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

The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

digital-goobers.vercel.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#11

Post by grayhatter »

gorenb wrote: post #8
Canada wrote: post #2

Can a trademark holder can really stop anyone from modifying the mark? For instance, can Monsanto have a court stop someone from drawing a mutant-looking or withered version of the plant in their logo? (eg. https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/monsanto_wither... ) I don't see what's so unreasonable about the other points.

Yes, a trademark holder can do that, but the problem is that Rust is supposed to be a foundation, a nonprofit. Even if they legally can, I don't think it's that ethical for a nonprofit to do so.

My understanding is that they can't. Trademark protections, IIRC, extend only as far as to not confuse people as to the source of some product. If you created a parody to complain, and not to sell a competing product, then fair use would apply. Do you have any examples of when a Trademark holder has been able to prevent a parody?

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#15

Post by gorenb »

pornel wrote: post #13

Is there a new draft? It seems like the article is about the original draft, which the foundation has already scrapped after the backlash.

Actually, it stopped taking feedback. It has said that it’s considering the feedback, and that they might still accept the draft

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#16

Post by MrJohz »

gorenb wrote: post #14
NewJazz wrote: post #12

in writing this post, I myself am violating the Rust new policy No, you're not.

From the draft: We will likely consider using the Marks as part of a domain name or subdomain an infringement of our Marks.

Unless you've changed the URL, neither Rust nor any other mark appears to be in either the domain name or a subdomain. The term "rust" appears in the path, but that has never been an issue.

I have my reservations about these plans, but a lot of the reaction from online commentators feels like the "MongoDB is web scale" of legal advice - poorly understood regurgitation of very complex issues by people who are simply not experts in the field.

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#17

Post by gorenb »

pohl wrote: post #10
gorenb wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a trademark holder can do that, but the problem is that Rust is supposed to be a foundation, a nonprofit. Even if they legally can, I don't think it's that ethical for a nonprofit to do so.

In case you want a heads-up about a typo in your post: I see the word segway, which is the trademark name of a two-wheeled personal transport device. I believe you meant to use the verb “segue” instead.

I did mean to use the word segue, and no, it was not a pun about trademarks. I will fix it.

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#18

Post by gorenb »

MrJohz wrote: post #16
gorenb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the draft: We will likely consider using the Marks as part of a domain name or subdomain an infringement of our Marks.

Unless you've changed the URL, neither Rust nor any other mark appears to be in either the domain name or a subdomain. The term "rust" appears in the path, but that has never been an issue. I have my reservations about these plans, but a lot of the reaction from online commentators feels like the "MongoDB is web scale" of legal advice - poorly understood regurgitation of very complex issues by people who are simply n…

This is true, I am not an expert in this field, and have no legal training. I don't claim to be an expert. This is just me, giving me opinion in a blog post.

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#19

Post by Alexendoo »

gorenb wrote: post #15
pornel wrote: post #13

Is there a new draft? It seems like the article is about the original draft, which the foundation has already scrapped after the backlash.

Actually, it stopped taking feedback. It has said that it’s considering the feedback , and that they might still accept the draft

The feedback form was open for some amount of time and closed as scheduled, there are only so many things to be said about the draft after all. All of the things mentioned in the blog post have been said hundreds of times over by this point

Where are you getting that they might accept the draft from? That seems like a particularly uncharitable reading of the follow up post

https://foundation.rust-lang.org/news/rust-trademark-policy-...

Re: The Rust Foundation's New Trademark Policy Draft Is Just Wrong

#20

Post by ludwik »

gorenb wrote: post #18
MrJohz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you've changed the URL, neither Rust nor any other mark appears to be in either the domain name or a subdomain. The term "rust" appears in the path, but that has never been an issue. I have my reservations about these plans, but a lot of the reaction from online commentators feels like the "MongoDB is web scale" of legal advice - poorly understood regurgitation of very complex issues by people who are simply n…

This is true, I am not an expert in this field, and have no legal training. I don't claim to be an expert. This is just me, giving me opinion in a blog post.

It's not my intention to sound rude, but I'm pretty sure that understanding the difference between a website's domain and a post URL does not require any legal training.
Post reply on HN