3 ms·
In a way it seems like a classic trademark violation, tricking people (or their servers) into thinking your product is someone else’s. I wonder if there are act
by wvbdmp 1y ago
In a way it seems like a classic trademark violation, tricking people (or their servers) into thinking your product is someone else’s. I wonder if there are actual agreements about this these days.
- rileymat2 1y agoThe mark in this usage has gone unprotected for so long, I doubt there would be any success with that. Also, I doubt tricking servers would indicate creating consumer confusion with the trademark.
- ojosilva 1y agoYeah, but the case law resulting from the denied ruling could prove valuable for others who need to defend their use of trademarks in API naming. "API" here refers to the broad judicial term, where the User-Agent header falls under.
- im3w1l 1y agoAdversarial compatibility is pretty nice though, I don't think we should do away with it.
- userbinator 1y agoSee Sega v. Accolade for a precedent of why that likely won't work.
- wmf 1y agoUser agent strings aren't really seen by people so arguably there is no consumer confusion. And if you need the Mozilla user agent for compatibility it's reminiscent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Retric 1y agohttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1114 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1114 Statute doesn’t reference consumers, and does list deception as being prohibited. So it’s at least debatable.