3 ms·

"The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible." Re-read what the court said: > Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain na

"The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible." Re-read what the court said: > Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark Always amazes me when random HNers think they know more that people who literally spend their lives on this stuff.

denton-scratch 5y ago
It wasn't a "court", it was an arbitrator.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
As detailed elsewhere in this thread, the website doesn't follow Complainant’s published trademark guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 Just skimming the website, there is an article defaming a Debian Maintainer that had been arrested by the Russian government by insinuating he's spying for the Russian government, referencing leaked emails from debian-private, and defaming a Google employee with insinuations. Free Software/Open Source projects rely on private mailing lists to discuss sensitive matters involving people, topics that would be discussed in-person in any non-distributed organization. It's understandable that the Fedora Project doesn't want its trademark attached to such content.
ineedasername 5y ago
By that reasoning no opinion is valid if it differs from the one given by the arbitration committee. (note that I said valid not binding. Clearly their opinion is the only one that is binding.) Maybe you are making that claim? But I don't think so because that would seem both unreasonable and because that would be an uncharitably negative interpretation of your statement (a practice which runs somewhat counter to HN community guidelines) As to the issue at hand, you may not be aware of the fact that arbitration folks are limited in what they may consider solely to what is given to them by RedHat & Pocock, and from this document RedHat does not appear to have brought Pocock's prior behavior into the matter. I on the other hand, unbound by the rules of arbitration, am allow to consider anything I'd like when formulating an opinion. And when I look at Pocock's history of interacting with various communities my opinion is that it is plausible (note that I don't claim it to be definitive) that Pockock's motives may have included the annoyance of RedHat. All of which is besides the point: Pocock could have come right out & said "I wanted to annoy RedHat" and that would still only have filled 1 out of the 3 considerations (bad faith) to rule in RedHat's favor. His site still could fulfill a legitimate noncommercial purpose, and not cause any confusion regarding the Fedora trademark, and therefore no require reassignment to RedHat. At a guess, this is possibly why RedHat didn't bring Pocock's other behavioral history into the issue: It was neither relevant nor sufficient to demonstrating their case. Always amazes me when random HNers waste their time making low effort posts that contribute nothing to the conversation by cherry picking one thing and making an issue of it. I probably shouldn't waste my time engaging such comments but, Oh well, nearly done, might as well finish... Besides which: >people who literally spend their lives on this stuff. You have only an extremely small idea of what I spend my life on. Contrary to a sparse profile that is extremely far from comprehensive of my full experience, I do in fact have professional exposure to legal (in this case quasi-legal) procedures and processes. That shouldn't matter though: we're not far enough into the weeds on the issue that true expertise is required for a reasonable opinion. Either way, I'm not going to post my curriculum vitae here merely to fend off snarky low-effort comments from folks that will likely make snarky low-effort posts regardless. It's supposed to be a site for discussion, not credentialism.

denton-scratch 5y ago

It wasn't a "court", it was an arbitrator.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

As detailed elsewhere in this thread, the website doesn't follow Complainant’s published trademark guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 Just skimming the website, there is an article defaming a Debian Maintainer that had been arrested by the Russian government by insinuating he's spying for the Russian government, referencing leaked emails from debian-private, and defaming a Google employee with insinuations. Free Software/Open Source projects rely on private mailing lists to discuss sensitive matters involving people, topics that would be discussed in-person in any non-distributed organization. It's understandable that the Fedora Project doesn't want its trademark attached to such content.

ineedasername 5y ago

By that reasoning no opinion is valid if it differs from the one given by the arbitration committee. (note that I said valid not binding. Clearly their opinion is the only one that is binding.) Maybe you are making that claim? But I don't think so because that would seem both unreasonable and because that would be an uncharitably negative interpretation of your statement (a practice which runs somewhat counter to HN community guidelines) As to the issue at hand, you may not be aware of the fact that arbitration folks are limited in what they may consider solely to what is given to them by RedHat & Pocock, and from this document RedHat does not appear to have brought Pocock's prior behavior into the matter. I on the other hand, unbound by the rules of arbitration, am allow to consider anything I'd like when formulating an opinion. And when I look at Pocock's history of interacting with various communities my opinion is that it is plausible (note that I don't claim it to be definitive) that Pockock's motives may have included the annoyance of RedHat. All of which is besides the point: Pocock could have come right out & said "I wanted to annoy RedHat" and that would still only have filled 1 out of the 3 considerations (bad faith) to rule in RedHat's favor. His site still could fulfill a legitimate noncommercial purpose, and not cause any confusion regarding the Fedora trademark, and therefore no require reassignment to RedHat. At a guess, this is possibly why RedHat didn't bring Pocock's other behavioral history into the issue: It was neither relevant nor sufficient to demonstrating their case. Always amazes me when random HNers waste their time making low effort posts that contribute nothing to the conversation by cherry picking one thing and making an issue of it. I probably shouldn't waste my time engaging such comments but, Oh well, nearly done, might as well finish... Besides which: >people who literally spend their lives on this stuff. You have only an extremely small idea of what I spend my life on. Contrary to a sparse profile that is extremely far from comprehensive of my full experience, I do in fact have professional exposure to legal (in this case quasi-legal) procedures and processes. That shouldn't matter though: we're not far enough into the weeds on the issue that true expertise is required for a reasonable opinion. Either way, I'm not going to post my curriculum vitae here merely to fend off snarky low-effort comments from folks that will likely make snarky low-effort posts regardless. It's supposed to be a site for discussion, not credentialism.