NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/3005

Text File | 1992-09-11 | 3.5 KB | 67 lines

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: sparky!uunet!mdisea!kelsey
From: [e-mail] (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:25:21 GMT
Lines: 54

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt Brown) writes:

>This, I believe, is what really counts.  The ability of a company to
>protect its 'property" rests upon its usage and its aggressive defense
>of proper usage by others.  In other words, if you publish a UNIX book
>without once giving ATT/USL its due, they can sue to protect the trade-
>mark, after asking you to correct or withdraw the faulty usage. In that
>case, every piece of correspondence would strengthen their case.

Writing and publishing books comes under the protection of the First
Ammendment -- you can put anything you want in a book, regardless of
*trademark* protection.  You cannot violate copyright laws (plagarism, etc.),
but you certainly do not need to acknowledge trademarks anywhere in a
publication.  Now, if you *advertise* a product for sale, you generally have
to pay lip service to trademark rights.

I recently did an informal survey of advertisements in several industry rags.
A significant number of advertisements either used trademarks with no
acknowledgements (UNIX, SUN, words like that) or mis-attributed trademarks.
The vast majority of advertisers simply wrote whatever they wanted to, using
trademarked adjectives as nouns, etc., and simply included the following
statement:

    All names referenced are trademarks of their respective owners.

Yow!  You no longer need to go and put (tm), (r), etc. on names, just include
the standard disclaimer.  Even so, some companies (such as Sun), include
specific trademark acknowledgements, and even then Sun doesn't seem to know
*which* trademarks it owns.  In one advertisement, Sun claims that ``Sun
Microsystems and the Sun logo are trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc.'', and
in another ad, they claim that ``Sun, Sun Microsystems and the Sun logo are
trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc.''  So, which ad correctly identifies the
Sun trademarks?  Can Sun sue itself for misuse of trademarks?

Trademark protection applies to commercial products.  I believe that I have
the right to use any words I want in normal day to day conversation and
writing, irregardless of commercial trademark claims.  When I decide to sell a
product that competes with other products whose owners claim trademark
protection for thier names, then my advertisements must contain words
protecting their trademarks, if I use them.  Otherwise, I can (and do) use the
word coke to refer to generic cola beverages, band-aid to refer to generic
bandages, xerox to refer to the xerography process and machines used therein,
and unix to refer to a generic class of operating systems.  And, I don't need
to pause and acknowledge any claimed trademarks when I use these words!
(Unless I own the trademarks!)

In summary, trademark law, as I understand it, protects the commerical use of
the trademarked names and symbols.  I can still use those same words in
non-commercial publications freely, without acknowledging their owners or
infringing on their owners rights.  Note that I do not claim authoritative
knowledge here, only informed (? :-) opinion.

/Joe
speaking for myself.