Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[John F. Eldredge]

Stefan Keller  wrote:

> Hi John
> 
> I think some EU countries (and Switzerland) also have this 5 years
> rule.
> But I'm not a professional lawyer.
> If anybody is, then I suggest that he could offer his services to the
> OSMF as a volunteer (e.g. for a 2nd opinion).
> 
> Yours, Stefan
> 
> 
> 2013/2/4 John F. Eldredge :
> > Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >
> >> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
> >> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
> >>
> >> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
> >>  > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
> >> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for
> >> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They
> >> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as
> releasing
> >> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to
> ask
> >> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and
> >> copyright issues.
> >>
> >> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that
> >> the TM
> >> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when
> >> mentioned in
> >>  > proximity of Google services.
> >>
> >> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having
> allowed
> >> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their
> trademark
> >> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a
> Google
> >> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.
> >>
> >> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
> >> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
> >> their trademark (claim).
> >>
> >> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.
> >>
> >> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a
> C&D
> >> is
> >> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach
> of
> >>
> >> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done
> >> something
> >>  > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and
> that
> >>  > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
> >>
> >> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's
> >> *Google*.
> >
> > If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode"
> for 12 years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US
> law, the term is now legally classed as generic, and can be used by
> anyone.  According to
> , while there is
> no Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one
> Federal court decided that such cases were subject to the general
> five-year limit for non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US
> Code.  Usually, the Federal courts follow the precedents set by the
> most similar state case.
> >
> > --
> > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
> than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Well, I should note that I am not a lawyer, either.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Stefan Keller]

Hi John

I think some EU countries (and Switzerland) also have this 5 years rule.
But I'm not a professional lawyer.
If anybody is, then I suggest that he could offer his services to the
OSMF as a volunteer (e.g. for a 2nd opinion).

Yours, Stefan


2013/2/4 John F. Eldredge :
> Russ Nelson  wrote:
>
>> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
>> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
>>
>> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
>>  > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
>> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for
>> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They
>> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing
>> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask
>> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and
>> copyright issues.
>>
>> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that
>> the TM
>> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when
>> mentioned in
>>  > proximity of Google services.
>>
>> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having allowed
>> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their trademark
>> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a Google
>> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.
>>
>> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
>> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
>> their trademark (claim).
>>
>> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.
>>
>> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D
>> is
>> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of
>>
>> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done
>> something
>>  > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that
>>  > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
>>
>> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's
>> *Google*.
>
> If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode" for 12 
> years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US law, the term is 
> now legally classed as generic, and can be used by anyone.  According to 
> , while there is no 
> Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one Federal court 
> decided that such cases were subject to the general five-year limit for 
> non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US Code.  Usually, the Federal 
> courts follow the precedents set by the most similar state case.
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
> think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[John F. Eldredge]

Russ Nelson  wrote:

> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
> 
> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
>  > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for
> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They
> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing
> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask
> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and
> copyright issues.
> 
> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that
> the TM 
> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when
> mentioned in 
>  > proximity of Google services.
> 
> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having allowed
> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their trademark
> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a Google
> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.
> 
> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
> their trademark (claim).
> 
> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.
> 
> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D
> is 
> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of
> 
> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done
> something 
>  > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that 
>  > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
> 
> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's
> *Google*.

If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode" for 12 
years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US law, the term is 
now legally classed as generic, and can be used by anyone.  According to 
, while there is no Federal 
law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one Federal court decided that 
such cases were subject to the general five-year limit for non-capital offenses 
under Title 18 of the US Code.  Usually, the Federal courts follow the 
precedents set by the most similar state case.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Stefan Keller]

Hi Russ

Thanks for the explanations.
I think I got that.
What most if us call absurd, is that (U.S.) patent offices let pass
common names as trademarks when verifying the formal requirements.
But what we're doing here is only plain guessing.
So let's wait what the lawyer in charge recommends and what the OSMF
then communicates.

-S.


2013/2/4 Russ Nelson :
> Stefan Keller writes:
>  > Just for the curious of this ridiculous U.S. trademark thing:
>  > I found another company claiming GEOCODE as trademark:
>  > http://www.markhound.com/trademark/search/WbEfGtOgm
>  > And I'm wondering what these 65 services will do
>  > http://www.programmableweb.com/apitag/geocoding
>  > especially TomTom with it's geocode.com domain...
>
> Okay, quick explanation of the US trademark system, particularly since
> it differs dramatically from the European system.
>
> In the U.S. *anybody* can claim that they have a trademark on
> something, and they can bring that claim against an infringer to a
> court of law, and present evidence in their favor of that claim, and
> of course the supposed infringer can present evidence supporting
> various theories that they aren't infringing.
>
> You can also, as an independent but related action, seek a
> registration of your trademark. That puts people on notice that you
> intend to defend your trademark in a court of law. It also serves as
> some amount of evidence that you actually DO have a trademark because
> you were the only party able to get a trademark in your field.
>
> However, the trademark status rests on the court case, not the
> registration. Until that court case is brought, a registration isn't
> worth the paper it's printed on. Until you're sued, you don't know
> whether a trademark is valid or not. And ... if you don't have a
> lawyer on staff, you'd better plan on not finding out if a trademark
> is valid or not.
>
> --
> --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
> Crynwr supports open source software
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Russ Nelson]

Stefan Keller writes:
 > Just for the curious of this ridiculous U.S. trademark thing:
 > I found another company claiming GEOCODE as trademark:
 > http://www.markhound.com/trademark/search/WbEfGtOgm
 > And I'm wondering what these 65 services will do
 > http://www.programmableweb.com/apitag/geocoding
 > especially TomTom with it's geocode.com domain...

Okay, quick explanation of the US trademark system, particularly since
it differs dramatically from the European system.

In the U.S. *anybody* can claim that they have a trademark on
something, and they can bring that claim against an infringer to a
court of law, and present evidence in their favor of that claim, and
of course the supposed infringer can present evidence supporting
various theories that they aren't infringing.

You can also, as an independent but related action, seek a
registration of your trademark. That puts people on notice that you
intend to defend your trademark in a court of law. It also serves as
some amount of evidence that you actually DO have a trademark because
you were the only party able to get a trademark in your field.

However, the trademark status rests on the court case, not the
registration. Until that court case is brought, a registration isn't
worth the paper it's printed on. Until you're sued, you don't know
whether a trademark is valid or not. And ... if you don't have a
lawyer on staff, you'd better plan on not finding out if a trademark
is valid or not.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Russ Nelson]

Simon Poole writes:
 > I've taken the time and at least on more or less current pages have
 > redone the edits with a bit a finer brush, essentially with a very small
 > number of exceptions there should be no noticeable impact on actual
 > content now.

 > I'm reaching out to our counsel to see if we can release the C&D, but
 > IMHO it is unlikely. Further I know that the statement has caused some
 > unease and questions about problematic/unproblematic use of the term in
 > question and the scope of our request to refrain from using it, I will
 > again see if we can issue a clarifying statement on that.

There's a simple way to get a copy of the C&D -- just publish the
Google Geocoding URL. Like this:

http://www.osolaw.com/areas-of-practice/professional-liability/2-uncategorised?format=feed&type=atom

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Russ Nelson]

Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.

Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
 > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
 > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the 
 > > C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers 
 > > about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about 
 > > it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case 
 > > that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues.

 > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM 
 > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in 
 > proximity of Google services.

Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having allowed
generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their trademark
was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a Google
geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.

Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
their trademark (claim).

My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.

 > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is 
 > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of 
 > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something 
 > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that 
 > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.

The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's *Google*.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Russ Nelson]

Richard Fairhurst writes:
 > Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
 > > Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of 
 > > the English language ?
 > 
 > Because we have bigger battles to fight. Let Google piss their money away on
 > defending the term "geocode". If OSM has $1m to spend, which it doesn't, I'd
 > rather it spent it on making the site easier to use and attracting more
 > mappers, rather than throwing lawyers at a trademark troll.

Exactly. There are much bigger fish in this pond, and once they crush
these idiots, "geocode" will be a generic term again. It hurts us, but
it's not a problem we need to solve.

On the other hand, there is no generic term for "geocode" NOW, so our
position should be, until advised otherwise, that "geocode" is the
generic term for "geocode". And once advised otherwise, we will
promptly knuckle under, as is appropriate for a small fish.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Russ Nelson]

Simon Poole writes:
 > As you may have noticed we have removed all links displaying the Google
 > geocoding service from the wiki. These changes are a consequence of a
 > legal issue with respect to the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc.
 > of Alexandria, Virginia, USA.

WRONG, and FAIL. First, it's not your job to enforce somebody else's
trademark. Since you didn't tell us, I can only speculate that the
OSMF received a demand letter. If so, then SURELY the letter contains
advice for the generic term for "geocode". If the letter did not
contain such a term, then you should write back to the authors of the
demand letter saying "Surely we have no intention of infringing your
trademark, so please tell us what is the generic term for geocoding? 
This should be a term which uniquely identifies the service for which
you claim "geocode" is a trademark for. Until you tell us this, we
intend to take no action, but as a good faith measure, once you tell
us, we will act as promptly as humanly possible to ensure that we do
not infringe your trademark."

The way trademarks work (and it surely seems that the OSMF is ignorant
of this hence your actions) is that a trademark is an *adjective*
modifying a *noun*. Thus, it is a Ford automobile, or an Apple
computer. Ford is the adjective, automobile is the generic
noun. Anybody is free to use the generic noun. (Or in the case of
services, adverb/verb).

Honestly, it's like you never talked to a lawyer about this.

 > If you find use of the term "geocode" on our wiki or help site
 > please replace it with a generic term (for example "search"), or
 > report it to my e-mail address.

WRONG and FAIL. "search" is not the generic term for "geocode". The
two actions are in no way related. A better term but still inadequate
for the task is "translation", since the action translates from one
addressing system into another.

The generic term for "geocode" seems to be, without any further advice
from the trademark holder, "geocode". I imagine that a generic term
could be "geographical encoding", or "geocode" for short. Oh, oops,
trademark infringing. How about "geographical translation"?
Oh, oops, "GeoTran".com exists, so they probably think that
"geographical translation" infringes their trademark.

What IS the generic term that "geocode" trademarks??? Surely the
trademark holder knows!!! The OSMF should ask them.

 > Both the use of the term "geocode" and the use of the Google API are
 > merely incidental to us.

If the Google API contains a word claimed as a trademark, I would be
happy to create a gateway which uses but does not make public the
infringing trademark. You could link to that using a generic term like
"geocode" or "geographical address translation", as you wish.

 > Please address any questions on the matter to me by e-mail

CC'ed.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Weait]

Why does a company in one country care about what a court says in another
country?

Perhaps because of a treaty where the countries mutually recognize the
decisions of the courts of the other country.

Where no treaty exists, there may be common law that allows enforcement of
the judgements of a court in another country, depending on the
circumstances.  In that case, a first court action (US) would be completed,
with a decision and perhaps an award of damages.  If the infringer decided
to ignore the US court order to pay, another court action could be brought
in UK as a contract matter, and the infringer might be ordered to pay.

That common law, contract matter may have well known exemptions.  Perhaps
only judgements for real damages will be supported by the local court, but
punitive damages will be ignored.  Perhaps sentencing judgements for the
death penalty will not be recognized.  Details will differ by the
jurisdictions and other legal details involved.

Why does a US trade mark make any difference to a company in UK?

Trade marks are jurisdictional.  If there are consumers in the
jurisdiction, then the trade mark may come into play.  So if you have a US
trade mark on your web site, and your web site has users in USA, the US
trade mark might become a matter to concern yourself with.

Again.  I'm not a lawyer.  I'm not your lawyer.  You should talk to your
lawyer if you really care about the details of a real legal matter.  This
is background information not related to any specific legal matter.

On this specific matter, OSMF will be taking advice from their lawyers,
because taking legal advice from a thread on the internet can be a long,
drawn out, exercise. :-)

What if the C&D related to all geodata in a country, rather than a trade
mark?

Simon's original post said, "Both the use of the term “geocode” and the use
of the Google API are merely incidental to us. Doing without them does not
in any way impact the core goals or operation of OSM."

I presume that OSMF would react differently for a matter that does "impact
the core goals or operation of OSM".

But "all geodata" for a country is not the issue at hand.  How much "what
if" do we want to play, here?  :-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Pieren]

After reading this long thread (not all), I naively still don't
understand where the problem is. The trademark is in US. It has been
refused in Europe. The wiki is hosted in Europe. End of story. It is
just a problem for our US colleagues to reproduce the concerned parts
of the wiki in US.
I'm just asking myself what will be the reaction of the OSMF if they
receive a C+D letter from Kim Jomg-un asking to withdraw all geodata
of North Korea because it is forbidden there.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Stefan Keller]

Just for the curious of this ridiculous U.S. trademark thing:
I found another company claiming GEOCODE as trademark:
http://www.markhound.com/trademark/search/WbEfGtOgm
And I'm wondering what these 65 services will do
http://www.programmableweb.com/apitag/geocoding
especially TomTom with it's geocode.com domain...

Yours, S.


2013/2/3 Stefan Keller :
> I support the boards's decisions not only because of being consequent
> (having elected them democratically) but because of good reasons.
>
> Although I worked next to Einstein's office (90 years later after he
> was at Swiss patent office :->) I'm not a lawyer. But I learned to be
> cautious when there's a mine - and a nasty dance - field as others
> stated here before, where lawyers are waiting alongside to make money.
> I think there is reasonable evidence that not publishing the C+D
> letter was a wise step to save money and keep options open.
>
> For those who want to fight for freedom of speech I suggest to direct
> your first anger and disappointment to the origin of the such U.S.
> trademark and copyright wars (like Richard wrote in his blog)!
>
> Like Yngve I'd like to suggest to calm down (but still commited), be
> patient (but still attentive) and save time and money for better
> reasons - unless you offer more than 5 pounds to a OSM war chest!
>
> After all, Simon immediately communicated his actions after the
> board's decision. Now let's wait what comes next after a lawyer has
> been consulted.
>
> - S.
>
> 2013/2/2 Christopher Woods (IWD) :
>>
>> On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
>>>
>>> This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the
>>> C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers
>>> about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about
>>> it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case
>>> that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues.
>>
>> I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM
>> holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in
>> proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what makes
>> this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole!
>>
>> Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it. (This
>> includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some real world
>> experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and Community TMs
>> including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity). Community members
>> are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do, there's no real reason to
>> withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no real requirement to seek legal
>> guidance prior to first publication, this can be sought after initial
>> acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their action accordingly.
>>
>> Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is not
>> an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of something
>> discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something wrong? I
>> unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that Geocode Inc. is
>> misrepresenting the situation.
>>
>>
>>> Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody
>>> do, and some patent authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into
>>> this matter, and temporarily removing potentially material is one of the
>>> steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are actually
>>> redacting the  matter in question, his edits are more a "first response",
>>> like a "we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this
>>> case turns toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the
>>> contaminated trademark, let us hope it never comes to that.
>>
>> The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States. Geocode
>> Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism (prior art, if
>> you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case!
>>
>>
>>> Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF
>>> and do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D
>>> in such a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what
>>> we always have done.
>>
>> I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping projects.
>> OSM has made great progress over the past few years.
>>
>> There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they
>> undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when no
>> such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would need
>> to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an International
>> TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the mark (including
>> the USA).
>>
>> OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a mark
>> solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks like
>> Geo

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Stefan Keller]

I support the boards's decisions not only because of being consequent
(having elected them democratically) but because of good reasons.

Although I worked next to Einstein's office (90 years later after he
was at Swiss patent office :->) I'm not a lawyer. But I learned to be
cautious when there's a mine - and a nasty dance - field as others
stated here before, where lawyers are waiting alongside to make money.
I think there is reasonable evidence that not publishing the C+D
letter was a wise step to save money and keep options open.

For those who want to fight for freedom of speech I suggest to direct
your first anger and disappointment to the origin of the such U.S.
trademark and copyright wars (like Richard wrote in his blog)!

Like Yngve I'd like to suggest to calm down (but still commited), be
patient (but still attentive) and save time and money for better
reasons - unless you offer more than 5 pounds to a OSM war chest!

After all, Simon immediately communicated his actions after the
board's decision. Now let's wait what comes next after a lawyer has
been consulted.

- S.

2013/2/2 Christopher Woods (IWD) :
>
> On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
>>
>> This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the
>> C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers
>> about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about
>> it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case
>> that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues.
>
> I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM
> holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in
> proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what makes
> this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole!
>
> Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it. (This
> includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some real world
> experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and Community TMs
> including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity). Community members
> are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do, there's no real reason to
> withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no real requirement to seek legal
> guidance prior to first publication, this can be sought after initial
> acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their action accordingly.
>
> Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is not
> an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of something
> discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something wrong? I
> unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that Geocode Inc. is
> misrepresenting the situation.
>
>
>> Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody
>> do, and some patent authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into
>> this matter, and temporarily removing potentially material is one of the
>> steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are actually
>> redacting the  matter in question, his edits are more a "first response",
>> like a "we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this
>> case turns toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the
>> contaminated trademark, let us hope it never comes to that.
>
> The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States. Geocode
> Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism (prior art, if
> you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case!
>
>
>> Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF
>> and do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D
>> in such a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what
>> we always have done.
>
> I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping projects.
> OSM has made great progress over the past few years.
>
> There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they
> undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when no
> such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would need
> to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an International
> TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the mark (including
> the USA).
>
> OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a mark
> solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks like
> Geocode tried to do). With it costing 600 Euros just to renew a CTM for ten
> years, I expect they don't think it's worth their while to file for an
> International trade mark... Given their existing refusal it's reasonable to
> assume they'd never get it. Geocode are trade mark trolling!
>
>
>> I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far
>> as I have understood from the information already leaked) totally
>> unacceptable, but ha

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Christopher Woods (IWD)]

On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:

This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the C+D, 
didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers about advise 
in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about it. It is not a 
sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy 
as trademark and copyright issues.
I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM 
holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in 
proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what 
makes this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole!


Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it. 
(This includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some 
real world experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and 
Community TMs including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity). 
Community members are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do, 
there's no real reason to withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no 
real requirement to seek legal guidance prior to first publication, this 
can be sought after initial acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their 
action accordingly.


Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a C&D is 
not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of 
something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done something 
wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that 
Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.



Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody do, and some patent 
authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into this matter, and temporarily removing 
potentially material is one of the steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are 
actually redacting the  matter in question, his edits are more a "first response", 
like a "we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this case turns 
toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the contaminated trademark, let us 
hope it never comes to that.
The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States. 
Geocode Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism 
(prior art, if you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case!



Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF and 
do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D in such 
a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what we always 
have done.
I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping 
projects. OSM has made great progress over the past few years.


There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they 
undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when 
no such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would 
need to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an 
International TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the 
mark (including the USA).


OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a 
mark solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks 
like Geocode tried to do). With it costing 600 Euros just to renew a CTM 
for ten years, I expect they don't think it's worth their while to file 
for an International trade mark... Given their existing refusal it's 
reasonable to assume they'd never get it. Geocode are trade mark trolling!



I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far as I 
have understood from the information already leaked) totally unacceptable, but 
have put myself with patience, at least until SimonPoole and OSMF have had time 
to get a formal advise from any legal partner.
Without seeing the specifics of the C&D (and now we're talking in 
circles), I still believe that any legal counsel worth their salt would 
instruct OSMF to refer Geocode to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram. 
I'm willing to stake five of the Queen's English pounds on this ;-)


If the legal advice substantially differs, I'll double this £5 then 
donate to the Foundation's fighting fund, and I'll become a paid-up OSMF 
member. May still become an OSMF member to vote in the next Board elections.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Johan C]

I'm not a lawyer with experience in this area, so for me it would make no
sense to take a look at the C&D at this moment. If there's such a lawyer
among the readers of this list or in our related friends/family, he/she can
advice the OSMF board directly with the needed level of professional
advice. And maybe such an advice would be that we shouldn't fight, but let
others with more money do the fight. Let OSMF move on to protect the use of
the word and logo Openstreetmap. And let us help OSMF in that to look out
for malicious people who want to abuse our logo and name somewhere in this
world.

Cheers, Johan

2013/2/2 Richard Weait 

> You might think that OSMF is not being transparent enough at this point.
> I think we'll learn more in time.  I've gone into detail on my blog if you
> want more words.  :-)
>
> But, looking at the C&D as a negotiation, it would be foolish to discuss
> settlement terms in advance in public.  For example, if OSMF as a
> settlement were to decide, "we'll ask the person for $1 million to settle
> this, but we'll take $200,000 at the low end", well, that would be silly.
> You've just told the other side to offer 200k as a counter.
>
> So some of this will stay less-transparent, at least for a while.  Many
> more words on my site, about litigation and trade marks in general.
>
> http://weait.com/trade-mark-2
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Weait]

You might think that OSMF is not being transparent enough at this point.  I
think we'll learn more in time.  I've gone into detail on my blog if you
want more words.  :-)

But, looking at the C&D as a negotiation, it would be foolish to discuss
settlement terms in advance in public.  For example, if OSMF as a
settlement were to decide, "we'll ask the person for $1 million to settle
this, but we'll take $200,000 at the low end", well, that would be silly.
You've just told the other side to offer 200k as a counter.

So some of this will stay less-transparent, at least for a while.  Many
more words on my site, about litigation and trade marks in general.

http://weait.com/trade-mark-2
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Aun Yngve Johnsen]

This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the C+D, 
didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers about advise 
in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about it. It is not a 
sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy 
as trademark and copyright issues.

Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody do, 
and some patent authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into this 
matter, and temporarily removing potentially material is one of the steps. As 
far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are actually redacting the  matter 
in question, his edits are more a "first response", like a "we have recieved 
your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this case turns toxic maybe 
SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the contaminated trademark, let 
us hope it never comes to that.

Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF and 
do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D in such 
a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what we always 
have done.

I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far as I 
have understood from the information already leaked) totally unacceptable, but 
have put myself with patience, at least until SimonPoole and OSMF have had time 
to get a formal advise from any legal partner.

Aun Johnsen


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Kai Krueger]

Jean-Marc Liotier wrote
> Is a cease & desist letter all it takes for the OSMF to cave in to silly
> demands from random parties ? Can't we at least make a symbolic stand
> and let the aggressor escalate before we capitulate ? From a purely
> material point of view, that would be cheap publicity for the project.
> 
> I thought that a free software project such as Openstreetmap (yes -
> geographic data is software too) would have, out of its principles,
> shown a stronger backbone under such disgusting pressure. I am
> disappointed.

Do you really want the OSMF to gamble all of OSM's server infrastructure and
other resources on a random legal battle about a possibly invalid trademark?
Particularly without first a thorough due diligence of getting qualified
legal advice from their counsel?

These trademark issues seem have the potential to quickly escalate to
$100.000s of dollars in cost. Either for legal fees or for damage fees if
one looses. That is more or at least on the order of the entire assets of
the OSMF. Is it really worth that risk to "show a stronger backbone"?
Particularly as it isn't impossible to first comply and then if after
thorough consideration or due to negotiations with the originator the matter
is resolved reinstate those changes.

So far I have seen no changes that actually negatively impact the project in
any real way other than for ideological reasons. So complying in the short
term doesn't seem to be an immediate problem.

That said, I do hope the board will work intensely together with legal
counsel and the rest of the community to find a way to dismiss these
seemingly ridiculous claims (although I don't yet understand what exactly
the issue is or what the C&D actually covers).

Given the genericness of the term geocode, I would assume that a number of
larger companies might equally be effected who have much more resources than
OSMF to defend against these claims. Or a another question is what is
different about the use in OSM that they specifically targeted the OSMF?

Kai




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p574.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Kai Krueger]

Jochen123 wrote
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 04:45:56PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
>> I'm reaching out to our counsel to see if we can release the C&D, but
>> IMHO it is unlikely. Further I know that the statement has caused some
> 
> Come on. That's rediculous. What's this? A secret government order? What
> do you
> fear will happen if you publish it?

If I am not mistaken, non of the OSMF board are lawyers. So it is not really
in their realm of expertise to know what will happen legally. However, it is
clear that one wrong move in these legal battles has the potential for
serious consequences either for the individual or OSM(F) as a whole. So it
makes absolute sense that the OSMF board first consults with legal counsel
to be on the safe side! After all, once something is published on the
internet you can't take it back if it turns out to be a mistake.

That said, I very much hope that the letter can be published so that more
people can judge its consequences and for OSM to possibly get some "sympathy
PR" out of it, as it does seem ridiculous that they would try and forbid the
use of the term geocoding (btw, is it just one spelling that is trademarked
and e.g. geo-coding or geo coding ist fine?).

But then if you look at the fact that e.g. Apple has seemingly managed to
design-patent a device with round edges or that Deutsche Telekom tried to
defend a trademark on the generic colour magenta (which apparently cost a 4
man start-up  over 60.000 EUR in legal fees to defend against and if they
had lost would have cost them in the range of a million EURs), it is clear
that this area of law is illogical, insane and an absolute mine field!

Kai




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747775.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Peter Barth]

Hi all, hi Simon,

I tried to wait a day and think about what's been written and to calm
down about this unspeakable issue. But I can't stop myself from 
replying.

I don't mind about the word/trademark GEOCODE, nor do I mind about your
wiki changes. But what makes me furious is your/the OSMF's handling of a
community project.

Simon Poole wrote:
> Please address any questions on the matter to me by e-mail and not to
> the list.
 
It is unacceptable that an issue like this is/should be processed in a
private manner when in fact everyone in the community is concerned. 
Second, I'd like to see the C&D. As a matter of course this should be 
the first thing that happens: Publish the C&D before any other actions 
are taken, even before you contact a laywer.

I'm really disappointed and angry about this issue. What happens here is 
not the understanding of a *community project* I have. I'd like the OSMF
to become more democratic and community based. It should be the mappers
that decide and be able to decide (and thereby I don't mean voting some 
members every few years) and not the board. Therefore, it would be a 
great start if OSMF members could file a motion that has to be decided 
on (mine would be to publish the C&D ;)). I also still hope, Frederik 
will give a statement in this thread, too.

Peda

-- 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 02/01/2013 07:47 PM, f.dos.san...@free.fr wrote:
> It's here :
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/19wLhnezowHBio9zGaJkNaCbDX-gmWNHUSdx1kdQJYY0/edit


  /"Cease+Desist letter "Geocode(TM)"/

/OSMF received C+D letter from someone who trademarked the word
"Geocode(TM)" and asks us to remove all references to this from our web
site where it is connected in some way with Google services. Simon is in
contact with a lawyer about this. We might actually remove the few
occurrences because they are not essential to us."/

Is a cease & desist letter all it takes for the OSMF to cave in to silly
demands from random parties ? Can't we at least make a symbolic stand
and let the aggressor escalate before we capitulate ? From a purely
material point of view, that would be cheap publicity for the project.

I thought that a free software project such as Openstreetmap (yes -
geographic data is software too) would have, out of its principles,
shown a stronger backbone under such disgusting pressure. I am disappointed.

The OSMF board's action are the precautionary measures that best protect
the interests of the Openstreetmap project in the strictest sense and in
the short term. But while we may acknowledge the wisdom of precaution
before rash reaction, do we really want to project the image of a
project that can be so easily pushed around ? Is that in our best
interests ?

And more important : are those the actions that best foster the spirit
embodied by a project whose members have a strong interest in protecting
the commons.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jochen Topf]

On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 04:45:56PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
> I'm reaching out to our counsel to see if we can release the C&D, but
> IMHO it is unlikely. Further I know that the statement has caused some

Come on. That's rediculous. What's this? A secret government order? What do you
fear will happen if you publish it?

Thousands of C&D letters have been published on http://www.chillingeffects.org/ 
.
What makes you think that this one is so special that you can't do that?

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Alex Barth]

On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

>  If you find use of the term “geocode” on our wiki or help site please 
> replace it with a generic term (for example "search"), or report it to my 
> e-mail address.

Hey Simon - I find this hard to believe. Can you confirm that OSMF was 
requested to entirely cease the use of the term 'geocode' in any of its 
properties? If that's the case, I wonder how much legal ground this has. Even 
if it was sadly possible for someone to trademark an everyday term it seems we 
should be able to use it in documentation like the wiki, in help forums, in a 
blog article, etc.

Can you publish the notice?

> 
> Both the use of the term “geocode” and the use of the Google API are merely 
> incidental to us. Doing without them does not in any way impact the core 
> goals or operation of OSM.
> 
> Please address any questions on the matter to me by e-mail and not to the 
> list. 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Simon
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Simon Poole]

I've taken the time and at least on more or less current pages have
redone the edits with a bit a finer brush, essentially with a very small
number of exceptions there should be no noticeable impact on actual
content now.

I'm reaching out to our counsel to see if we can release the C&D, but
IMHO it is unlikely. Further I know that the statement has caused some
unease and questions about problematic/unproblematic use of the term in
question and the scope of our request to refrain from using it, I will
again see if we can issue a clarifying statement on that.

Simon


 
Am 01.02.2013 19:41, schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> Because of the time constraints the removal of the google links is
> quite rough, however most (as in all except a handful)  of the links
> were either old, outdated, or/and unused, as for example essentially
> all links to old errors in Google maps based on TeleAtlas data, which
> should have been deleted years ago. Naturally you can add back
> sanitized links, however I would in general question why we would want
> to use google data in our own documentation in the first place (that
> is naturally a different discussion).
>
> As for the rest Jeff Meyer has summarized it nicely.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 01.02.2013 18:57, schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> > Hi. Regardless of that trademark business, I've checked Simon's edits and 
> > they mostly
> consist of removing links to google maps, which contain empty
> "geocode" parameter and them (and many other redundant parameters that
> editors didn't bother to omit). Some of the edits are quite funny, for
> example,
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Essex_Way&diff=prev&oldid=861689
> (removed a link to display kml with google maps).
> >
> > I cannot understand why links to google maps have become prohibited
> in our wiki, but there are probably one or two meaningful edits and
> lots of what can be called vandalism. For example, cleaning "Copyright
> Easter Eggs" pages from links to mentioned easter eggs.
> >
> > So, I vote for 1) reverting all those edits; 2) explaining in detail
> what is prohibited (what words, which links etc.) and what is not; 3)
> editing wiki more thoroughly, so every edit could be understood.
> >
> >
> > IZ
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Paweł Paprota]

On 02/02/2013 02:38 PM, Ed Loach wrote:

As far as I can see, OSMF Ltd is very like KDE ev; compare
http://blog.osmfoundation.org/about/ and
http://ev.kde.org/whatiskdeev.php


Legal status is the least of what I meant. Compare what OSMF does with
this quarterly report from the KDE foundation:

http://ev.kde.org/reports/ev-quarterly-2012_Q3.pdf

Not only is all this stuff happening but they also have people who
prepare such a nice quarterly report.

Also note fund raising efforts, expenses and donations, partners, new
members etc.

This is an organization that actually supports the community in their
efforts. And they are not "evil" in doing that.

What can be done to steer OSMF into that direction? Can it be even done
at this point?

Paweł

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Johan C]

+1 to many responses in this thread. I'm in favour of a bit more
centralized steering of OSM. Not only by OSMF, but also by other people
(within and outside working groups) who will put a bit more coordinated
energy in thinking about strenghts, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Like addressing this threat:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2012-December/001951.html

And luckily the board acts on this (source:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19wLhnezowHBio9zGaJkNaCbDX-gmWNHUSdx1kdQJYY0/edit#
):
*The board resolves to strengthen the OSMF position with respect to its
intellectual property, in particular trade and service marks. The board
requests the Chairman to engage suitable, cost effective, legal support to
a) register the OpenStreetMap mark and logo in the USA, if not possible as
separate marks, as a combined mark.
b) register the same in any other territories key to the further
development of OSM (example: Russia)
c) the same as for any other potentially valuable marks (including
registration in the EU)
d) to complete the transfer of the EU OpenStreetMap mark to the OSMF *

It would be unimaginable if we couldn't use the word Openstreetmap anymore
in the Wiki, because someone in some state on this globe trademarks it :-)

I also believe it's simply not always possible to have 100% transparancy,
so I like Simon's offer to address him personally.

Let's act on these kind of threats (go on with that, OSMF), and let's act
on other important things for the future of OSM, with a bit more
coordination.

Cheers, Johan

2013/2/2 Alex Barth 

> On Friday, February 1, 2013, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> If you find use of the term “geocode” on our wiki or help site please
>> replace it with a generic term (for example "search"), or report it to my
>> e-mail address.
>>
>>
> Hey Simon - I find this hard to believe. Can you confirm that OSMF was
> requested to entirely cease the use of the term 'geocode' in any of its
> properties? If that's the case, I wonder how much legal ground this has.
> Even if it was sadly possible for someone to trademark an everyday term it
> seems we should be able to use it in documentation like the wiki, in help
> forums, in a blog article, etc.
>
>
>>
> Can you publish the notice?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Alex Barth]

On Friday, February 1, 2013, Simon Poole wrote:

> If you find use of the term “geocode” on our wiki or help site please
> replace it with a generic term (for example "search"), or report it to my
> e-mail address.
>
>
Hey Simon - I find this hard to believe. Can you confirm that OSMF was
requested to entirely cease the use of the term 'geocode' in any of its
properties? If that's the case, I wonder how much legal ground this has.
Even if it was sadly possible for someone to trademark an everyday term it
seems we should be able to use it in documentation like the wiki, in help
forums, in a blog article, etc.


>
Can you publish the notice?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Paweł Paprota]

On 02/01/2013 08:54 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

I agree with what you're saying although I can't help thinking that
if the OSMF can't take the risk of having some things in the wiki,
the solution, for everyone's benefit, is to move the wiki to a server
that's not paid for by the OSMF.  I'm positive finding such a server
wouldn't be difficult (in fact the home page says it is hosted at UCL
& ByteMark -- so if the OSMF is neither hosting nor writing the
content, should it accept the C+D?  The admins *are* OSMF members,
but they're not OSMF). The OSMF has at some point started assuming
responsibility for what is being published in the database and now on
the wiki.  In the case of the database it makes sense for someone to
give some level of warranty that the data in it in fact is legally
usable, although the consequences of this step have had a terrible
effect on the map and the community so far.


+100

Current situation is getting silly to the point that I'm seriously
considering abandoning this project and leaving history tab, vector
tiles and my other projects unfinished just to have peace of mind and
work in a sane project with sane organization behind it like KDE.

On one hand OSMF is telling us they don't want any strategic planning
and involvement, on the other they are redacting and editing data and
wiki. And this is possible mostly because what Andrzej said - that they
host the servers (which I am personally grateful for - to the admins -
no to people who use it for political bullshit like this).

This is NOT how a project should work and you will only discourage
people by doing such stunts.

Either finally get your act together and prepare a proper organization
like KDE e.v (http://ev.kde.org/) or get out of the project and
leave it be. There is still plenty of energy that will fill the void
after you (I'm talking to OSMF).

Paweł

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Paweł Paprota]

On 02/01/2013 04:22 PM, Simon Poole wrote:

Please address any questions on the matter to me by e-mail and not to
the list.


Why?

Paweł


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Paul Norman]

> From: Ilya Zverev [mailto:zve...@textual.ru]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
> 
> Hi. Since no one has explained, I'd quote a part from OSMF Board Meeting
> Minutes:
> 
> > OSMF received C+D letter from someone who trademarked the word
> > “Geocode(TM)” and asks us to remove all references to this from our
> > web site where it is connected in some way with Google services. Simon
> > is in contact with a lawyer about this. We might actually remove the
> > few occurrences because they are not essential to us.
> 
> So, you can still use "geocode" as a word. But you cannot, as it seems,
> use it in relation with Google services. That is, no "geocode using
> google" and such. That's why some links to Google Maps were removed. I
> don't know about Nominatim, especially MapQuest's Nominatim, but to be
> on a safe side, better use "search". And if you don't mention any
> services, you can use that word freely, as in "now having parsed
> coordinates, do the reverse geocoding to aquire their human-readable
> locations". After all, the wikipedia page for "Geocoding" doesn't
> mention any trademarks (although it has Google Maps as its first
> reference).

I have no more information than what's publically available but my bet is that 
the trademark owner is going after Google. Without any more detail than what 
has been released it's hard to say, but I quite understand if the board is 
holding off on releasing more details until after they get more legal advice.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Michael Kugelmann]

On 01.02.2013 22:07, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
The verb 'to geocode' is generic English language word and I'll stand 
by that even if a US court decides otherwise.

+1
And there was also mentioned that tradmark was rejected in EU.
Additionally: if i search for the some information in the WWW I always 
found the trademark for GEOCODE in all capital letters. =>  a question 
to all experts: does this matter? I guess so...

http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/wipo/geocode/1131057
http://socialmedia.trademarkia.com/socialmedia/username-geocode-78663072.htm
http://www.trademarks411.com/marks/78663072-geocode
...even if I search at the USPTO directly:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3A48lrkt.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=GEOCODE&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query



Best regards,
Michael.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Fairhurst]

Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> What about mailing list archives? Will the OSMF then start deleting 
> emails if they contain Google Maps links?

I'd quite like the OSMF to start deleting e-mails that don't quote the
previous message properly. ;)

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747682.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

You mentioned cleaning up the Wiki and the Help Q&A site.

What about mailing list archives? Will the OSMF then start deleting emails
if they contain Google Maps links?


On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> Because of the time constraints the removal of the google links is quite
> rough, however most (as in all except a handful)  of the links were either
> old, outdated, or/and unused, as for example essentially all links to old
> errors in Google maps based on TeleAtlas data, which should have been
> deleted years ago. Naturally you can add back sanitized links, however I
> would in general question why we would want to use google data in our own
> documentation in the first place (that is naturally a different discussion).
>
> As for the rest Jeff Meyer has summarized it nicely.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 01.02.2013 18:57, schrieb Ilya Zverev:
>
> > Hi. Regardless of that trademark business, I've checked Simon's edits
> and they mostly consist of removing links to google maps, which contain
> empty "geocode" parameter and them (and many other redundant parameters
> that editors didn't bother to omit). Some of the edits are quite funny, for
> example,
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Essex_Way&diff=prev&oldid=861689(removed
>  a link to display kml with google maps).
> >
> > I cannot understand why links to google maps have become prohibited in
> our wiki, but there are probably one or two meaningful edits and lots of
> what can be called vandalism. For example, cleaning "Copyright Easter Eggs"
> pages from links to mentioned easter eggs.
> >
> > So, I vote for 1) reverting all those edits; 2) explaining in detail
> what is prohibited (what words, which links etc.) and what is not; 3)
> editing wiki more thoroughly, so every edit could be understood.
> >
> >
> > IZ
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 02/01/2013 08:54 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 1 February 2013 19:06, Jeff Meyer  > wrote:
>
>
> Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund
> your alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds
> or what other OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this
> plan.
>
>
> I agree with what you're saying although I can't help thinking that if
> the OSMF can't take the risk of having some things in the wiki, the
> solution, for everyone's benefit, is to move the wiki to a server
> that's not paid for by the OSMF.  I'm positive finding such a server
> wouldn't be difficult (in fact the home page says it is hosted at UCL
> & ByteMark -- so if the OSMF is neither hosting nor writing the
> content, should it accept the C+D?  The admins *are* OSMF members, but
> they're not OSMF).

Bad idea because a link to the OSMF can still be established.

But it reminds me of an obvious response - let's streisand them ! I have
no relationship to the OSMF in any way and I volunteer to mirror the
wiki with the infringing words - read-only since I have limited
processing power on my host. Does anyone have an archive of the latest
infringing version ? Let's produce a mirroring kit and spread it far and
wide !

The verb 'to geocode' is generic English language word and I'll stand by
that even if a US court decides otherwise. Silly fight ? Yes - I have
absolutely no skill whatsoever in choosing my battles ! Good thing I'm
not a US citizen.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

If there were no BoD, but OSM were still a true crowd driven

organization, there would not have been a place to address this
notice

 

Put up a tree and you are sure to catch wind !

 

Geert

 

Van: Jeff Meyer [mailto:j...@gwhat.org] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 1 februari 2013 19:07
Aan: Manfred A. Reiter
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

 

Team - 

 

The OSMF BoD is doing the job for which its members were elected. Thank
goodness.

 

There's a trademark. We've been served notice (I believe). The board has
made a decision. The chairman of the board (probably a (tm) term...) has
communicated this decision.

 

Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund your
alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds or what
other OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this plan.

 

Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing,
but these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers,
not well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral
and ethical constructs and not law.

 

Personally, I'm glad the OSMF BoD is taking care of this so I don't have
to. As Mr. W said, I'd rather be mapping...

 

- Jeff

 

 

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Manfred A. Reiter 
wrote:

On 01/02/13 17:49, Richard Weait wrote:

> @andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by
USPTO
>
> http://weait.com/content/trade-mark
>
> Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is
likely to be
> able to do so very simply.

Oh, come on:

"Get up, stand up..." and "I shot the sheriff" come to my mind.

I always hear money. Is that really all that counts.

Let us fight and win and not behave like the octopuses want us
to.

 

+1

 

This would be much better publicity than we can get by
connecting our social
community with main stream social media.

 

+1 

 

 

 

 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk





 

-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347

  <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer>  osm: Historical OSM
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM>  / my OSM user page
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> 

 t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory> 

 f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory> 

 

 

<<~WRD000.jpg>>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 1 February 2013 19:06, Jeff Meyer  wrote:

> The OSMF BoD is doing the job for which its members were elected. Thank
> goodness.
>
> There's a trademark. We've been served notice (I believe). The board has
> made a decision. The chairman of the board (probably a (tm) term...) has
> communicated this decision.
>
> Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund your
> alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds or what other
> OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this plan.
>

I agree with what you're saying although I can't help thinking that if the
OSMF can't take the risk of having some things in the wiki, the solution,
for everyone's benefit, is to move the wiki to a server that's not paid for
by the OSMF.  I'm positive finding such a server wouldn't be difficult (in
fact the home page says it is hosted at UCL & ByteMark -- so if the OSMF is
neither hosting nor writing the content, should it accept the C+D?  The
admins *are* OSMF members, but they're not OSMF).  The OSMF has at some
point started assuming responsibility for what is being published in the
database and now on the wiki.  In the case of the database it makes sense
for someone to give some level of warranty that the data in it in fact is
legally usable, although the consequences of this step have had a terrible
effect on the map and the community so far.


> Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing, but
> these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers, not
> well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral and
> ethical constructs and not law.
>

You know, anything someone will say, who is not the judge, is just a well
reasoned argument (or not that well reasoned) and the law will have a final
word.  Doesn't mean that someone pointing out that the law makes it
unlikely for the owner of the GEOCODE trademark to sue a company in UK, or
for it to be costly to resolve, shouldn't be listened to.

Cheers
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[John F. Eldredge]

f.dos.san...@free.fr wrote:

> It's here :
> 
> https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/19wLhnezowHBio9zGaJkNaCbDX-gmWNHUSdx1kdQJYY0/edit
> 
> 
> - Mail original -
> From: "Cartinus" 
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Date: 01/02/2013 19:32:44
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
> 
> >O really, we've been officially served? Then that should not be a
> secret
> >is it?
> >
> >Please put whatever communication the OSMF received in a place we can
> >see. So we know what is actually "forbidden". Stop treating the
> >volunteers as mushrooms.
> >
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

You did not give a link to the actual cease-and-desist letter, as requested; 
you only gave a link to minutes stating that such a letter had been received.  
So, ordinary rank-and-file mappers still haven't been told the details of what 
is forbidden.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi. Since no one has explained, I'd quote a part from OSMF Board 
Meeting Minutes:


OSMF received C+D letter from someone who trademarked the word 
“Geocode(TM)” and asks us to remove all references to this from our web 
site where it is connected in some way with Google services. Simon is 
in contact with a lawyer about this. We might actually remove the few 
occurrences because they are not essential to us.


So, you can still use "geocode" as a word. But you cannot, as it seems, 
use it in relation with Google services. That is, no "geocode using 
google" and such. That's why some links to Google Maps were removed. I 
don't know about Nominatim, especially MapQuest's Nominatim, but to be 
on a safe side, better use "search". And if you don't mention any 
services, you can use that word freely, as in "now having parsed 
coordinates, do the reverse geocoding to aquire their human-readable 
locations". After all, the wikipedia page for "Geocoding" doesn't 
mention any trademarks (although it has Google Maps as its first 
reference).


IZ

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[f . dos . santos]

It's here :

https://docs.google.com/a/osmfoundation.org/document/d/19wLhnezowHBio9zGaJkNaCbDX-gmWNHUSdx1kdQJYY0/edit


- Mail original -
From: "Cartinus" 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Date: 01/02/2013 19:32:44
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

>O really, we've been officially served? Then that should not be a secret
>is it?
>
>Please put whatever communication the OSMF received in a place we can
>see. So we know what is actually "forbidden". Stop treating the
>volunteers as mushrooms.
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Simon Poole]

Because of the time constraints the removal of the google links is quite
rough, however most (as in all except a handful)  of the links were
either old, outdated, or/and unused, as for example essentially all
links to old errors in Google maps based on TeleAtlas data, which should
have been deleted years ago. Naturally you can add back sanitized links,
however I would in general question why we would want to use google data
in our own documentation in the first place (that is naturally a
different discussion).

As for the rest Jeff Meyer has summarized it nicely.

Simon

Am 01.02.2013 18:57, schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> Hi. Regardless of that trademark business, I've checked Simon's edits and 
> they mostly consist
of removing links to google maps, which contain empty "geocode"
parameter and them (and many other redundant parameters that editors
didn't bother to omit). Some of the edits are quite funny, for example,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Essex_Way&diff=prev&oldid=861689
(removed a link to display kml with google maps).
>
> I cannot understand why links to google maps have become prohibited in
our wiki, but there are probably one or two meaningful edits and lots of
what can be called vandalism. For example, cleaning "Copyright Easter
Eggs" pages from links to mentioned easter eggs.
>
> So, I vote for 1) reverting all those edits; 2) explaining in detail
what is prohibited (what words, which links etc.) and what is not; 3)
editing wiki more thoroughly, so every edit could be understood.
>
>
> IZ
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Cartinus]

On 02/01/2013 07:06 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> We've been served notice (I believe).

O really, we've been officially served? Then that should not be a secret
is it?

Please put whatever communication the OSMF received in a place we can
see. So we know what is actually "forbidden". Stop treating the
volunteers as mushrooms.

As Ilya just pointed out, the edits to the wiki look really weird. With
the tiny bit of information we have been given, it actually looks as if
Simon removed too much.

-- 
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Michael Krämer]

Am 01.02.2013 19:06, schrieb Jeff Meyer:

Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing, but
these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers, not
well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral and
ethical constructs and not law.
I fully agree - this is not about argument or logic but about laws. 
Unfortunately also about US laws where things easily get really, really 
expensive. Those large cooperations tend settle these things for 
millions simply because legal action is unpredictable in it's outcome 
and even more expensive.


Yes, I would like the story to end with David winning against Goliath. 
But I there's quite some risk that this could end up more like Achilles' 
story...



Personally, I'm glad the OSMF BoD is taking care of this so I don't have
to. As Mr. W said, I'd rather be mapping...
Yes, let's use our manpower for mapping, not for fighting possibly 
invalid trademarks.


Michael

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Christopher Woods (IWD)]

On 01/02/2013 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2013/2/1 Simon Poole :

issue with respect to the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc. of
Alexandria, Virginia, USA. There are likely to be further related edits and
changes both on the wiki and the help site. Please do not add such removed
links back or undo any such edits. If you find use of the term “geocode” on
our wiki or help site please replace it with a generic term (for example
"search"), or report it to my e-mail address.


What about replacing it with the German term "geokode" ?

I fully support what been written by colliar and joto. What comes
next? Corporation inc. registering a trademark for mapping party,
mapper or crowd-sourced?

cheers,
Martin
IMHO if they are arguing solely upon basis of the word then Geocode's 
lawyer's argument is specious. To that end, they're just trademark 
trolling in a retcon attempt to show defence of a trade mark they 
shouldn't arguably have been granted in the first place.


On what grounds do they issue the C&D against OSMF? Has it been detailed 
anywhere? I'm very curious about the contents of the issued C&D if one 
exists and I'd very much like to see the notice. (Happy to discuss by 
email with relevant people off-list).


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/2/1 Simon Poole :
> issue with respect to the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc. of
> Alexandria, Virginia, USA. There are likely to be further related edits and
> changes both on the wiki and the help site. Please do not add such removed
> links back or undo any such edits. If you find use of the term “geocode” on
> our wiki or help site please replace it with a generic term (for example
> "search"), or report it to my e-mail address.


What about replacing it with the German term "geokode" ?

I fully support what been written by colliar and joto. What comes
next? Corporation inc. registering a trademark for mapping party,
mapper or crowd-sourced?

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jeff Meyer]

Team -

The OSMF BoD is doing the job for which its members were elected. Thank
goodness.

There's a trademark. We've been served notice (I believe). The board has
made a decision. The chairman of the board (probably a (tm) term...) has
communicated this decision.

Fine, disagree, but please disagree with a plan for how to fund your
alternate plan, describing in detail the source of new funds or what other
OSMF activities should be de-funded to support this plan.

Yes, it sounds silly to trademark geocode, yes, it's a US-only thing, but
these issues are solved in courts, with real money for real lawyers, not
well-reasoned arguments on email threads supported by personal moral and
ethical constructs and not law.

Personally, I'm glad the OSMF BoD is taking care of this so I don't have
to. As Mr. W said, I'd rather be mapping...

- Jeff


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:

> On 01/02/13 17:49, Richard Weait wrote:
>
>> > @andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by USPTO
>> >
>> > http://weait.com/content/trade-mark
>> >
>> > Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is likely to be
>> > able to do so very simply.
>>
>> Oh, come on:
>>
>> "Get up, stand up..." and "I shot the sheriff" come to my mind.
>>
>> I always hear money. Is that really all that counts.
>>
>> Let us fight and win and not behave like the octopuses want us to.
>>
>
> +1
>
>
>> This would be much better publicity than we can get by connecting our
>> social
>> community with main stream social media.
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
 osm: Historical
OSM
 / my OSM user page 
 t: @GWHAThistory 
 f: GWHAThistory 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi. Regardless of that trademark business, I've checked Simon's edits 
and they mostly consist of removing links to google maps, which contain 
empty "geocode" parameter and them (and many other redundant parameters 
that editors didn't bother to omit). Some of the edits are quite funny, 
for example, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Essex_Way&diff=prev&oldid=861689 
(removed a link to display kml with google maps).


I cannot understand why links to google maps have become prohibited in 
our wiki, but there are probably one or two meaningful edits and lots of 
what can be called vandalism. For example, cleaning "Copyright Easter 
Eggs" pages from links to mentioned easter eggs.


So, I vote for 1) reverting all those edits; 2) explaining in detail 
what is prohibited (what words, which links etc.) and what is not; 3) 
editing wiki more thoroughly, so every edit could be understood.



IZ

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Manfred A. Reiter]

On 01/02/13 17:49, Richard Weait wrote:

> > @andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by USPTO
> >
> > http://weait.com/content/trade-mark
> >
> > Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is likely to be
> > able to do so very simply.
>
> Oh, come on:
>
> "Get up, stand up..." and "I shot the sheriff" come to my mind.
>
> I always hear money. Is that really all that counts.
>
> Let us fight and win and not behave like the octopuses want us to.
>

+1


> This would be much better publicity than we can get by connecting our
> social
> community with main stream social media.


+1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[colliar]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 01/02/13 17:49, Richard Weait wrote:
> @andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by USPTO
> 
> http://weait.com/content/trade-mark
> 
> Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is likely to be
> able to do so very simply.

Oh, come on:

"Get up, stand up..." and "I shot the sheriff" come to my mind.

I always hear money. Is that really all that counts.

Let us fight and win and not behave like the octopuses want us to.

This would be much better publicity than we can get by connecting our social
community with main stream social media.

Colliar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREIAAYFAlEL+EoACgkQalWTFLzqsCuRsQCfbqBiqDNk3LB8412/D2YjA7m4
4CsAmwVoYlF8N3fjQYqg2S1GYXmSsjCY
=8bV/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Weait]

Now, I'm going mapping. :-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Weait]

@andres / @cartinus, such a trade mark has been issued by USPTO

http://weait.com/content/trade-mark

Anyone who cares to pick up this fight with their money, is likely to be
able to do so very simply.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jochen Topf]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:14:23AM -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> > Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of 
> > the English language ?
> 
> Because we have bigger battles to fight. Let Google piss their money away on
> defending the term "geocode". If OSM has $1m to spend, which it doesn't, I'd
> rather it spent it on making the site easier to use and attracting more
> mappers, rather than throwing lawyers at a trademark troll.

There is no way to get rid of bullies but to stand up to them. That was right
in kindergarden and it is right in the real world.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Cartinus]

If you search for "geocode" in the EU trademark database[1], then you'll
find that the trademark was refused last year, with no possibility for
appeal.


[1]


-- 
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Steve Doerr]

On 01/02/2013 16:26, Pierre Béland wrote:

It seems that the term geocode was first used in the fourtheen century 
and comes from old french. Google trademark?

See http://www.memidex.com/geocode


I think you'll find that's the word 'code', not 'geocode'.

--
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Pierre Béland]

Should we distinguish between the service and the usage of the name geocode?

It seems that the term geocode was first used in the fourtheen century and 
comes from old french. Google trademark?
See http://www.memidex.com/geocode


 
Pierre 



>
> De : Richard Fairhurst 
>À : talk@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Vendredi 1 février 2013 11h14
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
> 
>Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
>> Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of 
>> the English language ?
>
>Because we have bigger battles to fight. Let Google piss their money away on
>defending the term "geocode". If OSM has $1m to spend, which it doesn't, I'd
>rather it spent it on making the site easier to use and attracting more
>mappers, rather than throwing lawyers at a trademark troll.
>
>cheers
>Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context: 
>http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747607.html
>Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Cartinus]

Plugging "google geocode trademark issue" and several variations of it
in three different search engines didn't give any meaningful results.

So unless you can explain to us why a foundation in the UK with servers
in the UK should be bothered by a trademark conflict between two other
parties on the other side of the Atlantic I'm going to ignore the
request not to use the word geocode.

On 02/01/2013 05:06 PM, Andreas Labres wrote:
> On 01.02.13 16:48, Jochen Topf wrote:
>> I don't think use of the English language is "merely incidental" to what we 
>> are
>> doing here. Can you explain why we suddenly can't use words from the English
>> language any more? ... And no, I don't think this is something for private 
>> emails.
> 
> 100% agreed.
> 
> Simon, please be more elaborative on what's going on here. Without knowing US
> trademark policies by heart, but "to geocode" is a generic term that cannot be
> used as a trademark. One can of course use this term with regard to, e.g., the
> process of transferring a postal address into geographic coordinates.


-- 
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of 
> the English language ?

Because we have bigger battles to fight. Let Google piss their money away on
defending the term "geocode". If OSM has $1m to spend, which it doesn't, I'd
rather it spent it on making the site easier to use and attracting more
mappers, rather than throwing lawyers at a trademark troll.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Recent-edits-in-the-wiki-Trademark-issue-tp5747591p5747607.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 01/02/2013 16:22, Simon Poole wrote:

the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc.

If you find use of the term "geocode" on our wiki or help site please 
replace it with a generic term (for example "search")
Why is Openstreetmap yielding to such blatant appropriation of the 
English language ?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Andreas Labres]

On 01.02.13 16:48, Jochen Topf wrote:
> I don't think use of the English language is "merely incidental" to what we 
> are
> doing here. Can you explain why we suddenly can't use words from the English
> language any more? ... And no, I don't think this is something for private 
> emails.

100% agreed.

Simon, please be more elaborative on what's going on here. Without knowing US
trademark policies by heart, but "to geocode" is a generic term that cannot be
used as a trademark. One can of course use this term with regard to, e.g., the
process of transferring a postal address into geographic coordinates.

/al

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[Jochen Topf]

Well, geocoding and search are different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocoding

I don't think use of the English language is "merely incidental" to what we are
doing here. Can you explain why we suddenly can't use words from the English
language any more?

And no, I don't think this is something for private emails.

Jochen

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 04:22:24PM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:22:24 +0100
> From: Simon Poole 
> To: openstreetmap 
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
> 
> Dear OSM Contributors
> 
> As you may have noticed we have removed all links displaying the Google
> geocoding service from the wiki. These changes are a consequence of a
> legal issue with respect to the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc.
> of Alexandria, Virginia, USA. There are likely to be further related
> edits and changes both on the wiki and the help site. Please do not add
> such removed links back or undo any such edits. If you find use of the
> term "geocode" on our wiki or help site please replace it with a generic
> term (for example "search"), or report it to my e-mail address.
> 
> Both the use of the term "geocode" and the use of the Google API are
> merely incidental to us. Doing without them does not in any way impact
> the core goals or operation of OSM.
> 
> Please address any questions on the matter to me by e-mail and not to
> the list.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Simon

> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Tom Hughes wrote:
| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|   Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>   "Robert (Jamie) Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|>> What does the separate object type gain us exactly, apart from more code
|>> to maintain?
|> It gives something that can record useful information in a
|> structured way, like the address of the person that added it.
|
| The other it does it that it makes it possible for the server to
| do things like RSS feeds of tickets in an area - if it had to search
| for all the nodes with some special tag that would be much harder
| and/or slower.

It would also be much more useful as it could be used for other
purposes, like finding when someone adds a new pub near me :-)

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHqIKNz+aYVHdncI0RAscgAJ9quEnmS5TW/4vpIXJY8LHuiuC0FACeJGU5
R+ZWExd5lFmXu0CkzGRkkKU=
=FTZ8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits - sketching?

[OJW]

On Monday 28 January 2008 15:22:20 Lambertus wrote:
> You have to think outside the OSM box here. This proposal will make it
> extremely easy for non-OSM'ers (non-mappers that is) to signal: "Look,
> there's something wrong". They maybe able to provide the solution, maybe
> not.

One of the things pyroute could do was sketch onto a map, e.g. to draw some 
changes that need to be made, without knowing anything about nodes or tags

it's kind of similar to a paper map, where anyone could draw corrections on it 
without having to "learn" anything.  Maybe something like that would be 
useful for gathering corrections from casual users?

[pyroute can't upload the images to a server yet, but it's trivial code to 
add.  It can already export sketches as GPX files that you can view* in JOSM]

Perhaps a web-based idea could be used (based on potlatch code, with crayons 
instead of tags?), which allows sketching "notes to OSM". Save them onto a 
map image layer, and list the sketching sessions as "recent changes" (like 
tracklog thumbnails in OSM)

Regards,

OJW



* although that exposes a "feature" of JOSM where it draws a line between the 
end of each tracklog and the beginning of the next...


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits

[Lambertus]

Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Next step would be to add flagging functionality to the map, to enable  
> the general public to flag locations where something is not right (out  
> of date, misplaced,...)
> 
> I guess this could be engineered using the AJAX classes of OpenLayers,  
> a server side script that puts the markers in the database as  
> specially tagged nodes. Of course, we would need some kind of  
> notifying system to alert the actual OSM contributors of new flags.
> 
Well I've been thinking about this functionality too with an addition 
where mappers can 'register' a certain area and get notification when 
someone places a marker within that area, supported by some ticket 
functionality like Trac.

This is probably somewhere on the todo list of several people (certainly 
mine, but still some time away). I hope this functionality will be 
available soon as it drastically reduces the threshold to participate.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martijn van Exel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Next step would be to add flagging functionality to the map, to enable  
> the general public to flag locations where something is not right (out  
> of date, misplaced,...)

I don't know about next step. I would like to see that but I don't
see it as related to the changes display stuff (which doesn't really
seem that useful to me).

> I guess this could be engineered using the AJAX classes of OpenLayers,  
> a server side script that puts the markers in the database as  
> specially tagged nodes. Of course, we would need some kind of  
> notifying system to alert the actual OSM contributors of new flags.

Not as nodes no. The plan is to have a separate table for such things.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits

[Martijn van Exel]

That's very nice! I'm looking foorward to this.

Next step would be to add flagging functionality to the map, to enable  
the general public to flag locations where something is not right (out  
of date, misplaced,...)

I guess this could be engineered using the AJAX classes of OpenLayers,  
a server side script that puts the markers in the database as  
specially tagged nodes. Of course, we would need some kind of  
notifying system to alert the actual OSM contributors of new flags.

-- 
martijn van exel -+- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/

Op 28 jan 2008, om 09:14 heeft Richard Fairhurst het volgende  
geschreven:

> Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
>> This would be a cool application to show the dynamic nature of
>> OpenStreetMap:
>>
>> http://mw1.google.com/staticfiles/gmre/index.html
>
> Started working on it last night - I'm now waiting for crschmidt to  
> appear in IRC so I can ask him so OpenLayers questions!
>
> cheers
> Richard



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent Edits

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martijn van Exel wrote:

> This would be a cool application to show the dynamic nature of
> OpenStreetMap:
>
> http://mw1.google.com/staticfiles/gmre/index.html

Started working on it last night - I'm now waiting for crschmidt to  
appear in IRC so I can ask him so OpenLayers questions!

cheers
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk