5 ms·

Very unfortunate that a corporate entity chose the name Gluon, as it's already the name that was assigned fifty years ago to a fundamental particle. At least, t

Very unfortunate that a corporate entity chose the name Gluon, as it's already the name that was assigned fifty years ago to a fundamental particle. At least, that's what I get when I do a simple google search. Also, this project https://github.com/freifunk-gluon/gluon https://github.com/freifunk-gluon/gluon predates GluonHQ by several years.

andrewvijay 10y ago
But I dont think anyone copyrighted a fundamental particle's name.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- archgoon 10y ago
  I think it's pretty uncool to copyright a word which is a fundamental particle and prevent people from using it.
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
    Trademarks are fairly narrow in what they restrict other people from using. While not a "fundamental particle", is it uncool for Intel to have processors called "Atom", so now no one else can release an "Atom" processor?
    - archgoon 10y ago
      Thank you, I shouldn't have reused the incorrect terminology here (it matters). Thanks for bringing this point up, I completely agree with you, because there is no chance of consumer confusion between these products, which is a reasonable standard to adhere to. Now, if Intel were to go after the Atom Text editor, we would agree that'd be pretty silly, no? Obviously they wouldn't, because there is no confusion. Now, if AMD were to start selling ATOMe processors, I'd also agree that Intel would have a reasonable complaint. There is no reasonable confusion (for the target markets) between this gluon project, gluonhq, and the router gluon project (linked to above).
  - kej 10y ago
    Nobody is prevented from using anything. Can you not talk about gluons (or apples, or atoms, or whatever) just because the word has been overloaded with the name of a business?
    - archgoon 10y ago
      Um... are you responding to a different thread? I believe that we're in agreement here. It's the original poster who thinks that once a corporate entity has laid claim to a word, other people should feel obligated to avoiding using it.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  trademark != copyright...
- heavenlyhash 10y ago
  Copyright doesn't apply here. Trademark does. Trademarks are scoped by product category.
StevePerkins 10y ago
An "Apple" is a fruit, an "Oracle" is a mythological being, "Yahoo!" has been a slang exclamation for a century, etc, etc, etc. Trademark isn't about inventing new words. It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. It's one of the few aspects of IP law that actually makes good sense.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It should be about that, but really ends up being big players stealing common words from the public vocabulary.
  - StevePerkins 10y ago
    Trademarks aren't domain names. If you're not actively using it, you lose the legal protection. Moreover, if you allow your trademark to become "public vocabulary", then you lose it. "Aspirin" used to be a Bayer trademark. "Xerox" and "Kleenex" have to work really hard to discourage writers from using those brand names in a generic way, etc.
- curun1r 10y ago
  > It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. That may be how it shakes out practically, but it's important to remember the motivation behind trademarks isn't to protect companies, it's to protect consumers from the confusion that ensues when two different entities use the same name. That may seem like a trivial distinction, but it can be important when evaluating a situation based on the spirit of the law. In this case, while the commercial entity may not want an open source project using the same name, that reuse is unlikely to cause confusion for consumers. However the merits of the case are largely irrelevant since a C&D on the part of the commercial entity would likely force a name change long before the courts were ever involved.

andrewvijay 10y ago

But I dont think anyone copyrighted a fundamental particle's name.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
archgoon 10y ago
I think it's pretty uncool to copyright a word which is a fundamental particle and prevent people from using it.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  Trademarks are fairly narrow in what they restrict other people from using. While not a "fundamental particle", is it uncool for Intel to have processors called "Atom", so now no one else can release an "Atom" processor?
  - archgoon 10y ago
    Thank you, I shouldn't have reused the incorrect terminology here (it matters). Thanks for bringing this point up, I completely agree with you, because there is no chance of consumer confusion between these products, which is a reasonable standard to adhere to. Now, if Intel were to go after the Atom Text editor, we would agree that'd be pretty silly, no? Obviously they wouldn't, because there is no confusion. Now, if AMD were to start selling ATOMe processors, I'd also agree that Intel would have a reasonable complaint. There is no reasonable confusion (for the target markets) between this gluon project, gluonhq, and the router gluon project (linked to above).
- kej 10y ago
  Nobody is prevented from using anything. Can you not talk about gluons (or apples, or atoms, or whatever) just because the word has been overloaded with the name of a business?
  - archgoon 10y ago
    Um... are you responding to a different thread? I believe that we're in agreement here. It's the original poster who thinks that once a corporate entity has laid claim to a word, other people should feel obligated to avoiding using it.
cowsandmilk 10y ago
trademark != copyright...
heavenlyhash 10y ago
Copyright doesn't apply here. Trademark does. Trademarks are scoped by product category.

StevePerkins 10y ago

An "Apple" is a fruit, an "Oracle" is a mythological being, "Yahoo!" has been a slang exclamation for a century, etc, etc, etc. Trademark isn't about inventing new words. It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. It's one of the few aspects of IP law that actually makes good sense.

nitrogen 10y ago
It should be about that, but really ends up being big players stealing common words from the public vocabulary.
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  Trademarks aren't domain names. If you're not actively using it, you lose the legal protection. Moreover, if you allow your trademark to become "public vocabulary", then you lose it. "Aspirin" used to be a Bayer trademark. "Xerox" and "Kleenex" have to work really hard to discourage writers from using those brand names in a generic way, etc.
curun1r 10y ago
> It's about one party at a time being able to use the same word as a brand within the same field. That may be how it shakes out practically, but it's important to remember the motivation behind trademarks isn't to protect companies, it's to protect consumers from the confusion that ensues when two different entities use the same name. That may seem like a trivial distinction, but it can be important when evaluating a situation based on the spirit of the law. In this case, while the commercial entity may not want an open source project using the same name, that reuse is unlikely to cause confusion for consumers. However the merits of the case are largely irrelevant since a C&D on the part of the commercial entity would likely force a name change long before the courts were ever involved.