> This is just highly manipulative PR speak. The only part of the first section that wasn't "here's what happened" and "we're sorry, it was wrong" was detailin

> This is just highly manipulative PR speak. The only part of the first section that wasn't "here's what happened" and "we're sorry, it was wrong" was detailing how generously they use their mark. I'm not trying to condescend, but just like patents and employment law, I think trademarks aren't as simple of an issue as they'd seem. I believe (with my layman understanding) that, in fact, the onus really is on the bearer of the mark to defend it. I think it was a tagline mentioned in the Wired article that spurred my interest (but -- surprise -- can't find it anymore), but that was a detail that I was interested in knowing. I think that's pretty impressive. > Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable. This is an extreme reaction. I don't see a notice of misuse of a trademark as an act of agression, rather business in the globalized world. Is it possible forcible purging is Canonical's M.O. and it's just bad luck that they got caught this time? I guess so, but hey -- that's what the courts are for, right?