6 ms·

Wasmer and Trademarks

101 points by syrusakbary 5y ago

wiqar 5y ago
- tptacek 5y ago
  You probably shouldn't write comments like this on posts from your employer; it's an HN thing, people are very alert to conflicts of interest here. It's fine to comment on them, to add your own spin or opinion or whatever, but you should be careful about cheerleading comments.
  - TobyTheDog123 5y ago
    I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt here, this is shameless. They don't disclose that Wasmer is their employer (you can find it from their comment history though), and pretend like they're a satisfied customer. Absolutely disgusting.
    - wiqar 5y ago
      Your point is taken. I will do my best to earn the communities trust moving forward. Thanks.
      - wiqar 5y ago
        "community's"
  - wiqar 5y ago
    Thanks. I appreciate the lesson. Look forward to earning your trust.
tylermenezes 5y ago
For anyone curious about Bytecode Alliance: https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/956 https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/956
- bau5 5y ago
  > Unless the BA members have future-reading abilities (which perhaps they have, who knows!), that narrative is hard to hold @showyourfaces. I think it was similar but far more mundane. I think they got bad vibes from Wasmer.
hhh 5y ago
Amazing levels of transparency in this statement, which feels like a breath of fresh air to read in terms of clarity and openness. Will have to check out Wasmer :)
- TobyTheDog123 5y ago
  These obviously-ingenuine replies only add to the continuing distrust of Wasmer, by the way.
csomar 5y ago
> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Webassembly and Wikipedia shows that WASM is a programming language. Here, applicant provides various software, which presumably involves the use of the aforementioned programming language. > In total, the above evidence results in the determination that in relation to the goods and/or services applicant provides, the context therefor, and to someone who knows what the goods and/or services are, WASM conveys an immediate idea about a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that they consist of software involving the programming language WASM. Accordingly, the proposed mark, WASM is merely descriptive and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1). > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.
- paxys 5y ago
  Yep. The post makes it sound like they abandoned the application because of the goodness of their hearts, but really it was obviously going to be rejected because they had no response to the straightforward questions by the USPTO.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    It wasn't going to be rejected. It was rejected for solid reasons and they decided not to waste time appealing.
- syrusakbary 5y ago
  The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark. Hope this makes things more clear!
mfer 5y ago
> Wasmer, by necessity, design, and passion lives and breathes Wasm and open source. > As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly... > Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of open source and WebAssembly in particular. Wasmer recently recently released a closed source wasm package manager. Something doesn't seem right. Anyone feel something is off here?
- syrusakbary 5y ago
  The WAPM backend is closed-source for now. However, the API layer based on GraphQL and the CLI are completely open for anyone to use: https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli If anyone wants to replicate the WebAssembly Package Manager locally please send me an email to syrus@wasmer.io so we can start a discussion around a potential open-source path for it :) EDIT: removed "for security reasons among other things" as it might imply WAPM is not secure, and that's definitely not the case
  - tux3 5y ago
    Closed source for security reasons? Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
    - syrusakbary 5y ago
      Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one. But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs. For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!). As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and thorough review of the codebase before open-sourcing.
      - 5y ago
initplus 5y ago
It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage. Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime. It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language. If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders. You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  “Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders” Yup. WebAssembly is not a landgrab its an opportunity to build very cool things that embody the principles of the web. Use imagination. Build product. A package manager and a runtime is hardly inspiring.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  > It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, Not defending anything but competition is generally accepted to be a good thing.
- mike_d 5y ago
  > why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation" But they registered a domain name on an obscure TLD before anyone else thought of it! /s
ledgerdev 5y ago
Anyone know why they were rejected from Bytecode Alliance?
- donut-yogurt 5y ago
  I believe it all started when Wasmer's founder allegedly sexually harassed a member of the Bytecode Alliance. From the outside it seems any collaboration was doomed from the start, and the trademark applications and internal conflicts didn't help Wasmer one bit.
  - slimsag 5y ago
    I don't like Wasmer one bit, seems like an aggressive startup with a shady business model that is ultimately bad for the WASM ecosystem. It's possible what you say is true, but, how could anyone judge the validity of such an allegation from a throwaway account without more info?
    - donut-yogurt 5y ago
      I realize it's not ideal, but whether inappropriate behavior took place or not is irrelevant to Wasmer's relationship to the Alliance. For all we know, it could be a misunderstanding due to different cultures (which is what the founder claimed). What is relevant, though, is that a member of the Alliance made public claims of inappropriate behavior by Wasmer's founder and, nearly a year later, boosted them to justify why they weren't personally collaborating. I'm not going to link this for the benefit of the victim, but in fairness they did publish this online, and you can still find it if you're really interested. And once you take this background into context, some of the issues Wasmer faces just seem to click. Consider the late-cofounder post-mortem you linked in a different thread: > Another point: Syrus Akbary also has made many public errors that have created hostility against the company. Could it be about different issues? Well, certainly, but that one issue was steaming for a year within the Alliance, so...
      - syrusakbary 5y ago
eatonphil 5y ago
I'm not too familiar with the state of wasm runtimes so this Frank Denis post/benchmark [0] was pretty helpful. tldr: > Are you looking for the best possible performance to build a “serverless” infrastructure? WAVM may be better a choice, combined with “snapshots” of the linear memory made after initialization, as done in the excellent FAASM. > For untrusted applications, and if you are into Rust, you may want to consider lucet and its unique ability to stop/resume/reschedule execution. > Are you looking for a one-runtime-to-rule-them-all thing for multiple components of your application, written in a variety of programming languages? wasmer will probably be the easiest to integrate. > Are you looking for a way to test the latest WebAssembly proposals? Check out wasmtime. Ditto if you need to run WebAssembly modules from Zig. wasmtime is fast, even on ARM CPUs, although I wish I could test on one of these fancy new Apple M1 machines. > Finally, if you need something simple, lightweight, that works everywhere, wasm3 is your friend. [0] https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/ https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/
mythz 5y ago
The fact Wasmer even attempted to do this, the PR spin to try cover their motivations and the deceitful astro turfing in this thread by Wasmer employees is enough for me to distrust & discount the entire company and its products entirely.
- astlouis44 5y ago
  100% this.
- mmargerum 5y ago
  Yup. product is dead to me now.
dannyw 5y ago
You intentionally filed for a trademark for "Webassembly" and "WASM". You did not file for a trademark for "Webassembly Foundation".
throwawaycities 5y ago
It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the following: “…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.” However, that is not true. Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned. With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?
infrawhispers 5y ago
This seems very sketchy and the CEO’s responses are more defensive than reflective and remorseful. I was initially considering using wasmer for a project but will go with wasmtime (still open to suggestions though!)

101 points by syrusakbary 5y ago

tptacek 5y ago
You probably shouldn't write comments like this on posts from your employer; it's an HN thing, people are very alert to conflicts of interest here. It's fine to comment on them, to add your own spin or opinion or whatever, but you should be careful about cheerleading comments.
- TobyTheDog123 5y ago
  I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt here, this is shameless. They don't disclose that Wasmer is their employer (you can find it from their comment history though), and pretend like they're a satisfied customer. Absolutely disgusting.
  - wiqar 5y ago
    Your point is taken. I will do my best to earn the communities trust moving forward. Thanks.
    - wiqar 5y ago
      "community's"
- wiqar 5y ago
  Thanks. I appreciate the lesson. Look forward to earning your trust.

For anyone curious about Bytecode Alliance: https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/956 https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/956

bau5 5y ago
> Unless the BA members have future-reading abilities (which perhaps they have, who knows!), that narrative is hard to hold @showyourfaces. I think it was similar but far more mundane. I think they got bad vibes from Wasmer.

hhh 5y ago

Amazing levels of transparency in this statement, which feels like a breath of fresh air to read in terms of clarity and openness. Will have to check out Wasmer :)

TobyTheDog123 5y ago
These obviously-ingenuine replies only add to the continuing distrust of Wasmer, by the way.

csomar 5y ago

> If we had had bad intentions at that moment we could have still pursued the trademark at that time. Instead, we left the process to expire, leading to this official response from USPTO in September of the same year: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 https://uspto.report/TM/88703780 “Status: Abandoned because the applicant failed to respond”. The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2 > The attached evidence from Webassembly and Wikipedia shows that WASM is a programming language. Here, applicant provides various software, which presumably involves the use of the aforementioned programming language. > In total, the above evidence results in the determination that in relation to the goods and/or services applicant provides, the context therefor, and to someone who knows what the goods and/or services are, WASM conveys an immediate idea about a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that they consist of software involving the programming language WASM. Accordingly, the proposed mark, WASM is merely descriptive and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1). > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

paxys 5y ago
Yep. The post makes it sound like they abandoned the application because of the goodness of their hearts, but really it was obviously going to be rejected because they had no response to the straightforward questions by the USPTO.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  It wasn't going to be rejected. It was rejected for solid reasons and they decided not to waste time appealing.
syrusakbary 5y ago
The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text: > Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark. Hope this makes things more clear!

mfer 5y ago

> Wasmer, by necessity, design, and passion lives and breathes Wasm and open source. > As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly... > Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of open source and WebAssembly in particular. Wasmer recently recently released a closed source wasm package manager. Something doesn't seem right. Anyone feel something is off here?

syrusakbary 5y ago
The WAPM backend is closed-source for now. However, the API layer based on GraphQL and the CLI are completely open for anyone to use: https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli If anyone wants to replicate the WebAssembly Package Manager locally please send me an email to syrus@wasmer.io so we can start a discussion around a potential open-source path for it :) EDIT: removed "for security reasons among other things" as it might imply WAPM is not secure, and that's definitely not the case
- tux3 5y ago
  Closed source for security reasons? Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
  - syrusakbary 5y ago
    Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one. But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs. For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!). As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and thorough review of the codebase before open-sourcing.
    - 5y ago

initplus 5y ago

It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage. Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime. It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language. If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders. You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.

enos_feedler 5y ago
“Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders” Yup. WebAssembly is not a landgrab its an opportunity to build very cool things that embody the principles of the web. Use imagination. Build product. A package manager and a runtime is hardly inspiring.
eatonphil 5y ago
> It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, Not defending anything but competition is generally accepted to be a good thing.
mike_d 5y ago
> why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation" But they registered a domain name on an obscure TLD before anyone else thought of it! /s

ledgerdev 5y ago

Anyone know why they were rejected from Bytecode Alliance?

donut-yogurt 5y ago
I believe it all started when Wasmer's founder allegedly sexually harassed a member of the Bytecode Alliance. From the outside it seems any collaboration was doomed from the start, and the trademark applications and internal conflicts didn't help Wasmer one bit.
- slimsag 5y ago
  I don't like Wasmer one bit, seems like an aggressive startup with a shady business model that is ultimately bad for the WASM ecosystem. It's possible what you say is true, but, how could anyone judge the validity of such an allegation from a throwaway account without more info?
  - donut-yogurt 5y ago
    I realize it's not ideal, but whether inappropriate behavior took place or not is irrelevant to Wasmer's relationship to the Alliance. For all we know, it could be a misunderstanding due to different cultures (which is what the founder claimed). What is relevant, though, is that a member of the Alliance made public claims of inappropriate behavior by Wasmer's founder and, nearly a year later, boosted them to justify why they weren't personally collaborating. I'm not going to link this for the benefit of the victim, but in fairness they did publish this online, and you can still find it if you're really interested. And once you take this background into context, some of the issues Wasmer faces just seem to click. Consider the late-cofounder post-mortem you linked in a different thread: > Another point: Syrus Akbary also has made many public errors that have created hostility against the company. Could it be about different issues? Well, certainly, but that one issue was steaming for a year within the Alliance, so...
    - syrusakbary 5y ago

eatonphil 5y ago

I'm not too familiar with the state of wasm runtimes so this Frank Denis post/benchmark [0] was pretty helpful. tldr: > Are you looking for the best possible performance to build a “serverless” infrastructure? WAVM may be better a choice, combined with “snapshots” of the linear memory made after initialization, as done in the excellent FAASM. > For untrusted applications, and if you are into Rust, you may want to consider lucet and its unique ability to stop/resume/reschedule execution. > Are you looking for a one-runtime-to-rule-them-all thing for multiple components of your application, written in a variety of programming languages? wasmer will probably be the easiest to integrate. > Are you looking for a way to test the latest WebAssembly proposals? Check out wasmtime. Ditto if you need to run WebAssembly modules from Zig. wasmtime is fast, even on ARM CPUs, although I wish I could test on one of these fancy new Apple M1 machines. > Finally, if you need something simple, lightweight, that works everywhere, wasm3 is your friend. [0] https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/ https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/

mythz 5y ago

The fact Wasmer even attempted to do this, the PR spin to try cover their motivations and the deceitful astro turfing in this thread by Wasmer employees is enough for me to distrust & discount the entire company and its products entirely.

astlouis44 5y ago
100% this.
mmargerum 5y ago
Yup. product is dead to me now.

dannyw 5y ago

You intentionally filed for a trademark for "Webassembly" and "WASM". You did not file for a trademark for "Webassembly Foundation".

throwawaycities 5y ago

It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the following: “…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.” However, that is not true. Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned. With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?

infrawhispers 5y ago

This seems very sketchy and the CEO’s responses are more defensive than reflective and remorseful. I was initially considering using wasmer for a project but will go with wasmtime (still open to suggestions though!)