Has anyone ever actually ASKED Palm what they think about OpenBeOS or are these your own opinions? Elver >Two items regarding trademarks and lawsuits. MS attempted to sue Lindows on >one basis that it might be confusing to the consumer in the marketplace. A >company does have a right to protect their branding if someone else tries to >leverage that branding for their own gain. If OBOS or what ever name they >choose, tries to leverage the branding of Be or the BeOS, the owners of that >trademark can request directly or through the courts to stop the other >company from leveraging that brand. Additionally, "BeOS" is a trademark now >owned by Palm (or is it Be again?). Unauthorized use of someone else >trademark or mis-representing that trademark is a violation. > >If a suit occurred, does OBOS have a chance of winning; maybe. But as far >as I know, no-one on the OBOS team has enough money to defend itself in >court, nor would anyone want to have their personal assets attached if Palm >could prove damages. It's just something you don't want to test unless you >have limited liability protection (incorporated in some form), and have deep >pockets (both Lindows have). > >John > >-----Original Message----- >From: pascal@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pascal@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:09 PM >To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [openbeos] Re: Name suggestion > > >On Wed, 26 June 2002, "Michael Phipps" wrote > >> >> There is something of a stigma of failure. And if that >>were the only issue, I would say that it pretty well >>balances with the positive side (i.e. popularity, etc). >>The issue is legal. Cloning BeOS and naming ourselves. >>*Be.* is a recipie for a lawsuit. > >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. >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". > >Read the ruling, it's interesting. > >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. > >On top of that, I wonder if filing against a non >commercial organization can be done easily. > >By the way, if we cannot use a name containing be, what >about the library libbe.so? > >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; >- etc... >