A little over $2 next to the campus, and lots of Purdue Students at the corner of Northwestern and Stadium in lines around the corner and creating a traffic hazard. Similar story elsewhere in town. Some greedy gas stations perhaps jumping the gun to take advantage of the situation, or a true price increase on the horizon... but nevertheless, seems opportunistic and premature. Zionsville exit on I 65 outside of Indy on the corridor to Chicago was reportedly just over $4, according to an Indy commuter coaching my son's soccer team.
Yes. Hear hear! Accept advertising, but try to squash companies. That's why LinuxCare and VALinux were so worried about a little old company selling LinuxInfrastructures.com and LinuxInnovators.com and LinuxBenchmarking.com, that they had to call Linus' lawyer to "take care of" the problem. That's why VALinux.com and LinuxCare.com were courtesy copied on the threatening letter to us. Woo woo. Three days later LinuxCare.com announces an IPO. Yeah, right. Open source as long as it's somebody we know, and somebody we like. It's a lot easier to squash somebody than let an enterprise see if it survives in the free market, and see if anybody has an interest in the names, and see if the company can subsequently expand their 14 year old consultancy. Some of you guys get it. The rest of you are acting like a bunch of cultists who live like ostriches.
Re: "Another thing I fail to see is why someone is allowed to sell "linux" domain names while TM on "Linux" belongs to Linus?"
US Trademark law is very clear about such things. The Linux trademark covers "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation." Linux.net very definitely falls under the actual trademark listed here, and so I'm sure that whoever is buying and selling has gotten things squared away with Linus Torvalds.
On the other hand, separate trademarks can incorporate Linux in their names, and such a thing is called a derivative. My domain name LinuxInfrastructures.com, for example, is descriptive of the services sector. Almost all my Linux domain names are. It is most certainly not a trademark infringement to own such a name, to broadcast that you have such a name for sale, or to sell it, and the domain name itself is perfectly legal following the guidelines of the US Patent and Trademark Office.
The proper procedure for building such a site and wrapping an identity around it would be to gain a license to use the Linux trademark incorporated into your own trademark. This has been done before, and has substantial precedent in the case of Linux, so there are no grounds to be exclusionary. There are precedents in registered trademarks in the USPTO, and it has precedent, even without trademarks, across hundreds of domain names in the Linux community.
eToys lawyers, (if you are referring to the skirmish with the etoy art site in Europe), had a different battle. eToys.com is similar to eToy.com, but the trademark is eToys.com. You do not automatically own a plural of a domain name, nor should you. It would have been nice if they had just contacted each other on a friendly cyberneighbor kind of basis (would have been nice in my case of selling domain names, too!) and asked them nicely if they wouldn't mind putting the naked stuff on a non-front page, given the terrific traffic to eToys, and inadvertently to eToy from kids. Most people are protective of kids and wouldn't cry "censor" just to put the stuff one page back. But it's all in how civilized people are talking with each other and how they approach each other. That's why I haven't gotten my hackles up about the way I was treated, although I have every right to. It just happened, and maybe soon I can have a civilized conversation with the only stakeholder that matters in this, and that is Linus.
Re:If Torvalds controls *linux*.*, does he get a c
on
Who Bought Linux.Net?
·
· Score: 2
The "crackdown" was not targeted at an auction house. It was targeted at an individual (me) who was offering the pick of Linux domain names in an auction, so I could raise money to expand my consultancy of 14 years. If my names were not of interest than they would not have been sold and there would be no devastation to the fragile Linux community, which lives or dies on whether or not one other person owns a domain name with the trademarked Linux in it. Perish the thought. If one or all of my Linux domains had been sold, then the person purchasing the names could acquire licensing from Linus Torvalds as they built their site, just as somebody buying real estate property has to comply with local building codes when they go about building their home or office. That's the sane and non-communist approach in a free market society. The rights of the trademark owner is protected. And individual liberties and common rules of commerce are not usurped. We call that America. I believe in the past, we have called it "Open Source. Come one, come all!" too. Now that a few fat cats are trying to position themselves for the largest piece of the pie, the little guys are getting crowded out... or are trying to crowd us out.
Anybody here old enough to like Westerns or remember Louis L'Amour or even US history? You know the founding rancher who's a good guy and owns a big ranch, and builds this town, but then these new power guys come in.. the big guys, and they have a guy over here, running foreman for the Big Rancher, and everybody has to answer to the Foreman now. And there's a couple guys who work for the new Big Rancher who now owns the town, and hates nesters. New rancher comes in. Water is found. Now Big Rancher wants more of the water holes. Boys, what are we going to do with this no good. Let's call them "nesters" and kill them -- Call them "nesters" in front of everyboy over at the saloon. (These guys are so easy.) Just stir up a mob. Don't even talk to the new guy or get to know him/her. Just kill him. He has no right to that water hole. We were here first. We want it all. But don't tell anybody. What difference does it make that they filed on the land, and own title. They've got no right. Next thing you know they'll be runnin' sheep and we only like cattle around here. We never saw it before and got along fine without it, but now that we know it's there, let's kill them, and take the water hole. Now, while we've got the mob going, let's look around the town and see who else we need to get to tow the line. Perfect timing. You wanna play? Fine, but you have to deal with The Boss. Boss wouldn't like that. Well, he never complained before. Yep. But he's not running things anymore, we are, and we say what goes....
So what kind of town is this going to be, and who is going to run things? You want a town that's owned, or do you want free commerce for all. Hard work. Hard life. But a good stake not threatened by power mongers.. there's a possibility of working the land and making something good come out of it. Given a chance, and some room to play. How about it boys. What's it going to be? You snookered, or you read up the laws of the land? You cowards and lackeys or are you individualists?
Correction... "not by Linus" in first sentence
on
Who Bought Linux.Net?
·
· Score: 1
Typo. The first sentence should have been "... the auction was stopped by the lawyer, who was called not by Linus but by one..." Sorry.
Technically, (for those who are interested at all in the truth) the auction was stopped by the lawyer, who was called not by Linux but by one or both (according to the lawyer) of two people who were courtesy copied on the original threatening letter to me... One from VALinux.com and one from LinuxCare.com both with dual roles on LI, and as part of large IPO companies... the one for LinuxCare.com being announced coincidentally (?) four days after receiving the first of a barrage of threatening letters and threatening phone calls, despite compliance. I have stated elsewhere that I doubt that Linus would have supported the way this came down Microsoft-esque, because that would make him a hypocrite at best. My emails to him (3 now) have gone unreturned (two of which were telling him let's not worry about it until your product launch is under your belt) and one on Friday, so perhaps I will hear from him on Monday. Lawyers are paid to fight. I don't like to fight. Lawyers have contacted me telling me from across the net that he doesn't have a leg to stand on with the way it's happened, and the extent of demands by the lawyer. Some have gone as far as to say that the cow's out of the barn and has been for a long time with use of Linux and that it is in the public domain. Others have pointed out that his trademark is for the software and my names are descriptive of services, and that derivatives are trademarked all the time, and are on record in the US Patent and Trademark Office. Whatever the case, what happened to me (linked here for the open minded) has been buried in this forum, because I don't think a lot of you would have supported the way it happened, given rantings over the last few years against similar tactics.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.
For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.
In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist. And when a user community was built up for that, would have been allowed to be sold, too. So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.
Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."
Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the old west... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.
Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?
Bottom line is I staked out lots of camps in one vein of the corporate valley. I was selling domain names with Linux in them. I've encounted resentment and righteous puffery because I was an unknown, and because some people don't trust the unknown, and measures have been exclusionary because of philosophical differences. LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate is also absurd. Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now. But there are a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you know that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there. Hundreds of thousands. It's almost the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not. Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not?
To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.
So we're back to Is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (see what really happened.). And while you're at it, think about this. If you had spent a lot of your hard-earned money (very very hard earned, for you get rich quick illusionists) to buy domain names that included Linux (as many, many, many people have), and if there were precedent after precedent of hundreds of sites and uses out there with Linux in the name, would you be blindsided and incredulous that some Threaten Now, Talk Never lawyer would call and suggest that you not sell the names or even remove any references to the names? Is this a free country? Is this still America? Is this an Open Community -- come one, come all? See the Penguines Parody if you have any sense of humor at all. Otherwise, the issues here and violations here are not very funny, and not very Linux-esque, or even American, for my open-minded, level-headed, non-hypocritical colleagues, who've been quietly supportive in private emails to me.
As in any industry group like LI, the group spends lots of thankless hours doing a host of very worthy and very time consuming things, and usually there's at least a few that do a stand out job and carry a lot of the weight. Been there and done that, in the multimedia industry, so kudos to all the effort and hours at LI.
Nevertheless, if we're honest, this gets kind of sticky, especially as some of the members of this organization, have a dual role in commercial ventures. As commercial ventures raise tremendous capital, with tremendous pressure to perform for investors, the stakes get higher. So how do you sort all that out, when conflicts of interest must rise, sometimes?
I'm naturally concerned about the role of apparent designated trademark preservationists who also have roles at VALinux and LinuxCare. I'm concerned that one of them was the one, according to the lawyer, who contacted the lawyer initially to go after us. And I'm concerned to find out when I got that first email from the lawyer that courtesy copied them, that some of my names overlapped primary advertised services of one of their businesses, and to find out that their company went public today.
I'm not claiming any wrongdoing by any stretch, but I am saying that an oversight group that has simultaneous commercial interests could put the overseers in difficult or compromising positions, including appearances, even when all objectivity is maintained by the individuals involved.
But barring some self-sustaining oversight group, members must by definition come from commercial interests so there seems to be no easy solution.
Bottom line is I staked out lots of camps in one vein of the corporate valley. It was a vein that I saw that was untapped, and had no apparent interest for years, from people in the Linux community, or elsewhere. So I staked a vein, and identified specific service sectors that I'm interested in, in my consulting practice, and I set out to sell some of them. I've encounted resentment and righteous puffery because I was an unknown, and because some people don't trust the unknown, and measures have been exclusionary because of philosophical differences.
LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of unregistered domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate, is also absurd.
Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now.
But there are also a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you you've encountered that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there -- Hundreds of thousands -- if you don't like what we have, so where's the ruffle?
Worrying that a collection of domain names is going to keep others from good names is the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not? What are we really afraid of? Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not? You can cry nay, but my domain names are not for everyone. The people who want to create their own names, have tons to choose from, without my help.
Mine, however, are for specific type companies that I'm used to working with, that LIKE to be given turnkey packages for corporate identities, etc. or who want specific keyword identities. In that scenario, is it not conceivable, that creating these names, that did not exist at all until I created them, will actually build value and contribute to the Linux community? Again, what are we really afraid of?
To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.
So we're back to is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (See what really happened..)
So, you can all take pot shots because I'm calling this a gold field, and I'm just a gold digger you people who don't know me, say. Whatever you want to think. Here goes anyway.
Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."
Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the Old West... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.
Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?
You comment: "... but I'd like to know that any decisions over trademark use get made by independent committee."
I'm not sure that's in Mr. Torvalds best interest, and even if he thought it was, I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.
For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.
In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist.
So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.
>If Linus loses control of the trademark, it doesnt mean that it will be uncontrolled. It probably would just mean that it was controlled by the people with the biggest marketing budgets who could shout down the other people in the conversation. I believe that he needs to protect his trademark too, but not the way it was done. I don't think he would have supported what happened either. If you have an open mind and want to know What really happened try this link.
Yes, I'm the one who posted an auction for the Pick of Linux domain names, forcing me unwittingly into the crosshairs of a lot of critical issues for the Linux community. Since fear and overreaction seem to be the natural response to the unknown, here are some facts.
I have been a member of the Linux user community for years. That does not put me up in the ranks with most of you, who are much admired developers, but I'm still a great fan, albeit a quiet one.
I have a consultancy that is 14 years old, and have been a multimedia developer and corporate consultant for 20 years in helping clients leverage technology (all and any technologies, including Linux), to improve performance. That includes infrastructures, testing, certification, design, development, consulting, training, benchmarking and many others... which are only mentioned here in case anybody remembers the Linux names on the original list, which reflect these specific segments of the service sector.
I am one of the little guys. Even though my consultancy has included work for ADP, TRW, AT&T, Eli Lilly, Cummins, USAir, NCR, Sprint and many, many others, 1) we are small, 2) we get our work from word of mouth, 3) we don't do the tradeshow circuit. That means that even though we've won multiple national and international awards in cutting edge design and development, there are "in-between" times on our projects. Any undercapitalized consultancy that doesn't admit that is extremely lucky/blessed or in denial.
I want to grow my consultancy, but I don't want to go the investor route (with it) that so many have done lately. If we had a lot of products, instead of mostly being a service consultancy, we could just sell off inventory, but that is not the case. My only other way I have to raise capital is to sell assets. That's how I got into buying and selling domain names. *If* I can sell some assets, I can expand my consultancy in areas that include additional Linux services.
I am not a cybersquatter. Cybersquatting is reprehensible. A cybersquatter is somebody who deliberately goes out and purchases a domain name that is the name of another organization or person, and then turns around and holds the company up for ransom, to get back the name that rightfully belongs to them. The current cybersquatting law is perhaps too far reaching, rushed through Congress on the heels of heavy lobbying $$$ by specific large concerns. All the overstepping will eventually, hopefully, be sifted down to the essence of cybersquatting as stated above.
I do buy and sell domain real estate. I know many here will disagree with this, but in my view, there is no more wrong with that than with somebody who sees certain growth trends in their town, and buys a piece of property ahead of time, where the investor predicts growth will be. It's no different than buying and selling stock. It's all the same: See growth patterns and trends, and invest accordingly. It's available to all, as it should be in a free market society. and does not need to be resented by those who choose not to invest, but human nature being what is, naturally will be criticized by a handful -- just as a handful of people criticize farmers who buy additional acreage or property developers who buy outlying areas in their own towns.
Purchasers of real estate property have to comply with building codes, easements, and community covenants when they decide to build or improve their property. Likewise, a purchaser of domain real estate will naturally have to comply with the building codes, easements, community covenants (and licenses) of the location which they purchase as they begin to develop the site.
Sellers of real estate property, (and by extension, domain name property), should not be restricted from advertising the property for sale, nor from selling the property, just because those who purchase the property must ultimately comply with the said building codes, easements, covenants, etc. There are laws on the books in America against such exclusionary and restrictive practices. Regarding what went down on the auction, I was closing up my computer Saturday night... actually early Sunday morning when I got an email accusing me of cybersquatting and threatening me with litigation that could result in "possible statutory damage award against you in the millions of dollars, together with substantial legal fees. Anyone who purchases the names from you could also be subject to suit, " and saying I was to cease and desist my auction, and "Should you persist in this course of action it will unquestionably result in litigation. Do not ignore this letter."
Isn't that a nice way to start a dialogue with somebody? This was the first contact I'd had from anybody, and came directly from the attorney, and was courtesy copied Linus Torvalds at transmeta.com, Jon "Maddog" Hall at valinux.com and Dan York at linuxcare.com. I knew VALinux from the recent IPO press, but had never heard of LinuxCare.com, and wasn't sure what either of them had to do with such a letter. When I went to LinuxCare.com I noticed that their business is pursuing mostly Linux services including terms like infrastructure, facilitators, consulting, benchmarking, innovation and others that are in my list of domain names that were involved in the auction. (Later the attorney explained that one of those individuals had contacted him to take care of [me], and that both have a dual role in Linux International -- where now I see the welcome letter from Dan says "Linux International is a non-profit association of groups, corporations and others that work towards the promotion of and helping direct the growth of the Linux operating system and the Linux community. Welcome to the website and to the Linux revolution!" If I were less of a keep-my-head-down-and-just-do-my-work type person, I would have know that, but I didn't.) In any case, having duly received my most warm welcome into the Linux community (having been in it silently for years) I closed up shop as I try to do on every Sunday, knowing that I couldn't even talk to the auction people until Monday.
On Monday (as I first got into work, mind you) I got a second email saying that "unless this auction is stopped immediately by Noon PST, we have been instructed to file suit under the Cybersquatting Act on Monday afternoon. We will hold you and any buyers liable for any violation of the trademark and unfair competition laws applicable." I called the auction people and pulled the webmaster out of a meeting to stop the auction. I removed my auction out of respect for Mr. Torvalds; the last thing a guy needs when he's trying to launch a product is a mess in the wings like this.
Later on that afternoon, I got a call from the attorney, and being on another call couldn't take it. He informed the person that took the call that unless I called him by the end of the day, he was going to file a federal law suit in the morning. So when I called him, he said that I had to remove the auction (which I kept insisting that I already had), and then I finally figured out that he didn't want to just stop the auction, but he wanted all mention of Linux off my site, and the complete list off the site. When I explained that I would have to post some kind of explanation (so I could let people know what happened to the auction, and to alert people to the Trademark/license requirement), we finally got to the point that I could actually leave the word Linux and the link on my site, and therefore you see the result with my statement.
I also asked him that in the event that the buyer understood that there were licensing arrangements to make with Linus Torvalds, would that be okay? He said that it was okay to sell the domain names, assuming the license could be approved, but I couldn't advertise them. (Huh?) I decided to let that go for now, too.
I tried also to address an interest in getting licenses for my names, to discuss later in the week after the Transmeta thing was launched, and thought the door was open to that, but in a subsequent transmittal (yes, yet another) from the attorney that afternoon, it included this statement: "We would also strongly suggest you consider deleting the Linux domain names you have as many of them will never be approved for licensing since they suggest ownership of the mark. "
For the record, I don't believe I was cybersquatting. I don't believe that selling a domain name dilutes the mark. I don't believe that the first inkling you get of a problem should be to threaten anything. (How about: Were you aware that you need to cite Linus Torvalds as the trademark owner of Linux? You also need to let your buyers know that they need to secure a license from Linust Torvalds.) I don't believe I should be accused of unfair competition (although the reverse actually comes to mind). I don't believe that it is appropriate to single me out, when there is plenty of precedent of other Linux derivative.com's out there. And I don't believe that any of my domain names suggest ownership of the mark.
I do believe that I owe Linus Torvalds an apology, which I have extended to him by private email, and do so here also publicly, for not realizing that Linux was trademarked. I was so used to the open source concept, and was so used to other Linux{this}.com sites and [that]Linux.com sites that it absolutely never occured to me that there were any restrictions at all.
I do also believe that Mr. Torvalds needs to protect his trademark by having licensing arrangements with domain sites and businesses, or his trademark will be diluted. I don't think licenses should be carte blanche, but I don't think it should be so restrictive, either. It's not my decision, but that's my opinion, which I think is more consistent with the culture and groundwork in the Linux community.
For example, I don't believe restricting LinuxExpert.com which he has apparently done, is in the spirit of Linux either. LinuxExpert.com does no more dilution of the mark than LinuxCare.com or a host of others. Neither does it suggest ownership of the mark. Neither one says we are the only guys out here, and neither presumes success, in any event. I can have a DonutExpert shop on one corner, and have a DonutPro shop on the opposite corner, and we'll still get along as friendly competitors, with a different way of doing business, and different things to offer. We can even have TheWorld'sGreatestDonuts on the third corner, and TheOnlyDonutsInTown on the fourth corner, and there's no damage to the name Donut or to the Donut community. And we can also have Ma's Donuts three streets down from the big events who will still eat all of our lunches, because she has a better donut, that people come from miles around for. (I'm not saying us, I'm saying in this hypothetical scenario.) Basically, it seems bogus to get so hyped up about a few great names. Either you think they're great names or you don't, to each his own. But to allow some names and not others, because they're too good or too broad or whatever seems shaky ground.
I don't believe in my wildest imagination or worst Linux-goes-Microsoft nightmare, given his open source approach and tremendous contributions to the very existence of this phenomenon, that Linus Torvalds would have been supportive of the style of his attorney's approach to me, nor in his far reaching (IMO overreaching) claims or demands.
Bottom line is that we can figure everything out in the weeks to come, when he has time to talk.
Tasha
P.S. To the cacklers in the wings, Entrapreneur is a word left over from the 80's that meant, at the time, entrepreneurs working inside a corporation, i.e. internal innovators. It has fallen into disuse because of the obvious confusion with entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I do make typos occasionally --- and mistakes. (See above):o)
Slashdot Mirror
A little over $2 next to the campus, and lots of Purdue Students at the corner of Northwestern and Stadium in lines around the corner and creating a traffic hazard. Similar story elsewhere in town. Some greedy gas stations perhaps jumping the gun to take advantage of the situation, or a true price increase on the horizon... but nevertheless, seems opportunistic and premature. Zionsville exit on I 65 outside of Indy on the corridor to Chicago was reportedly just over $4, according to an Indy commuter coaching my son's soccer team.
US Trademark law is very clear about such things. The Linux trademark covers "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation." Linux.net very definitely falls under the actual trademark listed here, and so I'm sure that whoever is buying and selling has gotten things squared away with Linus Torvalds.
On the other hand, separate trademarks can incorporate Linux in their names, and such a thing is called a derivative. My domain name LinuxInfrastructures.com, for example, is descriptive of the services sector. Almost all my Linux domain names are. It is most certainly not a trademark infringement to own such a name, to broadcast that you have such a name for sale, or to sell it, and the domain name itself is perfectly legal following the guidelines of the US Patent and Trademark Office.
The proper procedure for building such a site and wrapping an identity around it would be to gain a license to use the Linux trademark incorporated into your own trademark. This has been done before, and has substantial precedent in the case of Linux, so there are no grounds to be exclusionary. There are precedents in registered trademarks in the USPTO, and it has precedent, even without trademarks, across hundreds of domain names in the Linux community.
eToys lawyers, (if you are referring to the skirmish with the etoy art site in Europe), had a different battle. eToys.com is similar to eToy.com, but the trademark is eToys.com. You do not automatically own a plural of a domain name, nor should you. It would have been nice if they had just contacted each other on a friendly cyberneighbor kind of basis (would have been nice in my case of selling domain names, too!) and asked them nicely if they wouldn't mind putting the naked stuff on a non-front page, given the terrific traffic to eToys, and inadvertently to eToy from kids. Most people are protective of kids and wouldn't cry "censor" just to put the stuff one page back. But it's all in how civilized people are talking with each other and how they approach each other. That's why I haven't gotten my hackles up about the way I was treated, although I have every right to. It just happened, and maybe soon I can have a civilized conversation with the only stakeholder that matters in this, and that is Linus.
Anybody here old enough to like Westerns or remember Louis L'Amour or even US history? You know the founding rancher who's a good guy and owns a big ranch, and builds this town, but then these new power guys come in.. the big guys, and they have a guy over here, running foreman for the Big Rancher, and everybody has to answer to the Foreman now. And there's a couple guys who work for the new Big Rancher who now owns the town, and hates nesters. New rancher comes in. Water is found. Now Big Rancher wants more of the water holes. Boys, what are we going to do with this no good. Let's call them "nesters" and kill them -- Call them "nesters" in front of everyboy over at the saloon. (These guys are so easy.) Just stir up a mob. Don't even talk to the new guy or get to know him/her. Just kill him. He has no right to that water hole. We were here first. We want it all. But don't tell anybody. What difference does it make that they filed on the land, and own title. They've got no right. Next thing you know they'll be runnin' sheep and we only like cattle around here. We never saw it before and got along fine without it, but now that we know it's there, let's kill them, and take the water hole. Now, while we've got the mob going, let's look around the town and see who else we need to get to tow the line. Perfect timing. You wanna play? Fine, but you have to deal with The Boss. Boss wouldn't like that. Well, he never complained before. Yep. But he's not running things anymore, we are, and we say what goes....
So what kind of town is this going to be, and who is going to run things? You want a town that's owned, or do you want free commerce for all. Hard work. Hard life. But a good stake not threatened by power mongers.. there's a possibility of working the land and making something good come out of it. Given a chance, and some room to play. How about it boys. What's it going to be? You snookered, or you read up the laws of the land? You cowards and lackeys or are you individualists?
Typo. The first sentence should have been "... the auction was stopped by the lawyer, who was called not by Linus but by one..." Sorry.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.
For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.
In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist. And when a user community was built up for that, would have been allowed to be sold, too. So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.
Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."
Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the old west... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.
Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?
Bottom line is I staked out lots of camps in one vein of the corporate valley. I was selling domain names with Linux in them. I've encounted resentment and righteous puffery because I was an unknown, and because some people don't trust the unknown, and measures have been exclusionary because of philosophical differences. LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate is also absurd. Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now. But there are a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you know that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there. Hundreds of thousands. It's almost the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not. Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not?
To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.
So we're back to Is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (see what really happened.). And while you're at it, think about this. If you had spent a lot of your hard-earned money (very very hard earned, for you get rich quick illusionists) to buy domain names that included Linux (as many, many, many people have), and if there were precedent after precedent of hundreds of sites and uses out there with Linux in the name, would you be blindsided and incredulous that some Threaten Now, Talk Never lawyer would call and suggest that you not sell the names or even remove any references to the names? Is this a free country? Is this still America? Is this an Open Community -- come one, come all? See the Penguines Parody if you have any sense of humor at all. Otherwise, the issues here and violations here are not very funny, and not very Linux-esque, or even American, for my open-minded, level-headed, non-hypocritical colleagues, who've been quietly supportive in private emails to me.
Nevertheless, if we're honest, this gets kind of sticky, especially as some of the members of this organization, have a dual role in commercial ventures. As commercial ventures raise tremendous capital, with tremendous pressure to perform for investors, the stakes get higher. So how do you sort all that out, when conflicts of interest must rise, sometimes?
I'm naturally concerned about the role of apparent designated trademark preservationists who also have roles at VALinux and LinuxCare. I'm concerned that one of them was the one, according to the lawyer, who contacted the lawyer initially to go after us. And I'm concerned to find out when I got that first email from the lawyer that courtesy copied them, that some of my names overlapped primary advertised services of one of their businesses, and to find out that their company went public today.
I'm not claiming any wrongdoing by any stretch, but I am saying that an oversight group that has simultaneous commercial interests could put the overseers in difficult or compromising positions, including appearances, even when all objectivity is maintained by the individuals involved.
But barring some self-sustaining oversight group, members must by definition come from commercial interests so there seems to be no easy solution.
You can see what happened to me, here.
LinuxInfrastructures.com, and LinuxRollouts.com and LinusInnovation.com and LinuxBenchmarking, and most of our other Linux domain names have to do with the corporate service sector, which we've been players in, for 14 years. To say that offering domain names for sale will dilute the Linux marketplace as some have claimed is absolutely absurd. There are literally thousands of unregistered domain names for sale. To say that LinuxInfrastructures or any of my names suggest ownership of the mark is also ludicrous. To say that buying parts of a vein and then selling off some of my stakes (or at least offering them for sale) to help finance my expansion is inappropriate, is also absurd.
Just like an incubator in a research park, there are lots of little niches in the vein I've staked out. There are even more business incubators out there in a lot more Linux valleys and a lot more Linux veins, and all of them have a lot more money and a lot more everything then we have right now.
But there are also a lot of businesses out there who don't have much imagination, and if you've been a consultant for very long you you've encountered that, ten times over. Sometimes you need to build an opportunity and paint a picture until somebody gets it. And that creative image making and position staking is not only worth something, but it's an entire industry, with lots of Manhattan advertising agencies and corporate identity makers charging millions for it. And there are still thousands of domain names out there -- Hundreds of thousands -- if you don't like what we have, so where's the ruffle?
Worrying that a collection of domain names is going to keep others from good names is the same kind of mis-enlightenment that the guy in the patent office in the early 1900's had, when he said "Everything that's ever going to be invented has already been invented." Let's get with it. Is this open source, open invitation, or not? What are we really afraid of? Are legitimate business uses of Linux derivative names, including creating domain names for specific mindshare positions and then selling them like any worthy business asset, to be allowed or not? You can cry nay, but my domain names are not for everyone. The people who want to create their own names, have tons to choose from, without my help.
Mine, however, are for specific type companies that I'm used to working with, that LIKE to be given turnkey packages for corporate identities, etc. or who want specific keyword identities. In that scenario, is it not conceivable, that creating these names, that did not exist at all until I created them, will actually build value and contribute to the Linux community? Again, what are we really afraid of?
To say that using Linux to get money is an isolated behavior for domain speculators (as in "now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.") is a limited view. Linux in the name is critical to being a player, any player, in this industry. As reported in an earlier post, LinuxCare's filing says "If we fail to adequately promote and maintain our brand name or are unable to continue using "Linux" as part of our brand name, our business may be adversely affected." Yeah. Ditto.
So we're back to is it okay to squash and block because of a philosophical difference when no wrongdoing or damage to the mark is proven? Open-minded objectivity is going to be key here. What happened to me does not, from where I'm sitting, feel like open minded, open source anything . And objective analysts in this forum, and even Linus Torvalds himself, would not support, I believe, the way I was actually treated. (See what really happened..)
Part 3 of 3
Suppose that Somebody is in charge of the GoldPan, a phenomenally successful way to extract gold from them thar hills. Suppose Somebody lets all their friends and even lots of strangers try their hand at using the GoldPan and even shows them great ways to use it. Several people create neat little accessories that make it even more efficient. Everybody gets very excited about the GoldPan and all the opportunities on the them thar hills. Then, one day, on the new ship in from Afar, Stranger arrives and buys a vein that Everybody had ignored until then, and sets up several camps along the vein and says "All welcome. Come and try your hand at my vein. Use this neat GoldPan that everybody's using. But nobody's ever used it on this vein. Everybody seemed disinterested in this vein, but I think this vein holds great promise. But I'm not going to hog it all to myself. Come buy your stake."
Now does that threaten the quality of the Goldpan? No. Does it irritate Everybody who's been working different veins with the GoldPan? Some, naturally. Is it worse because the Stranger's from Afar? Is it because we're shocked that we've made open invitations to come join us in these hills, but we deep down thought nobody else would come? Or is it because we thought they would come ask permission to buy that valley before they bought their stake, because certainly nobody else would have run down and tried to stake the same claim, if they thought it might disappear. Or is it because it is really not worth anything, and we should save this guy from Afar from his own stupidity. Or is it just plain and simple we don't think anybody from Afar should have such a big stake in one vein, even if we didn't pay any attention to it before and even if they did put up the money for it. Is it because we didn't want it in the first place, and took no measures to purchase it, but now that somebody owns it, it irritates us that he wants to offer parts of it for sale? Maybe yes, yes and yes. But is it wrong? Some say yes, some say no. Should the guy be run out of town on a rail? That's what was done in the Old West... or maybe found slashed in a dark alley.
Is one of the big threats that somebody might actually see value in one of those camps on that vein and spend money on it? Or is it that it was almost free for the taking only a little while ago, but now this guys got it and I wish I had gotten it, or better yet nobody got it because then we'd only have to worry about what we were working on before this guy came along? Or is it because we had this open invitation to come one and come all, but then somebody actually took us up on it, but it isn't anybody I know?
Part 2 of 3
I'm not sure that's in Mr. Torvalds best interest, and even if he thought it was, I'm not sure that it is possible to have an independent committee, anymore. People have to make a living, and in their workday they will be involved with companies that have a stake in things going one way or another. Not to say that people can't be objective, but we're all human. There are clearly a lot of power shifts going on, and a lot of shifting influences, with a lot at stake. There also seems to be a naivete or unwillingness to look at things with the same independent thought we used to see here.
For example, it is clear that some people view any purchase of domain names whatsoever, for purposes other than building a single site, to be unacceptable. Other people believe that it is okay to see trends and buy and sell domain names like any other assets. It's okay to agree to disagree. But does a philosophical difference, or should a philosophical difference prevent the use and development and sale of those names for Linux businesses? I don't think so.
In the trademark situation, the fundamental issue should be whether or not a name or a site using that name (porn, Microsoft lovefest, etc.) violates or denigrates the mark. A name which has in no way done either, should not be dismissed, nor should it be removed from the market by all intents and purposes, because you're worried it might be misused, or because you don't like the person (or assume you won't like the person, since you don't know the person), in my example. I have no doubt that LinuxStinks.com would have been allowed to continue to exist.
So what is the difference? The difference is that I was an unknown, and suspect because I was unknown. In our self-righteous rantings about other things and other sectors here, we call that bigotry.
Part 1 of 3
>If Linus loses control of the trademark, it doesnt mean that it will be uncontrolled. It probably would just mean that it was controlled by the people with the biggest marketing budgets who could shout down the other people in the conversation. I believe that he needs to protect his trademark too, but not the way it was done. I don't think he would have supported what happened either. If you have an open mind and want to know What really happened try this link.
I have been a member of the Linux user community for years. That does not put me up in the ranks with most of you, who are much admired developers, but I'm still a great fan, albeit a quiet one.
I have a consultancy that is 14 years old, and have been a multimedia developer and corporate consultant for 20 years in helping clients leverage technology (all and any technologies, including Linux), to improve performance. That includes infrastructures, testing, certification, design, development, consulting, training, benchmarking and many others... which are only mentioned here in case anybody remembers the Linux names on the original list, which reflect these specific segments of the service sector.
I am one of the little guys. Even though my consultancy has included work for ADP, TRW, AT&T, Eli Lilly, Cummins, USAir, NCR, Sprint and many, many others, 1) we are small, 2) we get our work from word of mouth, 3) we don't do the tradeshow circuit. That means that even though we've won multiple national and international awards in cutting edge design and development, there are "in-between" times on our projects. Any undercapitalized consultancy that doesn't admit that is extremely lucky/blessed or in denial.
I want to grow my consultancy, but I don't want to go the investor route (with it) that so many have done lately. If we had a lot of products, instead of mostly being a service consultancy, we could just sell off inventory, but that is not the case. My only other way I have to raise capital is to sell assets. That's how I got into buying and selling domain names. *If* I can sell some assets, I can expand my consultancy in areas that include additional Linux services.
I am not a cybersquatter. Cybersquatting is reprehensible. A cybersquatter is somebody who deliberately goes out and purchases a domain name that is the name of another organization or person, and then turns around and holds the company up for ransom, to get back the name that rightfully belongs to them. The current cybersquatting law is perhaps too far reaching, rushed through Congress on the heels of heavy lobbying $$$ by specific large concerns. All the overstepping will eventually, hopefully, be sifted down to the essence of cybersquatting as stated above.
I do buy and sell domain real estate. I know many here will disagree with this, but in my view, there is no more wrong with that than with somebody who sees certain growth trends in their town, and buys a piece of property ahead of time, where the investor predicts growth will be. It's no different than buying and selling stock. It's all the same: See growth patterns and trends, and invest accordingly. It's available to all, as it should be in a free market society. and does not need to be resented by those who choose not to invest, but human nature being what is, naturally will be criticized by a handful -- just as a handful of people criticize farmers who buy additional acreage or property developers who buy outlying areas in their own towns.
Purchasers of real estate property have to comply with building codes, easements, and community covenants when they decide to build or improve their property. Likewise, a purchaser of domain real estate will naturally have to comply with the building codes, easements, community covenants (and licenses) of the location which they purchase as they begin to develop the site.
Sellers of real estate property, (and by extension, domain name property), should not be restricted from advertising the property for sale, nor from selling the property, just because those who purchase the property must ultimately comply with the said building codes, easements, covenants, etc. There are laws on the books in America against such exclusionary and restrictive practices. Regarding what went down on the auction, I was closing up my computer Saturday night... actually early Sunday morning when I got an email accusing me of cybersquatting and threatening me with litigation that could result in "possible statutory damage award against you in the millions of dollars, together with substantial legal fees. Anyone who purchases the names from you could also be subject to suit, " and saying I was to cease and desist my auction, and "Should you persist in this course of action it will unquestionably result in litigation. Do not ignore this letter."
Isn't that a nice way to start a dialogue with somebody? This was the first contact I'd had from anybody, and came directly from the attorney, and was courtesy copied Linus Torvalds at transmeta.com, Jon "Maddog" Hall at valinux.com and Dan York at linuxcare.com. I knew VALinux from the recent IPO press, but had never heard of LinuxCare.com, and wasn't sure what either of them had to do with such a letter. When I went to LinuxCare.com I noticed that their business is pursuing mostly Linux services including terms like infrastructure, facilitators, consulting, benchmarking, innovation and others that are in my list of domain names that were involved in the auction. (Later the attorney explained that one of those individuals had contacted him to take care of [me], and that both have a dual role in Linux International -- where now I see the welcome letter from Dan says "Linux International is a non-profit association of groups, corporations and others that work towards the promotion of and helping direct the growth of the Linux operating system and the Linux community. Welcome to the website and to the Linux revolution!" If I were less of a keep-my-head-down-and-just-do-my-work type person, I would have know that, but I didn't.) In any case, having duly received my most warm welcome into the Linux community (having been in it silently for years) I closed up shop as I try to do on every Sunday, knowing that I couldn't even talk to the auction people until Monday.
On Monday (as I first got into work, mind you) I got a second email saying that "unless this auction is stopped immediately by Noon PST, we have been instructed to file suit under the Cybersquatting Act on Monday afternoon. We will hold you and any buyers liable for any violation of the trademark and unfair competition laws applicable." I called the auction people and pulled the webmaster out of a meeting to stop the auction. I removed my auction out of respect for Mr. Torvalds; the last thing a guy needs when he's trying to launch a product is a mess in the wings like this.
Later on that afternoon, I got a call from the attorney, and being on another call couldn't take it. He informed the person that took the call that unless I called him by the end of the day, he was going to file a federal law suit in the morning. So when I called him, he said that I had to remove the auction (which I kept insisting that I already had), and then I finally figured out that he didn't want to just stop the auction, but he wanted all mention of Linux off my site, and the complete list off the site. When I explained that I would have to post some kind of explanation (so I could let people know what happened to the auction, and to alert people to the Trademark/license requirement), we finally got to the point that I could actually leave the word Linux and the link on my site, and therefore you see the result with my statement.
I also asked him that in the event that the buyer understood that there were licensing arrangements to make with Linus Torvalds, would that be okay? He said that it was okay to sell the domain names, assuming the license could be approved, but I couldn't advertise them. (Huh?) I decided to let that go for now, too.
I tried also to address an interest in getting licenses for my names, to discuss later in the week after the Transmeta thing was launched, and thought the door was open to that, but in a subsequent transmittal (yes, yet another) from the attorney that afternoon, it included this statement: "We would also strongly suggest you consider deleting the Linux domain names you have as many of them will never be approved for licensing since they suggest ownership of the mark. "
For the record, I don't believe I was cybersquatting. I don't believe that selling a domain name dilutes the mark. I don't believe that the first inkling you get of a problem should be to threaten anything. (How about: Were you aware that you need to cite Linus Torvalds as the trademark owner of Linux? You also need to let your buyers know that they need to secure a license from Linust Torvalds.) I don't believe I should be accused of unfair competition (although the reverse actually comes to mind). I don't believe that it is appropriate to single me out, when there is plenty of precedent of other Linux derivative.com's out there. And I don't believe that any of my domain names suggest ownership of the mark.
I do believe that I owe Linus Torvalds an apology, which I have extended to him by private email, and do so here also publicly, for not realizing that Linux was trademarked. I was so used to the open source concept, and was so used to other Linux{this}.com sites and [that]Linux.com sites that it absolutely never occured to me that there were any restrictions at all.
I do also believe that Mr. Torvalds needs to protect his trademark by having licensing arrangements with domain sites and businesses, or his trademark will be diluted. I don't think licenses should be carte blanche, but I don't think it should be so restrictive, either. It's not my decision, but that's my opinion, which I think is more consistent with the culture and groundwork in the Linux community.
For example, I don't believe restricting LinuxExpert.com which he has apparently done, is in the spirit of Linux either. LinuxExpert.com does no more dilution of the mark than LinuxCare.com or a host of others. Neither does it suggest ownership of the mark. Neither one says we are the only guys out here, and neither presumes success, in any event. I can have a DonutExpert shop on one corner, and have a DonutPro shop on the opposite corner, and we'll still get along as friendly competitors, with a different way of doing business, and different things to offer. We can even have TheWorld'sGreatestDonuts on the third corner, and TheOnlyDonutsInTown on the fourth corner, and there's no damage to the name Donut or to the Donut community. And we can also have Ma's Donuts three streets down from the big events who will still eat all of our lunches, because she has a better donut, that people come from miles around for. (I'm not saying us, I'm saying in this hypothetical scenario.) Basically, it seems bogus to get so hyped up about a few great names. Either you think they're great names or you don't, to each his own. But to allow some names and not others, because they're too good or too broad or whatever seems shaky ground.
I don't believe in my wildest imagination or worst Linux-goes-Microsoft nightmare, given his open source approach and tremendous contributions to the very existence of this phenomenon, that Linus Torvalds would have been supportive of the style of his attorney's approach to me, nor in his far reaching (IMO overreaching) claims or demands.
Bottom line is that we can figure everything out in the weeks to come, when he has time to talk.
Tasha
P.S. To the cacklers in the wings, Entrapreneur is a word left over from the 80's that meant, at the time, entrepreneurs working inside a corporation, i.e. internal innovators. It has fallen into disuse because of the obvious confusion with entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I do make typos occasionally --- and mistakes. (See above) :o)