On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 03:09 -0500, Matthew Raymond wrote: > I think you've hit the heart of why the "XUL Alliance" won't change > their name: They don't think Mozilla has the stones to take them to > court. Actually, Mozilla could theoretically succeed, either in court or > via the threat thereof. Adobe trademarked "Illustrator". Microsoft > succeeded in forcing Lindows to change its name to Linspire because of > their "Windows" trademark. And the XUL Alliance is most likely unable to > withstand long-term litigation.
Great examples of brand-name copyright, but you're completely missing the point by referring to this stuff. Please bring up an example, if you can, of litigation banning anybody from using a technology term as part of their product. A facetious example being w3 banning Microsoft from associating IE with HTML because it does not properly render HTML that conforms the the w3 specs. This is what we are talking about, that is the battlefield. Gerald is not mis-using the brand name (Mozilla), but is contentious of the technology name XUL being specific to Mozilla. -- - Charlie Charles Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Online @ http://vexi.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list xul-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
