Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:04:33 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Mike DeGraw-Bertsch" <mbertsch@radioactivedata.org>, "Person, Roderick" <personrp@ccbh.com>, "Fergus Cameron" <cameron@argus-systems.com>, <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Hotmail _still_ runs FreeBSD! Message-ID: <01ca01c1886c$2d6eb4c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0112182054470.90743-100000@glow> <3C1FFDE5.90B751FE@mindspring.com> <014001c18845$8a87ef90$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C202B18.4F1AEA2C@mindspring.com> <017401c18853$e44cdc30$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C20372B.E93291B9@mindspring.com> <018a01c1885a$0e41c4f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C205387.5E3EF927@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry writes: > Luckily, Occam's Razor is on my side. Only if you ignore the evidence. There is a clear discrepancy between the way MS treats its other trademarks in its publications, and the way it treats Passport and .NET. For example, other trademarks are consistently bugged in text with either TM or (R), as appropriate, whereas Passport and .NET are not. If Microsoft's intention is to establish these latter two as trademarks, then their failure to mark them as such, even while showing due diligence in marking other trademarks, is sufficiently negligent to place any claim they might make to trademark status in serious doubt. > You have not provided any evidence that they > are exhibiting trademark establishing > behaviour as part of some subtrefuge, > rather than in an attempt to establish the > trademark. But that's just it: They are _not_ making any apparent attempt to establish these words as trademarks. > Barring evidence to the contrary, I think > I will take their efforts at face value. They haven't made any efforts. > You're willfully ignoring it. No, I'm looking at it as a court would look at it. Just as a license agreement printed in type so small that it cannot be identified, even under a magnifying glass, would not be enforceable, so a glyph so indistinct as to be unidentifiable cannot be used to qualify artwork or text. For example, the distinction between a registered and unregistered trademark is important, and a glyph so indistinct as to make it impossible to determine which of the two (if either) is being referenced is of no practical utility or validity. > That's highly unlikely, given my track record. Your track record here is one of the reasons why I raise this possibility. In fact, I knew exactly what you would do before you did it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01ca01c1886c$2d6eb4c0$0a00000a>