[Posted November 6, 2017 by jake]
At the end of September, SFLC notified the US Patent and Trademark Office that we have an actual confusion problem caused by the trademark 'Software Freedom Conservancy,' which is confusingly similar to our own pre-existing trademark. US trademark law is all about preventing confusion among sources and suppliers of goods and services in the market. Trademark law acts to provide remedies against situations that create likelihood of, as well as actual, confusion. When you are a trademark holder, if a recent mark junior to yours causes likelihood of or actual confusion, you have a right to inform the PTO that the mark has issued in error, because that’s not supposed to happen. This act of notifying the PTO of a subsequently-issued mark that is causing actual confusion is called a petition to cancel the trademark. That’s not some more aggressive choice that the holder has made; it is not an attack, let alone a 'bizarre' attack, on anybody. That’s the name of the process by which the trademark holder gets the most basic value of the trademark, which is the right to abate confusion caused by the PTO itself."
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 6, 2017 23:16 UTC (Mon)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 6, 2017 23:55 UTC (Mon)
by jimi (guest, #6655)
[Link] (8 responses)
While I believe this describes a valid case for canceling a trademark in general, I still find myself bewildered because SFLC helped SFC register the trademark in the first place (or so I understand). If it were not for that initial help, I think that the SFLC would have a point. As it is, it seems disingenuous.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 2:25 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (3 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 6:33 UTC (Tue)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (2 responses)
They claim to have done so. They claim a lot of things, and with how much they've misrepresented everything else in this statement, I have no doubt they misrepresented that as well.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 13:21 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 16:47 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
> Let's look at the "Apple" trademark. Are you really telling me that if Apple Records wanted to sell computers, they could get Apple Computers' trademark revoked?
Yes. So Apple Computers has an agreement with Apple Records to prevent it. At one time it had actually been forbidding Apple Computers to sell records so they had to famously revise it when Apple started selling music on iTunes.
Trademark classes
Posted Nov 9, 2017 0:25 UTC (Thu)
by curcuru (guest, #119436)
[Link]
Who registered the mark
Posted Nov 9, 2017 0:19 UTC (Thu)
by curcuru (guest, #119436)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 2:31 UTC (Tue)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (11 responses)
Eben,
Now that you have done this to your former client, for whom SFLC actually filed the same trademark, how can present or future clients ever trust SFLC again?
If there is confusion, why not simply change the name of SFLC? Is SFLC's tiny bit of precedence over SFC really worth this sort of conflict?
Since you have stated SFLC's intention to do the same job that SFC was doing once you take their name, except that you apparently don't plan to enforce the developers rights even to the extent that SFC was doing under the well-accepted Community Principles, it just does not seem ethical to me for SFLC to take the name of an organization that was doing the job for 48 Free Software projects before you decided to get in that business. You should be the paragon of ethical standards for our community, not an organization that does something so seemingly classless.
Free Software developers give away a whole lot of rights. Now, you are telling us that's not enough. Having given the world our software on the most liberal of terms, we are not to enforce even that license?
Your paper on why we must now stop enforcement is erroneous. The organizations you cite as rejecting GPL in granting research funding are arguably not doing it because the GPL is scary. I think they are doing it because they are publicly funded, and the GPL is not necessarily the best license to grant maximal utility in a publicly funded project to all of the people, including the proprietary software manufacturers who presumably pay taxes like everyone else (acknowledging arguments that Microsoft hasn't had any Federal income tax bill in some years). The BSD license was created specifically for that purpose. But even if those organizations have been lobbied to eschew the GPL, and I can guess by who, shouldn't we fight that?
And why does it worry you now that the GPL is scary? Hasn't it been an uphill fight all of the way?
You are not acting like the Eben I know. I am sure that your dear friend Richard, whom you've been with for I guess 40 years now, is heartbroken. I am too. And I am holding out hope that you will come to your senses.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 3:31 UTC (Tue)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (6 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 9:05 UTC (Tue)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (2 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 17:02 UTC (Tue)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 10, 2017 8:48 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
+1 to the last paragraph. There are sustained campaigns out there to undermine the GPL by a number of corporates. Part of it involves funding smaller sock-puppets.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 17:23 UTC (Tue)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (2 responses)
I acknowledge the argument that placing public work under copyleft might be better for the public in the large, although perhaps worse for some members of the public who are proprietary software manufacturers. But in a discussion like this, it's necessary to have some empathy for the proprietary software manufacturer and at least evaluate their argument, as I have done above.
I agree that most proprietary software manufacturers are corporations, but they don't have to be. Regarding the personification of corporations, I agree that it gives them an unfair advantage if 1) they don't die unlike individuals and thus their assets are not redistributed 2) they have preferred tax rates over individuals and other legal advantages and 3) they are operated solely to maximize income without a constitutional requirement for ethical conduct. I note that California now allows the B corporation, which can pursue both economic and social objectives. This does not, however, impose any such requirement on other sorts of corporations.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 13:34 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 9, 2017 11:45 UTC (Thu)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 9:18 UTC (Tue)
by armijn (subscriber, #3653)
[Link] (1 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 15:20 UTC (Tue)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 11:45 UTC (Tue)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
"Law Center of many colours!"
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 9, 2017 2:09 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link]
There is an error in my message. While SFLC registered Software Freedom Conservancy under that name as a corporation, and the name Software Freedom Conservancy became a common-law trademark at that point if it wasn't one before, SFC eventually registered its own name with USPTO.
This doesn't really change my complaint. SFLC was SFC's counsel for their formation, and did form them with the name that SFLC now objects to.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 2:44 UTC (Tue)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
>What Should Happen Next?
>Everyone observing this situation, we suspect, knows the answer to this question.
You have a sudden epiphany and stop Streisanding your business like GrSec did?
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 2:51 UTC (Tue)
by xnox (subscriber, #63320)
[Link] (1 responses)
I was confused for about half of my tenure of being SPI director what the difference between the Law Center and The Conservancy is. Imho, both are poorly named and need rebranding. I wish both trademarks would be cancelled since both are too generic.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 18:58 UTC (Tue)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
I agree with you actually, I think both names are confusing word soups. But it's not up to SFLC to decide that SFC should change their name. SFC actually does what the words in their name mean, if anyone mark should be eliminated it should be SFLC.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 6:30 UTC (Tue)
by rra (subscriber, #99804)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 17:35 UTC (Tue)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (6 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 7, 2017 20:28 UTC (Tue)
by aethelwulffe (guest, #119482)
[Link] (5 responses)
I am sorry that the following is true: At the tip of the spear of many organizations, including those that propose to stand for high ideals, there is a dedicated, driven and highly intelligent megalomaniac sociopath that has hijacked the whole thing to give themselves self worth and meaning.
They are sociopaths. They are (very) skilled at emulating social behavior and masking their contempt. They insinuate themselves, then ultimately stage a coup and put themselves in the driver's seat.
The problem is, they do tend to produce results. Typically, the results seem good, and there is no denying the hours they put in. They also tend to keep an organization completely static, meaning once they have that element of ownership and control, they actively work to keep things *just as they are*.
These dear folks hide behind the mask of civility, and dupe a great many people around them. Then they use every means in their deep arsenal of manipulative tricks to maintain control. They (mostly) recognize their own behaviors that are frowned on, so when they feel they need to strike a blow for control, they will have ready rationalizations and have developed a support base. Ultimately, they will bill themselves as the arbiter of what "the community wants". When they speak, they are just speaking for "the community". If you suggest something that does not fit with their goals, you are "going against the community".
These people are IMPOSSIBLE to uproot natively. They are good at being sociopaths. They will always be ready to escalate one level higher than anyone else, because they do not actually have normal emotions.
Once an organization has one of these evil bastards in control, all future work is worthless, and you are not going to ever ever ever be able to get them to step down. Hint that they need to loosen the reins and they will accuse you of trying to be/do exactly what they are doing themselves.
In Open Source Software, we really only have one route around these folks, which is one more than the average corporation or Banana Republic Dictatorship has.
It looks something like "$ git clone https://git.argentina.com". Now, once you have done that, you will come under fire. Intense fire. Utterly merciless day and night desperation to destroy your little new competing project. Once it seems that you are going to be successful despite their efforts, they will try to slip their way into your new "open" community. There, they will take over again.
If you make it super obvious that it is a personal break with the sociopath to keep them out of the new organization, they can freely bash your name, but they have to mostly leave you alone. So, as you advance your new project along, the old project will have to start copying (usually copy and *paste*) your efforts to compete. Naturally you shouldn't expect attribution to remain intact! All the same it is a very interesting way to move the original project along!
I really feel for the SFC. You folks seem to have your madman identified, but YOU MUST NEVER FORGET that you are dealing with a sociopath. Do not engage them personally. Do not recognize/respond to any statements they make. Legal confrontation (and it sucks that these asshats are attack dogs themselves) is your only recourse.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 3:37 UTC (Wed)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (1 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 11:59 UTC (Wed)
by seckford (guest, #118119)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 23:21 UTC (Wed)
by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152)
[Link] (2 responses)
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 8, 2017 23:59 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 9, 2017 14:54 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
There's no specific difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, by objectively defensible criteria. But there are very big differences between one psychopath and another; some are hot-headed, others cold-blooded. Some are brilliant, others idiots. I have seen no reason to think Eben Moglen is one, as opposed to (e.g.) a garden-variety untrustworthy individual.
I know a psychologist whose entire livelihood is administering psychopathology testing of business executives. Who hires him? Corporate boards, possibly in response to legal trouble; probably also psychopaths eliminating competition. I don't doubt there are others whose livelihood is coaching the business executives in how to beat such testing. Dr. James Fallon is a successful psychologist who is also a psychopath.
Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)
Posted Nov 9, 2017 16:48 UTC (Thu)
by jdulaney (subscriber, #83672)
[Link]
I call bull sheet.