xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Dierken <m...@DataChannel.com>
Subject RE: XPages, from DataChannel - a revisit
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:48:47 GMT
Thanks, it does help.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Pogue [mailto:mpogue@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:12 PM
> To: general@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: XPages, from DataChannel - a revisit
> 
> 
> 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