[openbeos] Re: Name suggestion

> Might be. I don't know. But on the other hand, if we
> refer to the case that rejected Microsoft's claim
> against "lindows", we can say for the same
> reasons that Be is a generic name and cannot be
> registered.

You think that the most common verb in English is going to be allowed to
be used in the US. Ha.

> So, I'm not a specialist, but I guess a name is unlikely
> to be the target of a lawsuit just because it contains
> "be".

But that's not the whole story. If I were to start an _unrelated_
business, then using be as part of the name would be more than fine in
most cases. The problem is when you start to use a registered name for a
product which competes to the existing one. The rule of thumb is to not
cause confusion in a consumers mind nor to capitalize on promotion done
for their product.

> Among the reasons for the claim rejection:
> - (said above) Windows is a generic name;
> - Window as a programming concept was known before MS
>   started using it in '83;
> - There are myriads of product names containing *dows,
>   and MS didn't file any claim against one of them.
> - MS does not sale any product called simply Windows,
>   but only Microsoft Windows and its variants.

Plus didn't apple sue MS to stop MS from not only using windows, but from
having a desktop at all. :)

> On top of that, I wonder if filing against a non
> commercial organization can be done easily.

In the US, yes. Basically, if there is no legal precedent then it's how
much you have to shell out.

> By the way, if we cannot use a name containing be, what
> about the library libbe.so?

I think that would be ok if it's not advertized and it's buried, as it
probably would be.

> Pascal
> Note that I am not in favor and neither against using
> a name in *be*. I am only against "religious" decisions
> without careful study, like (for the most famous that
> have shown on this list):

> - No C++ in the holy kernel;
> - No localization of the holy kernel;

I'm not sure if these are religious. Mixing c++ and c can be tricky if you
use io libs. This is only the start of trouble. Yes, you can work around
these issues, but people would rather work _on_ something, not work around
troubles that they have created for themselves. Not religious.

Localization (esp of non-roman alphabets) is even stupider.

1. all developers should no english (sorry, but we don't need babel here)
There are enough troubles w/ kernel development.

2. this adds needless complexity which is similar to the above.

Basically, the _need_ to do any of the above is not there w/ respect to
the amount of trouble (and work for overworked people) that it would
create.

I personally, don't care if be is used in the name: Bear OS, for example.
I don't care if c++ is in the kernel, nor if we spit out debugging
messages in chinese. I do understand why others would really care, though.

Fred

Other related posts: