[Foundation] Jabber (tm)
mark at zamoytatech.com
Mon May 21 12:48:03 CDT 2001
RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)Hi,
Colin, I think you do have a valid point and it will continue to be discussed.
Personally I believe there is no "Jabber" trademark since individuals and companies were encouraged to use it for a long time without any kind of trademark enforcement. Jabber.Com came on the scene long after "Jabber" was in widespread public use, so I'm not sure they have any right to it.
I think this is a vitally important issue for the Jabber Foundation lawyers, since anyone appealing to the Trademark Office has a good chance at getting the Jabber trademark invalidated in the use of IM / Presence. Which makes me wonder... are the Jabber Foundation lawyers separate from the Jabber.Com lawyers ?!
Jabber.Com is worth $30 MILLION, based on the France Telecom investment of $7M for 23% - that's a pretty amazing valuation, and Jabber.Com owes alot to Jabber.Org.
I hope the Jabber Foundation realizes that Jabber.Com shouldn't be the only corporation to benefit from the "Jabber" brand name. They've already got $30 Million of benefit, now give some other corporations access! Otherwise Jabber will always be a one company product and never achieve world domination, as the founders intended.
----- Original Message -----
From: Colin Madere
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)
I didn't get much response the last time I mentioned this, so maybe I'm way off. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
"Jabber" == Name of protocol && Name of Whole Idea we're talking about
"Jabber" == Trademark OWNED by Jabber.com
If I am correct, am I the only one who sees this as a problem? It's quite possible I'm overreacting. Can I get some feedback?
On to Mr. Bauers items...
> 1. At a minimum we agree we must do something insure the
> quality of "things
> Jabber". We need to establish some kind of quality
> management program,
> probably based around compliance with the Jabber protocol. A
> third party,
> the Foundation, should manage this program. Compliance with
> this program
> confers the right to use some kind of quality mark, such as
> "100% Jabber".
> 2. In addition, we need some mechanism to insure that the community,
> through the Foundation, is granted a "perpetual and
> irrevocable right" to
> implement a quality program and bestow a quality mark. This
> right insures
> that the Community will never lose its investment in using
> the Jabber name
Hmmm.. "using the Jabber name appropriately"... that means NOT in any company name, domain name, or product name. I'm just having trouble being ok with this, but Jabber.com has full _legal_ right to do this. (see top of email) I guess I wish the community owned "Jabber" and Jabber.com made their own name for quality high-end products by branding it with "Jabber.com". I think if (and I'm sure they do) have top-notch products, they don't need to control the word "Jabber" and they can stand on their own by putting "Jabber.com" on their products.
> 3. We agree that non-commercial use of the Jabber name is OK
> provided that
> the use meets the quality standards of the Foundation and
> uses the quality
> mark appropriately. On a forward-looking basis it would be
> preferable to
> Jabber.com if new non-commercial sites just used the quality mark :)
This would be perfectly fine with me if the community hadn't already adopted the name "Jabber" as the protocol name and this great idea that we all know as "Jabber". (again, see top of email)
> 4. Regardless of ownership, though, we understand the name
> Jabber when used
> in a commercial product, service, company, or domain is restricted to
> Jabber.com, Inc. We think that it's OK to use something like
> "Jab" as part
> of a name but are just double-checking that right now. We do
> think that
> something like "Jab" can only be used in conjunction with
> the quality mark.
It would be GREAT if Jabber.com would allow others to use "Jab" in the name so others could at least somehow easily ally their products/services/etc with "Jabber" (I mean the idea and protocol here, not the company jabber.com). As for the name "Jabber", see the rest of my comments :)
> I think that covers it.
I don't agree that the points made address the problem I stated at the beginning of this email. Again, maybe I'm crazy and it's not an issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members