Mark Shuttleworth Sends Out Apologies

[dee.]

You do not need a mathematics PHD to understand that two plus two equals four. I giving plain and solid arguments instead of just invoking worthless fallacies.

Or, you know, judging from your past behaviour, you're just rabidly defending your Glorious Leader MarkyMark McShuttles and ignoring every piece of evidence that speaks of any wrongdoing from the part of Canonical, because you're an irrational fanboy and don't want to ever admit that Canonical could do anything wrong.

[Alex Sarmiento]

The only one using argument from authority is you. You have no knowledge of the details of the law, no knowledge of the relevant case law, no knowledge about how the rules are actually applied in practice. EFF has relevant expertise and has provided case law that they claim back up their interpretation. You have provided nothing whatsoever other than your interpretation of their own position.

I do have knowledge of the legal details of this particular doctrine. All i had to do is read about it and understand it. Unless you are retarded , you do not need a lawyer to read and understand it for you, since it is very easy to understand. It seems that you neither understand what the fallacious argument from authority is about . You seems to be very lost

For example, you provide these arguments:
1 The ubuntu logo was used in the banner to brand the website
2 The favicon was the ubuntu logo
3 No disclaimer
4 No hint of parody or criticism , nothing!

However, you provide no evidence that any of these are remotely relevant to nominative fair use, and in fact your own source (which is wikipedia, not the EFF) directly contradicts at least 2 of your points. It provides several criteria, which you quote, but neither a disclaimer nor parady or criticism appear anywhere in your own list of criteria (or the article as a whole).

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. But, as you can see, fixubuntu.com was using the Ubuntu logos and names only to brand itself. That is definitely not a fair use, that is not what the nominative fair use is about. In simply terms: You can not make use of trademark property to brand your website without authorization

I don't know how to demonstrate for you that two plus two equals four. Sorry.

Perhaps not, but you have

1. Provided no evidence that they are biased (the EFF are not lawyers for hire, they take on cases they think are relevant to their mission).
2. Ignore the fact that case law, which does indicate consensus.

Are you asking me for evidence that the advocacy EFF lawyers are biased towards a EFF member? Well, what about this case for once?

This is not deductive reasoning. Civil law systems use inductive reasoning, based on evidence provided in the history of case law on the subject.

I am not surprised you are ignoring the case law, though, since it clearly agrees with the EFF interpretation, not yours.

You are deducing that because the EFF lawyer, is a lawyer, then what he says must be true.

Sorry but, you have nothing. I feel like discussing with a creationist about evolution. Maybe there is a linux tea party after all

[ciplogic]

I Sorry but, you have nothing. I feel like discussing with a creationist about evolution. Maybe there is a linux tea party after all

Sorry, but what do you have?

At one side is you, on the other is the internet, the EFF and Mark that thought that Canonical did it wrong. Is it over man, get over it... are many more things to you to convince people. Maybe find a creationist and explain to him about evolution.

[Alex Sarmiento]

Sorry, but what do you have?

At one side is you, on the other is the internet, the EFF and Mark that thought that Canonical did it wrong. Is it over man, get over it... are many more things to you to convince people. Maybe find a creationist and explain to him about evolution.

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.

[dee.]

Among the older cases cited by the Court in Playboy v. Welles was Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Church,[5] in which the Ninth Circuit had ruled that an independent auto repair shop that specialized in repairing Volkswagen cars and mentioned that fact in their advertising was not liable for trademark infringement so long as they did not claim or imply that they had any business relationship with the Volkswagen company.

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.

[TheBlackCat]

I do have knowledge of the legal details of this particular doctrine. All i had to do is read about it and understand it. Unless you are retarded , you do not need a lawyer to read and understand it for you, since it is very easy to understand. It seems that you neither understand what the fallacious argument from authority is about . You seems to be very lost

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you asking me for evidence that the advocacy EFF lawyers are biased towards a EFF member? Well, what about this case for once?

Ah, circular reasoning at its best.

You are deducing that because the EFF lawyer, is a lawyer, then what he says must be true.

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.

Sorry but, you have nothing. I feel like discussing with a creationist about evolution. Maybe there is a linux tea party after all

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.

[Alex Sarmiento]

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/volkswagenwerk-aktiengesellschaft-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 .

[ciplogic]

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.

(...)
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.

[ciplogic]

(...) 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.

[Alex Sarmiento]

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.