At 07:34 PM 11/6/2001 -0500, Chris really wrote
>It seems you are saying a trademark is not being vigorously enforced on
I am not really making any claims at all as to what you are or not enforcing...
>but no trademark exists,
or what trademarks you own.
>that I know of, on "Slash". "Slash" does
>not equal "Slashdot". Rob did not assert that we have a trademark on
>"Slash", but on "Slashdot".
what he actually said was this:
>> We do own a
>>variety of trademarks related to Slashdot, and while I doubt we'd ever
>>prosecute anyone, I'd rather see fewer Slash* sites and more sites with
He didn't say specifically what the trademarks are. And even if he did, it
is far from clear to me that if there were a bunch of variations on
"slashdot" that your attorneys would not consider the intellectual property
value to be vested in "slash" itself to some extent.
Like I said, IANAL, but I think you guys are well known enough that the
case could be made you have authority to speak publicly for andover on
matters relating to slashdot/slashcode development, and I think you may
have misstated the case you intended to make, to your potential detriment.
While I doubt I would ever do so, I am more than fairly certain that my IP
attorneys would be able to use the quote from Rob to make your life pretty
uncomfortable wrt to trademarks. I know it is a pointy-haired topic, but I
just think you might want to double check and run this one by the legal
team and let them answer.
>Chris Nandor pudge@... http://pudge.net/
>Open Source Development Network pudge@... http://osdn.com/