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

Wasmer and Trademarks

wasmer.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#61

Post by syrusakbary »

donut-yogurt wrote: post #57
syrusakbary wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put a hard stop here. Sexual harassment issues are a serious matter. They are not discussed online as a throwaway weapon. They are denounced to the relevant authorities so they can be punished by law. I will always defend anyone doing that even if the claim goes against my person or anyone I love. If you have chatted with anyone that has really suffered from it, you would know how important is to treat this th…

I didn't state either way, I just reported claims that anyone can verify online. Are you implying this didn't affect Wasmer's rejection from the Alliance?

> I didn't state either way, I just reported the claims that anyone can verify online.

I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it.

> Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason?

You shall ask them instead of me.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#62

Post by slimsag »

syrusakbary wrote: post #61
donut-yogurt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't state either way, I just reported claims that anyone can verify online. Are you implying this didn't affect Wasmer's rejection from the Alliance?

> I didn't state either way, I just reported the claims that anyone can verify online. I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it. > Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason? You shall ask them instead of me.

> The rejection from the Bytecode Alliance was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct—both the individual CoC and the organizational CoC.

>

> We made both of these points explicit in the rejection email. In that email, we also said that if Wasmer established a track record of positive engagement, we would re-evaluate.

From a BA member[0]. If I was you, I'd start reading some interpersonal communication books ASAP and really take some time to reflect deeply on what is happening here. It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future (your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what, the Bytecode Alliance rejecting you, people alleging harassment, etc.) and you're having a hard time understanding what they are doing and why.

[0] https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-71...

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#63

Post by throwawaycities »

It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the following:

“…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.”

However, that is not true.

Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned.

With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#64

Post by jeffparsons »

slimsag wrote: post #62
syrusakbary wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't state either way, I just reported the claims that anyone can verify online. I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it. > Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason? You shall ask them instead of me.

> The rejection from the Bytecode Alliance was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct—both the individual CoC and the organizational CoC. > > We made both of these points explicit in the rejection email. In that email, we also said that if Wasmer established a track record of positive engagement, we would re-evaluate. From a BA member[0]. If I was you, I'd start reading some…

And the response each time seems to be along the lines of "We're sorry... but also we didn't do anything wrong and it was just a misunderstanding... and also people are being mean to us". I can't see this company ever growing past the controversy that hangs over it, because it keeps fueling it with extreme defensiveness and half-apologies.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#65

Post by syrusakbary »

slimsag wrote: post #62
syrusakbary wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't state either way, I just reported the claims that anyone can verify online. I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it. > Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason? You shall ask them instead of me.

> The rejection from the Bytecode Alliance was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct—both the individual CoC and the organizational CoC. > > We made both of these points explicit in the rejection email. In that email, we also said that if Wasmer established a track record of positive engagement, we would re-evaluate. From a BA member[0]. If I was you, I'd start reading some…

> was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct

I hope we can share the opinion that making this statement without actually pin-pointing into what's the exact behavior that is not compatible with the CoC makes the whole point plain. If provided, one can reflect upon that. Otherwise is just plain words that don't help in any way towards reflection or self-growth.

> your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what

That's my fault, as stated in the article and other comments here. Sometimes we try to chew more than we can swallow, and fuckups happen. If you been in a startup you probably know what I'm talking about.

> people alleging harassment

This one is the one that I think we have to be most cautious about, specially because anyone can "allege" anything. Tomorrow I can read in Twitter that someone likes to kill cats and I can say that "Allegedly X is a cat killer", but that doesn't make it any more true (and to be honest, it will be irresponsible for me sharing that without proof, even if I frame it as an allegation). It's on each of us the responsibility to seriously treat those claims by putting them in the hands of the authorities so any bad behavior is penalized with the law.

> It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future

Fortunately enough, the business thrives when we make a product that people like and use. And for me personally, I'm learning a lot and going through a lot of experiences that are for sure enriching. Thus, each day I'm (hopefully) becoming a better version of myself (or at least I try to!). Hope you do too!

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#66

Post by csomar »

burnte wrote: post #22
csomar wrote: post #6

> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Weba…

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#67

Post by IshKebab »

srcreigh wrote: post #30
slimsag wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing[0] suspicious[1] about[2] Wasmer. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28772863 [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/o1838v/the_web... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904829

> But you need to know that Wasmer and its sibling projects will stay free forever. We are open source lovers, all of us, and we have a strong background on working on open source projects before joining Wasmer too. That's great. I'm sure the closed source paid 10x faster editions of the graphene Python GraphQL server written by Syrus "CEO of Graphene" and CEO of wasmer will be open sourced in this spirit. https://gi…

I don't think having closed source projects contradicts that statement. You're allowed to love open source and make some open source things while still keeping other things closed source.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#68

Post by CyberRabbi »

tptacek wrote: post #16
syrusakbary wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one. But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs. For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!). As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and t…

Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is. Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.

This is often repeated but it’s just obviously not true. It’s much easier to figure out how to exploit a server if I have its source. If I don’t, I have to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.

If I’m in the situation where I have a binary of a server without the source, I have to pay the cost of using ghidra or IDA for a few hours or days (or weeks) to figure out how the software is structured before I can come up with an exploit. If I’m dealing with an open source target that’s a cost I don’t have to pay.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#69

Post by bluehex »

syrusakbary wrote: post #59
initplus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look I really don't want to be a hater, but please look at the way your words are perceived publicly. This doesn't read as open comments about trademark law, it reads as defensive and oppositional. This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the…

I appreciate your comment, I really do. I can understand how my comments could feel defensive. It's a personality trait that I like to discuss things to satiety, and that probably doesn't help! But it's always done with the willingness to learn and grow. I hope my appetite for discussion doesn't make our apology to the community any less valid. We made a mistake and we own it no matter what.

I'm curious as to what apology you are referring to.

Re: Wasmer and Trademarks

#70

Post by infrawhispers »

This seems very sketchy and the CEO’s responses are more defensive than reflective and remorseful.

I was initially considering using wasmer for a project but will go with wasmtime (still open to suggestions though!)

Post reply on HN