SGI Versus "Open*" and All Things "GL"? 271
DooMWiz asks: "I am the author of the Open Image Library (OpenIL), an image library under the LGPL license at openil.org. Several weeks ago, I was shocked by the appearance of an e-mail from a Silicon Graphics, Inc representative. Apparently, they are "concerned" that 'OpenIL' may infringe on their 'OpenGL' trademark. I am not a trademark lawyer, nor do I have any real knowledge of trademarks. Even if I had some kind of justifiable way of proving that 'OpenIL' could not possibly be confused with 'OpenGL', I probably would not pursue it, since a college student with very limited resources against giant SGI would be messy for me. I'm really not *too* upset about being asked to change the name, but during the course of this, I sent several e-mails to the SGI rep, and his replies indicated some disturbing news. He claims that he has already talked to OpenCL about changing their name and that he plans to pursue the ever-popular OpenAL, which isn't just a one man operation like OpenIL. OpenAL may have the resources to fight something like this, since it has nothing to do with SGI's business model but is backed by large companies. Lastly, SGI has a trademark on 'GL', and the rep also claims to plan to pursue projects with 'GL' in their names. Projects like GLScene and DemoGL come to mind and may be in trouble. Anyone with trademark experience have any advice on what course of action to take? Dropping the 'OpenIL' name seems like the easiest way out."
Email the CEO of SGI, don't vent on Slashdot (Score:2)
bbishop@sgi.com [mailto]
Please post your replies here on Slashdot so we can see if the top brass is even aware of this.
Search the web, there are probably other SGI execs with email addresses known to the public.
Re: domain squatter vs. domain broker?! (Score:2)
BTW: what exactly is the difference between selling domain names and selling real-estate?
Land doesn't have a name associated with it. I think that the corporate mentality of you having an "open*" domain name is like you setting up your tent, campfire, and smelly hiking boots in the middle of their campus and saying "this is my land now".
Maybe that's a bad analogy, but I can't think of a better one at the moment
That's not to say I agree with SGI in anyway. If they have a trademark on opengl that predates the opengl.com website, they should have the right to it. Having a trademark on opengl does NOT allow them to go after open*.*!
Re:Whoah there Tiger! (Score:4)
SGI is fighting over Brand recognition. They wouldn't have had this problem if they had continuously marketed their products as "SGI OpenGL" or "SGI OpenMP". That would ensure that their name is tied with the product at all times.
Look at what happened to Bayer with Asprin. No, Asprin isn't the name of the drug. It was a product name that Bayer used. Over time, though, people forgot that Asprin was made by Bayer, and so refered to all asprin-like products as Asprin. Yeah, it's a little different, but many of the concepts are the same. The tech industry isn't imune from it. For years people would say "I've got an IBM computer" or "I've got an Apple computer" when what they really meant was "I've got a TDK IBM compatible computer" or "I've got a Laser Apple compatible computer.
The solution (Score:2)
The reason is simple - if you are SGI and have sgi.corp, you don't care for sgi.hobby if it exist or not - everybody who is looking for real SGI would look it in the
Only the commitee thinking of ICANN and their slowness on the border of brain-deadness prevent the world to have domain system fixed forever. one
Also, US should stop issuing
Re:OpenML(tm) sgi, too (Score:2)
--
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
Frighteningly, that seems to be exactly what they're doing, according to this response [slashdot.org] by randombit [slashdot.org].
This is exactly why current USPT laws need to be changed. The more people who fight this crap, the less likely companies will be inclined to sweep out an entire section of namespace for their own future use. This was all designed to be FCFS, not MLTA[1].
[1] - Most Lawyers Takes All
--
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:5)
They are?
It sure seems like only OpenIL out of those could be easily confused with OpenGL...
--
Re:Whoah there Tiger! (Score:2)
The lawyers aren't always the Evil Inside...
True enough, I have an unfortunate prejudice against lawyers through my dealings with a couple scumbags. I do know one who is really cool, though. Really down to earth fellow, works some pro bono cases, very intelligent.
I concede that this may not be the lawyers' idea, but I suspect it might be.
Re:Whoah there Tiger! (Score:2)
I think Open* is a bit too broad of a term to effectively trademark. What about OpenBSD? If they want to trademark OpenGL that's fine, but if they want to force everyone with Open in their name to change, well fuck 'em. They just lost a potential customer, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I can't imagine engineers being that petty, management maybe, lawyers definitely.
Whoah there Tiger! (Score:3)
These companies really need to reign in their IP lawyers before they do permanent damage to their reputation.
I mean, do you really think the CEO or Chief Engineer of SGI gives a shit if some uses Open or GL in the name of their project? Especially if it's free? But these lawyers don't have to listen to them if it's a public company... all they have to do is play on the fears of the stockholders and the executives are powerless to stop them.
Principles (Score:2)
McSmile? (Score:2)
If so, it's probably the whole logo that the (TM) refers to.
Trademark law also protects consumers (Score:2)
In the case of Open.L, it does seem like a newbie who knows about OpenGL might think that things like Open[AIC]L are associated with SGI. I mean, I certainly assumed they were styling the name after OpenGL. If this guy who wrote OpenIL had just called it Open Image Library (OIL), he would probably never have had a problem.
Let's be honest, the main reason to style your name in this way is to say that it's something similar in quality or purpose to OpenGL, and SGI does have a right to refuse that association.
Re:The whole thing is stupid legal posturing. (Score:2)
Re:My bubble jet printer makes me happy (Score:2)
domain squatter == usurper (Score:2)
The problem with domain squatters is that 100% of the value of the domain they hold is due to the value created by the rightful holder of the trademark. (If that isn't the case, then it's not squatting, QED.) For one person to attempt to make money by leveraging the value of another person's property is fraudulent, and illegal. Domain squatting is theft in the same way that grabbing an unlocked bicycle off a rack is theft. Just because you were there and nobody was looking doesn't mean it's yours to take.
It's an entirely different story if you have a legitimate use for a domain name that might also be claimable by somebody else. For example, hypothetically, it would have been entirely legit for somebody to register "ford.com" to make a web site about crossing rivers at shallow points (as far as I know, nobody did).
A web site that takes fair use about as far as it can possibly go without infringing a trademark is barbienews.com [barbienews.com]. Note how they are explicitly not domain squatting.
And who ever said domain brokers are good? I presume that a domain broker does not hold onto domain names that belong to trademark holders with hopes of selling them, but rather works with businesses to think of and register new ones. Either way, they're snake-oil salesmen, only one grade of bottom-feeder above domain squatters. Yuck. Let 'em all find honest jobs.
Re:SGI Big enough to play corporate bully? (Score:2)
And when I hear of them acting like a bully (this qualifies) I tend to forget that they may have helped some causes I favor, and remember instead that they are a wanton destroyer. Overreaction, I know, but that's what I'll remember later, after I've forgotten the details.
Anyone, any company, who would viciously attack multiple small projects forfeits any regard I may have previously had for them. (And again I overstate my point. But I feel betrayed because I thought well of them.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
In a vain attempt to save face, I would point out that in trademark law, there are some number of recognized domains, which I don't care to look up right now but encourage the reader to do so :-) and that all computer code, not surprisingly, falls under the same domain. As all are code libraries, SGI could still validly claim infringement.
Now someone please pass a napkin, I've got egg on my face...
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:4)
No, of course not. Simple words are not trademarkable, all else being equal (the truth is more complicated), and they can't start suing people who simply use the word "smile" in a novel.
What they've trademarked is the word smile in that font, color, size, and position. You can't pluck that particular graphic (which happens to spell "smile" in English) and use it for your own restaurant, or other purposes, because that particular graphic is trademarked by McDonalds.
Within reason, you could create another graphic with the word "smile" in it in a different font and color and trademark that for yourself. "Within reason" here means that it can't be too similar.
This applies directly to the topic at hand, in fact. OpenGL(tm) as a trademark is limited and people know what it is. Does Open?L infringe? Frankly, if I had to guess, the answer would be an emphatic Yes! Only one letter of difference, and both are graphics libraries? That's just asking for it. My direct answer to this ask Slashdot, bearing in mind that IANAL, is yes, you are legitimately in violation of the SGI trademark, it is quite conceivable that people could confuse OpenGL and Open[ICA]L, esp. as all are graphics libraries, and you should not fight this, because you will quite legitimately lose.
On the other hand, assaulting everybody with "Open" and "GL" is another story. SGI should really only be seen as having "Open" in the context of "OpenGL" and "GL" in the context of "OpenGL". Using on piece or another, especially as both terms seperately are quite generic in nature, should not be enough. "GLScene" and "DemoGL" are far more tenuous claims. In fact, the use of "GL" in this context is so widespread that the argument could probably be made that this has "passed" into common usage... which assumes that it ever did belong exclusively to SGI which I have to doubt.
FireGL (Score:2)
Dave
The OpenIL site talks about OpenGL in docs. (Score:3)
1) Avoided the use of an oval logo (similar to openGL)
2) Not even talk about open GL which they do in the about page.
If you are familiar with OpenGL, you basically already know how to use OpenIL. Here is a sample code snippet that uses OpenIL:
So basically the command structure is the same the name is similar and you didn't expect SGI to notice?
What about SGI's ImageVision Library (IL) (Score:5)
"ImageVision Library (IL) is a toolkit for creating, processing and displaying images on all SGI visual workstations. The library provides image processing application developers with a complete, robust framework for manipulating and managing images."
I'll bet it's this connection that is the source of concern at SGI.
McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
smile(tm)
WTF!? They trademarked the word "smile"? Makes me sick...
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
No, copyright law offers protection from having that exact image reproduced, and copyright doesn't have to be explicitly registered with the trademark office and offers a much more limited scope of protection. If you look at the cup, it has the word smile, printed in yellow in a boring sans-serif font, standing by itself with a trademark symbol next to it.
I think that this is way too generic to issue a trademark for, especially since it isn't even the product name. "Enjoy Coke-a-Cola (tm)" is fine, "Enjoy", by itself, shouldn't be. Using a common word like "Windows (tm)" as a trademarked name for a product in a specific market is ok, if a bit questionable given prior functional use of the term in the market, but, to make up an example similar to the McDonald's one, they shouldn't be able to just put the words "easy to use" on the box in some generic font and trademark that.
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
Thus, if I, owner of the hypothetical "Brad's Camera Shop" want to end my TV commercial with the word "smile", McDonald's could sue me. Even though I'd be likely to win in court, I'd have to face the considerable expense of fighting McDonald's legal team, which would by itself force most small business owners into concession.
Worse, if I did fight it and win, I wouldn't even be able to countersue to recover the costs of defending this frivolous, harassing lawsuit because, since some bozo at the USPTO granted them a trademark, it is their "obligation" to defend it.
Re:The whole thing is stupid legal posturing. (Score:2)
Someone like SGI is still able to pay a much larger legal bill, but if they do win, you've got to pay for their expensive lawyers as well as the cheap one you've got. Their potential cost goes from $200,000 to $204,000, yours goes from $4,000 to $204,000...
Both systems are screwed. But I can't think of a good system.
Maybe, both sides pool all legal expenses, based on their total wealth. If SGI sued me, their $4B (let's say) vs my $100K, means that one of my dollars is forty-thousand of theirs. That way they couldn't bankrupt me, because my $100K is equivalent to their $4B (or whatever) and we'd both go bankrupt at the same time.
Then after the case a judge reviews the spending, looks at how reasonable the initial claims were, and assigns one party to pick up more of the bill.
There needs to be a way for the poor to sue the rich, and for reasonable suits too. If I want to sue McDonals for something my only hope is to ask for a few hundred million in damages and to get a lawyer to take it on contingency so that when it gets argued down it's still worth it. It'd be easier to sue them for five billion dollars than for fifty thousand. (Say I choked on a piece of metal in a burger and needed medical treatment.)
So there needs to be a way of letting someone without much money access the courts, but you don't want to let everyone sue McD's for made-up expenses just for extortion reasons.
Got any good solutions?
Re: domain squatter vs. domain broker?! (Score:5)
Native Americans?
--
OpenML(tm) sgi, too (Score:3)
My own trademark experience... (Score:4)
Hmmmm, I wounder if they sent a similar letter to the holders of the StarTrek trademark. :)
Later,
Thad
Re: domain squatter vs. domain broker?! (Score:3)
domain squatter: an individual with an idea to make money = BAD
domain broker: an 'organization' that can provide you with a domain name, matching phone number, and legal advice on how to maintain your trademark = GOOD?!?
BTW: what exactly is the difference between selling domain names and selling real-estate?
Did anyone complain about people purchasing land cheaply?
Re:Copy and Paste (Score:2)
Reminds me of an event in the 70's where someone had thrown a brick through the window of a McDonalds establishment. Wrapped around it was a piece of paper with the words "You deserve a Brick today"
---
Don't sell out so fast (Score:2)
To cut a long story short, we fought the claim, and it ended up being worth it, because this large company settled with us and gave us a lot more money then the name was worth (to a small little firm like us) and it was a drop in the bucket for such a large company. So, to cut a long story short, consult with a trademark lawyer if possible, or at least a pre-law or law student, and if there is a reasonable chance that SGIs claim would be invalid. If it is, its probably worth it to fight, because you will likely get a settlement that could fund development for a long time.
Spyky
Also, i wonder if there is some sort of way of having claims concerning open source products handled pro-bono by some willing lawyer(s). I wish I knew someone to recommend, but it may be worth asking around.
Open SOURCE? (Score:2)
------------
CitizenC
Re:The solution (Score:2)
Gee Rob, what are you, a commie or something???
Don't you know that the American Way(tm) is to sue the pants off that guy in Ireland? How dare he have the same name as you!
</SARCASM>
Of course, if Rob's thinking was common, a bunch of lawyers would be out of business... Maybe Shakespeare had the right idea?
in SGI's defense (Score:2)
I don't see any signs that SGI is going anybody with the word "Open" in their name. It looks like they are pursuing "Open[A-Z]L", due in part to being the prime creators of OpenGL and OpenML. And in all fairness, when I first saw OpenAL come out, it did seem like people were trying to portray it as "like OpenGL (i.e. in coolness, ubiquity, useful-abstraction-ness) but for audio". I wouldn't say that it was *confusing*, but it was trying a bit to play off someone else's already-established reputation. I don't claim to understand what the legal thresholds for similarity are.
Something to keep in mind before you bash SGI.
--LP, who has used SGI machines in past work but has no other connection with them
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
mile (tm)
Giving unrefutable evidence that they have trademarked the unit of measure known as the "mile". It's my understanding that it will soon be renamed to the "McMile".
It's only a matter of time until they rename it to "McDonald's presents the McMile".
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:3)
Well, the new McMile comes in all sorts of flavors and sizes! And, You can have it my way! (You can't have it your way. That'd be Burger Kling.)
Double-McMiles and ArchMcMiles will be the first variants introduced. Double-McMiles are the equivalent of two McMiles placed back to back, and consequently will use two trademark symbols. ArchMcMiles are McMile arc lengths. You can multiply ArchMcMiles by McRadii to find a McAnswer in McMiles.
*60's pop song starts playing, "Oh Baby, I love to taste your juices in my mouth", Monologue dubbed overtop: "The Big King^H^H^H^H Mac will see you now."*
Our McFries can be ordered in McMediums, McLarge, and McSuperSizes and optionally can be topped with McSalt and McCatsup.
(Under the DMCA, Sodium Chloride will no longer be available for use in High School Laboratory experiments or as general kitchen/restaurant supplies. All Sodium Chloride must be ordered from McDonald's, Inc., and may only be distributed in miniscule packets. Additionally, Sodium and Chloride are pending removal from the Periodic Table of Elements.)
Remember, McWater can be ordered with any food for no additional fee! However, you *must* buy something in order to drink McWater or use a McRestroom. (All public and private restrooms in any country must be licensed from McDonald's, Inc., and Oxygen Dihydride may not be dispensed, distributed, sold, or consumed outside of a McDonald's restaurant.)
In addition, McDonald's is proud to announce its merger with Microsoft!
We will soon be bringing you McWindows, in a variety of sizes: McCE, McME, and McNT, abbreviated as McCEMENT. After the pending merger with Laurie (Supersoaker), McXP will also be available. At this time, there is no plan for Laurie and Burger Kling to merge as previously announced.
McDonald's will also be suing Apple Computer for their infringment of our trademark, Big Mac OS-X, our new operating system designed for the World Wide McWeb.
The real culprit is trademark law-- (Score:3)
If you don't rigorously enforce/protect your trademarks every time there's a possible infringement, the trademarks themselves can and will be wiped out.
This is very different from patent law, where a patent may be left idle. The patent holder can selectively choose to defend, license or ignore those who are possibly infringing. (It is for this reason that I am not against patents themselves, but against those patent bullies who find new revenue sources in the courtroom.)
"If you don't agree with the law, fix it." Explore the ways that trademark law can be fixed, and contact your local government official.
Uh oh... (Score:2)
-----
Give Feedback! (Score:2)
http://www.sgi.com/cgi-bin/feedback/index.cgi?entr y=compinfo_community_rel&LEVEL=2&last_url= [sgi.com]
I doubt it will help, but it sure as hell can't hurt.
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
OpenCL is not a graphics library, it is a crypto library.
Re:Can it really not be confused? (Score:3)
Thanks for the support (I'm the guy who wrote OpenCL and then was promptly contacted by SGI). The phrase the guy who contacted me used was "clearing out the namespace" for their products. I find it pretty ridiculous, you would have to be a real moron to confuse a C++ crypto library and a C graphics API.
I told them I would change it, mostly because I wasn't really in the mood to mess with even a small company. OTOH, I haven't changed my source tree yet, as I was waiting to see what would happen when the news eventually hit the community.
Re:SGI Big enough to play corporate bully? (Score:2)
Yeah, and nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito...
---
Basic Trademark Issues... (Score:3)
<p>
This begs the question: "What's confusing to a random mass of consumers?" Because the only way to determine for sure is to go to court and to take your chances, trademark law has lots of 'nasty-grams' asking people to change names.
<p>
It's a bit of a problem. Lawyers, generally, are comfortable with settling ambiguities and issues of fact with court proceedings. Non-lawyers feel this is arbitrary and encourages kleptocracy. The attitude appears to be a hazard of the profession, just like developers want to add a little more to the next release.
<p>
We always have trademark law issues show up on Slashdot. Remember Sun Microsystems sending out mass emails to every website with the substring "java" in their names? Or all the fights over ICANN arbitration rules concerning trademarks? Or trying to retake the term "Open Source" as a trademark or servicemark? Because trademarks deal with fuzzy issues like "confusion", there will always be confusion.
<p>
Look a good primer on trademarks, e.g., <a href=http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.
Also, a shameless plug: Check out <a href=http://www.truegift.com>TrueGift Donations</a> to help students turn into smarter people.
Solve 2 Problems! OpenSSH, OpenIL become... (Score:2)
How about
? (You might even be able to get away with capitalizing the "IL" inside...Imagevision Library... (Score:2)
While I doubt their lawyers even know/care about it, and it might be coincidental, I could understand SGI wanting to preserve OpenIL for themselves. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying the first "Open" product I've ever heard of (and I certainly may be wrong) was SGI's. Shortly after came several other "Open" products. They've actually had the Imagevision Library for quite some time. OpenIL could be an important name for them.
Re:World owned by 676 companies! (Score:2)
The possible infringement is not two letters, it's two letters preceded by the word "Open". So far, we have not heard from OpenSSH, OpenBSD, or any other "Open" projects, excepting those followed by two letters, one of which is "l".
I'm not saying SGI is write, I am saying that "Open?L" is a fairly well known and usually associated with SGI. SGI, as I and others have pointed out, also have an image library ("Imagevision Library", or ... "il", as all the functions are prefixed), and potentially have another Open source project they'd to call "OpenIL". They also have a digital media library, and an audio library.
While others have claimed the use of "Open" as early as the late seventies, I have yet to see an example. The first time I ever heard of such a use was OpenGL.
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SGI is right - if they were planning on open-sourcing their library, they should have done it by now. I'm saying this is all being taken way out of context, and they may have a point. It would be nice, if they were going to release OpenIL, if the guy could give up OpenIL and let sgi continue naming things in the fashion they've been doing. And, if he refuses, sgi should let it lie, and call it something else. But that's just my opinion.
I swear, though, if someone at Slashdot got mad at any company at all, they could merely post some inflamatory summary, no one would read the article, and BAM! 250000 people would hate said company.
Re:NewsFlash (Score:2)
And once you've done all that... Does most OS software compile? no ...
Someone tell me I'm wrong about all this!
Problems, Solutions (Score:2)
I think my conclusion after several years of study on these sorts of issues is that the best tools of "small folks" might be education and cooperation. Because many potential defendants have no clue as to the real status of trademark or other intellectual propertly laws, they are destined to fail without legal counsel. On the other hand, if they had at least some legitimate estimation of the legal status of their situation, they would be able to more aptly judge whether they should hold or fold. Thus far in this thread I have seen a lot of evidence of misunderstanding of trademark law. Secondly, I would like to see some grassroots efforts to defend those who have good cases against trademark/IP/rights holders. If there were even a modest organization willing to offer pro bono or low cost legal services to those who've been subject to harassment, the "reverse chilling effect" on corporations would be substantial. No doubt, many lawyers who author cease and desist letters know precisely that their claims wouldn't hold the morning dew on a blade of grass. Unfortunately, the odds that anyone will say so or be empowered to legal fight such claims, are so minimal as to not be worthy of concern.
As for changing the law, I think that would probably be the least effective way to bring about real change. True, trademark holders are somewhate incentivized by the law to protect their marks, but I think this is a necessary part of the law, given the power which is given to those who have trademark rights. Instead of trying to re-balance things by tinkering with the scale, we should consider the weights on each side of the scale and ask whether there are ways to bring them into equilibrium.
Stay tuned for exciting news on these fronts from the good folks at the Berkman Center [harvard.edu] (tm) at the Harvard Law School (tm). Hehe.
what's wrong with a quick buck? (Score:5)
That's the problem right there. When you start being concerned that people are making money too easily, or unfairly (though it's hard to find a victim in cybersquatting "crimes", IMO), anything you do in the way of prevention is going to have the effect of limiting freedom, which will have an adverse affect on everyone given enough time.
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
I remember a case making the news (MANY years ago) where Xerox got their hands slapped by a judge for "trying to corner the market on double X's". Trying to corner the market on 'Open' is similarly inane, and should not be countenanced... Especially where 'open' already had a special meaning withing the context.
This is yet another example of a big company asking for a 'voluntary' surrender of something that they're unlikely to be able to get by force. It's also an example of bulk litigation. The more people that 'roll over' on this, the more bang they get for their legal buck.
In some ways it's not unlike Microsoft going after X-Windows for usurping the 'Windows' name, or trying to claim the 'pc' moniker. Just because a company has become one of the better known members of a group of names, doesn't mean that they can start to claim the whole group.
All you have to do is prove that the 'open' was used for software before OpenGl came out. SImilarly for the '{X}L' for libraries.
IANAL I just like reading court documents.
--
Re:reply, and a Hint for the original questioner (Score:2)
Granted, one of the best-known GL applications was their demo program called 'flight' or 'dog'. Flight was the single user version. Dog was the multi-user version. However, spending $120K just to play a kick-ass dogfight simulator would strike most people as excessive. ($120K = $60K x 2 workstations. you could use many more workstations, if you wanted.)
Hmm. I wonder if this would count as the first multi-player networked immersive first-person-shooter game? but I digress.
In any case: Dog may have sold many workstations that wouldn't have otherwise been bought from SGI, but I doubt that there were many funding applications that actually said 'play dog' on them at the kinds of prices that an SGI workstation sold for back then.
--
Fall rush cancelled (Score:2)
Re:Can it really not be confused? (Score:2)
Re:Can it really not be confused? (Score:2)
So basically, what this all boils down to, is "trademark law sucks".
Can it really not be confused? (Score:3)
Trademark problems? Try "Desperanto"! (Score:2)
This language - called "Desperanto" - is of course issued under a variant of the GPL. Basically no characters, words or phrases either singly or in combination can be published in any form which restricts their usage by anyone else (ie no naughty trademarking).
We are still at version 0.01 of the language with plenty of work to do. (OK. I admit we only have one word at the moment. In english its rendered as "fa'arkOf" - its the sound made by someone upon hearing that yet another commonly used word has been trademarked). While we need lots of help coming up with new words, grammar and syntax, our most important task is converting from latin script to something else. Unfortunately we need to do this to avoid pending lawsuits from companies who are seeking to trademark every single character in the english alphabet.
There are two options for us here. The first is to develop a completely new script (never been seen before...however we face the not-inconsiderable risk of receiving a cease-and-desist letter in the future from a space-faring civilisation whose script closely resembles and predates ours).
The alternative is to use something like ancient Sumerian script (for which we are pretty sure the patent has expired).
Once we've got the script issues sorted, we will have to get Desperanto characters shoved into the Unicode character set. Then we can start pressuring ICANN to allow Desperanto based domain names.
I am in the process of registering the Desperanto project with Sourceforge. I'll let you all know when its up. To quote from the information I submitted with the registration:
"The purpose of this project is nothing less than the creation of an entirely new spoken and written language, unique, with its own script, for the purposes of communicating ideas through the use of characters, words and phrases which cannot, by virtue of the nature of the license to be used when employing the language, be trademarked, patented or restricted in circulation in any way. Since the language itself will be licensed under the GPL (or an appropriate variant thereof), all characters, words or phrases either singly or in combination derived from the language will be encumbered by the same license (and thus be un-trademarkable)."
Don't click on "simple way to stop this"!!! (Score:2)
Ummm... (Score:2)
http://www.mcdonalds.com/countries/usa/whatsnew/s
I like SGI ... I hope they back off. (Score:2)
I had to do intermediate installs of the Inventor and InventorXt libraries as intermediate steps, but I'm free from having to deal with the TGS demoware...not that it was too much of a hassle, but I got the Inventor and Mentor books and just wanted to check it out, not have to go through registration, demo crud, expiration issues.
As I say, I hope this is just a "clueless legal dept" thing.
Well TV station 'ME' had to change the name (Score:2)
It IS possible. I simply dont understand WHY sgi is doing this. HP OpenView, will that have to change its name too? hehe HP will buy sgi instead I think :)
--
Like actions against developers won't hurt 'em.. (Score:2)
As much as some people seem to hate MS, I never had these kind of experiences with them, so if SGI knocks at my door to change DemoGL into something else and to change the logo, I'll hop ship. It will take time to adapt d3d into DemoGL but I don't wish to support an API which owner bullies users of that API and bullies developers that make that API more succesful. OpenGL development is already a pain with all the extensions and no good central, general documentation for all these extensions with examples and tutorials, unlike D3D. These SGI actions will only make it worse.
--
Don't change the name (Score:2)
Keep up the good work, m8, and don't let them scare you.
FB, author of DemoGL, which is named that way because it makes OpenGL development easier and it seemed logical to me to use 'GL' in the name to point out that OpenGL is the API supported and has to be used by the developer to write the effects in.
--
I Haven't received a letter from SGI yet. (Score:3)
It's hard to understand why SGI is doing this. OpenGL is really suffering these days from the more maturing D3D api, and this will not do any good to the reputation of OpenGL. Projects like DemoGL, GLUT, DelphiGL and others are started because it's necessary to have a platform that makes it easy to develop OpenGL based effects, thus HELPS in supporting the development of OpenGL. If SGI is pushing these projects to change their names, it's very likely that they will abandon OpenGL at all.
For me, if SGI wants me to change the name of DemoGL I will first think of fighting it (I'm in the Netherlands, Europe, dunno if SGI has the trademark here to plus my parents in law are both a judge so free legal advice is at hand ;)) and if I don't have a change then I'll port DemoGL to D3D and will abandon OpenGL at all.
SGI has to understand it's the developers at the moment which keep OpenGL alive. Scaring away these developers will scare away the lifesource OpenGL needs so much these days.
PS: the email address in the header is fake, in case you didn't know that ;)
--
Dont let them email you. (Score:2)
Re:Dont let them email you. (Score:3)
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
Rate me on Picture-rate.com [picture-rate.com]
Easy way out (Score:3)
Easy, yes. But you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor if you hold out as long as you can. Every time somebody folds under this kind of pressure, it encourages the big corporations to use the same tactics again.
If nothing else, publicize the conflict as much as possible. Grab some free web space and post copies of the e-mails and such. Submit stories to Slashdot to warn others... oh, wait...
Well, fight the good fight, but try not to get sued into oblivion.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:My bubble jet printer makes me happy (Score:2)
Oh, and if you think it IS a good thing that he can't call his project OpenIL, pull your head out of your ass.
Now, in order to get modded up by the same moderator that wasted a point on Graymalkin, let me rephrase all of that:
This is fucking insightful? This is the same fucking troll that gets fucking posted to every fucking trademark discussion, but with a lot of fucking "fuck" thrown in. Yes, we fucking know trademark fucking dilution can fucking cause you to lose your fucking trademark. Fuck yes, we fucking know it happened to Intel with their xfucking86 line. But fuck, unless you think it's a fucking GOOD thing that fucking people can't call their fucking project OpenFuckingIL without fear of being fucking sued into the fucking ground, try to advance your thinking beyond the couple of fucking words your lawyer-fucking friend told you and see what can be fucking done about it.
Oh, and if you fucking think it IS a good fucking thing that he can't call his project OpenFuckingIL, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass. Fuck
NewsFlash (Score:5)
In a recent SlashDot story, users of the popular website were made aware of SGI's attempts at closing down sites with the words "Open" and "GL" in them. Siting violation of Intellectual Property, possible confusion of one of it's name brands, and lost revenue.
This apparently was not enough to ensure SGI's survival during this tumultuos time for Tech Companies. In a press conference held just a few minutes ago, SGI's spokeperson Richard Cranium (Dick Head for short) stated that letters have been sent out to millions of businesses who use the "We are Open" signs. Apparently, the letter states "SGI holds the trademark for 'Open', and unless a licensing agreement can be reached, you are hereby required to cease and desist the use of your 'We are Open' signs".
When asked about possible options to small business owners, Mr. Cranium stated "This is California, you better learn to read Spanish and just use 'Estamos Abiertos' instead of our trademarked 'Open' sign."
California Governor Gray Davis was quoted as saying "I am abierto to changes in our culture".
Re:Easy way out (Score:2)
In any case, I'd be more inclined to think of it in terms of parody...
/Brian
look before you leap (Score:2)
Re:david vs. goliath (Score:2)
I(TM) don't(TM) see(TM) what(TM) the(TM) big(TM) deal(TM) is(TM)!
-Gnight
Re:I had a similar experience several years ago (Score:2)
How much were your legal fees?
Consumer advocacy groups, too (Score:2)
This is also happening to consumer advocacy groups. A specific example (one with which I am affiliated, BTW) is Ameritech Cable [ameritechcable.com]. They provide news and information about Ameritech's poor service and anti-consumer practices, as well as a place for people to talk about their experiences with Ameritech. Currently, they, along with Ameritechdsl.com [ameritechdsl.com] are getting sued by Ameritech for a number of things. Read all about it here [ameritechcable.com]
Re:Consumer advocacy groups, too (Score:2)
The project on the site named "Project: Register Ameritech" [ameritechcable.com] is a project intended to register domain names with the word "Ameritech" in them that leave no doubt in one's mind that they are anti-Ameritech in nature. Of course, I can't post any examples of these names, as someone else might see them and register them, but I have seen the names that the site owner is planning to register, and I can tell you that they are some good ones.
Re:Whine, Whine, Whine (Score:2)
1) Be more creative with your naming so that it's truely unique
2) Use your company name (SGI OpenGL)
So, the real whiners are the corporations, trying to "clear their namespace", AKA making US pay for their mistake.
I would vote that OpenIL be changed to "Open IL" as two seperate words - that's as much Trademark control as SGI should get.
Is there a trademark-protecting alternative? (Score:2)
Whine, whine, whine (Score:2)
Let's look at this logically. Is a name like "OpenIL" confusable with "OpenGL?" Sure is. If I heard about something named OpenIL, I'd instantly assume it had something to do with OpenGL, and I might even go as far, as I bet a lot of "end users" would, as to assume that it was from the same people. This is futerh complicated by the fact that the logos are similar enough to perhaps cause some confusion for those not too familiar with OpenGL.
Trademark law was created, and in my mind rightly so, to stop this kind of confusion between products.
My advice? Change the name. It doesn't sound like SGI sent out the big nasties, just a polite letter. They were even cosiderate enough to have a conversation with the guy via email rather than just more threatening letters.
Oh, and Slashdotters? Calm down. Just because a corporation is invoking IP law doesn't make them evil.
Whine, Whine, Whine (Score:3)
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
They have always known solution (Score:2)
Nominet UK [www.nic.uk] is the Registry for
Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization ( WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk])
Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK
The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.
WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).
This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.
First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.
To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."
Saying, "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.
A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.
However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.
ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.
Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.
They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.
Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.
The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve
There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:
Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".
Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.
Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.
It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.
As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.
All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.
Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.
Mandatory Requirements:
1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of
The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg
This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.
If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.
It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.
There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.
There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.
It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?
The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.
In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of
Re:Dont let them email you. (Score:2)
Let's club together and sue SGI. (Score:2)
All Your Conjunctions Are Belong To Us (Score:2)
Far from owning the contents of the Oxford Unabridged, our modest investment in connecting words will pay off for us and our investors.
It seems that very soon, anyone who doesn't want to pay us will be speaking like a Hollywood stereotype of a Native American. Or perhaps people will begin writing more like Hemmingway: "I am cold, tired."
And, But Or- they'll get us pretty far.
Look for information on our IPO on our web site. [ridiculopathy.com]
reply, and a Hint for the original questioner (Score:2)
Its a question of markets, and who the 'common' customers in those markets are. OpenGL[tm, to satisfy the bloodsuckers] has two markets:
1. Game players
2. Game creators
Now, the average game player MAY confuse OpenGL with OpenIL, however OpenIL is not likely to appear in the same context as OpenGL [i.e. on the side of a box for a 3D game]. OpenIL is not targeted a J. Random Gamer.
Game creators, on the other hand, may take note of, and make use of, OpenIL [though, if it is GPL'd that likelyhood drops], but they could also be reasonably expected by any sane person to know the difference. If they didn't, I know *I* wouldn't buy a game from them.
Now, SGI does have enough to bring about a lawsuit, hence the questioner's fear. Personally [previosu disclaimer applies of course] I think he could win with a good lawyer, but that is likely beyond his means or desire. My suggestion to him, to avoid having to change the name entirely and tons of documentation with it, is to go from OpenIL to OIL. Same initials, SGI ought to shut up, and makes a handy, easily pronouncable acronym besides:)
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:McDonald's the worst example of this. (Score:2)
So when they sent him a scarygram he said, "I'll hand you the domain IF you wire up a public (grammer) school and pay for their T1 for X years." There's no feel good moment at the end of this story cuz Mc'D's declined his offer and I think he lost the domain. His articles sucked but that story was interesting and I remember feeling disapointed that McD's didn't take him seriously. I'll get down on em for that instead of TM'ing a smiley.
if this is ot see my sig
SGI does have a case... (Score:2)
Whither VRML? (Score:2)
Consider prior use before panicking (Score:2)
And considering that some of us had computer programs with Open* and *GL names back in the late 70s and early 80s, I kind of doubt they have a leg to stand on.
Oops
can lawyers legally throw out false threats? (Score:2)
So is this completely legal? Or is this similar to a police officer saying you better confess or I'm gonna shoot you in the head. Even if the police officer has no intention in shooting this person in the head this tactic is still illegal. Are corporate lawyers bound to any similar guidlines.
Re:Whine, Whine, Whine (Score:2)
The "confusingly similar" nonsense is a recent addition to trademark law designed to legalize harassment and squash dissent. Go look at www.openil.org [openil.org]. Then look at www.opengl.org [opengl.org]. Confused? You shouldn't be. Nor should 3 bits different in the name confuse you, any more than opening a pizza restaurant next door to a McDonalds is "confusingly similar" because the addresses are only one digit different.
Of course, this presupposes you are not an unelected, braindead, WIPO judge.
--
SGI Big enough to play corporate bully? (Score:3)
One of the problems of trademark law is that failure to police a trademark can lead to it becomming 'generic' and thus lose the trademark altogether. As a result most large companies hire specialist law firms that do nothing but search for possible violations and crank out nastygrams.
I suspect that what it means is that whoever is in charge of winding up operations at SGI has concluded that the graphics libraries and branding thereon may be one of the companies biggest assets.
david vs. goliath (Score:4)
Now one of the things I would consider is, if your Open*L product/business/whatever is in line for competition with SGI in any shape form or fashion, in english... IF YOUR GOING TO MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT, then SGI has every right in the world to bitch.
Think about a company called WindOS, which is similar sounding to Windows (to a non savvy tech person), now their business is making an OS... Do you think Mickeysoft wouldn't have a gripe about it?
Now if they're just typically pushing their weight around, then you could either ignore them, and let them use up tons of funding taking you through the legal system, the creat an outpour of support, if you win the sue the fsck out of them... Or you could comply with them... or....
And this is the best one... Ignore them, I do it all the time when I get threats about stupid spoofs I've done.
erocdrah [antioffline.com]
Re:The solution (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes us adults have rooms too (Score:2)
So, do you like have two network cards in the living room or something?
Graspee
Re:Argh(tm) (Score:2)
Oh, shoot, I forgot to put the trademark on it.
(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(tm(t
How about licensing the name (Score:2)
Part of this problem may be trademark law itself. SGI has to defend their trademark in order to keep it. You could always ask them if they are willing to award you a limited, non-transferable, license as long as you keep the product free?
Believe it or not, Microsoft ended up doing this once with their BookShelf(tm) trademark. After trademarking the name they came across a program called "Jewish Bookshelf" or something like that which was distributed for free. After a bit of discussion (and some worries about prior art I'm sure) Microsoft ended up offering pretty much an indefinite license for $1. Allowed them to hold the TM and not piss off a fairly large demographic.
My experience with Mattel (Score:2)
My ordeal isn't over yet, so I can't say that this is the right way to do it, but it is looking pretty good for me. Had they not decided to be reasonable, I had planned to submit my tale of harrassment to every news site I could find.
My advice is, take it as far as you can. I wouldn't commit myself to a protracted legal battle that you would probably lose, but I would do my best to convince them that my site was not infringing on their trademark. Your case is somewhat different, because my site is strictly a vanity site, which, having nothing to do with Mattel's product, was easy to defend. It was almost black and white. Yours, I suspect, has a lot more grey area. Good luck to you!
I had a similar experience several years ago (Score:5)
Come 1996, we got an extremely rude registered letter from the software publisher's lawyer, demanding that we relinquish the name to them or face immediate legal action.
We were both pretty irritated by the way they were making the demand, so we visited a local lawyer who specialized in intellectual property law. She told us there was a good chance the company wouldn't be able to win the name back in a suit since we'd been using it for so long and we weren't participating in the same markets they were. So we had her write a nastygram right back at them, politely telling them that we felt we had a valid claim to the name and they could talk to our lawyer if they didn't agree.
A several-week-long exchange ensued, with both sides exchanging reasons why each of us thought the name should be ours. We actually ended up filing a lawsuit against them, mostly to keep them from doing it first so we could control the venue where the case would be argued. Finally they broached the subject of buying the name from us, and that's what ended up happening -- for a sum of money several times larger than our lawyer's fees.
The irony is, if they'd made us a reasonable offer to begin with, we might well have accepted a lot less than we ended up getting, and they wouldn't have had to waste their legal staff's time. But the way they approached us at first, coming in with gun ports wide open, cost them any sympathy we might have had for them.
BTW, I'm purposely not identifying the domain (though it's possible to figure it out) just because... well, frankly, I'd rather not give them the free traffic.
So it absolutely is possible to stand up to this sort of request. You may end up losing the name, but it's also quite plausible that one serious-sounding lawyer letter in reply to their request will be enough to make them go away. It all depends on how dead-set they really are on owning all these names. On the other hand, I wouldn't bring in the lawyers until they do; if you're at the level of exchanging informal E-mail with someone there, try to keep it at that level if you can.
If they are dead-set, you can at least get something out of it in exchange. If it comes to lawsuit threats you may even be able to find a lawyer who'll take the case on a contingency basis.