Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defending Our Brand

letsencrypt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 275 posts

Re: Defending Our Brand

#211

Post by azernik »

Kadin wrote: post #176
greenspot wrote: post #71

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)

It costs $375 (plus lawyers fees, usually) and I suspect that they just didn't think it was necessary. Lots of organizations haven't and don't bother registering, unless they expect a problem. Lots of volunteer-run software projects have better things to spend money on and just never get around to registering their name as a trademark until someone else tries to steal it out from under them.

When you're a very public open-source project whose brand is so central to success, registration is the better thing to spend their money on. Let's Encrypt did not show good judgment on this one.

EDIT: For example, they probably spent a employee/retained-attorney time worth more than $375 just to put together their Trademark Policy page. [1]

[1] https://letsencrypt.org/trademarks/

Re: Defending Our Brand

#212

Post by sbarre »

combatentropy wrote: post #103
brian_cloutier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

If not perjury, then negligence. I ran into Let's Encrypt without looking for it. It kept popping up in the tech news section over the past year. Maybe lawyers don't peruse the tech news, not even tech lawyers. Well, the lawyer's client most likely does. And really, the lawyer is just filing the request on the client's behalf. Besides it doesn't matter. A simple web search would have turned up Let's Encrypt. Not doin…

Particularly a lawyer for a competing service.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#213

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

chasb wrote: post #12

Well done Comodo, this motivated me to donate to Let's Encrypt. https://letsencrypt.org/donate/

Eh, I want to donate, but not via PayPal. If anyone relevant is reading this, consider adding more donation methods.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#214

Post by walrus01 »

robrenaud wrote: post #191
ceocoder wrote: post #72

Comodo - if you are reading this, you lost about 3000 USD worth of business from me. And someone else is going to gain the same. Drop this nonsense. It helps no one.

Why not send them an short and direct email?

I'm sure their first tier customer service people don't care at all and will just delete the ticket.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#215

Post by readams »

pc86 wrote: post #171
chasb wrote: post #12

Well done Comodo, this motivated me to donate to Let's Encrypt. https://letsencrypt.org/donate/

I assume donations directly to Let's Encrypt are tax deductible like EFF donations are - does LE send out tax information for contributors?

Let's Encrypt is part of the Internet Security Research Group, which is an IRS 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation. Contributions are tax deductible in the US.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#216

Post by Karunamon »

Brybry wrote: post #97
intsunny wrote: post #3

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!

Couldn't this sort of behavior be against the Mozilla CA Inclusion Policy and thus grounds for no longer bundling Comodo CA certs? 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.

Probably, but Mozilla will never do it just because of the sheer amount of stuff that will stop working only on their browser.

That threat is only valid if the other browser vendors do the same thing at the same time, otherwise it's a massive game of prisoner's dilemma.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#217

Post by davesque »

dang wrote: post #205
davesque wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it fair to say that the field of computer science has (up until recently, apparently) distinguished itself with its corny humor, dorkiness, and resulting sense of humility? I feel like puns and bad jokes had generally been a special part of the culture of early technologists. It's a little sad to see that give way to a kind of self-important seriousness.

Don't be sad. The one context doesn't really apply to the other because these communities are so different in size and cohesion. It isn't a question of humor, but of stock humor, which grows like crabgrass on the internet and quickly takes over. I think scott_s got it right years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289 . Humor that clears the signal/noise threshold does fine here.

Fair enough. Thanks for the input, dang.

Re: Defending Our Brand

#218

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #205
davesque wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it fair to say that the field of computer science has (up until recently, apparently) distinguished itself with its corny humor, dorkiness, and resulting sense of humility? I feel like puns and bad jokes had generally been a special part of the culture of early technologists. It's a little sad to see that give way to a kind of self-important seriousness.

Don't be sad. The one context doesn't really apply to the other because these communities are so different in size and cohesion. It isn't a question of humor, but of stock humor, which grows like crabgrass on the internet and quickly takes over. I think scott_s got it right years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289 . Humor that clears the signal/noise threshold does fine here.

[deleted]

Re: Defending Our Brand

#219

Post by CaptSpify »

mark-r wrote: post #160
CaptSpify wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's what the up-vote button is for

The upvote count is kept private, so it doesn't serve the same purpose of indicating public support for a comment. Unfortunately meta discussions are frowned upon too, so I shouldn't have made this comment either.

Ah, thanks. I guess I never realized that it was private.
Post reply on HN