I tried to read their defense, but all that state is that "the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law". The problem here is they are very light on when it comes to the basis of their actual legal argument, which seems to be that Paul Levy of Public Citizen has created a number of precedents around this area. I would love to see actual citations to the case law that decided this!
"Add to that the fact that you have to show some form of competition"
Actually, no. 15 USC 1125(c)(1), which deals with injunctive relief against trademark dilution specifically states that the owner of the trademark is "entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury." (emphasis added).
There is absolutely no requirement that the one diluting the trademark must be in competition before injunctive relief is granted.
In the case of Lindows, I believe that Microsoft lost out because the court saw that the term Windows was actually used for windowing systems well before the product was created, and thus the term was already in popular parlance.
That is not what the law states. Firstly, Wikipedia can and does undertake commerce. Secondly, the law does not state that the one diluting the trademark must be earning money. In fact, it says that an injunction can be applied against those diluting the trademark "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
And so you are aware, it further goes on to define "dilution by blurring" in 15 USC 1125(c)(2)(A):
(B) For purposes of paragraph (1), "dilution by blurring" is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark.
Incidently, you aren't doing yourself any favours by making ad hominem arguments. I didn't make the law, I'm merely explaining what it says.
Actually, Abiword was going quite well before OpenOffice.org appeared on the scene. Then there was a perception that nothing more needed to be done. If Oracle takes away the development from that product, it can only be a good thing for all those other projects. Because the real problem is that without Sun's development effort the project will just shrivel up and die. Unlike something like Mozilla, where a lot of people are working on the browser.
Actually, for OpenOffice.org that might be its saving grace. The best thing that could happen to the Open Source movement is if Oracle decides to stop actively developing OOo - in that way other projects will be actively hacked on without the stranglehold that Sun has had on the market. And those projects will probably use - you guessed it - the GPL.
I'm sorry, where does it state that in the law? I think you are making a large assumption here. Show me the case law or the legislation that proves your point, and that will settle this matter. If you cannot, then I must ask you why you feel you are correct.
Actually... that deletion discussion is not entirely relevant to the trademark case. Basically that was an article setup on Wikipedia that does exactly what the website in question is now doing. It was never appropriate to Wikipedia because it was totally outside of the scope of what Wikipedia does, and beside it was original research which has always been prohibited on the project.
"Someone taking that and extending it to form a new word, does NOT break trademark."
Wrong. If the trademark is diluted, then it is indeed breaking the trademark and the other party can take action to prevent this from occuring. In the case of wikipediaart.org most definitely dilutes the trademark Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, you should read 15 USC 1125 (c), which reads:
(1) Injunctive relief
Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.
I had to read that comment twice. I think it was either the "It doesn't hurt them until it hurts them" bit, or the "Well son, labour has a price." that caused that.
Worlds greatest backronym. The Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill. Much better than the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
Precisely. I'm afraid that we'll all be bashing Bush and ruing his actions for years to come. Three months? It'll take a decade to sort out the mess he left the U.S. in.
P.S. slugs are much worse than toddlers when it comes to putting on their jackets. At least the toddler gets around to it. Slugs just like totally ignore you. When was the last time you saw slug wear a jacket? Never? Thought so.
I dunno man. My pet slug never does what he's told. All he ever does is eat, eat, eat. And if he doesn't get what he wants then he slimes my shoes. Ick.
My slug directly disproves your point. It's stubborn, selfish and attention seeking. I hate my slug.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried to read their defense, but all that state is that "the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law". The problem here is they are very light on when it comes to the basis of their actual legal argument, which seems to be that Paul Levy of Public Citizen has created a number of precedents around this area. I would love to see actual citations to the case law that decided this!
"Add to that the fact that you have to show some form of competition"
Actually, no. 15 USC 1125(c)(1), which deals with injunctive relief against trademark dilution specifically states that the owner of the trademark is "entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner's mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury." (emphasis added).
There is absolutely no requirement that the one diluting the trademark must be in competition before injunctive relief is granted.
In the case of Lindows, I believe that Microsoft lost out because the court saw that the term Windows was actually used for windowing systems well before the product was created, and thus the term was already in popular parlance.
That is not what the law states. Firstly, Wikipedia can and does undertake commerce. Secondly, the law does not state that the one diluting the trademark must be earning money. In fact, it says that an injunction can be applied against those diluting the trademark "regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
And so you are aware, it further goes on to define "dilution by blurring" in 15 USC 1125(c)(2)(A):
Incidently, you aren't doing yourself any favours by making ad hominem arguments. I didn't make the law, I'm merely explaining what it says.
I thought so. You have no legal basis for your argument.
Actually, Abiword was going quite well before OpenOffice.org appeared on the scene. Then there was a perception that nothing more needed to be done. If Oracle takes away the development from that product, it can only be a good thing for all those other projects. Because the real problem is that without Sun's development effort the project will just shrivel up and die. Unlike something like Mozilla, where a lot of people are working on the browser.
Actually, for OpenOffice.org that might be its saving grace. The best thing that could happen to the Open Source movement is if Oracle decides to stop actively developing OOo - in that way other projects will be actively hacked on without the stranglehold that Sun has had on the market. And those projects will probably use - you guessed it - the GPL.
I'm sorry, where does it state that in the law? I think you are making a large assumption here. Show me the case law or the legislation that proves your point, and that will settle this matter. If you cannot, then I must ask you why you feel you are correct.
Just because Wikipedia is a non-profit does not mean that it cannot undertake commerce.
Actually... that deletion discussion is not entirely relevant to the trademark case. Basically that was an article setup on Wikipedia that does exactly what the website in question is now doing. It was never appropriate to Wikipedia because it was totally outside of the scope of what Wikipedia does, and beside it was original research which has always been prohibited on the project.
"Someone taking that and extending it to form a new word, does NOT break trademark."
Wrong. If the trademark is diluted, then it is indeed breaking the trademark and the other party can take action to prevent this from occuring. In the case of wikipediaart.org most definitely dilutes the trademark Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, you should read 15 USC 1125 (c), which reads:
There's irony. Mike Godwin used to be the staff counsel for the EFF. Now he's battling his old organization!
Time to start talking about Nazis and stop this madness.
I had to read that comment twice. I think it was either the "It doesn't hurt them until it hurts them" bit, or the "Well son, labour has a price." that caused that.
Worlds greatest backronym. The Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill. Much better than the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
Precisely. I'm afraid that we'll all be bashing Bush and ruing his actions for years to come. Three months? It'll take a decade to sort out the mess he left the U.S. in.
Try sitting next to a guy who wants to use your head to stress test the impact rating of windshields in the parking lot. Not fun, I can tell you.
Can I point you to an excellent story on slashdot I read about the other day?
I know, it sounds like an oh-so-generous library.
Can you rephrase that with an electronic media analogy?
Looks like stockart are good at doing this sort of thing. See this blog post for more info.
Dude! The dude is going to sue the other dude. Chill dude.
Slugs are the homeless bums of the mollusk world.
Because the poster feels wistful for the days of the plumb pudding model of the atom. They were wonderful days, weren't they? So full of certainty.
P.S. slugs are much worse than toddlers when it comes to putting on their jackets. At least the toddler gets around to it. Slugs just like totally ignore you. When was the last time you saw slug wear a jacket? Never? Thought so.
I dunno man. My pet slug never does what he's told. All he ever does is eat, eat, eat. And if he doesn't get what he wants then he slimes my shoes. Ick.
My slug directly disproves your point. It's stubborn, selfish and attention seeking. I hate my slug.
I forgot to mention that slugs feel squishy and great and make good eating.