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

Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 224 posts

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#191

Post by km3k »

jenscow wrote: post #45
steventhedev wrote: post #37

IANAL, but legal protection for trademarks extends to any usage wherein it would create sufficient consumer confusion. Great example: Apple v. Apple. The computer company agreed to not enter the music industry. To the extent of which they got sued when they added a sound card and multimedia features to their computers. They settled for a boatload of money rather than let a judge decide that they couldn't add any soun…

> They settled for a boatload of money I wonder if the GNOME foundation would "sell out" - who should decide, and how much is it worth...?

Selling out could be worth it given the right amount of money. Open source projects have changed their names in the past. And a settlement that could fund developers would be a nice benefit for GNOME.

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#193

Post by natch »

scrollaway wrote: post #181
snsr wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The move comes across as particularly hypocritical after reading this recent Groupon Engineering blog post titled Sharing is Caring: Open Source at Groupon : https://engineering.groupon.com/2014/open-source/sharing-is-...

Follow-up, even more confusing post from Groupon: https://engineering.groupon.com/2014/misc/gnome-foundation-a...

This post makes it even more clear that the Groupon people behind this have a poorly developed understanding of ethics and scruples.

"Trying to come to a resolution" looks like code for "we've been threatening Gnome with costly legal expenses."

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#194

Post by dragonwriter »

dalke wrote: post #185
dragonwriter wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections. ∀ X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.

Those are not true subsets like you suggest. Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category. For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works. In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share…

> Those are not true subsets like you suggest.

Yes, they are.

> Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category.

Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category.

> For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works.

Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C.

The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#195

Post by natch »

alasdair_ wrote: post #176
JoshTriplett wrote: post #73

I'm one of the folks working on the GNOME defense campaign. Happy to answer any questions people might have.

Given the statement from Groupon ( https://engineering.groupon.com/2014/misc/gnome-foundation-a... ) that if they can't work something out with you, they will choose another name, do you still plan on raising the $80K?

Obviously Groupon's definition of "working something out" would include doing so by brute force (bulldozing over Gnome's interest with lawyers and money), so you have to read what they say carefully, and not assume they are giving up.

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#196

Post by weavie »

matt_morgan wrote: post #150
weavie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely though, if Gnome win the case then Groupon would become liable to pay the costs?

Not necessarily. There are a lot of circumstances in which the case could end in Gnome's favor, without that judgment.

Do you have an example of such a circumstance?

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#197

Post by robjh »

alasdair_ wrote: post #175

Official Groupon response: https://engineering.groupon.com/2014/misc/gnome-foundation-a... "There is some recent confusion around Groupon’s intended use of a product name that the Gnome Foundation believes infringes on their trademarks. We love open source at Groupon. We have open sourced a number of projects on github. Our relationship with the open source community is more important to us than a product name. We’ve…

Looking for another name IS the appropriate resolution.

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#199

Post by samspot »

skratlo wrote: post #27

I don't get it either. If GNOME (the desktop environment and the foundation) have a trademark on GNOME, why do they need $80k to defend it? Shouldn't the trademark office then simply reject any further application for GNOME name related to computers, software and operating systems? Is this because of the idiotic defunc. justice system the US is imposing on themselves? Where you can sue mall owner for millions because…

I believe the idea is that if I register "Bruiser's Cars", that name doesn't automatically become unavailable to others for hundreds of years. I need to prove that I am still using the trademark somehow. Unfortunately that results in me needing a lawyer, which really sucks for a small business.

Note that the patent system (in theory) works the way you describe, but it hasn't eliminated the need for lawyers.

Finally, in the mall example, what usually happens is the judge finds that the mall saved millions by never cleaning their floors, so the company is punished by losing all the money they made. It is extremely rare for someone to get millions over something small.

Re: Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

#200

Post by SixSigma »

zaphoyd wrote: post #50
Andrenid wrote: post #23

Couldn't someone like Google, Apple, or any of the other huge companies who have made billions with the help of *nix and OSS in general step in and help out with what, to them, is a trivial drop in the bucket of money? Also how is it even legal for someone to so openly and malicious intrude on a trademarked name? I thought that's the entire point of trademarks.. it protects you from this?

Apple isn't really a stranger to announcing products with already trademarked names..

See also gmail

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/31/google_looses_tradem...

Post reply on HN