Thanks Dariusz for your wise words which I fully agree upon.
I my understanding this issue has three underlaying aspects:
*A legal technical one. What is the real meaning and implication of a
"collective membership mark". A straight forward issue
*The spread among us community members between idealists and pragmatics.
I see this difference being most manifested when we discuss protection
of articles often being vandalized. And here I believe it is a strength
for the totality that we have both group among ourselves - it leads to
more balanced decisions (but also often after heated debates)
* An old latent suspicion between "WMF/Board" and community
member/Chapters. This is an old story and where we have lately seen some
signs his "tension" was decreasing, our interaction and trust in each
other becoming better. And sometimes this tension is seen to be between
Order and Anarchy, but I do not buy this interpretation. We should all
in the movement actively try to live up to our motto "Assume good faith"
at the same time as we of course should continue to discuss constructive
our complex intraorganizational issues that turns up
I feel real, real sad when I perceive this issue, which is only an
internal issue with all competence and input being within the movement,
is turned into being handled outside the movement, inside a official
legal framework. Even more sad knowing all key persons involved in this
issue to be competent, very important to the movement and equally
dedicated to our common vision/mission.
I have no advice to give how to get the issue resolved or how to
proceed or how to act, but urge all involve all involved parts and other
actors within the movement to act so this issue can be taken back from
"the outside world" and be bought back to the movement to be resolved
among ourselves.
Anders
Dariusz Jemielniak skrev 2013-10-10 09:05:
hi,
while writing about "two individuals" was probably well-meant (so as not to
point fingers), to my non-native ear it sounds unfortunately close to
police reports lingo :) Also, while I perfectly understand why WMF needs
external representation, and why Jones Day's in-kind donated support is
used, it is also clear to me that the "two individuals" may feel cornered
and perceive it as an move to resolve the issue by force (in the face of
obvious disparity of legal brainpower and resources).
I may be wrong, but my own and personal view is 100% in line with what
Craig wrote: irrespective of the result, taking this dispute to court will
be a failure on both sides.
Ideally, if both sides could agree on a mediation by one or more parties
acceptable to them, this could wind things down a bit and perhaps lead to a
better understanding of the views (as well as of the legal mechanics and
consequences of the choices). Also, since both sides act with a strong
perception of protecting the community's interest in the way they see fit
best, the community's wider feedback may help in resolving the issue.
Just my two-cents.
best,
pundit
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:09 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Referring to John and Federico as "these two individuals" comes across
as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. Are you
quite sure this is the effect you're after?
On 9 October 2013 07:13, James Alexander <jalexan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
The legal team have provided some background on the hiring on Jones Day
in
this action. Here is their comment:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Legal_representation
James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, <tom...@twkozlowski.net> wrote:
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote on September 26, 2013, 15:22 UTC:
Trademark don't self-enforce, they are "enforceable" as long as someone
believes to you when you use them as threat tools. So yes, I suppose
they
might.
... and given that the WMF just hired the infamous Jones Day bullies as
their representative before the OHIM to fight an opposition filled by
their
own volunteers (me and Federico), I don't think it's an unfair view.
I suggest that everyone interested in the subject read <
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/**2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-**
jones-day-blockshopper-**settlement<
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-jones-day-blockshopper-settlement
and related links for an overview of a 2009 Jones Day lawsuit against a
start-up company Blockshopper.com which Paul Levy called "a new a new
entry
in the contest for grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech
the
plaintiff doesn't like".
I'm aware that, being a party of the opposition, I shouldn't really
comment on the WMF's litigation tactics, but it still leaves me wonder
about the point of hiring, as some say, "one of the worst trademark
abusers
in history", as their representative in this case.
Tomasz
______________________________**_________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
