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) <chris...@infinitus.co.uk>: > > 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 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
