On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:00:46 -0500, Brian Westerman wrote:
>I know we had to contact CA and Sterling, as well as Landmark Systems about
>using our offset. The only one that gave us a hard time about it was CA, who
>told us they "had it first", and then tried both money and threats to have us
>give it up and go back and ask for another one. I believe our legal-eze,
>highly professional response was something like "pound salt".
>
I assume that worked. Good. What was your legal ground:
o Implied warranty of merchantability? But any clever vendor will
expressly disclaim that "to the extent permitted by state law".
o Contract language to that effect?
o Pound salt?
Had CA squatted on their claim before IBM established a registry?
>... we decided that name/tokens were probably a better way to go ...
>
What precludes collisions of name/tokens? Simply bigger name space?
But remember the birthday problem -- pretty soon someone will suffer.
"com.syzygyinc.xx"? (16 isn't enough!)
--gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
