3 ms·
> if it is the most accurate way to refer to a good or service without misleading consumers as to its source. But if you're buying a service from AWS the sourc
by jopsen 6y ago
> if it is the most accurate way to refer to a good or service without misleading consumers as to its source.
But if you're buying a service from AWS the source is not Elastic.
You might be able to say compatible with elastic search. But using the name in your own product name seems unlikely to hold.
I think this is shortsighted on Amazon's part, because it probably wouldn't cost all that much to make a joint offering.
I would be curious to know where those lawsuits went. Because it seems like something that should have been resolved, and for which you could get an injunction.
The problem is clearly that people think they are getting a service supported by ES, when they are getting a look-a-like copy service. Which is what trademarks are intended to resolve.
In hindsight, maybe it would have worked better for ES, had they called the open source product something else, like how centos isn't called RedHat.
- mbreese 6y ago> clearly that people think they are getting a service supported by ES Something like this is also asserted in the OP. However, I'm not so sure that is the case. I don't think it's clear at all. Knowing that Elasticsearch is (was) open-source, I'd assume that I'm getting an AWS hosted installation of Elasticsearch... which is entirely accurate. If you can install the software on your own server, and AWS offers a managed version of it, I have no expectation that the original developers are involved at all. Ever since the original release, it looks like AWS has been much better at avoiding any mention of Elastic.co. The original announcement Tweet was definitely misleading. > In hindsight, maybe it would have worked better for ES, had they called the open source product something else, like how centos isn't called RedHat. I think this is the major problem, and you're right. Elasticsearch was the original trademark and is the accurate mark for the software. They only formed Elastic.co later, and this is where a lot of confusion originates. Elasticsearch != elastic.co It might be better for AWS to just include a disclaimer like "AWS Elasticsearch Service includes the open source Elasticsearch software, but is not supported by the original developers." Something like that...