91–100 of 275 posts
Out of curiosity: Why didn't Letsencrypt applied for a trademark right at the start? That this happens was quite foreseeable and occurs quite often if people forget to secure trademarks (I know this won't be a popular opinion because most as I like Letsencrypt and their outstanding service)
I'm pretty sure the lawyer would have known about letsencrypt.org and their Let's Encrypt project before filing this. So that being said, reading the fine print of what the lawyer had to sign in order to submit the application, shouldn't the lawyer be vulnerable to perjury charges? Excerpt from http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86790719&docId... : The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing th…
You would have to prove the lawyer knew. It sounds difficult to prove short of an email exchange and I have no idea how the courts work but hopefully you can't get access to a company's emails just by filing a suit based on "I'm pretty sure"
Google could probably provide the information about such a search being made from the lawyer's offices!
Learning this, I will not renew my certs with Comodo. This is childish behaviour on Comodos part. If it helps I'll advise any companies I consult to do the same until this changes. Money is the only thing this company will understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When hasn't StartCom been scummy?
Never I'm pretty sure - we run a ticket reselling website thru an exchange and tried to use the service to get developer certs for our testing site. The web site had a black banner with white text on the top that stated in high contrast that it was the developer site and no actual transactions would run and tickets could not be purchased if a transaction was attempted here. (even was using a test domain while clearly…
Badly. We've used their service for five years in clear and constant violation of their ToS, and apart from demanding a one-time hush payment they didn't even pretend care.
I'm pretty sure the lawyer would have known about letsencrypt.org and their Let's Encrypt project before filing this. So that being said, reading the fine print of what the lawyer had to sign in order to submit the application, shouldn't the lawyer be vulnerable to perjury charges? Excerpt from http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86790719&docId... : The signatory believes that: if the applicant is filing th…
I'm also puzzled that Let's Encrypt's Trademark policy [1] strongly suggests that 'Let's Encrypt' is a trademark (word mark?) that they have registered, and yet according to the most recent letter sent by the USPTO [2] "The Office records have been searched and there are no similar registered or pending marks that would bar registration [...]" [1] https://letsencrypt.org/trademarks/ [2] http://tsdr.uspto.gov/document…
All that being said, under US law you still have trademark rights even before you register the mark, and ISRG definitely has first use on the Let's Encrypt mark.
[1] http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=englis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm donating to keep this nested motivation going. :-)
So, "Pay it Forward" is playing out for real on Hacker News to fight mass or criminal surveillance? Hell, I'm in! Threw them some dough. :)
This is disappointing, but not surprising given that Lets Encrypt threatens a large and out-dated revenue stream for Comodo. Thankfully Lets Encrypt is backed by Mozilla and the EFF, they have the resources to defend the brand. Good luck guys!
The same could possibly be said for Chromium's Root Certificate Policy. It doesn't break the specific trusted tasks but I would say it counts as generally operating in a non-trustworthy way.
Seems dumb on Comodo's part.
They're far too shady these days.
Why did Lets Encrypt not previously register a trademark of their own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comodo in particular has a long history of shady bullshit. Tarring all CAs with that brush strikes me as unduly harsh.
Indeed. Their PCI-DSS compliance scanning service is completely useless. Service version fingerprinting only, regardless of binary patch level or actual vulns. Yet somehow, the PCI SSC accepts their scan results as actionable for Level 1-3 compliance.