| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Red Hat's war on RHEL
Red Hat's war on RHEL
Posted Mar 7, 2008 3:22 UTC (Fri) by jwb (subscriber, #15467)In reply to: Red Hat's war on RHEL by ajross
Parent article: Red Hat's war on RHEL
This is a sort of odd interpretation of trademark. At least in the USA the trademark exists to protect the public, not the trademark holder. The trademark protects the public from such horrors as buying a can of Coca-Cola which is actually filled with Yong Chin Happy Auspicious Beverage.
(Log in to post comments)
Who do trademarks protect?
Posted Mar 17, 2008 14:06 UTC (Mon) by kevinbsmith (subscriber, #4778) [Link]
While your example is reasonable, and that may well have been part of the original intent of trademarks, I think you are being too charitable to the big corporations and the "Intellectual Monopoly" movement in general. Generic drugs and store-brand food products are two counter examples. If they are identical inside, why can't they be marketed under the trademarked brand name? Because the trademark owner wants to keep the extra profit that comes with a higher price. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing--just that trademark protection (these days) benefits the holder more than the consumer. Of course with software it's even more clear. In the early Red Hat days, companies selling *exactly* the same bits as RH were not allowed to use the RH brand name. Again, not necessarily a bad law/rule, but to the benefit of the vendor, not the consumer.