4 ms·

In retrospect, wasn't putting "Mozilla" in your user-agent string when you aren't the Mozilla Foundation or project a trademark violation, that they could have

In retrospect, wasn't putting "Mozilla" in your user-agent string when you aren't the Mozilla Foundation or project a trademark violation, that they could have enforced?

Dylan16807 4y ago
Not when it's for compatibility and talking to a machine.
rmccue 4y ago
The use of “Mozilla” I believe predates the Mozilla Foundation, as it was from Netscape’s user agent string before it was spun out. https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/ https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
- jdsully 4y ago
  They would have passed on the trademark rights with the rest of the IP
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    I’m on mobile so kinda limited search capacity, but it looks like IE was using “Mozilla” in its UA string for a couple years before the trademark was published (granted it was filed a few months prior to that IE release, and granted I have no idea how to read uspto.gov with any confidence that I understand it, and also granted I have no idea how much prior usage of trademarks overlaps with concepts like prior art for patents and copyright).
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      It could be passing-off which is an unregistered right (in UK at least) as they were using that mark to pretend to be another product.
      - eyelidlessness 4y ago
        I get that. I’m just questioning (with some admitted ignorance) whether that matters if the pretense predates the trademark registration. At least for related copyright and patent law, and at least in the US (which influences a lot of IP law), prior usage can carve out exemptions, limit or even invalidate the claimed IP. I just don’t know how much of this applies to trademark because, well, I never got curious about it until now. But I would assume it’s been reviewed by people far more qualified than myself, given the very litigious context around IE in the intervening period. My bet is it’s moot for trademark because it would’ve been unenforceable at the time of registration, or that it’s such low stakes that no one cared, or that it’s such high stakes that technical leadership fought to retain the status quo.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
rileymat2 4y ago
I doubt the user agent string would lead to a confusion of consumers, if consumers are end users and not web servers. I don't think you can ban the use of a word with trademark if it does not cause confusion.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  On the other hand, the whole reason UA strings are such a mess is because they have a long history of confusing humans who program computers. And being used sometimes intentionally for that purpose. And being used sometimes intentionally to mitigate that.
cma 4y ago
You can't use trademark in that way if they would need it for compatibility. Nintendo made games have a "nintendo" title scroll on Gameboy and checked for it as "genuine cartridge" protection in a special chip, and sued third parties for trademark violations if they included the title scroll to get around the protection chip. Courts ruled Nintendo couldn't use trademark in that way, that it was laundering in more rights than trademark provides.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  ah, righto. thanks for specific case history example. and indeed i'm glad of this. It's weird in this case because it's not Mozilla itself that was requiring Mozilla in the user-agent string for a site to allow or support the browser, but third-parties, who Mozilla didn't encourage or particularly want to do that, as far as I know. But it's still probably true that it would not be enforceable under trademark for this and other reasons, okay. I wonder if Firefox has ever considered taking "Mozilla" _out_ of their user-agent! At this point it's probably impossible. We're just stuck with this mess.
- mattl 4y ago
  This isn’t quite right. The BIOS checks for a copy of the Nintendo logo/name in certain ways on boot because licensed games include a copy. Nintendo also manufactured the games which made this easier.
  - cma 4y ago
    The lawsuit ruling said unlicensed games could include/present a copy too, despite trademark.
    - mattl 4y ago
      Which lawsuit was that? Having no luck finding it
- Vogtinator 4y ago
  Do you have sources for such rulings? I'm only aware of the very similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade.
masswerk 4y ago
No, the idea was right from the beginning that you could name (additionally) other user agents conforming to the same or lower specs as your client. (Without this, it would have been nearly impossible to introduce a new browser. Mind that browsers were much more dissimilar in the early years. E.g., Netscape Navigator could access virtual hosts, while NCSA Mosaic, which didn't know about the host header field, could not. While some browsers came with JS, others, like Viola Web, followed a different scheme, more similar to HyperCard, etc. Therefore, a server may have well checked the user agent string in order to decide how to serve what content.)

In retrospect, wasn't putting "Mozilla" in your user-agent string when you aren't the Mozilla Foundation or project a trademark violation, that they could have enforced?

Dylan16807 4y ago

Not when it's for compatibility and talking to a machine.

rmccue 4y ago

The use of “Mozilla” I believe predates the Mozilla Foundation, as it was from Netscape’s user agent string before it was spun out. https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/ https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/

jdsully 4y ago
They would have passed on the trademark rights with the rest of the IP
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  I’m on mobile so kinda limited search capacity, but it looks like IE was using “Mozilla” in its UA string for a couple years before the trademark was published (granted it was filed a few months prior to that IE release, and granted I have no idea how to read uspto.gov with any confidence that I understand it, and also granted I have no idea how much prior usage of trademarks overlaps with concepts like prior art for patents and copyright).
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    It could be passing-off which is an unregistered right (in UK at least) as they were using that mark to pretend to be another product.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      I get that. I’m just questioning (with some admitted ignorance) whether that matters if the pretense predates the trademark registration. At least for related copyright and patent law, and at least in the US (which influences a lot of IP law), prior usage can carve out exemptions, limit or even invalidate the claimed IP. I just don’t know how much of this applies to trademark because, well, I never got curious about it until now. But I would assume it’s been reviewed by people far more qualified than myself, given the very litigious context around IE in the intervening period. My bet is it’s moot for trademark because it would’ve been unenforceable at the time of registration, or that it’s such low stakes that no one cared, or that it’s such high stakes that technical leadership fought to retain the status quo.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

rileymat2 4y ago

I doubt the user agent string would lead to a confusion of consumers, if consumers are end users and not web servers. I don't think you can ban the use of a word with trademark if it does not cause confusion.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
On the other hand, the whole reason UA strings are such a mess is because they have a long history of confusing humans who program computers. And being used sometimes intentionally for that purpose. And being used sometimes intentionally to mitigate that.

cma 4y ago

You can't use trademark in that way if they would need it for compatibility. Nintendo made games have a "nintendo" title scroll on Gameboy and checked for it as "genuine cartridge" protection in a special chip, and sued third parties for trademark violations if they included the title scroll to get around the protection chip. Courts ruled Nintendo couldn't use trademark in that way, that it was laundering in more rights than trademark provides.

jrochkind1 4y ago
ah, righto. thanks for specific case history example. and indeed i'm glad of this. It's weird in this case because it's not Mozilla itself that was requiring Mozilla in the user-agent string for a site to allow or support the browser, but third-parties, who Mozilla didn't encourage or particularly want to do that, as far as I know. But it's still probably true that it would not be enforceable under trademark for this and other reasons, okay. I wonder if Firefox has ever considered taking "Mozilla" _out_ of their user-agent! At this point it's probably impossible. We're just stuck with this mess.
mattl 4y ago
This isn’t quite right. The BIOS checks for a copy of the Nintendo logo/name in certain ways on boot because licensed games include a copy. Nintendo also manufactured the games which made this easier.
- cma 4y ago
  The lawsuit ruling said unlicensed games could include/present a copy too, despite trademark.
  - mattl 4y ago
    Which lawsuit was that? Having no luck finding it
Vogtinator 4y ago
Do you have sources for such rulings? I'm only aware of the very similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade.

masswerk 4y ago

No, the idea was right from the beginning that you could name (additionally) other user agents conforming to the same or lower specs as your client. (Without this, it would have been nearly impossible to introduce a new browser. Mind that browsers were much more dissimilar in the early years. E.g., Netscape Navigator could access virtual hosts, while NCSA Mosaic, which didn't know about the host header field, could not. While some browsers came with JS, others, like Viola Web, followed a different scheme, more similar to HyperCard, etc. Therefore, a server may have well checked the user agent string in order to decide how to serve what content.)