Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator", not "Illustrator". The "infriging" name is "KIllustrator", not "KAdobe Illustrator" (which would be really bad). See the difference?
Confusingly similar is the claim being made. If Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator" that might give them control over derivations therof, but that shouldn't give them power over derivations of parts of the trademark.
And it is REALLY VERY LOW OF THEM to ask for money and not allow the victim to settle for a name change and no payoff to them.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure that Adobe doesn't have a trademark on "Illustrator" by itself. I don't think they should (it is a word), and I sure think asking for monetary damages/fees is outrageous. That is thuggery.
If you infringe a trademark of mine (if I had any), I'd ask you to stop, and only consider going for blood if you refused, were being intentionally malicious, or made a killing off the name (and I wouldn't dig deeper than profits from the name). I couldn't imagine demanding payment for a non-malicious person and/or university who made no money off of it and who agreed to a name change. That is evil.
But in capitalism, evil rises to the top. Only the vicious survive it appears...
1. There is a difference with negotiating with Palestine, and negotiating with a terrorist who is threatening to kill hostages, blow up a building, etc.
2. Stop insulting the Bible. That is hardly appropriate here. (Moderators: defense of religion in the face of an attack against it is as much free speech as the attack)
Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and they have some darn good reasons.
Why should we?
Negotiate with terrorists, and you encourage terrorism.
Ordering someone to pay $2000 for naming a FREE (in both senses of the word, cost and liberty) software project, in a way that some company disapproves, with one's own funds is terrorism.
Just that in this case it uses lawyers rather than bombs.
(Spare me any arguments that Adobe could be in the right about their trademark, there is no need to immediately demand money, rather than doing a cease and desist letter. Give a warning before going for the kill.)
There are a lot of laws in the US which state that if you are a defendent and lose that you have to pay for the court the hung you and the lawyers that manuvered the court to hang you.
They hang you and order you to pay for the rope to do it with.
You may be ordered to pay all of the following:
Profits
Losses of the other party (they do throw you a bone in that no one thing can be assessed against you twice by both of the above, e.g. I do something that the court feels takes X dollars from you and gives it to me, I only have to pay X, and not 2X.)
Punitive damages (punishment)
Court costs
The other side's lawyers
Oh, and you (almost always) have to pay your own lawyers even though you LOST. Usually only plaintiffs can hire lawyers on contingency.
Reminds me of the Communist countries which bill the family of an execution victim the cost of the bullet.
Sure adds insult to injury.
And I do believe the paying for an attack against you is mandated or orderable in countries other than the "land of the free".
Well look at the situation with the old Bison. Anything developed with it had to be GPL'd since it included GPL code. Even the FSF made an exception to increase the use of Bison.
I know that is a different situation than an editor, but it shows sometimes a tool CAN pass its license on to what it helps produce.
That isn't the case with the Microsoft license - that is just an anti-competitive, anti-open source license which is quite likely illegal and unenforceable as a result (any lawyers care to comment?)
As for the real world, we know society isn't perfect, but we shouldn't be keeping the status quo in place simply because "that is the way things are". We should be trying to change them. Your argument leads to a vicious circle: policies have goals which mirror the current situation, hence things never change, hence goals never change, etc.
IBM could choose to allow free use of the patent in any open source work - as long as it stays open source. Any non-open source product would have to get a paid licenses.
If you are goind to do this, make the Zip code agree with the state. 10101 is a NY zip, not Nevada. 89101 would be a good choice if you want to use Nevada. 63101 for Missouri, etc. A computer CAN catch impossible zip code/state combinations trivially.
You still can't be arrested without probable cause or unless you are in the process of committing a crime, as far as I know.
Don't fight oppression by cowering away. Do things in the open. Make it so if they want to win, they don't have to imprison a few, but instead thousands, and millions.
I think the Washington, D.C. FBI building has a quote on it "The best way for a bad law to get repealed is for it to be strictly enforced", or something along those lines.
Use a credit card to buy it and do a charge-off. That should be legal, as you are cancelling payment for a product in which there is, according to the EULA, a binding agreement, which binds both parties (contracts can not be unilateral) and includes among its terms a promise of a refund. When they breach their contract you can cancel it, returning the situation to that before purchase.
Maybe we should call it liberated software, so people will understand what we mean. Free is more often used to mean without cost, rather than with liberty, and people assume the most common meaning.
Software that is given away, but not open source, we should refer to as zero-cost software.
Saying liberated software versus zero-cost software makes everything completely unambigous.
Even better, if you haven't upgraded within what they consider a reasonable time, the BIOS could force the issue by cauing something to fry (*) or erasing itself.
(*) BIOS can be erased, various other NVRAMS erased, clock chips can be programmed to overspeed and burn stuff out, overvoltages can be caused by software commands (look at the motherboards that let you set CPU speed and voltage from BIOS), etc.
Driving at the posted 55 (say) in pissing rain or 20 feet visibility fog is theoretically legal
No it's not. There is a ticket called "speed too fast for conditions" in many jurisdictions, also "not using due care" and possibly the above could be considered even reckless driving.
They don't need to get rid of those Firestone tires after all, they can just give them a speed rating of 0 MPH and set the car's speed limiter accordingly.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator", not "Illustrator". The "infriging" name is "KIllustrator", not "KAdobe Illustrator" (which would be really bad). See the difference?
Confusingly similar is the claim being made. If Adobe has a trademark on "Adobe Illustrator" that might give them control over derivations therof, but that shouldn't give them power over derivations of parts of the trademark.
And it is REALLY VERY LOW OF THEM to ask for money and not allow the victim to settle for a name change and no payoff to them.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I sure that Adobe doesn't have a trademark on "Illustrator" by itself. I don't think they should (it is a word), and I sure think asking for monetary damages/fees is outrageous. That is thuggery.
If you infringe a trademark of mine (if I had any), I'd ask you to stop, and only consider going for blood if you refused, were being intentionally malicious, or made a killing off the name (and I wouldn't dig deeper than profits from the name). I couldn't imagine demanding payment for a non-malicious person and/or university who made no money off of it and who agreed to a name change. That is evil.
But in capitalism, evil rises to the top. Only the vicious survive it appears...
1. There is a difference with negotiating with Palestine, and negotiating with a terrorist who is threatening to kill hostages, blow up a building, etc.
2. Stop insulting the Bible. That is hardly appropriate here. (Moderators: defense of religion in the face of an attack against it is as much free speech as the attack)
Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists, and they have some darn good reasons.
Why should we?
Negotiate with terrorists, and you encourage terrorism.
Ordering someone to pay $2000 for naming a FREE (in both senses of the word, cost and liberty) software project, in a way that some company disapproves, with one's own funds is terrorism.
Just that in this case it uses lawyers rather than bombs.
(Spare me any arguments that Adobe could be in the right about their trademark, there is no need to immediately demand money, rather than doing a cease and desist letter. Give a warning before going for the kill.)
There are a lot of laws in the US which state that if you are a defendent and lose that you have to pay for the court the hung you and the lawyers that manuvered the court to hang you.
They hang you and order you to pay for the rope to do it with.
You may be ordered to pay all of the following:
Profits
Losses of the other party (they do throw you a bone in that no one thing can be assessed against you twice by both of the above, e.g. I do something that the court feels takes X dollars from you and gives it to me, I only have to pay X, and not 2X.)
Punitive damages (punishment)
Court costs
The other side's lawyers
Oh, and you (almost always) have to pay your own lawyers even though you LOST. Usually only plaintiffs can hire lawyers on contingency.
Reminds me of the Communist countries which bill the family of an execution victim the cost of the bullet.
Sure adds insult to injury.
And I do believe the paying for an attack against you is mandated or orderable in countries other than the "land of the free".
(Disclaimer: I am a human being, not a lawyer).
You forgot:
Defending a trademark infringement lawsuit from Mastercard: $10,000
Well look at the situation with the old Bison. Anything developed with it had to be GPL'd since it included GPL code. Even the FSF made an exception to increase the use of Bison.
I know that is a different situation than an editor, but it shows sometimes a tool CAN pass its license on to what it helps produce.
That isn't the case with the Microsoft license - that is just an anti-competitive, anti-open source license which is quite likely illegal and unenforceable as a result (any lawyers care to comment?)
Why feel sorry for that company?!
Companies don't have a RIGHT to be PROFITABLE.
As for the real world, we know society isn't perfect, but we shouldn't be keeping the status quo in place simply because "that is the way things are". We should be trying to change them. Your argument leads to a vicious circle: policies have goals which mirror the current situation, hence things never change, hence goals never change, etc.
Would you pay $24K for a Pontiac or $8K for a Yugo?
Higher quality (reliability, performance, etc) means higher cost.
http://www.redhat.com/ could become http://www.redhat.com/ or even http://www.microsoft.com/.
It is linkified alright, but remember, where do they want you to go today?
Don't you mean a couple of cups of Java?
On a Microsoft.NET server, of course!
IBM could choose to allow free use of the patent in any open source work - as long as it stays open source. Any non-open source product would have to get a paid licenses.
If they billed your card without authorization (be careful, you may have "agreed" to be resubscribed) do a charge back with the credit card company.
(Credit card companies HATE shady merchants.)
Call MS anonymously and say the account has been cracked by "hackers". ;)
If you are goind to do this, make the Zip code agree with the state. 10101 is a NY zip, not Nevada. 89101 would be a good choice if you want to use Nevada. 63101 for Missouri, etc. A computer CAN catch impossible zip code/state combinations trivially.
Or you could smoke crack and be a programmer at Microsoft.
You still can't be arrested without probable cause or unless you are in the process of committing a crime, as far as I know.
Don't fight oppression by cowering away. Do things in the open. Make it so if they want to win, they don't have to imprison a few, but instead thousands, and millions.
I think the Washington, D.C. FBI building has a quote on it "The best way for a bad law to get repealed is for it to be strictly enforced", or something along those lines.
Use a credit card to buy it and do a charge-off. That should be legal, as you are cancelling payment for a product in which there is, according to the EULA, a binding agreement, which binds both parties (contracts can not be unilateral) and includes among its terms a promise of a refund. When they breach their contract you can cancel it, returning the situation to that before purchase.
I am not a lawyer, ask one for real advice.
Maybe we should call it liberated software, so people will understand what we mean. Free is more often used to mean without cost, rather than with liberty, and people assume the most common meaning.
Software that is given away, but not open source, we should refer to as zero-cost software.
Saying liberated software versus zero-cost software makes everything completely unambigous.
I thought OOBE stood for Out Of Body Experience.
Even better, if you haven't upgraded within what they consider a reasonable time, the BIOS could force the issue by cauing something to fry (*) or erasing itself.
(*) BIOS can be erased, various other NVRAMS erased, clock chips can be programmed to overspeed and burn stuff out, overvoltages can be caused by software commands (look at the motherboards that let you set CPU speed and voltage from BIOS), etc.
Well perhaps they could get around the legal issues by not SELLING the motherboards, only LEASING them.
Then it would be theirs to mess with at will.
As for moral and technical issues, they are often ignored by corporations.
As long as people will buy it...
Close, but its not the supercharged, just a regular 3800.
No it's not. There is a ticket called "speed too fast for conditions" in many jurisdictions, also "not using due care" and possibly the above could be considered even reckless driving.
They don't need to get rid of those Firestone tires after all, they can just give them a speed rating of 0 MPH and set the car's speed limiter accordingly. ;)