23-Oct-2021 10:16 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 55 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 55]
[News] Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK AvailabilityANN.lu
Posted on 31-May-2000 06:42 GMT by Christian Kemp55 comments
View flat
View list
There is a new Executive Update dated May 30,2000 on Amiga's homepage. To quote their own summary of it, Bill Mcewen, President of Amiga, affirms Amiga's commitment to defending its trademarks and patents, while offering much-anticipated information about Amiga's forthcoming development kits.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 31 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Lon on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Michael Jantzen):
Ask yourself this - did Commodore ever put up a fuss over using their name on a website? No...
Uh, Commodore died in 1994, when there were only like maybe 3 web sites in the whole world.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 30 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Eric on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 29 (Mario Saitti):
:When we registered Phoenix, we thought long and hard before
:committing to any name. In the end we didn't use the exact phonetic
:spelling, one reason was so we could reinforce our
:trademarks.
Eh? That's backwards; "phoenix" is a generic word, whereas "feeniks"
would be a made-up word and perhaps easier to protect. That's why
you see a lot of apparent silliness in company names like Rite-Aid
instead of Right-Aid, Pur instead of Pure, etc.
Which is not to say that you can't use "Phoenix" or "Amiga" as company
names, of course. They may be generic words, but they're also names.
(And anyway I expect that pretty much any sound you come up with is a
word in SOME language somewhere. "Amiga" may be Spanish for female
friend, but it's also the name of a computer, and besides that the
most convincing stories behind its origin suggest that any specific
meaning in any language is coincidence anyway. [Insert here several
amusing stories about how company names translated literally into
other languages provide much unintentional embarrassment for the
company.] )
--Eric
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 28 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
- Coca Cola has people on the road EVERY DAY throughout the United States who order a "Coca Cola" and then
- verify what they get. If they are served another brand, they complain in writing.
They should try that in Sweden :) Ordering Coca Cola in a restaurant
can mean anything between 4 to 5 different brands ..
/Björn
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 29 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Mario Saitti on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
As a lawyer, I must concur with what Ben Yoris just posted: care must be taken that the Amiga name does not fall into the public domain. This could happen if no action is taken against people associating it with certain products or software without permission.
All I will say is that Amiga needs to tread *very* cautiously else this will backfire.
The whole notion that Amiga would be the only company to care about this is completely off the mark.
True enough.
Coca Cola has people on the road EVERY DAY throughout the United States who order a "Coca Cola" and then verify what they get. If they are served another brand, they complain in writing.
Two words, two VERY distinct, unambigious words. Much easier to protect.
This is intended to protect the "Coca Cola" trademark and prevent it from falling in the public domain because it becomes a "generic" term for a coke.
When we registered Phoenix, we thought long and hard before committing to any name. In the end we didn't use the exact phonetic spelling, one reason was so we could reinforce our trademarks.
Mario S LLB:)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 27 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
I had no idea there were so many lawyers at Hyperion :)
Anyway, I went to law school (but am not a lawyer- SO TAKE THAT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH! :), and I agree completely with what they are saying.
Mike
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 24 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Fabrizio "Lanch" Bartoloni on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
They just accuse, declare, attend at conventions, but release
nothing and worse of all don't support Amiga community at all.
How they dare to menace our websites that were online since
Commodore worse days while they were doing the same thing
that are doing now, to say, absolutely nothing?
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 25 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Michael Jantzen on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (esben):
I do think this is a tad bit anal - for instance in all the things Microsoft has sued people over I do not believe they ever lead litigation over winfiles.com or other Windows related sites.
Ask yourself this - did Commodore ever put up a fuss over using their name on a website? No...
What Amiga Inc. really has to deal with concerning copyright law is unlawful use of a trademarked name - for instance a similar product named "Amiga". What all copyright lawyers look at of course is the trademarked name "Asprin" - which is really an acronym - however the parent company (the name escapes me) never sued their competition for similar products with the same name - so now the copyright has expired.
Michael Jantzen ^_^
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 26 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Hermans/Hyperion on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
As a lawyer, I must concur with what Ben Yoris just posted: care must be taken that the Amiga name does not fall into the public domain. This could happen if no action is taken against people associating it with certain products or software without permission.
The whole notion that Amiga would be the only company to care about this is completely off the mark.
Coca Cola has people on the road EVERY DAY throughout the United States who order a "Coca Cola" and then verify what they get. If they are served another brand, they complain in writing.
This is intended to protect the "Coca Cola" trademark and prevent it from falling in the public domain because it becomes a "generic" term for a coke.
best regards,
Ben Hermans
Managing Partner "Hyperion"
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 22 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Errr... John, we where writing the same thing at the same time? =)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 23 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Ben Yoris on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
OK guys, I'm a lawyer.
The word Amiga is generic OK but for advertising a computer, it's not. This is what ask the french and european law for trademarks, and I guess it's the same in the US.
The statements about Amiga risking to loose the trademarks if it doesn't protect them is true. But that doesn't mean closing down every site with the word "Amiga" in the URL or the Title. It means that Amiga Inc. must be careful and have a look at competitors or third parties using the name "Amiga" for computer related products.
As someone said, we can't count the number of sites with "Windows" or "Mac" in the URL or the title. And nor MS nor Apple lost their trademarks, OK ?
I think that Bill McEwen sees only one fact : for many years of Amiga misleading (take over after takeover, aborted rebirth(s) etc...) some people might think Amiga is dead and thus the name is free for computer business.
What of course is wrong ! And Amiga Inc. now wants to protect "again" the names and the trademarks.
IMO...
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 20 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
OK, I'm not a lawyer, but here's my take.:
"Amiga" is spanish for female friend.
This makes it at first sight a generic word.
However, through usage, the name has become strongly associated with Amiga computers. This makes it distinctive and trademarkable.
Licensing the name adds strength to the legal argument.
Everyone should agree to the free license to strengthen Amiga's position.
Amiga is already strongly protected wit laws about "passing off" (fooling consumers into thinking a something is an Amiga. This will help on the trademark side.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 19 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Len Carsner on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Would everybody PLEASE calm down!
Bill explained this in some detail at the UGN meeting in St. Louis.
Basically, if the Amiga name is used xx number of times it becomes public domain
and cannot be trademarked. This would prevent them from shutting down any use, good or bad,
that would crop up. License would be as simple as a signed document stating compliance
with their requirments. Non-signers and non-compliance could be forced/court ordered to
shut down. This would keep anyone/anything detrimental to AInc out of business.
Every business does this - try to sell something with the name "CORVETTE" on it without
General Motors permission. I've seen some VERY NASTY thing done to protect that name.
They have the right to protect their image and reputation. They don't want it to become "generic"
like "Xerox". That name started as a company name and has since become a generic term for "copy".
Another advantage for comsumers is that anything bearing the trademarked name has to comply with
company standards or they loose their right to use the trademark. If a company selling products
with an "Amiga Apporved" label turns out to be less than reputable AInc can remove it right to use
it and pursue legal action.
There are so many people who feel they know what the future of the Amiga should be, protecting the
name gives AInc the right to make sure it fits their image and plans.
Besides, haven't we more serious things to worry about?
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 21 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Just a though, how many spanish homepages will be illegal if homepages count? I mean, amiga is girlfriend in spanish. Just a though..
Hopefully they make it very easy for users to use the name.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 17 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Björn Hagström):
/************************
Will everyone just relax ?
You know, taking things easy.
Such as waiting for some real info.
Can't be all that hard can it ?
****************************/
Am I the only one who notices that every time Amiga Inc posts some info we always end up saying that we need to wait "for some real info"?
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 18 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Ed on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
You really should replace the summary word "patent" with the word
"copyrights" or as Bill used the phrase "intellectual properties".
Old Amiga patents are still owned by Gateway, if I'm not misinformed.
What is at issue is system software, include files, Rom Kernel Manuals,
etc.
-Ed
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 14 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Gustavo Saracca on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
The Amiga trademak isn't real!!!!, we @ Metropolis Software in my town
write two books with CD's included, when we ask to Micro$oft if we need
any trademake, permision or an, logo or permision the answers was NO!
NetScape need copies of the books and they need check the text, too.
this is only an example.
If we need an special order to get the "Amiga" word, please Bill
must to put this too.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 15 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Will everyone just relax ?
You know, taking things easy.
Such as waiting for some real info.
Can't be all that hard can it ?
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 16 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by ACGregory on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
From the text of his statement, it appears he is more after
people who make illegal copies of the software, or distribute
their intellectual property, and are using the Amiga name.
Although, if one very strictly interprets his statement, one
could say that he is also going to restrict the use of any one
using the "Amiga" name...but I don't think that would work....
As an example, when people say they have a Ford brand car, they
don't have to get permission from Ford Motor, INc. to say that
they indeed have a "Ford" car....
But if people build cars, and put the "Ford" name on it, or call
it a "Ford", or sell parts with the "Ford" name on it, or sell
handbooks about repairing "Fords" and have the Ford name on it
well then, they should be properly licensed....
I think that is the intent of the message from Mr. McEwan. After
all this is not a politician trying to say two things at the same
time while using the same words....
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 11 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by paul on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (esben):
Sorry, and if Amiga decides to retire all the Amiga computers where a "powered by Amiga" sticker is attached on? :-)
Let's hope at least the licence will be given for free..
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 12 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Mike on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Martin Baute):
/****************************************************************
afraid the licensing is mandatory for fan- and newssites;
that´s what Götz Ohnesorge told me. It´s about a quirk in US
law. By letting people use "Amiga" freely, they could lose the
right on that trademark, resulting in everybody (B. Gates?)
being free to put together some generic hard-/software and
selling it as "Amiga"... We wouldn´t want that, do we?
*****************************************************************/
I'm sorry, but are you SURE that this is really how the law is intended? I can't help but think it isnt. For one, do you think the six billion Windows and Mac help sites out there are all registered with MS and Apple? Yet no one is worried they are losing their patent rights. I think at most it could only refer to the people posting copies of Amiga Software (ie. Workbench and kickstart), and not anyone using the name.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 13 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Mike):
I agree... I'm not a lawyer, but I think Amiga won't lose their right on the Amiga name if they allow people to use it in their websites :)
And if it is, I hope they're smart enough to don't ask people to pay money for it.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 10 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Sorry guys, but time will tell. I agree to sign a paper or something else where I say I'm using the Amiga name because I'm a developer, but I'm starting to be tired of these news.
Anyway, we'll soon know if the licence will be for free or not.
Wouldn't be simple to add in the homepages "Amiga(TM) is © Amiga Int."?
And, AFAIK, Microsoft don't ask any licence for the use of their names on websites ;-)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 6 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Björn Hagström on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso):
Don't worry, licensing a site lite Amiga Network News will
probably not be more that a signed paper. A symbolic
license, not a humungeous fee.
I wish people wouldn't cry out in vain everytime
something like this comes out. If this licensing WERE
to be badly implemented, THEN cry out in vain. Right
now, no one really knows what it is all really about.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 7 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Baute on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso):
: Incredible! This means 99,9% of the internet Amiga sites will close after
: this shocking news. Who wants to give money just to put the Amiga name
: online?
Neither myself, nor Bill McEwen nor Goetz Ohnesorge ever said cost will
be involved. This remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
: They should pay fans for their free advertisment :)
I wouldn´t go that far. ;-)
: I'm tired of this kind of politic.. if they'll ask to remove the Amiga name
: from our website, I will remove it (and definitively stop developing for the
: Amy).
AISB4, nobody so far said anything of licensing _fees_; a license can be for
free, you know? ;-)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 8 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Perhaps it's a conspiracy to kill off that annoying 'classic'
Amiga(r)?
Sounds silly doesn't it.
And now I sound like Tim Rue :)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 9 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Conor Kerr on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso):
: Incredible! This means 99,9% of the internet Amiga sites will close after
: this shocking news. Who wants to give money just to put the Amiga name
: online? They should pay fans for their free advertisment :)
As much as I don't like it myself, if people continue on using the Amiga name and logos without a license then Amiga WILL LOSE THEIR TRADEMARKED RIGHT to the Amiga name and logos.
I was upset when I heard that Bill was going to be enforcing these laws, now I understand his motive completely. People will complain that they will never develop again and stuff and I understand where they are coming from but only ignorant people will ignore the reasoning behind Bill's decision and actually leave the platform.
Don't get carried away people! :)
All the best...
Conor
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 4 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Martin Baute):
Incredible! This means 99,9% of the internet Amiga sites will close after this shocking news. Who wants to give money just to put the Amiga name online? They should pay fans for their free advertisment :)
If I must pay Amiga Inc (or Int, or Technology, or Warez), I want something good. The last money I gave to Amiga were for the Amiga Mouse, ofcourse not for the Annex Cd or Amiga pen... Amiga, do you want money? Produce something then!
I'm tired of this kind of politic.. if they'll ask to remove the Amiga name from our website, I will remove it (and definitively stop developing for the Amy).
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 5 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by esben on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso):
Why make a big issue over nothing!
This is a company who has to follow the rules of the industry, if Amiga Inc. looses its right to the Amiga name it would be a dissaster!
I think that you will have to sign a document or two, verifying that you are using an Amiga trademark with their permission!
Or maybe "Amiga Network News" will have to be called "Anews, Amy News" or whatever, and so what? We know it is still the same otherwise!
Be sure that this is NOT an act of bad will against the Amiga community!
AInc has stated many times that the community is extremely valuable to them!
esbn
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 1 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Baute on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
I hope his "if you use the name Amiga [...] you have to cease and
desist these actions immeadiately" doesn´t include usage like in
"Amiga Network News" (or "Amiga News" for that matter). I posted
a request for clarification to the open developer list (open@amiga.com).
I´ll report here if / when I get a response.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 2 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Yuca on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Martin Baute):
This would be too stupid. Imagine all the fan-sites where you can see our bouncing ball. I hope they really concentrate on pirate sites commercial sites who try to give an impression on being somehow "official"...
Bye,
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 3 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Baute on 30-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Yuca):
I´m afraid the licensing is mandatory for fan- and newssites;
that´s what Götz Ohnesorge told me. It´s about a quirk in US
law. By letting people use "Amiga" freely, they could lose the
right on that trademark, resulting in everybody (B. Gates?)
being free to put together some generic hard-/software and
selling it as "Amiga"... We wouldn´t want that, do we?
I am optimistic that Bill McEwen will handle this licensing
stuff generously.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 50 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (wilhelm):
I think a hundred bucks is quite expensive. Professional developers will have no problems with that, but how many hobbyprogrammers will be willing to spend that kind of money just to try out some programming on something that new and insecure? Why try to make money on the development tools, when development is essential for the platform's success? Why doesn't Amiga corp make it free for all to download, and make their money on the benefits that massive development generates?
I now that Amigausers are used to pay a lot of money for their hard/software, much more than a hundred bucks. But even if a hundred dollars hardly will ruin anyone, I still thinks that a hundred dollars will work like a barrier for (potential) software developers to try out development on the new platform. At least for a start. And isn't it in the start that the platform needs the development the most?
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 48 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Yuca on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Martin Baute):
Well, they havent defended the names for years now. So they lost already... BTW, is it possible to sue for for not respecting US laws in other countries? Would be interesting to see how they sue some WaReZ sites in countries far away from civilized justice courts...
Bye.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 49 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Yuca on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Michael Jantzen):
Wrong example. The german comapny Bayer holds the world wide rigths to Aspirin with the exception of the US. For soem stupid reason, I can not remember, the name ist not protected in the US. For the rest of the world, its a patented brand name!
Bye.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 34 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Mario Saitti on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Eric):
Um wasn't that what I said:)
Mario.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 35 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Trizt on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
I guess this is the first step against the Canadian telecompany which called them selfs Amiga Telecom (or something similare).
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 36 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Martin Baute):
Apparently, as part of reparations for World War One, Bayer's patent on Asprin was taken away.
I've heard that in some countries, people still ask for a "Bayer" instead of an asprin.
Another legal angle is passing off (causing customer confusion by looking like a brand). At one time when Amiga was at it's height, Amstrad brought out a computer with their name in a similar typeface to Amiga, that did not last long.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 37 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Stephan Neise on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (John Block):
hmmm, isn't it called "BAYR" ??!
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 38 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Szymczak on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (Conor Kerr):
Some of you are assuming that "Amiga" - the word itself, not any logo or graphic representation - is a registered trademarked. If it is trademarked, for what goods and services is it registered? Let's get some details before speculating.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 39 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Szymczak on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Michael Jantzen):
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are three very different things. Stop confusing matters!
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 40 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Adam Szymczak on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Trizt):
Maybe. In Canada, when you register a trademark, you have to assign the trademark to a ware and/or service. This can be a general category or for a specific sub-catergory, and it can be more than one category or desgination. Has Amiga, Inc. registered "Amiga" as a trademark for the provision of telecommunication services in Canada?
By no means am I saying that the use of trademarks is cut and dry. I have heard of cases of one company suing another company who had similar names, even though the company being sued existed before the other company was created. Also, if something is not a registered trademark, it does not imply that the word, phrase or logo can be freely used, or even registered by a third-party.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 41 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Trizt on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 40 (Adam Szymczak):
It was something I thought of when I read this, if you see their logo you will in first case think of "our" Amiga and nothing else.
There are companies who has tried to sue companies who has a registred product which had the name long before than the big company (M$ tried to sue a swedihs computer company who had registred the Excel product long before M$ even had the thought of their own product with the same name).
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 42 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by the VideoDoc on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
As a professor of media law, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion:
Bill's actual statement in the Executive Update sounds like a pro forma repetition of what his lawyers advised him to say. That way, in case Bill's company decides to sue some serious and damaging infringer, the defendant can't claim that Amiga Inc. allowed its brand name to fall into de facto public domain through lack of public notice and enforcement of its exclusivity.
Read Bill's words carefully. The tone of his statement is that of reluctance, not intimidation.
The whole issue of brand names and trade marks appearing on unauthorized web sites is very much an unsettled issue in intellectual property law at present. The precedents already set in regard to older media (print, movies, broadcasting, etc.) suggest that JOURNALISTIC, COMMENTATIVE, and ADVISORY use of protected names (reporting about them, giving opinions about them, and offering advice on how to use their products/services) can be done quite freely (in the U.S., anyway) until one crosses the border of negativity into what is known as "trade libel".
On the other hand, commercially marketing one's own goods or services by prominently employing another's protected name is usually actionable (grounds for a law suit) under various state and federal statutes.
Whether unauthorized web sites which display a protected name truly qualify as a JOURNALISTIC, COMMENTATIVE, or ADVISORY exercise of the U.S. Constitution-protected right of "free speech" --- or whether such sites constitute a wrongful commercial appropriation of protected property, can only be settled by the courts. In the years to come, many cases hinging on these issues will be tried, and eventually some clear guidelines will emerge from "test cases" which make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, all unauthorized, or "fan" sites, ought to include a disclaimer acknowledging who the owners of the mentioned protected names are ... and clarifying the sites' unauthorized status. Such disclaimers offer a reasonable (but not absolute) defense against potential legal charges of "copyright infringement," "wrongful appropriation" or "misrepresentation".
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 47 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Coz on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Paolo "Mod3m" D'Urso):
This does NOT mean every publication, user group, etc has to cough up money!!!
It just means that the Amiga trademark is acknowleged as being owned by Amiga, Inc. Hasn't anyone seen those little blurbs in an advertisement? Like "Microsoft Office Copyright Microsoft, Inc" or some such?
Cripes, yet another example of Amigoid Chicken Littles running around screaming "The sky is falling!"
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 46 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by wilhelm on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Come on guys, isn't the most important
thing here the SDK????!!!!!! Lets try
and focus on this potentially exciting
news and let amiga inc run their biz.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 45 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by The Stereotypical Amiga Fan on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE WHINGE MOAN COMPLAIN PANIC WHINGE
Thats my amigan bit done for today. more tomorrow boys and girls.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 43 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Hagge on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 28 (Björn Hagström):
That was exactly my though to =)
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 44 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by John Block on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
However :)
Sites using unauthorised domains have a right to do so if they are selling the products (tested in the cosmetics industry).
In parallel, but weaker circumstances, reel.com have approached sites using "reel" offering them free licenses.
Looking at UK law, there's an area in my local shopping street which is roped off for a day every few years denying the public access. This is to reaffirm the owner's rights.
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 32 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Olaf on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (Ben Hermans/Hyperion):
Coca Cola has people on the road EVERY DAY throughout the United States who order a "Coca Cola" and then verify what they get. If they are served another brand, they complain in writing.
..and how *sad* is this? waste of time/money/energy..
Bill McEwen on Trademarks and SDK Availability : Comment 33 of 55ANN.lu
Posted by Martin Baute on 31-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (Michael Jantzen):
I regret I brought up the topic at all...
Most people wouldn´t even have noticed, until Amiga Inc.
were ready to send out the licensing documents, and then
they wouldn´t have complained (that much)...
Why should Microsoft bother if some site is named "Windows
so-and-so"? Windows is a widely recognized brand, and everybody
publishing another computer product with the same name would
seem like a complete fool.
Amiga is different, since after all those announcements,
takeovers, and failed plans, people no longer recognize
what an "Amiga" is. Not even we ourselves, as many discussions
here and elsewhere are documenting.
I think their move will be asking the more prominent sites
(those that actually offer services, like ANN, Amiga News,
Aminet, and several others) to sign some document, and that´s
about it. Nothing to worry about, really...
...and if their plan is something more evil, people finally
would have a _reason_ to turn their back on them. ;-)
(By the way, Asprin is a TM of Bayer, Germany. In Germany
it is called "Aspirin" - which is the original name -, and
this one is still a valid trademark. Don´t know about Asprin,
though.)
Anonymous, there are 55 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 55]
Back to Top