Subject: Re: Identifying my version of a GPL program
From: kmself@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:09:46 -0800
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:09:46 -0800
on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 04:02:11PM -0800, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 03:03:48PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > on Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:53:57PM -0800, Greg Broiles (gbroiles@netbox.com) wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 02:10:34PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > A Cert mark is a special case of trademark Bernaard specifically
> > > > mentioned the latter.  I suggested the former might be a better fit.
> > 
> > > And I suggest that your position is both poorly supported by existing
> > > caselaw and dangerous as a matter of policy. 
> > 
> > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCertMark
> > http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmqa.html
> > 
> > E.g.:  
> > 
> >     Harris Tweed.
> >     Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval
> >     Underwriters Laboratories Approved
> >     various "MS Windows certified" marks
> 
> Uhh, yeah, great, you've got cites to show that cert marks exist. No
> dispute there. The statutory basis for certification marks is at 15 
> USC 1054, in case you're ever inclined to look at primary sources. 
> 
> Do you have a cite where a court rules on the use of a certification mark
> by a third party who was otherwise unable to achieve technical compatibility
> with an existing computer system or program, discussing whether or not that
> use of the mark is an infringement? 

Last post on topic.

I'd stongly suggest you re-read this thread and work out exactly where
you thought that technical compatibility was the issue.  It's not.  It
isn't.  It hasn't been.  It never will be.

The issue is whether or not it's possible to add a requirment,
technically enforced or otherwise, to a business agreement which states
that a certain set of software will or will not be supported or
considered suitable for a specific use, without discrimination or
prejudice on other uses.  Bernard suggested a TM as a vaiable mechanism.
I and others concurred.

-00-

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]