|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > But even if they did purchase the copyright from Berkeley, we are talking > > about what amounts to packet signatures. Fair use allows one to create > > interoperable products. [DMCA 1201(f), I think]. > You can't "purchase a copyright" to a trademark, Dean. I didn't say you could "'purchase a copyright' to a trademark". Such a phrase is nonsense. [I am the LPF president for 14 years, I know a bit about trademarks, copyrights, and patents. The LPF is the reason you don't have 'user interface copyrights', and is why you have things such as Zebra and Quagga.] But I should have said 'purchase the trademark', instead. Usually, when one purchases a copyright, one also gets the trademark. One can purchase them separately--Indeed, I just reminded the IETF lawyer of this recently. For example, The Open Group owns the trademark for Unix. Novell claimed never to have transferred ownership of the patents, and SCO owns the copyright. > If someone already *holds* a trademark -- something one gets by > *activity of commerce*, You do not get a trademark merely by activity in commerce. Rather, activity in commerce is a prerequisite to obtaining a right to a trademark. A trademark must be identified as a trademark or registered. And if you haven't used it in commerce, you have no rights to it. > you can purchase a *license* to use it. Yes, you _can_ purchase a *license*, if a license is offered. But the mark itself can also be sold. Same goes for a copyright. Same goes for patents. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000
|