[Foundation] Jabber (tm)
mborowka at ifaedi.insa-lyon.fr
Fri May 18 12:02:00 CDT 2001
So, according to that, my hypotetical 100% commercial product
can be called MacJab without any problem?
And to have a (also hypotetical) "Powered by Jabber" logo,
I should ask let the fundation do some compatibility tests?
If it is like that, I feel fully satified :+))
/M at ciek
On Fri, 18 May 2001 09:18:52 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Hi Piers,
> My understanding is that Joe Developer would be able name his program
> Jabber* (such as Jabbernaut or whatever) as long as it's not a
> commercial product. If you had a commercial product, or even if you
> didn't, you could still associate your product with Jabber in other
> ways, for example as Gabber has done. I'm not sure that such a solution
> will please everyone, but it's better than renaming the protocol to
> something totally different like IMTP or PIXI or whatever.
> Piers Harding wrote:
> > Firstly: Losing the name "Jabber" to the protocol would be disastrous - and for me I
> would probably lose interest and walk away from the community if it happened.
> > Secondly: I think the greatest worry of producing a product based on Jabber is making
> a clear link/brand association with Jabber, if you cannot use Jabber in the name. Not
> being able to easily make that connection seems to me to be pivotal.
> > Jer has crystalised the position of jabber.com, and I believe that they are "trying to
> do the right thing", but if we are to take away the ability of Joe average developer
> trying to establish his product through name association, then we have to compensate for
> that with another mechanism. Maybe a jabber commercial portal - an adaption of
> jabbercentral.com, that provides a vehicle for product promotion to go with product
> certification that has been previously mentioned? The key would be to make the entry
> barrier free, or at least very cheap, and thus accessible to everyone.
> > On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:09:01PM -0500, Jeremie wrote:
> >>/me chimes in :)
> >>On Wed, 16 May 2001, Mathew Johnston wrote:
> >>>First, some history. A company that did some sort of voice software
> >>>had a trademark on the word Jabber (or something involving that word).
> >>>They threatened Jer with a cease and desist when he started using the
> >>>word Jabber to describe his new XML based protocol that would be used
> >>>for IM and more. Jer had already used the name a fair bit and the
> >>>Jabber protocol that he had started became more popular. He didn't
> >>>have money to fight in court with or buy the trademark from the other
> >>>company. Jabber.com, however, did. So, they bought the trademark.
> >>Just to clarify things a bit, the original company was Oquirrh
> >>Technologies Inc. from NY. They had the domain jabber.com and a trademark
> >>on jabber for "computer software for reducing the number of bits required
> >>to transmit speech" and some java classes that did such voice compression.
> >>I never received a cease and desist, and IANAL, but I'm not sure how
> >>applicable it would have been given the specific usage of the trademark by
> >>Oquirrh. Essentially, Jabber.com came into existence by purchasing the
> >>domain and trademark from Oquirrh, and has since then filed their own
> >>trademark on jabber for "Software for real-time communications over a
> >>global computer network."
> >>On Thu, 17 May 2001, Thomas Charron wrote:
> >>> Jabber.com may not be ABLE to do this. Rememeber, trademarks have
> >>>monatary value. They are a publically held company. Start giving stuff
> >>>away, and you quickly find yourself in the midst of lawsuites by
> >>>shareholders. 'Specially when dealing with smaller companies who are in
> >>>tough spots right now..
> >>Another clarification, Jabber.com is not a publicly held company, they
> >>are private, but largely owned by a public company (WEBB).
Join the Army, meet interesting people and kill them.
More information about the Members