Comments on: To the Anti-Ubuntuone trademark brigade http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/ Life, Linux and Technology Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:40:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1164 Anonymous Sun, 17 May 2009 20:46:01 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1164 "Java". “Java”.

]]> By: Keithamus http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1163 Keithamus Sat, 16 May 2009 10:30:41 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1163 I am afraid nixternal is vastly incorrect about his statements. I fear he didn't even look at the HMR Group website before commenting. The issue is not the Ubuntu name, but rather the Ubuntu logo. Regardless of whether or not the Ubuntu logo is trademarked or not, HMR Group are infringing copyright against Canonical through using the logo. If the logo is trademarked, as it should be, then Canonical have every right to limit the usage of it, and the HMR Group website is infringing the trademark. If it isn't trademarked, then HMR Group is violating copyright of the logo, which should be held by Canonical. Either way, I am afraid HMR Group is in the wrong, and nixternal has been misinformed and is spreading misinformation. Regarding the plight of Ubuntu One, which is obviously the larger issue here. I fully support Canonical. We signed up to use Ubuntu, knowing full well that there was a company backing it, and like any company, they require money to survive. Unfortunately Canonical seems to be attacked every time they make headway, I guess it must be popular to hate them. Canonical are doing what they can to make Ubuntu a sustainable business - and this is great, it means eventually that more money can be spent on making Ubuntu better. All this negativity towards it will only drive the company to support the community less - if all they do is complain. You don't have to use Ubuntu One, if you want to then you are supporting Ubuntu as an operating system. Does it dilute the Ubuntu brand? About us much as Windows Live dilutes the Windows brand. I am afraid nixternal is vastly incorrect about his statements. I fear he didn’t even look at the HMR Group website before commenting.

The issue is not the Ubuntu name, but rather the Ubuntu logo.

Regardless of whether or not the Ubuntu logo is trademarked or not, HMR Group are infringing copyright against Canonical through using the logo.

If the logo is trademarked, as it should be, then Canonical have every right to limit the usage of it, and the HMR Group website is infringing the trademark. If it isn’t trademarked, then HMR Group is violating copyright of the logo, which should be held by Canonical.

Either way, I am afraid HMR Group is in the wrong, and nixternal has been misinformed and is spreading misinformation.

Regarding the plight of Ubuntu One, which is obviously the larger issue here. I fully support Canonical. We signed up to use Ubuntu, knowing full well that there was a company backing it, and like any company, they require money to survive. Unfortunately Canonical seems to be attacked every time they make headway, I guess it must be popular to hate them. Canonical are doing what they can to make Ubuntu a sustainable business – and this is great, it means eventually that more money can be spent on making Ubuntu better. All this negativity towards it will only drive the company to support the community less – if all they do is complain. You don’t have to use Ubuntu One, if you want to then you are supporting Ubuntu as an operating system. Does it dilute the Ubuntu brand? About us much as Windows Live dilutes the Windows brand.

]]> By: foo http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1162 foo Sat, 16 May 2009 06:04:08 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1162 Jerome G: absolutely wrong, see nixternal's post above. Jerome G: absolutely wrong, see nixternal’s post above.

]]> By: Jerome G. http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1161 Jerome G. Sat, 16 May 2009 02:49:24 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1161 The logo is infringing for sure. The logo is infringing for sure.

]]> By: sharms http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1160 sharms Fri, 15 May 2009 22:49:30 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1160 @Joao - Right on, not productive, you caught me red handed @Joao – Right on, not productive, you caught me red handed

]]> By: Joao Pinto http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1159 Joao Pinto Fri, 15 May 2009 22:37:18 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1159 Steven, your "Anti-Ubuntuone trademark brigade" comic and discriminating description clearly shows your lack of respect for other people opinions. Since you seem to be qualified to identify "productive" activities for the Ubuntu community, exactly, how productive was your post ? Steven,
your “Anti-Ubuntuone trademark brigade” comic and discriminating description clearly shows your lack of respect for other people opinions.

Since you seem to be qualified to identify “productive” activities for the Ubuntu community,
exactly, how productive was your post ?

]]> By: Jared Spurbeck http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1158 Jared Spurbeck Fri, 15 May 2009 21:04:39 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1158 Maybe we should see what Canonical / Mr. Shuttleworth's take on all of this is ... Maybe we should see what Canonical / Mr. Shuttleworth’s take on all of this is …

]]> By: nixternal http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1157 nixternal Fri, 15 May 2009 20:06:49 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1157 @Jason - probably not because the Microsoft trademark is probably more involved than the Ubuntu one. There are more than 20 Ubuntu trademarks right now, and only one belongs to Canonical. There is an Ubuntu Deli/Cafe in Napa Valley California, there is a bank that uses their own Ubuntu trademark, there are a couple of organizations in South Africa that has an Ubuntu trademark, and so on. @Jason – probably not because the Microsoft trademark is probably more involved than the Ubuntu one.

There are more than 20 Ubuntu trademarks right now, and only one belongs to Canonical. There is an Ubuntu Deli/Cafe in Napa Valley California, there is a bank that uses their own Ubuntu trademark, there are a couple of organizations in South Africa that has an Ubuntu trademark, and so on.

]]> By: Adam http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1156 Adam Fri, 15 May 2009 19:38:28 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1156 I am not a lawyer (not yet at least, I am a law student), and my understanding of trademark law is spotty. What little I do know is certainly not sophisticated enough for a proper analysis of international trademark law. However, my thoughts are that nixternal is only PARTIALLY correct. Trademarks can vary in their application. A company like Canonical has a pretty widespread trademark since they operate and do business across the globe. So yes, they are in different businesses, and they are in different regions; but, I doubt that it is ironclad as that. And Jason, you can bet Microsoft Burger would be receiving a letter from a lawyer just as quickly as they could open up. I am not a lawyer (not yet at least, I am a law student), and my understanding of trademark law is spotty. What little I do know is certainly not sophisticated enough for a proper analysis of international trademark law. However, my thoughts are that nixternal is only PARTIALLY correct. Trademarks can vary in their application. A company like Canonical has a pretty widespread trademark since they operate and do business across the globe. So yes, they are in different businesses, and they are in different regions; but, I doubt that it is ironclad as that. And Jason, you can bet Microsoft Burger would be receiving a letter from a lawyer just as quickly as they could open up.

]]> By: Jason http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/comment-page-1/#comment-1155 Jason Fri, 15 May 2009 19:15:18 +0000 http://www.sharms.org/blog/2009/05/15/to-the-anti-ubuntuone-trademark-brigade/#comment-1155 I may not understand trademark law well, nixternal, but does that mean I can start the Microsoft Burger Stand and use their logo and fonts? Or how about McDonald's House of Open Source Software? I may not understand trademark law well, nixternal, but does that mean I can start the Microsoft Burger Stand and use their logo and fonts? Or how about McDonald’s House of Open Source Software?

]]>