From: Hancock, D. (DHANCOCK) <DHA...@ar...> - 2002-04-01 13:33:08
|
One of the people in my group found the following link with a 1996-vintage product called WebKit. Has anybody heard of this? (It purports to be part of WebWorx, which also sounds dead.) Is anyone worried about underflap.com getting after Webware to change the name? My apologies if this has come up before--I'm a recent convert to Webware/WebKit. Cheers! -- David Hancock | dha...@ar... | 410-266-4384 |
From: Chuck E. <ChuckEsterbrook@StockAlerts.com> - 2002-04-04 21:55:23
|
On Monday 01 April 2002 05:32 am, Hancock, David \(DHANCOCK\) wrote: > One of the people in my group found the following link with a > 1996-vintage product called WebKit. > > Has anybody heard of this? (It purports to be part of WebWorx, which > also sounds dead.) Is anyone worried about underflap.com getting > after Webware to change the name? > > My apologies if this has come up before--I'm a recent convert to > Webware/WebKit. > > Cheers! It gets better than that, David. If you search for Webware you will find software products, both defunct and living, company names, monthly column names and usage as a generic term. That's why in the official title I say: "Webware for Python" Which we then call Webware for short. I've also seen a couple WebKits here and there. Until now, I hadn't heard of one that was older than ours. As to who truly owns the rights to the name "Webware", there are too many contenders for me to be able to tell. No one has contacted us so far. Regarding WebWorx, never heard of it. -Chuck |
From: Steve W. <wat...@ep...> - 2002-04-05 00:16:34
|
Chuck Esterbrook wrote: > > On Monday 01 April 2002 05:32 am, Hancock, David \(DHANCOCK\) wrote: > > One of the people in my group found the following link with a > > 1996-vintage product called WebKit. [snip] > > It gets better than that, David. If you search for Webware you will > find software products, both defunct and living, company names, monthly > column names and usage as a generic term. > > That's why in the official title I say: > "Webware for Python" I don't know if you are interested in this, but if I understand trademarks correctly, you could put a "TM" on your Webware for Python name even without registering it, just to let people know you regard it as yours. Then you could go further and actually register it as a trademark (http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm) -- I think it costs a few hundred bucks, and you might want to have a logo -- then you can use the (R) symbol when it's approved. :^) -- Steve. Stephen C. Waterbury http://misspiggy.gsfc.nasa.gov/people/waterbug.html "An idiot with a computer is a faster, better idiot." - Rick Julius |
From: Serge S. <Mal...@ma...> - 2002-04-07 07:49:23
|
Hello Steve, Friday, April 05, 2002, 3:16:24, you wrote: SW> I don't know if you are interested in this, but if I understand SW> trademarks correctly, you could put a "TM" on your Webware for Python SW> name even without registering it, just to let people know you SW> regard it as yours. Then you could go further and actually SW> register it as a trademark (http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm) SW> -- I think it costs a few hundred bucks, and you might want to have a SW> logo -- then you can use the (R) symbol when it's approved. :^) sounds terribly un-open. next step would be to patent it. -- Serge Shchetinin a.k.a. Maluke. 6.Apr.2002 |
From: Steve W. <ste...@gs...> - 2002-04-08 01:43:24
|
Serge Shchetinin wrote: > > Hello Steve, > > Friday, April 05, 2002, 3:16:24, you wrote: > SW> I don't know if you are interested in this, but if I understand > SW> trademarks correctly, you could put a "TM" on your Webware for Python > SW> name even without registering it, just to let people know you > SW> regard it as yours. Then you could go further and actually > SW> register it as a trademark (http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm) > SW> -- I think it costs a few hundred bucks, and you might want to have a > SW> logo -- then you can use the (R) symbol when it's approved. :^) > > sounds terribly un-open. next step would be to patent it. Quite the contrary -- it would help avoid confusion with un-open things. (Trademarks and patents are quite different things, and copyrights are something else again ... you need to do a little more homework! ;^). Cheers, -- Steve. |