
Then see how vigorously they pursue infringement!
Mojotoad
Wizards Attic used to sell a "Necronomicon for Dummies" book cover that would slip over a regular "for Dummies" book, but that sold out, and is now only available as a T-shirt. Shame.
Once more for volume.
Subject says all. To help with tradmark dillution, reply with the text, "me too!"
a
b
Like "Smart Host for smooth brained mouth breathers"? Or possibly "Smart Host for total fuckups"?
c
if IDG can do this, then they're going to do that to the /. article here as well, aren't they? They say that someone's free use of speech is illegal, doesn't that go against a small piece of paper written in the late 18th century or something? Help me out here.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Courtesy of Cornell University
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/ch22.html
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Please, Rob. PLEEAZE??
Admit it! You would buy this one!
next..
Sorry, but the blanks won't fill. Still nobody at home.
Microsoft Press acquires IDG!!
We're an internationally known pure research unit of a major University. Among our online docs is a guide to CVS for absolute beginners. It's an HTML doc. The tag reads "CVS for dummies" (this is not visible on the page as you read it), and the opening text reads
The document is boldly titled (H1 tags!) "A Real Beginner's Guide to CVS", and the authorship (mine) and provenance (my institution) are displayed with equal lack of restraint.
Note the quotes around the for-dummies text. Note that there is no attempt to confuse the identities of IDG and the major nonprofit institution which I have the dubious honour of working for.
The reaction of our software staff to the politely threatening letter from IDG's legal eagles ranged from hysterical laughter to passionate rage. IMHO, IDG's lawyers have done more in one day to damage the company's rep and hurt its sales than a million casual, satirical, or affectionate uses of "for dummies" could cause in several years.
I think our strictly noncommercial status protects us from the sharks, but I'll verify that section of the code just in case, and notify Regents' Counsel.
While I sympathize to a limited extent with those who must work within the idiotic confines of copyright law, I can't buy the argument that becoming a "household word" is bad for business. Kleenex certainly is doing just fine. Everyone and their mother can sell "aspirin," and lots of people are. Xerox machines were still selling well, last I heard, and Canon copiers were not labelled "Canon xerox machine". Where's the actual harm?
Is there really anything more real or objectively important behind this linguistic turf war than the desire of lawyers for long-term job security?
de
If Microsoft had been as smart as these IDG guys, they would have trademarked "for Windows" in addition to their product names. Then anytime a third party released a Windows app, they could have kept them from referring to it as "WordPerfect for Windows" or "Lotus 123 for Windows" etc. It would have made it that much easier for them to keep a monopoly on the applications available for their loader.
Maybe they can still get "Visual" so that you can't ever release a product called "Visual APL" or "Visual LISP"? Or how about the "e" prefix? I guess Apple already snapped up the "i" one. If I make a colorful computer called the "iFoo" am I infringing on Apple's trademark? What if I have a company called "intel"?
Wow, trademarking part of a name, instead of the name itself. Such a brilliant idea would never occur to me. No wonder I'm not a megacorp.
69th post?
Yes, we agree! Anarchy is good! We don't want no stinkin' DOJ!!
Proof yet again that the US is crumbling under the mass of its bloated, self-serving, nonsensical legal system.. Fuck IDG, that's what I say.
For who else?
From what I found re: Trademarks
There's probably alot more to indicate that this is not a trademark infringement and that IDG needs to lighten up. They didn't invent dummies. Although if they want to make that claim, I'm sure we can come up with LOTS of liability suits. Dummies cause alot of problems for me...
Let's start by cutting the representatives' diets
I'm sorry, but "...for Dummies" was in the vernacular before 1991 - that's what made it popular. It's a pre-diluted trademark.
This doesn't make the need for them to defend it less pressing, naturally. It does make their defense of it more reprehensible, in my eyes:
"That phrase you used to use? Stop using it. It's ours, now. Thank you."
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Looks to me like the guys at Slashdot should be expecting to get a similar letter in the mail! Watch out guys, Cease and Desist immediatly!
I wonder if Hormel ever tried to enforce their trademark on Spam. That seems to be the most diluted trademark around these days....
(For those of you who don't know, at one point Spam was a meat food product, not junk e-mail.)
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Copyright? What's that?
I would not be afraid (yet) if I were you, because the way it is writen it seems to be a standard answser probably given by a robot that scans newsgroup archives
as I read this, the message consider you want to make your own product with their brand name (freightening to be able to register the sentence "for dummies" !)
just ask them to know really what they want and what is the "else"
NB : I haven't read the original mail
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
He. freshmeat.net
The GIMP is not bundled with Jesux
REALLY!!
Send that one to Bill Gates!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I'm alone. Please come visit me.
If you remove it you are essentially agreeing that you did something wrong.
No matter what you do, DO NOT send that written assurance. Once you send them that they will actually gain legal grounding to prosecute you in a court of law. (If you happen to slip up in the future)
Besides, after all the backlash they get from this article they may think twice about it.
Too bad the "...for Idiots" books are doing a good enough job of diluting their trademark. (For a while I thought they were published by the same group)
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
You want believe your eyes!
Lets have a jam IDG day for Dummies! Pick a day, and then just put "For Dummies" at the end of every sentence you write for Dummies! Their entire operation will grind to a halt just cranking out cease-and-desist letters for Dummies. Woo Hoo for Dummies! heh heh for Dummies.
(let ((k (call/cc (lambda (k) (k k))))
(k k))
We need a new Slashdot section!
Almost there..
There are two avenues that are open to a corporation when this sort of thing happens. Well, probably more than two but anyway. They can send in the laywers to stop those evil trademark infringers or they can read the message (hey, there's a concept) and realize it was a request (plea?) for help. If they had done the latter they might realize there was a new book they could sell (find a need & fill it). Since they chose the former they probably have lost several customers. I don't personally buy their books as I find the titles somewhat offensive (there's a first time for everything :-) ). They need to learn to stop pissing off customers.
I've got a book called "Auto Repair for Dummies" which I picked up in the early 80's. Prior art can kill a patent, but I'm not sure about a trademark. In any case, they were hardly the first to use it.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
And here I thought those companies OWNED the market because their brand-name has become a HOUSEHOLD WORD.
I dont know what they're so upset about, I dont really know how Kleenex or Xerox feel about it but I think I'd be proud if my product's name came to be the generic term for the type of product. I think it's implicit that xerox becoming a verb reflects well on Xerox's product. But hey that's just me.
I wont go into my opinion of the XXXX for Dummmies line of books. (Hint: They suck A$$)
reeeeeeeee
34456dfg fg
q
45
879
'Cause we boldly go were no dothead has gone before...
O
I don't think I'd need this book. I've got it down pretty well already.
Anyone know what the highest record for posts on /. is? We're almost to 500 here... I hope this is saved somewhere so future generations can look at our work in awe.
(fro dummies)dummies).. ah fuck it.
nuff said
What a complete load of crap. As I posted in another reply to the tediously literal and elitist legions that read slashdot, I can't see a world wherein I'm required to make a disclaimer each time i use a phrase in normal conversation that might be 'Trademarked.' I see email and message boards as everyday speech, albeit with a slight lag. I suppose you could argue that there is more permanence to web, but it's not like most people forget what they talked about when the conversation is finished. All this is colored my my political leanings. It wouldn't bother me in the least to see all corporations lose their corporate status, and to have the stock market dissolved for the shell game that it is. The only damage from this might be a loss of Economy of Scale. Perhaps with Internet price watching sites that track the prices of multiple manufacturers, all should be equalized; then everyone would need to complete on the quality of their products, rather than creating an inferior product and selling it cheaper. Take care. Jon Frisby wrote: > > doesn't apply to what is protected by the first ammendment.>> > > Actually, it's trademark law not copyright law. (totally different!) > > And yes, it does apply. Just as plaguerizing a book is not protected by the > first amendment, neither is misappropriation of a trademark. > > Trademarks have to be something that is not likely to come up in common > speech. If it is something generic, or common then it is considered diluted > and invalid. Thus, IDG must actively protect their interests. > > Technically the poster of the message needed to put a trademark notice in > the message, but he didn't. > > -JF
Hummm
Damn subject line is too short. :P
Should be: Barbecuing small animals for fun, profit, and personal gain without artificial preservatives or additives on your backyard grill in three seconds or less FOR DUMMIES.
495
do it now, bitch!
This is what life is like on the edge. Way Cool! ZombieFrog
You write: If we recognise any form of Intellectual property you have to respect this.
For consistency, yes. But I'm glad you phrased it that way, because there is a huge school of thought that says that the very concept of intellectual property is bogus. I find the arguments presented very persuasive, so IDG's claim does not look all that convincing to me.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra