[Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 18 12:14:47 CDT 2001


Hi Maciek,

Yes, that's how I understand things. "MacJab: Powered by Jabber" (or 
"100% Jabber Compatible" or whatever) is how you could brand and market 
your software.

Peter

Maciek Borowka wrote:

> 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 :+))
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> /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.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>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).
>>>>
>>>>
> 



-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
stpeter at jabber.org




More information about the Members mailing list