Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
    "Supersize me" doesn't use McDonalds as Fix Ubuntu doesn't use Canonical, right? ...
    Right, but ... are we talking about "canonical" or "ubuntu" ? I am pretty sure that this is about the "ubuntu" trademark , not the "canonical" trademark. Your sentence is a perfect example of Strawman.

    Given this, it was not closed and I don't know any legal lawsuit from McDonalds against "Supersize me" and certainly not on trademark grounds.
    There isn't any lawsuit because , as i said several times, that movie was actually making a fair use of the mcdonals' name and trademarks. And as a matter of fact, i explained to YOU why the movie "Supersize me" is a good example of Nominative Fair Use. Yet, you insist on arguing with me on something you should instead be agreeing with me . So there you have strawman again plus trolling.

    Why did you answer with another red herring? My accusation was that creationism (which it happen that I personally disagree with) was a red herring from your side. You answer that creationism is false but you didn't address the part of red herring, isn't it?
    I was explaining to you why i do not care if the EFF lawyer is a lawyer. . I am not discussing with anybody if creationism is right or wrong . I am simply illustrating why invoking the position of a biased lawyer just because it is a lawyer as argument , constitutes a fallacy. Yet you insists on arguing about red hearing. So, you are trying to deviate the attention into another discussion that nobody is interested .

    Mark here:
    https://plus.google.com/116812394236...ts/5jdibY5iR9b
    This was a bit silly on our part, sorry. Our trademark guidelines specifically allow satire and critique ('sucks sites') and we should at most have asked him to state that his use of the logo was subject to those guidelines.
    That's totally consistent with what i have been saying all the time. He only regrets sending the "toughest template " for the notice. Nothing else. Furthermore, in the very next paragraph he says:

    We are obliged to have SOME agreement in place with anyone using the Ubuntu logo. Rules for nominative use are subjective and thus a policy and agreements are required if we want Ubuntu to remain a defensible mark. It's a pain but that's the system.
    He is basically saying that the owner of fixubuntu.com should at least talk with Canonical first and ask for authorization and reach agreement . Do you even read? In fact, Canonical is a very friendly company regarding the use of their trademarks in the internet compared to any other company . The owner of fixubuntu don't have any excuse at all, his is just a pathetic whiner. This is just defamatory BS against Canonical.

    And you seem to be totally lost .

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      Right, but ... are we talking about "canonical" or "ubuntu" ? I am pretty sure that this is about the "ubuntu" trademark , not the "canonical" trademark. Your sentence is a perfect example of Strawman.
      I made a correction of this guy saying McDonalds is not appearing on the front cover, do you know who?

      Look carefully:
      Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
      Still, you do not see the mcdonls words in "supersize me". You still do not see the mcdonals logo or name in the front cover. The 'i'm loving' it ' phrase is a quote from Peter Travers . In the back cover you only see the mcdonal's trademark logos in photographs as a reference, and the 'mcdonals' name at the syllabus . You do not see the mcdonals logos nor name as part of the brand of the movie, nowhere. That's fair use

      fixubuntu.com was exactly the opposite. The owner misused the Canonical's ubuntu trademark only to brand the website. Nothing else. You do not see any clear hint of parody nor criticism, not even a disclaimer .And the name fixubuntu.com does not implies criticism. However, it could imply an endorsed service . So, what are you trying to argue?
      So the correction was clearly to state that a reference can reference a trademark, like "I'm loving it" even is not spoken expressly.

      So clearly was not a strawman, as I double down twice on it:
      Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
      (...)
      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.
      (...)
      If my understanding of straw man follows me well is that I would say that I would say that you were against posing Supersize as a trademark name, which you you didn't.

      Are you trying to use strawmen against me, when you were the one starting with "no McDonalds logo"? Sleep tight

      Comment


      • #83
        Attorney based answer: (is from EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/1...ensor-internet

        First, Canonical?s trademark ?policy? does not and cannot trump the First Amendment. Imagine the impact on free speech if you needed a ?grant of permission? from BP, Coca-Cola Amatil, or EFF before using one of their trademarks as part of speech criticizing their conduct. Fortunately, we don?t live in such a world. (...)
        Second, Canonical is not ?required? to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark?such as abandonment and genericide?are quite limited.

        For example, Ars Technica's article about this dispute includes a large graphic with the Ubuntu logo. Will Canonical ?lose? this trademark if it doesn?t ?enforce? it against Ars Technica? Of course not. Ars Technica?s use is not even arguably infringement. And even if it was, failure to respond to every last act of infringement does not result in abandonment.
        Food for though!

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
          Attorney based answer: (is from EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/1...ensor-internet


          Food for though!
          Does arstechnica includes the ubuntu logo in its own branding?

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
            Does arstechnica includes the ubuntu logo in its own branding?
            Do you try to use another fallacy?

            So if is a loaded question, your question is not relevant. FixUbuntu did not have a branding, its own branding, isn't it? If it has one, show it to me. ArsTechnica has one for example.

            Comment

            Working...
            X