[Foundation] Catching Up AND Foundation TM Again

David Iodice diodice at dgitech.com
Wed May 23 13:35:27 CDT 2001


OK I've been quiet up until now...

<soapbox>

Clearly j.c trademarked the name to establish a brand and
make money from the trademark.  Bottom line is that
developers must be willing to participate in supporting j.c
in building THEIR brand -- Jabber.  In return j.c allows
these developers to use the Jabber name in a restricted and
controlled capacity through the foundation.

Hey, j.c has sunk a lot of money into Jabber (I suspect) and
should reap some rewards.  It appears that they want to do
this through brand control.

Now statements like Mike's "we're trying to put a program
together that will allow the Foundation to help companies
use the Jabber brand"  clearly indicate to me that j.c wants
the open source movement to start paying it back for its
investment by helping it to promote ITS brand.  And it is
the brand we are talking about, make no mistake about it.
Call it Jabber protocol or whatever you want, the brand is
where the money is.  Without Jabber the protocol, there
would be no value to the Jabber brand.

We, as a foundation, need to be keenly aware of what the
rights are to the trademark and who controls all those
rights.  I suspect, Jabber.com will not want to part with
any loss of rights for any commercial use of the trademark.
Well, they have the trademark, and that is their
prerogative.  What we as a foundation must weigh is how this
will affect the investment of other companies in supporting
their employees to develop and add to the
protocol/architecture/designs/implementations/etc that will
fall under the purview of the foundation.  Do the benefits
of the open source software offset the restriction on use of
the brand?  That is a choice everyone (people and companies)
must make on their own.

Lets just make it VERY CLEAR, so everyone can make their
choice.

And please, don't sugar coat it. Jabber.com is in this to
make money, they have shareholders (private as they are)
that are looking for a return on their investment. And they
are entitled to get it!

<conspiracytheory>
Did it occur to anyone that if 3 companies invest in
Jabber.com and those 3 companies and Jabber.com each have
15% of the membership of the foundation that the result is
that 60% of the membership would be shareholders/employees
of Jabber.com?
</conspiracytheory> :-)

</soapbox>

David

-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org
[mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Michael Bauer
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:50 PM
To: 'Colin Madere '; ''members at jabber.org' '
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Catching Up AND Foundation TM
Again



Hi, Colin.  Yes, the "name" I refer to is "Jabber".  The
term "Full
restrictions" imply that only Jabber.com has the right to
license "Jabber"
for use in products and company names (it's own and others).
This would be
regardless of who owns the trademark.  Again, this is what
j.c. thought when
it was considering trademark transfer.  Without this caveat,
I don't think
j.c. will consider transfer right now.

Again, this is not to say that other commercial interests
would not be
allowed to use the name in a product or company.  It's
saying that j.c.
would do the licensing.  No matter what, we're trying to put
a program
together that will allow the Foundation to help companies
use the Jabber
brand.

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Madere
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Sent: 5/23/01 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Catching Up AND Foundation TM
Again

Jer,

I believe that your suggestion is what the community is
looking for, and
I *think* your co-worker Mr. Bauer just suggested the same
as a
possiblity.  Here's me attempting to distill once again...

Jer's suggestion:
<snip>
>
>  - Jabber.com assigns the TM to the Jabber.org Foundation
>  - Jabber.org is then responsible for assigning all
> appropriate commercial
> uses that don't overlap and therefore implode the TM
validity
>  - The immediate commercial use licenses would be to
Jabber.com for:
>         "Jabber.com"
>         "Jabber Commercial Server"
>         "Jabber Instant Messenger"
>         (those are the ones I'm immediately aware of and
have had
> considerable resources put into creating marketplace
recognition of)
>
> Additional licenses might be assigned by Jabber.org for
> alternate uses by
> the companies that approach the Foundation, such as
"JabberToons" or
> "Jabber Friends Network", etc. IANAL, but this seems very
much in the
> spirit of TM law as much as I understand it, as long as
the mark is
> managed appropriately (as we all seem agree it should, but
by
> the member based foundation instead of a commercial
entity).
>
> At this point I'm not sure what the other alternatives
are.  I'm
doubtful
> that any honest effort or "irrevocable use license" from
jabber.com
would
> be enough to gain the support and trust of the entire
community in
their
> role as TM holder, and the only other viable alternative
so far would
be
> to change the name, which effectively nullifies
jabber.coms utility of
the
> TM anyway.
<snip>

Bauer's suggestions:
(hopefully not misunderstood due to lack of context)

"At any rate, I think that's where Jabber.com stands right
now.  Even if

there is a transfer of ownership the full restrictions would
have to
apply
to naming product or company names."

"Now, other companies could be licensed to use
the name in a company or product name but Jabber.com would
reserve that
privilege as well even if there was a transfer.  That's what
we
originally
discussed in the ownership transfer and what is still being
considered."


Mr. Bauer, in the paragraphs above, could you define "full
restrictions"
and "the name" respectively?  I can guess "the name" means
"Jabber", but
I'd rather you be explicit :)  It seems these two quotes
from you
_could_ be conflicting and I want to clear it up.

I think what I see as the main possible difference is that
Jer is
suggesting that j.c get's licenses (or whatever they may be
called) for
the current names of their products and domain(s) that use
the word
"Jabber", whereas Bauer *may* be suggesting that j.c get's a
full
license for any use of the word "Jabber".  Feedback from you
two?

Colin Madere

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members




More information about the Members mailing list