Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    The website fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logo as favicon and using it for the banner of the frontpage . No disclaimer, no hint of criticism, no parody, no nothing. There was no other purpose for using ubuntu trademark logo other than identify and brand the website itself . So the nominative fair use doctrine they are using as excuse clearly does not apply .
    Such disclaimers aren't needed. See the message and references provided by the lawyer. As I said: you say you know more, yet don't back up anything. The lawyer provided references. You say things are needed without providing any references.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      I just explained a few post back why the nominative fair use does not apply . And Canonical did not send a takedown notice.
      So what field of law do you practice?

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
        So what field of law do you practice?
        But you?

        He used probably the review of Ars Technica which describes the legal background of this view.

        Ars article is here: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...buntu-privacy/

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          But you?
          I am not claiming authority on the subject, he is.

          We have two sides. One is backed by:

          1. A lawyer at a group that specializes in online IP conflicts
          2. Multiple cases
          3. Ubuntu's own reaction

          The other side is backed by:

          1. Some guy on the internet who has provided no evidence of an legal expertise or legal training, no case law supporting his position, in fact no source whatsoever for his position.

          So the person pushing the second position is, in essence, asking us to just take his word on the matter. Yet he has provided no reason why his word is remotely reliable, not to mention more reliable than an expert on the subject, and certainly not to mention more reliable than an expert on the subject with case law on his side.

          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          He used probably the review of Ars Technica which describes the legal background of this view.

          Ars article is here: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...buntu-privacy/
          I see nothing in that article that contradicts, or even questions, the EFF position. And even if it did, who do you expect me to trust, a tech writer or a lawyer specializing in the subject?

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
            So what field of law do you practice?
            And what part of your brain you use?

            fixubuntu.com was not using Canonical trademarks to illustrate its point. Instead, that website was using Canonical's trademarks with no purpose other than identify and brand itself . That website obviously did not pass the Nominative Fair Use test that the EFF is invoking

            From EFF:

            * It's not easy to identify the product/company without using a mark (e.g., using the term "Chicago Bulls" instead of "the basketball team that plays in Chicago");
            * Only so much is used as is necessary to identify the product/company and accomplish your purpose; and
            * You do nothing to suggest the mark-owner has endorsed or sponsored your site.


            As you can see:
            * The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
            * The favicon was the ubuntu logo
            * No disclaimer
            * No hint of parody or criticism , nothing! as you can see from the screenshot and the waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/201310050.../fixubuntu.com

            Secondly, the highly uncreative domain name "fixubuntu.com" does not give you any clear hint of parody nor criticism. That domain name could be perfectly interpreted as an endorsed website whose objective is to help users to solve problems and bugs with Ubuntu. That looks like click bait and trademark stuffing too me . Adit does not matters if you change your website domain name, your website will remain online all the time, the "take down" FUD is full of BS.

            So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
              And what part of your brain you use?

              fixubuntu.com was not using Canonical trademarks to illustrate its point. Instead, that website was using Canonical's trademarks with no purpose other than identify and brand itself . That website obviously did not pass the Nominative Fair Use test that the EFF is invoking

              From EFF:




              As you can see:
              * The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
              * The favicon was the ubuntu logo
              * No disclaimer
              * No hint of parody or criticism , nothing! as you can see from the screenshot and the waybackmachine http://web.archive.org/web/201310050.../fixubuntu.com

              Secondly, the highly uncreative domain name "fixubuntu.com" does not give you any clear hint of parody nor criticism. That domain name could be perfectly interpreted as an endorsed website whose objective is to help users to solve problems and bugs with Ubuntu. That looks like click bait and trademark stuffing too me . Adit does not matters if you change your website domain name, your website will remain online all the time, the "take down" FUD is full of BS.

              So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?
              Welcome to the USA now go cry some more

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by LinuxGamer View Post
                Welcome to the USA now go cry some more
                What?

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                  So.... do you have any other argument other that invoking your masters, the EFF lawyers? Or can you think for yourself without invoking biased lawyers to discuss a very simple issue that is very simple to understand ?
                  So you attack the person you respond to and you claim to know better than a lawyer. You've stated multiple times that you know more than a lawyer.

                  Fact: After the lawyer sent a letter, Canonical apologized in various ways.

                  Fact: Lawyer has a degree.

                  Fact: You claim to know more than someone who has a degree

                  Fact: Most/all people here aren't impressed with your claims

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by bkor View Post
                    So you attack the person you respond to and you claim to know better than a lawyer. You've stated multiple times that you know more than a lawyer.

                    Fact: After the lawyer sent a letter, Canonical apologized in various ways.

                    Fact: Lawyer has a degree.

                    Fact: You claim to know more than someone who has a degree

                    Fact: Most/all people here aren't impressed with your claims

                    MS only apologized about sending the wrong template. They also defended their right to protect their trademarks. In fact, they should protect their trademarks, it would be idiotic not to do it.

                    And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                      MS only apologized about sending the wrong template. They also defended their right to protect their trademarks. In fact, they should protect their trademarks, it would be idiotic not to do it.

                      And frankly , i have never been impressed with arguments from authority . If that's all you have, then move on, because that is a worthless argument to begin with .
                      I said that Canonical apologized in various ways. So I'm not talking about one response, I'm talking about multiple.

                      Regarding your idiotic "arguments from authority": READ IT YOURSELF!!!

                      "cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert": You're really saying that a lawyer is not a subject-matter expert?

                      GET REAL ALREADY!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X