[Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Stephen Lee srlee at sltscommunications.net
Fri May 18 12:30:03 CDT 2001

After having a couple of telephone conversations with Michael Bauer , I'm
not sure that is 100% correct, it seemed to me through these conversations
that Jab or Jabber would be a problem in a commercial client, but I could be
wrong. It also appears at this point that they are not absolutely clear as
to what will qualify and what won't, but are working hard at getting some
guidelines in place.

myJabber - Lead Developer

-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 1:15 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

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.


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.
>>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
>>>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
>>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
>>>>on jabber for "computer software for reducing the number of bits
>>>>to transmit speech" and some java classes that did such voice
>>>>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
>>>>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
>>>>>away, and you quickly find yourself in the midst of lawsuites by
>>>>>shareholders.  'Specially when dealing with smaller companies who are
>>>>>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

Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list