4 ms·
Ok sure, they could sue me, but they would not win. Do you think they would win if they had not explicitely allowed that usage? I don't have a source but I am v
by echoangle 3y ago
Ok sure, they could sue me, but they would not win. Do you think they would win if they had not explicitely allowed that usage? I don't have a source but I am very sure that you can't stop someone from using your trademark, the trademark only protects the use in business, i.e. me selling a OS called "macOS". Just mentioning the name is no trademark infringement.
- dgfitz 3y agoI do know, for example, that sports talk radio shows aren’t allowed to use the term “Super Bowl”
- hnfong 3y agoI'm pretty sure your legal analysis here is overly-simplistic, but we don't need to get into that. Going back to the original topic, if somebody is trying to release open source drivers for HDMI (or a protocol compatible with HDMI), obviously trademark infringement is a possibility since both are in the exact same business. So even if you're right (which I don't think so), your argument doesn't apply.
- echoangle 3y agoBeing in the same business does not make it trademark infringement. Ubuntu could also advertise "This OS can run software for Windows by using WINE" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark, because they aren't acting under the trademark. Trademarks exist so you can't sell your product under the established name of another company and profit from their reputation or ruin it by selling bad products. Just mentioning the name to state a fact is not forbidden. Just writing a driver and distributing it with the claim "HDMI-compatible" is not trademark infringement. They problem in OP's article is that AMD has a contract with the HDMI Forum.