4 ms·
I'm no Canonical apologist, but they do have a "intellectual property" document and are quite clear about what they deem acceptable and what they don't. They v
by comice 13y ago
I'm no Canonical apologist, but they do have a "intellectual property" document and are quite clear about what they deem acceptable and what they don't.
They very specifically say you need permission in domains:
"You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes."
http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy
- hyperion2010 13y agoExcept that policies like that are completely meaningless in the face of the law. They are like the rules you used to make up as a kid.
- Flimm 13y agoYou have to enforce your trademark to keep it. It's one of the crucial differences between it and copyright or patents. mikeash: good point.
- mikeash 13y agoYes, but enforcement is only required to keep it when people are actually violating it. I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me that the "Fix Ubuntu" web site falls clearly under nominative fair use of the trademark, which is when you use a trademark to actually refer to the original product.
- glimmung 13y agoJust so - but /pretending/ to have such a right of veto speaks volumes about their approach. It respects neither the letter not the spirit of the law, and it makes Canonical look thuggish and crass. If they want to protect their brand, they could pay a little more attention to the reputational risks of their own behaviour.
- comice 13y agoMeaningless in the face of the law doesn't mean it's meaningless. It describes under what circumstances they'll send threatening letters and otherwise stamp their feet. Some people are intimidated by that kind of thing. And it can certainly cost you some real time and money dealing with it, and they have more than you.
- chrismonsanto 13y agoWho gives a crap about what they deem acceptable. That's definitely non-enforceable in cases like "ubuntusucks.com"
- comice 13y agoI am talking about this instance where Joey Hess is suggesting Debian cannot use the trademark without risking trouble. I don't happen to agree with Canonical's behaviour in this respect, or believe it's enforceable.
- jasonlotito 13y agoWell, the original problem wasn't ubuntusucks.com, but fixubuntu.com with the Ubuntu logo. One could make the argument that those two things combined without a clear disclaimer at the very least could be an issue. I do think Canonical's approach was far too heavy-handed, but this case is nothing like ubuntusucks.com (on multiple levels =)).
- chrismonsanto 13y agoI am of course not referring to this particular instance, but posing a counterexample to the overly broad language in their intellectual property policy.
- jamesbritt 13y ago... what they deem acceptable and what they don't. Isn't law what decides these things? Canonical may be full of hopes and dreams about how they prefer people to behave, but they don't make the laws.
- comice 13y agoThe law doesn't decide what Canonical deem acceptable, no. However, the law (or more accurately, judges interpreting the law) get to decide whether it's enforceable.
- Bill_Dimm 13y agoI don't really see how Canonical can take away the right to use a trademark nominatively[1], as provided by law, just by declaring your rights to be gone in a policy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)
- comice 13y agoI suspect and hope that you are right. But if you were in his position would you fancy fighting it?
- Bill_Dimm 13y agoThat really depends on whether or not I could afford to (the sad reality of our legal system). Fortunately, the EFF seems to be helping him: https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trademark-law-to-silence-critics-of-its-privacy-decisions/ https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trade...
- dragonwriter 13y agoThey can't. OTOH, limitations on exclusive rights in trademarks (or any other form of IP) vary a lot by jurisdiction, and within a jurisdiction over time; its fairly common for organizations to state policies where the domain of things for which permission is stated to be required overlaps the area of limitations on the right in question; to the extent those overlap, the stated policy has no effect, it only has effect in the intersection of the area where the company asserts a restriction and the area where local law gives the company control.
- strathmeyer 13y agoI'm going to assume you get written permission from the NFL every time you use your DVR, have some friends over to watch the game, or talk about the game with your friends and coworkers.
- comice 13y agoWhat is an NFL? And DVR? Is that like the pirate bay?
- moocowduckquack 13y agoany Trademark in a domain name or URL Is obviously bollocks though as by that reading you couldn't have an article about Ubuntu with Ubuntu in the headline without permission if you used article headlines in your sites URLs like every online magazine ever does.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoI'm pretty radical when it comes to "intellectual property". As far as I'm concerned copyright and patents are both a matter of appropriating centuries of collective public property. Nobody invents anything from scratch. But I don't see anything wrong with protecting a trademark, within reason.