On 170924-15:43-0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Miroslav Rovis (miro.rovis@???):
>
> > > Quoting zap (calmstorm@???):
> > > >
> > > > On 09/23/2017 10:35 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > ...
> > > If interested in this area of law, see: 'Trademark Law' on
> > > http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/
> > >
> > > (I was one of the editors of _Linux Gazette_ magazine when SSC, Inc.,
> > > then publishers of _Linux Journal_, attempted to push us around using
> > > trademark-based threats. We called their bluff. We won.)
> >
> > Rick, I briefly looked up:
> > http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/
> > but there's no mention of that specific case of trademark-based threats. None
> > of the words to be found in all the links at iusmentis.com, justinsomnia.org
> > nor audioholics.com that you gave under those paragraph on that page which
> > contain the string "threat". No "journ" "Gaze" strings to be found in them.
>
> It's covered in 'Trademark Law' on
> http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/ . (I hope you understand
> that the cited link is part of a hierarchical information index, my site
> knowledgebase.) Direct link to the indexed page is:
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/trademark-law.html
>
> I notice that domains iusmentis.com, justinsomnia.org, and audioholics.com
> crop up in _other_ articles on that index.
>
> Phil Hughes, CEO of SSC, Inc. and original publisher of _Linux Journal_,
> never went so far as to file trademark litigation. Perhaps he knew he
> was bluffing and did not actually own the monopoly rights he professed.
> He blustered and suggested impending litigation quite a bit, and wrote
> an e-mail to our domain registrar that claimed our domain
> linuxgazette.net infringed SSC's (alleged) trademark rights. He also
> spent US $330 on a US Federal trademark (service mark) registration
> retroactively on our magazine's name, which filing got dismissed because
> he screwed it up.
>
> We were preparing an opposition in the US Patent and Trademark Office
> matter, challenging Phil's claim to have used the mark in commerce as
> being knowingly false, when we heard that USPTO had denied his
> application (but kept his $330). Even if Phil had secured his
> trademark, and it survived our USPTO opposition filing, our magazine
> inherently would still not be in violation, for two separately
> compelling reasons:
>
> (1) _Linux Gazette_ was not a commercial magazine.
> (2) Also, upon commencement of threats from SSC, Inc., I immediately
> appended to all issues of our magazine a disclaimer footer saying 'Linux
> Gazette is not produced, sponsored, or endorsed by its prior host, SSC,
> Inc.'
>
> Both of these facts ensured that the magazine could not possibly
> infringe a (hypothetical) SSC trademark, because they addressed the
> essence of trademark infringement, which is the legal claim that a
> commercial competitor is wrongfully using your distinctive marks in
> commerce, in connection with competing goods or services, in a way
> likely to mislead your customers into thinking you produced or endorsed
> the competitor's goods or services. The point is that any third-party
> use that for any reason does _not_ create that potential confusion via
> competing commercial offerings is inherently non-infringing by
> definition.
>
> Last, I really utterly sunk the basis of Phil's claim of a commercial
> right when I had the idea of writing to _Linux Gazette_ founder Dr. John
> Fisk and asking him if he'd conveyed any commercial rights to SSC, Inc.
> when accepting SSC's offer of Web hosting many years before. He said
> absolutely not -- that his and SSC's clear understanding was that it was
> to remain a purely non-commercial magazine.
>
> I dropped that correspondence like a bombshell into the then-ongoing
> controversy over the _Linux Gazette_ matter at LWN.net, where a bunch of
> legally ignorant computerists were fervently advising us editors to
> capitualate immediately befored the big, horrible corporation crushed us
> for imagining that we had any right to publish a magazine. It shut most
> of them right up, even the ones claiming the other editors and I were
> foolish for thinking that an (alleged) trademark owner enjoyed less than
> absolute monopoly over a name.
>
>
Thanks!

> > And I got:
> >

> > > > > General Protection Fault--404 Error!
>
> > Nice joke!
>
> Why, thank you.
It was on (reconstructing missing part of quote):
> > > >Another thing. I tried to view:
> > > >notice the 's' --> https://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/
>
> I'll have to look up my httpd configuration as to why https
> isn't handled for knowledgebase index pages. I haven't given out https
> URLs for the knowledgebase's pages, in part because IMO it's pointless
> on completely public content lacking need for attestation.

Ill today, can't really write long. Write, read, work, nothing. Just something
likely to do with my strong allergy, nothing serious, but it feels crippling.

--
Miroslav Rovis
Zagreb, Croatia
https://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr