Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
To be fair, at the time of the creation of the Enterprise distro, Red Hat also created the Fedora project to encourage the creation of an entirely unrestricted Linux distro. Novell did the same with the openSUSE project. But I can't help feeling that this was a way of paying-off the community -- throwing meat to the wolves, so they don't bite. With community projects to chew-on, people are less likely to bring-up troubling trademarking or redistribution issues. It seems to have worked too."
(Log in to post comments)
Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
Posted May 12, 2009 1:15 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
"... it also ignores a legitimate threat that trademarks can reduce: trojaned versions of popular software distributed as the original.How can trademarks have any deterrent effect on Trojans? Is there someone out there who's not afraid of the consequences of being caught taking over machines, hoovering up as many bank account numbers as he can grab, and adding the machine to botnets for spamming and DDOS attacks, but who gives up the plan because of his fear of trademark-wielding lawyers?
Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
Posted May 12, 2009 1:45 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> lawyers?
No, but it gives the trademark holder a legal weapon to go after someone distributing "Firefox" (for example) that isn't ...
Maybe that's too thin a reed ... It *does* seem like Linus or Mozilla (Ubuntu, etc.) have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their trademarked names aren't being used on "bad" software. With trademarks, they get to decide how to define "bad" for their specific needs. And the article didn't have anything to say about that.
jake
Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
Posted May 12, 2009 3:20 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
It *does* seem like Linus or Mozilla (Ubuntu, etc.) have a legitimate interest in ensuring that
their trademarked names aren't being used on "bad" software.
"""
Or they could be used to hassle Debian for no particularly good reason. Not that I'm a big
fan of Debian. But it was hard not to notice, or fail to be dismayed by, Mozilla Corp's abuse of
their trademark powers during that ugly and unnecessary affair.
Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
Posted May 12, 2009 15:25 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
If you want it done right...
Posted May 12, 2009 17:15 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
Sure, if you can convince a US Attorney to, literally, make a federal case of it. If it's just a trademark case you can do it yourself.CAN-SPAM made some kinds of spam a federal crime, but took away the private right of action and statutory damages for suing spammers, which is why the spammers loved it.
Trademarks: The Hidden Menace (The Washington Post)
Posted May 13, 2009 3:07 UTC (Wed) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]
Trademarks: The Hidden FUD
Posted May 17, 2009 14:34 UTC (Sun) by davecb (subscriber, #1574) [Link]
JoeBuck asksHow can trademarks have any deterrent effect on Trojans?It's not a trojan as such, but Microsoft released as "Java" a language which included MS-only functionality. If they had succeeded with this embrace, extend and extinguish tactic, Java programs would fail mysteriously on non-MS operating systems. In this trojan, the payload is incompatability, not soldiers (;-))
Fortunately Sun had a trademark on Java, and sued MS into submission.
--dave
Yawn
Posted May 12, 2009 3:20 UTC (Tue) by massysett (guest, #52736) [Link]
Yawn. Don't bother reading it. He says:"Red Hat prohibit redistribution of binary packages of their Enterprise distro by claiming doing so would mean the reproduction of their trademark"
Not true. Red Hat says "This EULA does not permit User to distribute the Programs or their components using Red Hat's trademarks".
Distribute the binaries all you want. Just don't call it Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Free software is about the user's freedom to use and modify and share the software; nothing Red Hat does is inconsistent with this. The author has no idea what he is talking about.
Double yawn
Posted May 12, 2009 6:10 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
You are saying the same thing as the article in different words. At least they parse to the same meaning to me, only that what the author says applies to some Red Hat packages, and your sentence not to all of Red Hat packages. Not that it makes the article interesting since it's a known issue.
Double yawn
Posted May 12, 2009 11:03 UTC (Tue) by __alex (guest, #38036) [Link]
RedHat or RHEL names. It's totally different.
Double yawn
Posted May 12, 2009 14:44 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Like Mozilla may have 'Mozilla Firefox' trademarked and all that so you can't take their code and just produce anything you want and call it 'firefox'... However that does not limit you in any manner in regards to any sort of functionality. This means any commands that include the term 'firefox' or 'mozilla', the ident strings of the browser (IE includes 'mozilla' in it's identity strings), function names, or anything like that.
So even though my browser is called 'iceweasel' I still can launch it by running the 'firefox' command, since that command is a functional item and is required for compatibility with scripts and various programs that may want to run that browser.
----------
So trademarks can't be used to inhibit the redistribution of open source code, limit it's functionality, compatibility, or anything like that.
I am sure that most everybody here is quite aware of all of this.
------------
I think that trademarks are very important to free software projects and open source companies.
You live and die by your repuation and these products do often have commercial aim and compete against other software. It's important that people are able to identify and be aware of software that they use and know if it's original software that was created by the authors or some other group so that people get the credit they deserve, good or bad. How people are able to indetify these products is by iconography and titles.
This stops other people, people who do not deserve the credit or are malicious in their behavior, from harming another person's or projedct's good name and fooling users and customers into paying them money or otherwise installing malicious software or whatever bad things they can do.
It is as much about protecting users and consumers as much as it is protecting a company's reputation. The benefits flow both ways.
Distributions vs Applications
Posted May 12, 2009 3:26 UTC (Tue) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203) [Link]
When individual applications decide to enter the fray it does present more of a complication. Then each and every distribution and fork thereof has to enter into a formal license agreement, all distributions which do so automatically become unfree and so on.
Thus the Firefox -- Iceweasel change making its way through the free software ecosystem. It just has to be that way. It is one thing to know the distribution's name is trademarked and quite another to expect anyone launching/forking a new distribution to wade through the licensing policy of each package they include. Package managers don't even have a tag to describe "Free but unbuildable without a signed contract on file."
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 8:51 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
A problem with free software concerns making sure the trademark of an upstream developer (e.g. Firefox) is compatible with the trademark of a reputable downstream integrator (e.g. Debian). If the upstream trademark is too rigidly defined or the downstream too loosely defined, this won't allow the downstream integrator/distributor enough freedom to customise it in line with the packaging policies for the distribution. So in this situation the upstream name will be renamed (e.g. Firefox -> Iceweasel) to give the downstream distributor sufficient flexibility, diluting the upstream brand and whatever good reputation came with it in the process.
Trademarks perform a fundamental role in product selection and recognition, no less so in the free software world than elsewhere. So free software trademarks have to be managed based upon this reality. It's not as if freedom suffers from a shortage of product names that people can dream up, but establishing a recognition and a reputation behind a name costs time and money and establishes value - those who do this are not going to turn their back on the value they establish by this means.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 9:13 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]
The way I know a set of software has a Linus, GNU, Red Hat or Canonical stamp of approval is through the use of their respective trademarks.
I think it is better to use a trusted distribution channel, instead of the stamp. Borrowing your analogy, I would not buy medicine at the fleemarket, regardless of the stamp it carries.
But I think you're right: trademarks are business as usual, also if it concerns free software. To me the knife cuts both ways: it identifies the bad producers as well as the good ones.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 11:59 UTC (Tue) by jpmcc (guest, #2452) [Link]
I think it is better to use a trusted distribution channel, instead of the stamp. Borrowing your analogy, I would not buy medicine at the fleemarket, regardless of the stamp it carries.
This raises an important point. At OpenOffice.org we see a regular trickle of people who have been ripped-off by 'para-sites'. How they work: naive user searches for "Open Office" on a search engine - he clicks on a prominent sponsored link to a para-site, where at best he ends up paying for a download he could have had from us for free, at worst, he finds he's signed up for a subscription service from his credit card that he can't get out of for months.
Leading search engines show little interest in preventing these 'para-sites', but having 'OpenOffice.org' as a trademark does get some action from them. Unfortunately it doesn't help protect variants like 'open office', but it's better than nothing
John
Mod parent up!!!
Posted May 12, 2009 17:20 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
+1 Insightful The MSFT Windows download scene is wild, wooly, and dangerous compared to the happy friendly Linux scene. On Linux, forks, flames, and updates dropped on the floor are the worst hazards. The "FREE SOFTWARE" for MSFT Windows is often adware, spyware, or some bright boy's new invention that doesn't have a name yet.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 12:01 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
The Soil Association gets to mark whatever it likes with its stamp since that doesn't mean anything. All you know is that the Soil Association stamped it, and if you like the Soil Association maybe that's enough.
The medicines at your pharmacy are identified by a generic name (usually the International Nonproprietary Name). You cannot trademark this name, it identifies a particular pharmaceutical compound for which (unless it's grandfathered in) efficacy and safety tests are documented. Nothing else may be sold under this name. Drug companies may choose to trademark other names which "sound better", but a pharmacist won't use those to determine whether a drug is the right one for you. If you pay the pharmacist extra to give you the trademarked "famous brand" you get the /exact same compound/ anyway, so you're just paying for more TV ads.
So, medicines were a particularly bad example. They are protected by a separate and expensive to administrate mechanism, because they are critical to public health and safety.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 12:51 UTC (Tue) by etrusco (guest, #4227) [Link]
And to me the analogy fits perfectly, since in Brazil most physicians still have the atrocious habit/practice to prescribe drugs by their commercial names. Not to mention that it wouldn't be called an _analogy_ if they were exactly equal situations.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 13:01 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]
In the US, at least, pharmacists are required to provide medications as prescribed. The physician may allow substitution by generics or not.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 15:34 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 16:42 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
The physician may allow substitution by generics or not.
Yes. But in at least some states, the pharmacy is required to substitute with a cheaper generic unless the physician explicitly states that that is not allowed (by writing e.g. "Dispense as Written") or the patient explicitly requests the brand-name drug.
That the physician wrote the trademarked name on the prescription doesn't, by itself, imply that the pharmacy will sell you the brand-name product.
So it's actually pretty reasonable all around.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 18:28 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Well, frankly, that is complete horseshit.
In a 'correct' world it's actually up to the patient.
Why?
Generics != BrandName.
Despite having the same active ingredients you don't know the how well it was manufactured, the quality of handling in the factory, the quality of the non-active ingredients, the quality of shipping and handling (many drugs are very sensitive to mishandling), how well the time delays work, how the 'non active' ingredients may change the reaction, and all that stuff.
Sure sure the government has standards, but they are very minimal and anybody that barely meets the standards get the same badges and approvals as the best manufacturers... so government assurances are pretty low, and are worthless when trying to choose between different company's products. There are hundreds of people that die every year from complications from drugs that all made it through the government's testing and regulation.
So it's a risk that you take as a patient. I don't think that a typical pharmacist is really qualified to make that decision for the patient. If they were then they would be the ones perscribing the drugs in the first place.
If a doctor prescribes a name brand drug and the patient wants to save money then it's up to the patient to go out and ask the doctor why they did that and that they want generics instead.
If the doctor insists on keeping the name brand drug, then it's up to the patient to decide weither or not they trust the Doctor's judgement and then either give up and pay the extra money or get a Doctor that they can trust.
That, as far as I can tell, is the best solution.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 18:57 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]
All rather off-topic, of course. You would have exactly the same situation if the trademarks weren't controlled - you'd just have prescriptions written for a specific manufacturer instead of a specific drug trade name.
Back to the topic - the article was pretty weak and misleading, clearly trying for a reaction rather than to present the issue.
I tend to think trademark is the least objectionable of the IP areas. People should have a right to identify their products and to assure consumers that a product with a given name is "the real thing" (or a fraudulent counterfeit). Attribution seems like a pretty reasonable right.
It would be nice, though, if every distro had a "rights index" that pointed potential redistributors at the specific pieces with trademark issues.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 19:33 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
I'm not sure what you're complaining about. What you say would be the best solution *is* how it really works.Doctors know, of course, that when they write the brand-name on the prescription, the patient will be given the generic by default. It's not a secret! It's really just a shortcut: often the brand names are more easily recognizable and memorable to everyone involved than the generic names. So it's easier to write the brand-name, and you know it will be assumed you mean the generic.
If the doctor thinks the patient should *not* get the generic, they will write "Dispense as Written" on the prescription, and the patient will get the brand name drug. It's really not that complicated.
IMO this makes perfect sense from a health-care perspective...but it is a little odd in terms of Trademark law.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 12, 2009 23:31 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Passing a abritrary law saying that 'Name Brands must be replaced by Generics when possible' is assuming that in all cases that similar drugs from different corporations are equivelent. This is a bad assumption and leads to lazy behavior that costs people their health on rare occasion.
I know that in the vast majority of cases the generics are as good as the name brands. I know that it's quite possible that the generics can be superior to the name brands. However it's simply a mature of reality that different drugs produced by different corporations are going to be different somewhat...
Think about it... do you really think it's a great idea that people should be given the drugs produced by the company with the lowest possible price in all cases?
Do you want a surgeon being choose for you becuase he was the cheapest?
Or even a car mechanic?
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 13, 2009 2:29 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Whoops
When you pay $10 for Brand A rather than $1.50 for Generic, you would be greatly mistaken if you believe that Brand A charged you $10 because they spent more making the drug than Generic. The $10 is made up as follows:
$0.50 to manufacture the product, same as the cheap stuff
$0.50 to put it into a nicer box, with a colourful graphic instead of just the drug name.
$3 advertising to ensure you want Brand A
$3 clear profit, nice
$3 retail markup by the store, they want a piece of the action.
Years ago I was fascinated by the existence of implausibly expensive cables for Hi Fi equipment. Audio signals aren't that extraordinary, a cable to move them a short distance should be quite cheap. But I found that many companies offered cables for in excess of $100 per metre.
A bit more research clarified the significance of this for me. The same turned out to be true for Hi Fi cables carrying purely digital PCM signals, and even power cables. Anything which can be claimed to be related to Hi Fi sound has the potential for unlimited markup, since the people buying it show no sign of price sensitivity. Once they decide not to buy the perfectly workable $5 cable, it's a simple sales job to persuade them to buy a $500 cable instead of a $50 cable. They are, to be completely frank, suckers.
Trademarks benefit free software as much as anything else
Posted May 13, 2009 6:22 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Said that, placebo effect is certainly real and for drugs it has measurable difference in outcomes, so if something that makes it stonger might actually be a good thing for that class of suckers...
citations?
Posted May 13, 2009 2:10 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Do you have any citations for studies showing a statistically significant difference in this outcome between brand name drugs and generics, with generics doing worse? That's the sort of thing which would be worth highlighting.
It's possible that you've just been reading too much conspiracy theorist nonsense. As to your line about the pharmacist "not being qualified" - in most places the _pharmacist_ (not the spotty kid who rings up your purchase of a box of aspirin) has to have spent at least 2-3 years studying pharmacy (or the equivalent in part-time education). Often more. They will know far more about drug compounds and their interactions than your doctor unless he has a relevant sub-specialisation.
The patient is poorly qualified to make these decisions (as you've amply demonstrated with several mistakes about differences you believe exist in generics), and is subject to a constant deluge of advertising (particularly in less developed countries and in the US), paid for with the difference between the generic price and the brand name price. The pharmaceutical companies rely on people like you to say "Yes, I will pay extra for a name I've seen on TV" and so long as you're paying $10 extra for a name that they spent $3 putting in your head, that's clear profit to them. If that cost is disappearing into an insurance claim where you can pretend you're not paying for it, even better for them.
citations?
Posted May 13, 2009 14:35 UTC (Wed) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link]
The docs are also subject to a constant deluge of advertising.
citations?
Posted May 13, 2009 16:07 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]
Note that he said specifically that generics may be better or worse than name-brands - he's not saying that name-brand drugs are necessarily better, just that they are different. Individuals may find that they react differently to specific compoundings and may want to be sure they get exactly the same product every time they refill a prescription.
With some products, such as synthetic hormones, the differences can be very significant and can require recalibrating dosages when you change brands.
I use generics for many drugs, both OTC and prescription; they work fine. That's not to say that it doesn't make me nervous that one of them seems to change manufacturer on every refill...
citations?
Posted May 13, 2009 19:07 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I guess you're referring to the levothyroxine situation - but to my mind that just emphasises why equivalence is the appropriate standard, rather than being evidence that brand names are important. Notice that in this case its in each supplier's interest to make the case that the drugs aren't interchangeable, since a patient will usually be prescribed the drug for life - they're locking in maybe 40 or more years of profits.
citations?
Posted May 15, 2009 16:39 UTC (Fri) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link]
Why? Well, if you are in organised crime, which do you counterfeit? The one that sells for $10 per box or the one that sells for $30 or the one that sells for $50? Obvious, isn't it. So you are at less risk of getting a completely un-licensed substance if you buy the branded one, rather than if you save $40 on the cheapest generic.
The argument does diminish if the drug is technically difficult to manufacture. In this case the properly licensed generic won't be much cheaper than the branded one, and both become almost equally likely to be worthless or harmful fakes.
At the other extreme if the product is pharmaceutically pure rat poison (heparin), the more you are paying for it, the more chance you'll end up swallowing something manufactured from rat poison grade rat poison in a back-street or third world "lab".
BTW if you are paranoid, the best bet of all might be to run two packets of different manufacture in parallel (alternating tablets or two half-tablets if they don't say "do not crush or cut") thereby squaring (greatly reducing) the probability of getting all fake meds.