Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    Seems to me to be very similar case. Fixubuntu advertises a way to repair Ubuntu, so they are allowed to use the word Ubuntu and the Ubuntu logo to refer to the product, as long as they do not claim or imply that they have any business relationship with Canonical.

    I think it's fairly clear from context that Fixubuntu had no business relationship with Canonical, thus it's allowed to use the Ubuntu trademark to refer to the product.
    First, thanks for being the first one to provide a worthy argument ! Seriously.

    The name of D Church business was "Modern Volkswagen Porsche Service." . That name , in my opinion, already makes it unlikely to considerer that the business was representing neither Volkswagen nor a Porsche. Still, the court disagreed with that notion . Then, he changed the name to "Independent Modern Volkswagen Porsche Service.". Volkswagen insisted that it was still a trademark violation despite of the addition of the word "Independent" . That's where Volkswagen was being ridiculous.

    http://openjurist.org/411/f2d/350/vo...aft-v-d-church
    The court below, [...], found that while Church's early use of the word 'Volkswagen' as part of his business name was unlawful,
    none of his subsequent practices infringed Volkswagen's rights, primarily because Church's extensive use of the word 'Independent' sufficiently distinguished his business from those affiliated with appellant.
    It is not disputed that Church may specialize in the repair of Volkswagen vehicles. [...] it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to avoid altogether the use of the word 'Volkswagen' or its abbreviation 'VW,' But these terms are not public property; they are registered trademarks.
    The owner of fixubuntu.com didn't do his homework, obviously. He can use the word ubuntu , but he have to be more creative than that! That's the point. His lazy cheap ass didn't bother to read the tips from the EFF neither .

    And there is no excuse for fixubuntu.com the way it was misusing the ubuntu logo. He was using the logo to brand his website and nothing else.

    Finally, all those accusations against Canonical are just defamatory. Canonical is quite friendly regarding the use of their trademarks by third parties .

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      As far as i can tell , canonical did not recognize of doing wrong about their trademark claims, they shouldn't to begin with if they are serious about Ubuntu. Mark S only regrets sending the "toughest template ". That's how it is.
      In fact he did:
      Mark Shuttleworth has apologised for the sending of a cease and desist notice to Micah Lee, the man behind the fixubuntu.com site which Canonical accused of violating its Ubuntu trademark.

      "Occasionally we make mistakes. When we do it’s appropriate to apologise, address them, and take steps to ensure they don’t happen again," wrote Shuttleworth in a blog post.

      "Last week, someone at Canonical made a mistake in sending the wrong response to a trademark issue out of the range of responses we usually take. That has been addressed, and steps are being taken to reduce the likelihood of a future repeat."
      Source: http://www.zdnet.com/shuttleworth-so...ks-7000023005/

      In fact, the part of asking to Mark to apologize arrived to his ears also from my mouth one month ago.

      Given this, may you say that the issue is simply a wrong email template, still if you give a search on Google with terms: "Canonical trademark" you will find that at least a half of links refer with "Canonical" and "abuse", a quarter is about "Mark being sorry".

      Maybe most people misunderstood Mark, or maybe they all claim are "self defined" experts that write their biased "tea-party" like opinions around small sites like ZDNet. Even so, as most people would see as Canonical abusing trademarks, is likely if it would go to a court of law, the jury will state the same.

      Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
      (...)
      Of course, your approach so far is so typical of scientists in debates with creationists. Stuff like rejecting the value of expertise, ignoring the evidence put forward by the other side, thinking a few minutes on google is as reliable as years or even decades of experience, changing arguments rather than admitting mistakes, using claims of "bias" to ignore the arguments put forward by the other side, ignoring parts of opponents' arguments that are inconvenient, pretending sources claim something they didn't, using circular arguments, make up strawman arguments for opponents, and using an grossly over-simplified picture of the issue are perfect examples of the strategies used by scientists in debates with creationists. Those sorts of tactics are never, ever, ever used by creationists.
      Creationism/evolution(ism) I think should stay apart of Phoronix. Is enough one "holy" war of the "sanctity" of "dictator" Mark.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
        (...) The owner of fixubuntu.com didn't do his homework, obviously. He can use the word ubuntu , but he have to be more creative than that! That's the point. His lazy cheap ass didn't bother to read the tips from the EFF neither .
        (...)
        He did not make it as a part of EFF, so he shouldn't have to make it using EFF rules.

        There are movies like "Supersize me" which are very popular and use a trademarked name: "Supersize menu" and ciriticized the Mc Donalds all over the movie. Similarly, Fat Head was criticizing expressly "Supersize me"
        Similarly, B*llsh!t! episodes use many nominative uses and criticize them all if they were the topic including Vatican.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
          First, no that is not how it works in the U.S. There is also the relevant case law to consider, which despite my bringing it 7 times you still completely ignore.
          Which law case did you bring seven times? are you hallucinating too?

          Second, you have not provided anything to back up your assertions. No evidence, no sources, no links, no cases. I had to track down the source of your claims for you because you claimed it was from a group it wasn't from, and it was wikipedia.
          I was the one who brought the screenshot , mentioned, explained and quoted the "nominative Fair Use" doctrine, no one else. I already explained why fixubuntu.com can't use that doctrine as an excuse . What else do you need?

          What else do you need? the Nominative fair use doctrine says that you can use trademarks without asking for permission only when you make use of it as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own.
          Completely and utterly false, which you would know if you had bothered to read the cases the EFF cited.
          Again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use. That's what the EFF is citing too, and fixubuntu.com did not pass that test, is that simple.

          Here is the quote again:
          Nominative use, also "nominative fair use", is a legal doctrine that provides an affirmative defense to trademark infringement as enunciated by the United States Ninth Circuit,[1] by which a person may use the trademark of another as a reference to describe the other product, or to compare it to their own.
          That's exactly what i am saying. So i am not laying obviously.

          And nice dodge, there. I pointed out how your own source didn't support what you are claiming, so rather than admit your mistake you just pretended you never said it.
          How can i dodge anything if you are not pointing out to anything!? I have nothing to admit because you are not saying anything at all! The three points enumerated by the fair use simply do not match the way fixubuntu.com is using the ubuntu logo, none of them!. I am presenting the evidence and the law. All you have to do is to compare. using a trademarked logo to brand your own website is NOT fair use. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

          Ah, circular reasoning at its best.

          That is an utter lie. I am deducing that, between someone with evidence and expertise and someone with neither evidence nor expertise, I think the first person is more reliable.

          Of course, your approach so far is so typical of scientists in debates with creationists. Stuff like rejecting the value of expertise, ignoring the evidence put forward by the other side, thinking a few minutes on google is as reliable as years or even decades of experience, changing arguments rather than admitting mistakes, using claims of "bias" to ignore the arguments put forward by the other side, ignoring parts of opponents' arguments that are inconvenient, pretending sources claim something they didn't, using circular arguments, make up strawman arguments for opponents, and using an grossly over-simplified picture of the issue are perfect examples of the strategies used by scientists in debates with creationists. Those sorts of tactics are never, ever, ever used by creationists.
          Well, it seems that for you, is not reasonable to think that , the opinion of a lawyer representing the client or itself is a biased opinion towards the client or itself . Creationists can cite hundreds of scientists who claim that evolution is wrong. I guess that you are one of those who believe those creationists claims then.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
            He did not make it as a part of EFF, so he shouldn't have to make it using EFF rules.

            There are movies like "Supersize me" which are very popular and use a trademarked name: "Supersize menu" and ciriticized the Mc Donalds all over the movie. Similarly, Fat Head was criticizing expressly "Supersize me"
            Similarly, B*llsh!t! episodes use many nominative uses and criticize them all if they were the topic including Vatican.
            That's not the way fixubuntu.com was using the ubuntu logo and name. For once, look at the screenshot and tell where is the parody, the criticism, the disclaimer, or the use of the ubuntu logo other than branding the website.

            Where is the Wartmart Logo here?



            Where is it?

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
              That's not the way fixubuntu.com was using the ubuntu logo and name. For once, look at the screenshot and tell where is the parody, the criticism, the disclaimer, or the use of the ubuntu logo other than branding the website.

              Where is the Wartmart Logo here?



              Where is it?
              Let's compare with Supersize Me:
              "I'm loving it" is on the main poster. Supersize is on the main poster.



              Where is the disclaimer that is not a McDonalds enterprise?
              If you say: look, there is no McDonalds logo. Let's look on their DVD release:

              Comment


              • #77
                [IMG] [/IMG]

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                  Let's compare with Supersize Me:
                  "I'm loving it" is on the main poster. Supersize is on the main poster.



                  Where is the disclaimer that is not a McDonalds enterprise?
                  If you say: look, there is no McDonalds logo. Let's look on their DVD release:
                  /facepalm/

                  sigh*

                  That's a parody, obviously. It says "Documentary" That's a hint. That facial expression of that guys tells me suffering, unlikely to be endorsed by mcdonnals, . The way the french fries are in his mouth is grotesque, that's another hint of mockery and parody . Still, i do not see the McDonnals logo in the "supersize me " logo or branding ... or even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover. The "i'm loving it " motto is trademark of mcdonnals , however it appears in the cover as a quote from Peter Travers from the Rolling Stone magazine .

                  In that back cover is clearly explained the nature of the movie which is a parody and/or critical to mcdonnals. You see the mcdonals logos only in photographs as a reference , is not used to brand the movie itself. Some disclaimer could be included within the movie but even then it might not be necessary . That's a very good Nominative Fair Use example and that's not the way fixubuntu.com was using ubuntu logos at all.

                  So what is your point? Or are you just trying to give illustrative examples in my favor?

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                    /facepalm/

                    sigh*

                    That's a parody, obviously. It says "Documentary" That's a hint. That facial expression of that guys tells me suffering, unlikely to be endorsed by mcdonnals, . The way the french fries are in his mouth is grotesque, that's another hint of mockery and parody . Still, i do not see the McDonnals logo in the "supersize me " logo or branding ... or even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover. The "i'm loving it " motto is trademark of mcdonnals , however it appears in the cover as a quote from Peter Travers from the Rolling Stone magazine .

                    In that back cover is clearly explained the nature of the movie which is a parody and/or critical to mcdonnals. You see the mcdonals logos only in photographs as a reference , is not used to brand the movie itself. Some disclaimer could be included within the movie but even then it might not be necessary . That's a very good Nominative Fair Use example and that's not the way fixubuntu.com was using ubuntu logos at all.

                    So what is your point? Or are you just trying to give illustrative examples in my favor?
                    Did you see the FixUbunto to use the logo... as for now it fixed so hopefully no complains from your side (visit www.fixUbuntu.com for making sure I'm right).

                    So let's take the claims you said about this documentary:
                    - That's a parody obviously, which makes that Fix Ubuntu is a critic, obviously.
                    - you state: "I don't see (...) even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover" ". I'm not a native English speaker, but for me cover means both sides (the front side and the back side). If you look for the back side is shown: McDonalds logo four times: 2 times on the pack of fries, once on a McDonalds restaurant and once on the "coke glass". Also it reads clearly about McDonalds (with this typing). Even so, the two references from the front cover are still enough to not be necessarily the argument on your side, isn't it? You can't use the name of the product just because you don't use the name of the company, right? You can't use iPhone trademark (as non affiliated) and is not all right because you did not use the word Apple... but this seems to be your logic. If you miss the "I'm loving it" as being a direct reference to a McDonalds branding and the Supersize as being a McDonalds product, it seems you say: you're not selective of your proof but you're very selective at least in this specific proof on the other side.

                    So as for now FixUbuntu fixes all criticism from your side (as you seem to not be a lawyer so read disclaimer) that it can be "confused" as an Ubuntu affiliated site. Also Mark apologized and most people publicly believed before that that Canonical:
                    * Canonical ?abused trademark law? to target a site critical of Ubuntu
                    * Canonical Apologizes For Trademark Bullying... And Again... And ...
                    * Canonical, Ltd.'s Trademark Aggression - Bradley M. Kuhn
                    * Canonical shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its ...
                    * Shuttleworth sorry for Canonical trademark notice and open source

                    More facts that you probably noticed: Mark did not only apologize to FixUbuntu in his blog but also on Google+, so maybe Mark felt that the facts are not on his side, but at least I'm glad that you think you have all the facts.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                      Did you see the FixUbunto to use the logo... as for now it fixed so hopefully no complains from your side (visit www.fixUbuntu.com for making sure I'm right).

                      So let's take the claims you said about this documentary:
                      - That's a parody obviously, which makes that Fix Ubuntu is a critic, obviously.
                      - you state: "I don't see (...) even the "mcdonnals" name anywhere in the cover" ". I'm not a native English speaker, but for me cover means both sides (the front side and the back side). If you look for the back side is shown: McDonalds logo four times: 2 times on the pack of fries, once on a McDonalds restaurant and once on the "coke glass". Also it reads clearly about McDonalds (with this typing). Even so, the two references from the front cover are still enough to not be necessarily the argument on your side, isn't it? You can't use the name of the product just because you don't use the name of the company, right? You can't use iPhone trademark (as non affiliated) and is not all right because you did not use the word Apple... but this seems to be your logic. If you miss the "I'm loving it" as being a direct reference to a McDonalds branding and the Supersize as being a McDonalds product, it seems you say: you're not selective of your proof but you're very selective at least in this specific proof on the other side.

                      So as for now FixUbuntu fixes all criticism from your side (as you seem to not be a lawyer so read disclaimer) that it can be "confused" as an Ubuntu affiliated site. Also Mark apologized and most people publicly believed before that that Canonical:
                      * Canonical ?abused trademark law? to target a site critical of Ubuntu
                      * Canonical Apologizes For Trademark Bullying... And Again... And ...
                      * Canonical, Ltd.'s Trademark Aggression - Bradley M. Kuhn
                      * Canonical shouldn't abuse trademark law to silence critics of its ...
                      * Shuttleworth sorry for Canonical trademark notice and open source

                      More facts that you probably noticed: Mark did not only apologize to FixUbuntu in his blog but also on Google+, so maybe Mark felt that the facts are not on his side, but at least I'm glad that you think you have all the facts.
                      I have already broken down and debunked every single claim and argument you are making there and much more from others. I could run in circles all day around you too, but i am bored of this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X