Mailing List Archive

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much
> like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially.
> It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine
> the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or
> weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other
> nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're
> remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think
> the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.


What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling
people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing
anything when someone uses it without asking?

Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your
own?

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/25 Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>:

> Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much
> like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially.
> It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine
> the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or
> weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other
> nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're
> remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think
> the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
>

Yes.. Actually it works in such a way, that if you ask for permission
to use any Wikimedia logo you get negative answer as long as you do
not persuade guys form San Francisco office that it is in line with
their idea what is OK and what not. Persuading them is a kind of game
with hidden rules. They keep the rules of obtaining the permission in
their heads and do not communicate it directly to you. You just have
to find these rules in a trial and error process.

On the other hand there is nobody to seek actively for trademark
violations. If you tell guys from the office about abuse and this is
serious thing in terms of business scale, you may expect some legal
action to be taken. However if you do not ask for permission and
simply do what you feel is OK there is quite high probability that
nobody catch you, as long as your business is not very large.

If it is clever trademark management I don't know.. Maybe there is
some sort of logic in this, but I am probably not smart enough to see
it :-)



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:

>
> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling
> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
> doing
> anything when someone uses it without asking?
>
> Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on
> your
> own?
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement
without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when
being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the
chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.

Nathan

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling
>> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
>> doing
>> anything when someone uses it without asking?
>>
>> Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on
>> your
>> own?
>>
>> Anthony
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement
> without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when
> being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the
> chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
>
> Nathan
>

This said, Anthony has a point.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> > people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
> > doing
> > anything when someone uses it without asking?
> >
> > Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on
> > your
> > own?
> >
> > Anthony
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement
> without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when
> being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the
> chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.


I didn't make any points, I asked questions. If you can think of a
different way to phrase the questions while still obtaining the answers to
them, please feel free to rephrase them.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> >> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> >> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not
> >> doing
> >> anything when someone uses it without asking?
> >>
> >> Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on
> >> your
> >> own?
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> > Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement
> > without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when
> > being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the
> > chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
>
> This said, Anthony has a point.
>
> Ant


Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask questions.
I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
forum.

I really don't understand what Mike was trying to say. My second question
was designed to express what precisely it was about his statement that I
didn't understand. And my third question, which I suppose was the one
considered "disparaging", was somewhat pre-emptive. Mike has a tendency to
answer questions of this sort with an appeal to his status as a famous
lawyer, and therefore as someone whose statements are (in his mind) beyond
question by us little people. So I wanted to clarify in advance which parts
of his statement he thought could be understood (and not just accepted
without question) by those of us who decided not to go to law school.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask questions.
> I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
> forum.

Your second question was something of a leading question. It came
across as if you were trying to make a point.

> I really don't understand what Mike was trying to say. My second question
> was designed to express what precisely it was about his statement that I
> didn't understand. And my third question, which I suppose was the one
> considered "disparaging", was somewhat pre-emptive. Mike has a tendency to
> answer questions of this sort with an appeal to his status as a famous
> lawyer, and therefore as someone whose statements are (in his mind) beyond
> question by us little people. So I wanted to clarify in advance which parts
> of his statement he thought could be understood (and not just accepted
> without question) by those of us who decided not to go to law school.

I've noticed that tendency as well, although I'm not sure your
question will help at all. It you had worded it more like you just did
it would have been better, although knowing Mike I don't think it
would make any difference to his response.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:

> > Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
> questions.
> > I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
> > forum.
>
> Your second question was something of a leading question. It came
> across as if you were trying to make a point.
>

Well, like I said, I was trying to clarify what exactly it was about his
statement that I didn't understand. To ask a good question, you kind of
have to make a point, don't you? (Was that last question I just asked a
question, or a point? What about that one? Or that one?)

Maybe I should make a confession here. I honestly believe that Mike Godwin
has much more knowledge than I do about free speech issues, and especially
how they relate to trademark law. In fact, I haven't yet formed an opinion
on how free speech issues apply to trademark law. It seems to me to be
self-evident that telling people that they can't use your trademark and not
policing the use of your trademark are contradictory, and apparently this
seems self-evident to others on this mailing list as well (hence the
accusations that I'm trying to make a point). But having not devoted my
life to studying this issue, it may very well be that I'm wrong. If that's
the case, I hope Mike can clarify for all of us why this isn't
contradictory. On the other hand, maybe Mike misspoke and can correct
himself, or maybe I misunderstood him and he can clarify.

When I was in college I quite often asked professors questions which pointed
out seeming contradictions in what they were saying, and I never did so to
make a point. Sometimes it turns out the professor was wrong. Sometimes
they misspoke. Sometimes I misunderstood them. In all three cases there
are possible positive outcomes to my having asked the question. Yes, there
are also possible negative outcomes, but we're supposed to assume good
faith, aren't we?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/25 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
>> questions.
>> > I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail
>> > forum.
>>
>> Your second question was something of a leading question. It came
>> across as if you were trying to make a point.
>>
>
> Well, like I said, I was trying to clarify what exactly it was about his
> statement that I didn't understand. To ask a good question, you kind of
> have to make a point, don't you? (Was that last question I just asked a
> question, or a point? What about that one? Or that one?)

It depends on the question, but a request for clarification does often
require you to make a point first in order to explain the confusion. I
guess it's all about how you word it (I'm really not the one to be
giving advice on tact, though!).

> On the other hand, maybe Mike misspoke and can correct
> himself, or maybe I misunderstood him and he can clarify.

I think that's the most likely explanation. Mike doesn't always
explains things well to us laymen, he probably knows exactly what he
means and he's probably right, but we just don't have the prior
knowledge required to understand his comment. I guess lawyers aren't
used to a bunch of geeks checking up on them constantly!

> When I was in college I quite often asked professors questions which pointed
> out seeming contradictions in what they were saying, and I never did so to
> make a point. Sometimes it turns out the professor was wrong. Sometimes
> they misspoke. Sometimes I misunderstood them. In all three cases there
> are possible positive outcomes to my having asked the question. Yes, there
> are also possible negative outcomes, but we're supposed to assume good
> faith, aren't we?

Indeed, asking questions is always good, it's just a matter of how you ask them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony writes:

> What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
> telling
> people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then
> not doing
> anything when someone uses it without asking?

I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis. If you
have experience with trademark lawyers in other contexts, you'll find
that they're generally far more aggressive in policing trademarks than
I am. One of my tasks is to preserve and maintain the value of our
trademarks, but I try to inform that task with as much tolerance and
support for freedom of speech as possible.

As for those who use our trademarks without asking, I try to focus on
the larger-scale, commercial infringers. Mostly this is a function of
allocating resources -- we don't have infinite time and money to
police trademarks, so we try to pick the worst offenders when we send
cease-and-desist letters (with the possible followup of formal legal
action), and this means we necessarily are going to let more minor
infringers slide. It turns out that recognizing and working within
economic constraints is congruent with a more tolerant policy
regarding unlicensed use, which I think is a reasonably felicitous
result. (Often I proceed more informally against infringers, and that
frequently is enough to stop the infringement.)

> Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it
> on your
> own?

I'm not sure I understand what additional information you are
attempting to elicit with this question. Are you genuinely curious
about law school or about my experience? If so, I'm ready to answer
private inquiries, but the question itself -- taken at face value --
doesn't seem germane to the subject matter of this public mailing list.

> I didn't make any points, I asked questions. If you can think of a
> different way to phrase the questions while still obtaining the
> answers to
> them, please feel free to rephrase them.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the law-school
versus on-your-own question was designed to be disparaging.

> And my third question, which I suppose was the one
> considered "disparaging", was somewhat pre-emptive. Mike has a
> tendency to
> answer questions of this sort with an appeal to his status as a famous
> lawyer, and therefore as someone whose statements are (in his mind)
> beyond
> question by us little people.

Good lord, this is quite a misreading of how I intended to be
interpreted. I was trying to suggest (as I elaborate above) that my
experience as a free-speech lawyer informs my work on our trademark
portfolio. I hardly think "famous" has much to do with it. I don't
think of you as "little people" -- I don't even know what you mean by
that -- but if I thought my statements were "beyond question," then I
wouldn't bother to respond to your messages.

I think you have to work very hard, mentally, to insert into my one
sentence about "a free-speech lawyer" all this stuff like "famous" or
"beyond question" or "little people." Those words may inhabit your
perception of me and my attitude, and I apologize if something I've
said elsewhere has given you the impression that I think that way, but
they're not there in the actual words I used.

I can't pretend to be inexperienced in dealing with either free-speech
or trademark issues, but I don't expect you or anyone to defer to me
simply because I'm purportedly an authority.

> So I wanted to clarify in advance which parts
> of his statement he thought could be understood (and not just accepted
> without question) by those of us who decided not to go to law school.

I hardly ever condition my responses to this list on whether the
person I'm responding to has gone to law school. And, seriously, do
you suppose that after decades online I could possibly every expect
*anything I say in any context* to be "just accepted without
question"? You must think I'm as dumb as I look.

> It seems to me to be
> self-evident that telling people that they can't use your trademark
> and not
> policing the use of your trademark are contradictory, and apparently
> this
> seems self-evident to others on this mailing list as well (hence the
> accusations that I'm trying to make a point).

We're policing the use of the trademark. Our efforts on this front
are mostly invisible to most of you, and that is as it should be. And,
as I have pointed out, we necessarily can't police all infringing
uses, so (informed by the desire to be as tolerant as possible of non-
harmful unlicensed uses), we try to go after the worst offenders.

Your reasoning suggests (by analogy) that prosecutors who don't
prosecute every single offense, or policemen who don't arrest everyone
who might have committed offense, are somehow "contradictory" to
upholding the law. But that's not how the legal system works. We all
have legal rights and responsibilities, but, *just as important*, we
can choose where and when we will invoke them. That's not
"contradictory" -- that's at the very least prudence, and, one hopes
in the long run, it may even approach humanity and wisdom.

> Yes, there
> are also possible negative outcomes, but we're supposed to assume good
> faith, aren't we?

The question about law school, plus the stuff about "just accepted
without question" and "little people," did not strike me as informed
by any assumption of good faith. I hope you will find it in your
heart to forgive me if I misread the good-faith assumption intended by
your "little people" comment.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.


How are the two in conflict?

I think you have to work very hard, mentally, to insert into my one
> sentence about "a free-speech lawyer" all this stuff like "famous" or
> "beyond question" or "little people." Those words may inhabit your
> perception of me and my attitude, and I apologize if something I've
> said elsewhere has given you the impression that I think that way, but
> they're not there in the actual words I used.


This perception comes not from this particular thread, but from my reading
of other threads which you've participated in (including at least one that I
was involved in). It's not something which I care to argue with you about,
and certainly not on this mailing list, although I will point out that
Thomas stated that "I've noticed that tendency as well", just in case you're
truly unaware that some people perceive this about you.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/25 Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>:
> Your reasoning suggests (by analogy) that prosecutors who don't
> prosecute every single offense, or policemen who don't arrest everyone
> who might have committed offense, are somehow "contradictory" to
> upholding the law. But that's not how the legal system works. We all
> have legal rights and responsibilities, but, *just as important*, we
> can choose where and when we will invoke them. That's not
> "contradictory" -- that's at the very least prudence, and, one hopes
> in the long run, it may even approach humanity and wisdom.

To add to what Mike says here: If someone applies for a right to use
our trademark, then yes, we have to exercise due diligence and make
sure it represents a product or service that we want to stand for with
our name. If they don't apply and just use the mark, we may or may not
be willing or able to enforce it, but it constitutes an unauthorized
use of our mark and we can fully disclaim responsibility for the
product or service it is used to represent. Take the recent example of
the SOS Children's DVD: We authorized use of the Wikipedia puzzle
globe and name for the product based on our pre-existing relationship
with them, and then people pointed fingers at us when they felt that
the organization wasn't interpreting the GFDL correctly or fairly.
Something that's made in your name is associated with you, whether you
like it or now.

Personally, I'm not a huge friend of IP law, but I've always felt that
the fundamental intentions of trademark law are benign and reasonable.
I think that the free culture movement has to carefully think about
middle ground approaches that make sense to meet the needs trademark
law tries to address, such as: ensuring that people understand the
difference between a product made or endorsed by us, and a product
made by someone else without our involvement. This is where approaches
such as secondary marks come in -- note the use of the puzzle piece in
our fundraiser buttons.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org> wrote:
[snip]
> In fact, I haven't yet formed an opinion
> on how free speech issues apply to trademark law.
[snip]

I think it's helpful to consider a pair of somewhat tangential questions:

"Is it a violation of your right to free speech that you can't write
me contract to sell me the brooklyn bridge, as you do not own it, with
impunity?"

"Is it a violation of your right to free speech that I have chosen not
appoint you as my personal spokesperson, authorized to represent me to
the general public?"

Take some time and consider these carefully. I believe it will provide
you with insights on trademarks and free speech.

Cheers.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Personally, I'm not a huge friend of IP law,


Specifically, you state on your meta user page that you are "strongly
opposed to all types of 'intellectual property'."

but I've always felt that
> the fundamental intentions of trademark law are benign and reasonable.


I can't imagine you have that feeling about [[trademark dilution]] law,
though. I don't think people are going to cry "fraud" when they find out
their coffee mug isn't really the coffee mug that anyone can edit.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/25 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> I can't imagine you have that feeling about [[trademark dilution]] law,
> though. I don't think people are going to cry "fraud" when they find out
> their coffee mug isn't really the coffee mug that anyone can edit.

What I said is that its fundamental _intentions_ are benign and
reasonable, not that even the implementation in current legal code is,
let alone some interpretations thereof. I do believe the free culture
movement needs to develop a code of best practices for trademark use
and enforcement, but we shouldn't start with a reflexive assumption
that it's evil.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2008/11/25 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> > I can't imagine you have that feeling about [[trademark dilution]] law,
> > though. I don't think people are going to cry "fraud" when they find out
> > their coffee mug isn't really the coffee mug that anyone can edit.
>
> What I said is that its fundamental _intentions_ are benign and
> reasonable, not that even the implementation in current legal code is,
> let alone some interpretations thereof.


The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
property right.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony writes:

>> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
>> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
>> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.
>
> How are the two in conflict?

I had thought this was self-evident, but it seems clear that trademark
law can be understood as a restriction on the kind of speech one can
engage in, especially in a commercial context. I don't regard the two
as "in conflict," but there is clearly a tension between trademark law
and freedom of speech, just as there is a tension between copyright
law and freedom of speech. Most of that tension in the trademark
context is addressed by such doctrines as nominative fair use (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
>), but not all of it is.

> This perception comes not from this particular thread, but from my
> reading
> of other threads which you've participated in (including at least
> one that I
> was involved in). It's not something which I care to argue with you
> about,
> and certainly not on this mailing list, although I will point out that
> Thomas stated that "I've noticed that tendency as well", just in
> case you're
> truly unaware that some people perceive this about you.

I'm aware, of course, that false or distorted memes may propagate from
mind to mind, so it is no surprise that the same meme instantiated
itself in yours and Thomas's mind. It wouldn't surprise me if you
both happened to suffer from a rhinovirus at the same time, either.
(For reference, see <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>.) I've noticed, however, that the incidence of the meme about my
purported invocation of my authority is lower in populations that
actually do assume good faith, which provides a kind of partial
immunity to certain kinds of memetic viruses.

Or to put it more briefly, if you're already predisposed to assume I
think of you as "little people" or that I expect what I write to be
"accepted without question," there's probably nothing I can say that
will be interpreted any other way.


--Mike



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony writes:

> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> property right.

This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law
as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.


--Mike




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/25 Anthony <wikimail@inbox.org>:
> The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> property right.

Questionable. In any case proper enforcement of trademark law really
only comes in at the nuisance level.

Things get more problematical due to people using trademark to make
threatening legal noises to limit free speech (although that may not
be the intention it is the effect). A lot of the time this is
accidental due to people being confused over the difference between
copyright and trademark or the limits of trademark.


Heh a recent mildly amusing case. Ryan air wrote to private eye to
object to the use of their trademark in a parody of budget airline
routes and prices. Private Eye responded by referring to the Arkell
vs. Pressdram incident (not that I would suggest that this is
something the foundation should follow).


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> Anthony writes:
>
> > The fundamental intention of [[trademark dilution]] law is to create a
> > property right.
>
> This isn't an accurate statement about trademark law. It's true that
> trademark law creates certain rights, but to understand trademark law
> as an attempt to create a *property* right is an analytical mistake.
>
>
> --Mike
>

Hopefully you can take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution and fix it, specifically
this paragraph:

"Trademark law is generally focused on the need for consumer
protection<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_protection>.
Consequently, trademark law traditionally concerned itself with situations
where an unauthorized party sold goods that are directly competitive with or
at least related to those sold by the trademark owner. However, in many
jurisdictions the concept of dilution has developed recently to protect
trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner
has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark. The concept of
dilution is much newer than the rest of trademark law; only in the mid-1990s
did the United States <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> enact a
law against trademark dilution, although various states had begun adopting
such laws shortly after World War
II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II>,
and the idea was floated in academic writing as early as the late 1920s."

However, I've done a bit of research on this, and I haven't found anything
to contradict it, so make sure you cite your sources.

Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was talking
specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws both share
the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar otherwise.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Anthony writes:
>
> >> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
> >> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
> >> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.
> >
> > How are the two in conflict?
>
> I had thought this was self-evident, but it seems clear that trademark
> law can be understood as a restriction on the kind of speech one can
> engage in, especially in a commercial context.


I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term "freedom
of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.

I don't regard the two
> as "in conflict," but there is clearly a tension between trademark law
> and freedom of speech, just as there is a tension between copyright
> law and freedom of speech.


Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or perjury law)
and freedom of speech? The way I understand it, rights cannot be in
conflict (or tension), and any seeming conflicts (or tensions) between your
rights and the rights of another are simply a misunderstanding of one or the
other right.

But I'll have to read up on your understanding of the tension between
copyright law and freedom of speech. I'm pretty sure there's enough primary
source material for me to gather that information without having to have you
waste your time explaining it. Of course, I'd prefer that we start a
philosophy-l list and move this discussion over there. :)

> This perception comes not from this particular thread, but from my
> > reading
> > of other threads which you've participated in (including at least
> > one that I
> > was involved in). It's not something which I care to argue with you
> > about,
> > and certainly not on this mailing list, although I will point out that
> > Thomas stated that "I've noticed that tendency as well", just in
> > case you're
> > truly unaware that some people perceive this about you.
>
> I'm aware, of course, that false or distorted memes may propagate from
> mind to mind, so it is no surprise that the same meme instantiated
> itself in yours and Thomas's mind. It wouldn't surprise me if you
> both happened to suffer from a rhinovirus at the same time, either.


I won't speak for Thomas, but I've noticed this independently of anyone
having told me about it.


> (For reference, see <
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
> >.) I've noticed, however, that the incidence of the meme about my
> purported invocation of my authority is lower in populations that
> actually do assume good faith, which provides a kind of partial
> immunity to certain kinds of memetic viruses.


Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true. I'd say the meme of assuming good
faith, especially as it has mutated to be used quite commonly by Wikipedians
(to discourage criticism), is a meme which promotes other memetic viruses,
not one which inoculates against them. (I'd also point to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_/ai_6203733 instead of that
Wired article that you provided.)

Or to put it more briefly, if you're already predisposed to assume I
> think of you as "little people" or that I expect what I write to be
> "accepted without question," there's probably nothing I can say that
> will be interpreted any other way.


Well, like I said, not something I'm interested in arguing with you about.
It's not my problem, it's your problem.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthony writes:

> Please note that I wasn't talking here about "trademark law", I was
> talking
> specifically about "trademark dilution law". These types of laws
> both share
> the term "trademark", but they are actually not all that similar
> otherwise.

I don't know what you mean by "similar," but both the creation of
trademarks and the creation of a remedy for trademark dilution are
both part of the Trademark Act of 1946 (aka Title 15, Chapter 22, of
the United States Code). Registration of trademarks is Sec. 1051, and
the prohibition of dilution is in Sec. 1125. Your statement here is
at best incoherent, and at worst simply incorrect. See generally http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/trademrk.htm
.

As for correcting the entry on trademark dilution, I hope it is clear
why I forbear from editing articles on Wikipedia these days --
especially articles relating to legal issues, where somebody might
glibly presume I expect my edits to be "accepted without question."


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I would think that selective enforcement is used because it costs so much to sue in this country. Just my two cents.




________________________________
From: Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks

2008/11/25 Mike Godwin <mgodwin@wikimedia.org>:

> Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much
> like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially.
> It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine
> the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or
> weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other
> nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're
> remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them.  You might almost think
> the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
>

Yes.. Actually it works in such a way, that if you ask for permission
to use any Wikimedia logo you get negative answer as long as you do
not persuade guys form San Francisco office that it is in line with
their idea what is OK and what not. Persuading them is a kind of game
with hidden rules. They keep the rules of obtaining the permission in
their heads and do not communicate it directly to you. You just have
to find these rules in a trial and error process.

On the other hand there is nobody to seek actively for trademark
violations.  If you tell guys from the office about abuse and this is
serious thing in terms of business scale, you may expect some legal
action to be taken. However if you do not ask for permission and
simply do what you feel is OK there is quite high probability that
nobody catch you, as long as your business is not very large.

If it is clever trademark management I don't know.. Maybe there is
some sort of logic in this, but I am probably not smart enough to see
it :-)



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> I don't know what you mean by "similar," but both the creation of
> trademarks and the creation of a remedy for trademark dilution are
> both part of the Trademark Act of 1946 (aka Title 15, Chapter 22, of
> the United States Code). Registration of trademarks is Sec. 1051, and
> the prohibition of dilution is in Sec. 1125. Your statement here is
> at best incoherent, and at worst simply incorrect. See generally http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/trademrk.htm

The way I see it, trademark dilution law is one part of trademark law,
but it is a part that is more restrictive on freedom of speech than
the rest. I think that's the point Anthony was trying to make.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l