3 ms·

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

by burnte 5y ago

csomar 5y ago
Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/ https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/
shkkmo 5y ago
Isn't it interesting how much the PR post (calling it an 'article' is a misnomer) downplays Wasmer's efforts to trademark "wasm"? It's almost like the effort to trademark "wasm" belies the bad faith intentions of Wasmer amd they want to avoid drawing attention to it. The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.
- syrusakbary 5y ago
  We didn't pretend to put fault on anyone, just portray the situation as it happened. I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The closest you come to accepting personal resposibility in that post is: > I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted. Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark. Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark. The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information". In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings. When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

by burnte 5y ago

Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.

Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/ https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/

shkkmo 5y ago

Isn't it interesting how much the PR post (calling it an 'article' is a misnomer) downplays Wasmer's efforts to trademark "wasm"? It's almost like the effort to trademark "wasm" belies the bad faith intentions of Wasmer amd they want to avoid drawing attention to it. The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.

syrusakbary 5y ago
We didn't pretend to put fault on anyone, just portray the situation as it happened. I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The closest you come to accepting personal resposibility in that post is: > I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted. Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere. You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark. Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like > The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark. The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information". In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings. When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.