[Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. heg at sirlabs.com
Tue May 22 08:44:03 CDT 2001

RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)Zad,

It is easy for us to only view the other side, now to answer your question.

If for example we renamed jabber and called it XXXX.  Jabber.com has
implemented a product that uses XXXX and they pay the foundation to certify
it to be "100% XXXX", they then can use the phrase "100% XXXX" on their
marketing materials.  The foundation would setup rules that would need to be
abided by for the continuation of such a phrase.

If later Jabber.com choose not to abide by the rules we would formally ask
for desist order to use the phrase. As in most cases in life commercial
entities implement what they want and leave out what they do not want from a
standard. If they are no longer "100% XXXX" they may not care at that point,
because they have market share for what they are doing.  Does every http
browser implement the standard? do people stop using them? No.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On Behalf
Of zad
  Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 11:43 PM
  To: members at jabber.org
  Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

  Hello Mike, everyone,

  I agree that in business anything can happen. Tommorow is full of
surpeises for all of us. Jer had a nice proposal, which really compensates
for most of these issues. If we are to keep jabber as open source we have to
let the community control it.

  I would like to change perpective and ask something: Let's imagine that
the trademark is owned by the foundation and the right to use it has been
given out to jabber.com. What happens if jabber.com changes ownership or a
sudden change in managment happens and somehow Company policies shift. Does
the foundation have the power to take back the 'usage right' ?  Where are
the control gadgets of the foundation ? How do they work ?



    -----Original Message-----
    From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Michael J. Emswiler
    Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:06 AM
    To: members at jabber.org
    Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

    My biggest concern with this whole issue is what happens when:
    1. Jabber.com realizes its not cool to be a dot-com anymore and their
chances of a successful IPO are slim to none.
    2. Jabber.com sells out to <evil grin> AOL
    3. AOL has ownership of Jabber Trademark and decides that talking with
out IMs isn't such a hot idea after all.  I mean, they already own AIM and
ICQ ... look at how well they work together.

    Now, you might think I'm an alarmist, but one think I've learned in
business is that anything *can* and *will* happen.

    I feel we need to be sure that the Foundation is protected.

    If this means coming up with a new name, I'm all for it ... remember how
quickly Netscape renamed themselves from Mozilla ... (course, they had all
those IPO dollars coming in the pre-IPO dot-com pump-n-dump scam ...)

    BTW, I'm not really slamming dot-com business models, just exaggerating
for the benefit of expressing the point.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Michael Bauer
      To: 'members at jabber.org'
      Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:28 PM
      Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

      Just to be clear, we're only talking about Sun's Java Trademark
policy, not their general attitude towards open source.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Michael Bauer [mailto:bauer at jabber.com]
        Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:21 PM
        To: 'members at jabber.org'
        Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

        I'm not trying to avoid you're question, Colin.  I don't think this
is such a problem as Sun seems to have handled it reasonably well with Java.
As for Protocol vs Thing, I'd be inclined toward Thing.  Perhaps "Jabber TM
Solution" which is like "Java TM Technology" only bigger :)

         We understand the issue with respect to Jabber as company name and
concept moniker.  We have to do everything we can to insure this doesn't get
confused.  Unfortunately, allowing other companies to use the name in
products and company names is just not going to help matters.  We have to do
some basic things to keep the brand viable for the long term.  We think
we're really doing the best we can under the circumstances, like being OK
with companies using Jab for example and then tying that to "Jabber TM

        We need a program that we can all get reasonably comfortable with
and get going on.  Java looks like a good model for such a program.  I hope
we can get some consensus around this - or at least abstension.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Colin Madere [mailto:colin at vedalabs.com]
          Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:35 AM
          To: 'members at jabber.org'
          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
          "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
          > 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
          > appropriately.

          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.

          Colin Madere

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20010522/1a46412c/attachment.html

More information about the Members mailing list