| |||||||||||
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw)'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw)Posted Jul 17, 2007 22:45 UTC (Tue) by dark (subscriber, #8483)Parent article: 'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw)
PJ doesn't mention at all that the OSI tried to register "Open Source" as a trademark, and was rejected. That makes all that stuff about common law trademarks rather less convincing.
(Log in to post comments)
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 18, 2007 13:50 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Indeed. PJ seems to be now treating the words of self-selected history-revising leaders as the gospel truth.
Here the term open source is used in a Linux context:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/msg/26080ca2...;
And guess who used the term in 1996 in a press release? Caldera - now known as SCO:
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html
More details here:
http://www.hyperlogos.org/story/who_invented_the_term_ope...
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 18, 2007 15:31 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Wasn't the main reason for rejection that it was filed for as a trademark when it should have been a certification mark? Doesn't that point more to bad lawyering rather than a faulty claim?
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 18, 2007 15:35 UTC (Wed) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] The legal advice was that "open source" was too descriptive - it was like trying to trademark "milk chocolate" rather than "Hersheys".
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 19, 2007 19:16 UTC (Thu) by MattPerry (subscriber, #46341) [Link] And that's bad legal advice. It's unfortunate that they did not continue pursuing the mark.
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 20, 2007 8:53 UTC (Fri) by NigelK (guest, #42083) [Link] Maybe so. The best the OSI guys claim is that they have a "moral right" to own and protect the term because they've spent so much time and money promoting it.
Kinda like SCO's involvement with UNIX.
'Owning' a Trademark - The SugarCRM et al License Debate (Groklaw) Posted Jul 19, 2007 19:15 UTC (Thu) by MattPerry (subscriber, #46341) [Link] Most marks are rejected on the first round. You have to go back and forth with the trademark office and make your case. It takes time, and could take years depending on how quick you are to respond to each request for information. As Bruce Perens has stated in the past, OSI was given poor legal advice. They could have easily registered the mark.
|
|||||||||||