Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostSo what field of law do you practice?
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
-
Originally posted by ciplogic View PostBut you?
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 PostHe 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
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostSo what field of law do you practice?
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
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostAnd 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 ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostSo.... 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 ?
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
-
Originally posted by bkor View PostSo 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
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostMS 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 .
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
Comment