xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Pogue <mpo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: XPages, from DataChannel - a revisit
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:11:59 GMT
Just to be clear, these really aren't Apache rules, they are Trademark
Rules (courtesy of the US Gov't, US and common law, et.al.).  And, they
really aren't rules, per se, they're really guidelines that determine
your risk of attracting litigation.  Break them, and you risk getting
sued.  Most people don't like getting sued.

My understanding is that calling it "Apache whatever" will NOT be
enough.
For example, all of the following are probably not allowed names (read,
"risky", "not a good idea", "likely to initiate litigation"):

	Apache Windows 2000
	Apache Excel
	Apache ICQ
	Apache WinZip
	etc.

The constraints on names are actually relatively simple.  You must pick
a name that is not likely to get confused with an existing name in the
same category (where category is usually, but not always, the US Patent
Office category).

So, in our case, the category would be "software", and in a more broad
sense, "computer systems, hardware, software, and related equipment".

If we pick a name that is a direct conflict with an automobile name, for
example, that's probably OK, because there's little liklihood of
software being confused with an automobile.  Software and automobiles
are in different categories (the courts have already ruled on that!). 
So, for example, the Data General Nova, and the Chevy Nova, are not
likely to get confused.

However, being in a different category is NOT always enough to save you
from a lawsuit.  For example, "Apple Computer" was sued for a trademark
conflict with "Apple Records" (the Beatle's company).  As I understand
it, Apple agreed that they would never do anything in the music area, to
avoid possible conflict.  At the time, it seemed like an easy way to
avoid litigation.  Unfortunately, Apple computers were eventually able
to play music on CDROM, the conflict was created, and Apple Computer
paid dearly to get out of that agreement.

My experience is that about 1 out of 50 names is actually "possible" to
use, and 1 out of 10 of those is actually "OK to use" after doing a more
thorough check.

Remember that almost every word in the English language has been taken
as a domain name (related to software, so likely it would conflict with
the name of a software package).  So,  put-together words are popular
(e.g. "Zen-star", "Mind-spring", etc.), also words from other languages
(e.g. "Akamai", "Adjunga", etc.), as ways to avoid most of the simple,
obvious conflicts.

Here's how we did the last set of names (not perfect, but it worked):

	1) brainstorm in a room with 5-7 people, and a computer
	2) use metacrawler on any name that people like (this eliminates most
names)
	3) check with InterNic (also online) for the domain name.
	4) repeat 2 and 3 with sound-alikes.  (Yes, sound-alikes are
"confusing" according
		to the law).
	5) Anything that makes it all the way through, run it through
Alphaworks guys.
		They contact the IBM lawyers, for a "fast track" naming check.  
	6) If it passes the lawyers, use it.  The risk is still not zero, but
it's 
		almost zero.

Also, one last tip:  It's often better to pick a name that nobody has
ever heard of, and then build up "brand equity", "goodwill", "good
vibes" around it.  

Hope this helps!  Naming is not nearly as easy as it looks.
Mike

Mike Dierken wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> What are the constraints and boundaries on names?
> If we add 'Apache' to the beginning of everything, wouldn't that avoid
> conflicts?
> Coming up with names is really hard, and maybe there is something about the
> 'rules' that is artificially restrictive?
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Pogue [mailto:mpogue@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 1999 1:32 PM
> > To: general@xml.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: XPages, from DataChannel - a revisit
> >
> >
> > If you like, I can run that by the Alphaworks naming process people.
> > But, as I recall, XAPP is already taken (Xilinx).
> >
> > Mike Dierken wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm getting the release signed & then I'll be able to get
> > stuff sent up.
> > > I'll need to have a CVS project created - and now we hash
> > out names again...
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >  xapp - pronounced 'zap'
> > >
> > > I'll probably have a project structure like the following
> > (unless there is
> > > already a pattern...)
> > >
> > > xapp/src/
> > > xapp/docs/
> > > xapp/qa/
> > > xapp/samples/
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sander Mägi [mailto:sander@ip.ee]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 6:19 AM
> > > > To: general@xml.apache.org
> > > > Cc: mide@datachannel.com
> > > > Subject: Re: XPages, from DataChannel - a revisit
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Mike
> > > >
> > > > Have you had any luck with legal release?
> > > >
> > > > I am really looking forward for seeing the stuff and maybe
> > > > there are other
> > > > people also, who really want this.
> > > >
> > > > I think that even if the code, documentation and samples are
> > > > not complete and
> > > > not working it still would benefit a lot of people to see
> > > > them because when
> > > > looking at something it usually takes a while to get into the
> > > > mindset and get
> > > > used to the ideas. It does not hurt much if you can't just
> > > > start coding right
> > > > away.
> > > >
> > > > Would anybody else like to add their name to the 'really
> > > > wanting people' list
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Sander
> > > >
> > > > Mike Dierken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am in the processes of getting the legal release form
> > > > signed and cleaning
> > > > > up the source code to use the Apache XML parser.
> > > > > Once that happens, I'll upload code, documentation,
> > > > samples, overview, etc.
> > > > > I'll be away for about a week & then get working...
> > > > >
> > > > > I would rather not upload description/documentation/stuff
> > > > until the code is
> > > > > ready - unless people really really want it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the delay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Sander Mägi [mailto:sander@ip.ee]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 4:37 AM
> > > > > > To: general@xml.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: XPages, from DataChannel - is there any
> > > > information about it
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The press release stated that DataChannel contributed
> > > > their XPages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't found any information about it. Could anyone
> > > > advise where
> > > > > > should I look to find out about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sander Mägi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >

Mime
View raw message