Live data from Hacker News

Help the Gnome Foundation Defend the Gnome Trademark Against Groupon

gnome.org

151–160 of 224 posts

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

#151
post #14

Groupon takes the pole position for the amount of douchebagery they dished out within such a short period of their existence.

What about ÜBER?

I'm definitely not a fan of Uber, but even I wouldn't put them in the same league as Groupon. Uber falls in the 'not great for their employees, but generally useful for society' category, which is really the same bucket as Amazon.

Groupon falls in the 'disingenuous startup that enriched early investors on pumped up numbers and dumped it all on society later', with an extra kicker of screwing a bunch of small businesses along the way.

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

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They say Groupon's Gnome is an operating system, do you know any details of how they built it? Is it Linux based, etc?

It seems to be based on iOS.

Wait what? They built an 'iOS based operating system'? I don't understand how that would be possible?

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

#153
I love Gnome and use it daily but obviously it's not a desktop environment and doesn't copy Gnome. I don't think real words like gnome (or windows) should be trademarks and surely not when two companies do two completely different things.

For sure, the gnome foundation doesn't want to sue garden gnome manufacturers as well.

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

#154
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then lose spetacularly, since you don't own the trademark.

At least in Europe you're not required to register a trademark to be able to use it. If I've been selling red toy cars in Dutch toy stores for five years and they all had a clearly recognizable logo on them, then someone else uses a logo that is almost identical to sell orange toy cars in the same or nearby toy stores, I might very well win that lawsuit. It is geographically limited and limited to the market segment,…

The laws you mention are long-standing, but the trademark system was developed to sort out all border cases that this approach inevitably fails to address. Does it matter if toy cars are orange or green? What if they are toy trucks? Etc etc. Trademark is not compulsory, but it's advantageous in most cases.

Without trademarks, each doubtful claim would require a full run through the courts; and depending on whether you do or don't use Common Law (i.e. in France, Italy, Spain etc), legal precedents wouldn't even hold in most cases, so every single time you'd have to repeat it. That's expensive for everyone involved, including the State.

With trademarks, you have to specify fairly-precise categories at registration, and then there is no dispute. If you file for "BestCars" in "toys", that's it, nobody else gets to make any toy with your name, regardless of whether your cars are red or yellow or even look like a car; if they try, you first threaten them (which will solve 90% of cases right away), then easily slap them in court with a quick process (judge looks at trademark filing, looks at toys, and rules for infringement).

Trademarking works, to be honest. It's one of those things you only ever hear when they fail, which they do, occasionally. In this case we all believe Groupon should have been told "your name is too similar to another in category 021" by an automated system while filing, rather than being allowed to file and wait for a challenge, right? Except companies file trademarks and then they die, and what happens to their trademarks then? Should the state actively scan the business market, going door-to-door telling people "you can't do that because the other guy was doing it first"? That's a huge burden, especially in a global marketplace. It's much more efficient to just timestamp files (which is basically what the office does, by accepting a request) and then deal with the few complaints when they arise -- which they likely will only if the two companies really occupy the same marketplace, incidentally. Believe it or not, most people would rather stand out for originality and won't willingly try to steal someone else's trade name; it's better to just wait for the occasional sociopathic Groupon and then slam it like it deserves (hopefully).

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

#155
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademark has barely anything to do with IP laws. You are referring to patents, and trademark legislation has nothing to do with patents.

I didn't see any comments that applied to patents (e.g., that they cover inventions, that they require the inventor to disclose all relevant details of the invention, that they have definite lifetimes, etc.), so while I agree with you and Stallman that it's important to be explicit about when you're talking about copyright, trade secrets, patents and trademarks, I don't think anybody's created any confusion yet. Besi…

> I didn't see any comments that applied to patents

Well, when someone mentioned "fuel innovation", I assume they did not talk about trademarks, because trademarks have NOTHING to do with protecting innovation. That's what patents are for (in theory, while I don't agree with that, but that's a different topic).

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

#156
post #143
post #134

Wow, all evidence suggests that the team in charge of this at Groupon is acting in bad faith, trying to bulldoze over a non-profit with fewer financial resources. (I doubt Groupon would ever attempt something like this against a financially-well-backed brand such as, say, "Apple.") Consider: (1) it's essentially impossible that no one involved had ever heard of the Gnome desktop (it's the top result when I search for…

I agree with 2 but not with 1. I think there are loads of people out there who have heard that there is something like Linux, but have never used it. If you never used any *nix you probably don't even know that desktop environments can be switched or changed. Then how would you know about a specific desktop environment? Not accepting to respect a 17 year old trademark is very, very bad though.

There's not one single engineer that saw the conflict with the name 'GNOME'? If so, their engineering team is hopeless.

(Note that I don't think erikb deserves the downvotes, I think a lot of people will give them the benefit of a doubt by saying 'maybe they don't know', but someone at Groupon had to know, and that person was ignored, and now Groupon deserves the wrath of the community)

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

#157
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the rule is that if you don't step up yourself to defend your trademark whenever someone else tries to use it, your trademark becomes void.

What is the rationale behind that?

The rule is not a strict requirement although broadly speaking a trade mark owner is required to enforce their trade marks in relation to third party use which is likely to confuse the public.

The rationale is that trade marks are designed to be a badge of origin & to guarantee to consumers that the goods are from a particular entity. If I do not show due regard for maintaining that distinction by taking action against third parties making confusing use of an identical/similar mark then I should not have the right to continue making use of the mark, or at the very least could be said to have consented to the third party use and cannot subsequently stop them.

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

#158
post #50

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..

For those who don't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

It would be delightfully ironic to see Apple providing money in support here, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademarks are a form of intellectual property.

'Intellectual Property' is not a legal classification, and shouldn't be. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and looser-defined 'trade secrets' all have distinct purposes. Saying "Intellectual Property" when you mean "Trademark" gives the impression that the holder has all kinds of legal protections which don't actually apply. Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the right…

> '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.

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

#160
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For those who don't get the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer It would be delightfully ironic to see Apple providing money in support here, but I'm not holding my breath.

I believe parent is talking about iPhone and iPad. "iPhone" was owned by Cisco in the US which Apple eventually bought the trademark from. I believe Apple lost its case in China with either the iPad or iPhone name.

Apple was able to call itself Apple because they were not in the music business (albeit there were a few quibbles about sounds) until they started selling digital songs.

Post reply on HN