[jaws-uk] Re: Thoughts on FS v Serotek
- From: "Nigel" <stoppard@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jaws-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:46:37 +0100
It's not really about customers being
confused, it's about using the law to batter your opponent over the head
with. FS are not the first company to do this and they certainly won't be
the last.
I think FS, have, correctly, assessed the threat that Freedom box poses to
their long term sales of Jaws. Sure any one who needs a screen reader to
work with custom applications will probably use Jaws, but what about all the
people who just use their computer for email, web browsing and messenger?
Why keep having to buy Jaws and upgrades when you can just pay a yearly
subscription that comes with updates for a fraction of the price?
After all Jaws was created a long time before the Accessibility API
(Application Program interface) that comes built into windows Vista. I
understand this works very well with Freedom box.
But can't Jaws just use the same API I hear you ask? Well I guess they
probably could, but they have already developed ways to do a lot if not all
of the things and probably more with the Jaws scripting language and because
of the long term development and investment in the Jaws product it's always
going to cost more than Freedom box.
FS have found a way to use the law to their best advantage. Remember in
Business there is a world of difference between doing something unethical
and doing something illegal.
A cort case could easily bankrupt a small company.
God bless America!
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mullins, Chris" <Chris.Mullins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Jaws-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: [jaws-uk] Thoughts on FS v Serotek
To maintain a balanced perspective on this issue, I have reproduced the
following message sent by Jonathan Mosan of FS to the American Jaws
user list regarding the Serotek law suit.
Last week, Freedom Scientific, Inc. filed suit against Serotek Corporation
for trademark infringement with respect to the FreedomBox range of
products.
Since then, the matter has been discussed at length on some
blindness-related blogs and e-mail lists. I'd like by way of this message
to clarify what I view as some of the objectives of the suit. I am a Vice
President at Freedom Scientific, and am extremely proud to work there.
However writing this message is my own initiative as a former technology
journalist. My aim in doing this is that people at least get a chance to
consider facts over rhetoric.
Firstly, let me talk a little about trademark law. A trademark's purpose
is to exclusively identify a source and origin of products. Importantly,
a trademark only applies to a certain range of goods or services. One of
the questions I have seen on e-mail lists is, "how can Freedom Scientific
claim to own the word Freedom." By taking this action, Freedom Scientific
is not
seeking to do this. Rather, Freedom Scientific is simply enforcing the
Freedom Scientific trademark, which it owns for certain goods. Freedom
Scientific has invested to establish its trademarks and is only seeking to
enforce these valuable rights. Freedom Scientific has the legal right, and
the obligation to its customers and shareholders, to protect the use of
its trademark in the context of assistive technology. The concept of using
common words in trademarks is common - for example the use of the word
Apple to describe a computer company. As is well known through recent news
stories, Apple is quite entitled to own this name in the context of
computer
hardware and software products. It does not, of course, mean that Apple
has any rights to the name when you eat a piece of fruit. Trademarks can
co-exist where there is no similarity between the businesses. For example,
Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets are trademarks, but there is no issue
there because the businesses' purposes are totally different and there is
no room for confusion. Freedom Scientific is confident that its trademark
rights will be upheld. The broadening of scope of the FreedomBox products
to
include products like FreedomBox System Access (FBSA) offering access to
mainstream applications only exacerbates the infringement. Trademarks are
not some abstract thing. They are a company's reputation. They are legal
property, and you can't simply take someone's property without their
consent.
Secondly, I'd like to turn to the question, "why now." All sorts of
bizarre speculation have been put forward as to the timing of this suit.
Freedom Scientific made Serotek well aware of its position on this matter,
but unfortunately Serotek was unwilling to negotiate a settlement to this
matter. No one likes having to go to court, but if you genuinely believe
your property rights are being trampled upon, in the end there is no
choice but to do so if you are unable to get a resolution any other way.
Thirdly, it has been said that Freedom Scientific is giving the blind
community no credit by taking this action, and that everyone knows the
difference between the two product lines. Rest assured, this is most
certainly not the case. I can tell you that Freedom Scientific has been
contacted by Serotek customers seeking technical support, or even wanting
to buy a Serotek product. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion.
Fourthly, a petition has been established by the hosts of ACB Radio's Main
Menu, calling itself the Save Serotek petition. The grossly misleading
name of this petition implies that somehow Freedom Scientifics' objective
is to put Serotek out of business. As a result of the sensationalist name,
many commenter to the Petition have made comments to this effect. All
Freedom Scientific is seeking to do is protect its property and to seek
appropriate
compensation for the unlawful use of it. The objective here is not to put
Serotek out of business. 2007 has already seen great innovation from
Freedom Scientific and there's plenty more to come. Honest competition
inspires excellence and is good news for the customer. But I stress the
word "honest." Yes, many people in assistive technology are motivated by a
strong sense of purpose and commitment to making a difference. But these
companies are still commercial entities, who have every right to use the
legal system to protect their property if they think they need to, just as
you have a right to use the legal system if someone breaks into your house
and takes something belonging to you.
In closing, I hope that those genuinely interested in the facts of this
matter will take the time to read up on trademark case law, but most
importantly, will let the judicial process take its course. It occurs to
me that if Freedom Scientific has got it as wrong as a few people claim,
then what do they have to fear? A jury will dismiss the case. I doubt that
will
happen though. If the law has been broken as I believe it has, then
Freedom Scientific is quite entitled to redress.
My hope is that sanity prevails and that Serotek has both the courage and
the decency to brand its products in a fashion that wasn't already being
used in this industry. I think they would gain a lot of respect from the
blind community for acting honourably. Fair competition is not too much to
ask for, and it most certainly is worth fighting for. Those interested in
the subject of trademarks may like to take a look at the Wikipedia entry
on the subject, found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark.
Jonathan Mosen
This e-mail has come from Experian, the only business to have been twice
named the UK's 'Business of the Yearâ?T
===================================================================================
Information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may
not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed to
any third party without our permission. There is no intention to create
any legally binding contract or other binding commitment through the use
of this electronic communication unless it is issued in accordance with
the Experian Limited standard terms and conditions of purchase or other
express written agreement between Experian Limited and the recipient.
Although Experian has taken reasonable steps to ensure that this
communication and any attachments are free from computer virus, you are
advised to take your own steps to ensure that they are actually virus
free.
Companies Act information:
Registered name: Experian Limited
Registered office: Talbot House, Talbot Street, Nottingham NG80 1TH
Place of registration: England and Wales
Registered number: 653331
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 23/05/2007
15:59
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** jaws-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
Other related posts:
