Matt, unfrotuntately (for me), you make a number of very good points, so I will break my self-imposed silence to respond ;-) Unfortunately for everyone else, this continues the thread, but at least it feels to me like we're "de-escalating" and hopefully actually getting somewhere good, faster... "Matt Hamilton" <matth@netsight.co.uk> wrote in message news:42DFBAF8.4040000@netsight.co.uk...
Hadar Pedhazur wrote:
Beyond that point, _we_ are the first registrants of the ZOPE trademark in WIPO. ZEA registered our LOGO, not the word ZOPE, which we registered _before_ they registered the LOGO. So, everyone, please pay attention. We did _not_ ignore our trademark rights in Europe. We registered our base trademark, the word ZOPE, in a number of countries in Europe. ZEA then registered our LOGO (taken from our website), including the name ZOPE in it (which we had already registered).
I am truly unsure as to how to make this point any clearer.
A few points I want to clear up... the next two paragraphs I write are about technicalities, I am not refering to any moral right or wrong, or who did what etc.
In my view the confusion is apparent. If I go to zope.org I see the same logo (admittedly with the word community added to it). If I install Zope and go to the ZMI one of the first things I see is the Zope logo. I can clearly see how people associate the logo with the software. Very few clients (and potential clients) we talk to in the UK are even aware of ZC... *in their mind* Zope is a CMS not a company.
You are absolutely correct. In certain usages, we try to make the distinction obvious (like Community being part of the logo, and certainly in adding "Corporation" in our own logo). That said, our "Logo Usage" page on zope.com, which has been there for a _very_ long time, makes it clear that we own the trademark for _all_ variations of the mark, and that we _freely_ license it (without any signatures!) for certain usage, and license it under a contract for all other usages (most of those are free too!): http://www.zope.com/about_us/legal/zope_logo_usage.html The point is that even the logo in the free Zope software is "owned" by us. It just happens to be freely licensed, with no fee or contract. That doesn't make it available to be registered as an owned trademark by someone else. We don't care if potential clients of yours don't associate the logo with us, that's obviously fine. We _do_ care if they associate the logo with ZEA and nobody else. If they associate it with Zope the software, that's fine too, and doesn't require a license, but that still leaves us as the owners of the mark.
And please please please remember that there is no such thing as 'registered the trademark in Europe'. There are many companies in Europe and the trademarks have to be registered in specific countries.
Again, you are correct. I noted in my previous response to you that you were also correct that we picked countries that were economically interesting to us.
Read the above response again (and again if necessary). More importantly, ask yourself why ZEA admitted to us during a phone call that they believe that there were deals that they could not have won if they didn't control the mark? Now extend that thought one more inch and ask yourself how the Zope-based companies that they competed against in Europe would feel if they knew that this was a commercial leverage point for ZEA in winning against their bid?!?!?
You are twisting the truth here -- I wish I had recorded the phone call now to prevent the chinese whispers :) On the call to Lois, Xavier said that there are certain possibilities of using Zope for EU projects which would be hampered by a corporation (ie ZC) owning the trademark to the OSS software. ZEA does not want the trademark. Repeat. ZEA does not want the trademark.
Huh? ZEA does not represent everyone in the Zope Community (as Rob has already pointed out) and worse, does not even represent all commercial Zope companies in Europe. How does ZEA holding the trademark make an EU project "less hampered" than ZC holding it? You can keep repeating that ZEA doesn't want the trademark, and yet, you registered it...
it's utterly obvious that even the more basic of the "facts" are still misunderstood by a number of posters. As an example, the repeated questioning of why we didn't register our own marks in Europe, which we did.
Yes, you are still mis-understanding the facts. Europe consists of many countries, of which you registered the mark in just six - Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Italy.
This is the third time that I am publicly agreeing that we made a choice.
ZEA then went on to further protect the mark registering it in: Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Cyrus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Ukraine
Really? We registered the base word Zope, from which all of our other marks derive (except for the separate trademark that we have on the Circle-Z logo). You did _not_ register the word Zope in any of the other countries, so you did not in fact "further protect the mark" in the countries that you mention above. You registered a logo that we have a registered trademark for in the US, that we paid to design, that includes our registered (in a number of EU countries as well) trademark "ZOPE", with publicly stated policies for its usage available on our website, and not only registered it in the "additional" countries, but also registered it in all of the countries where we were already "protected". I truly think it's time to just call it like it is, and stop pretending that you were saving the world from a few bad guys. People make mistakes, we all do. We didn't threaten to sue you (though we were most definitely accused of having threatened to sue you, which we responded to in writing that we did _not_ intend to sue you!). We simply pointed out that the mark was registered in your name, and that we wanted it transferred back to us. At this point, the transfer would still solve the problem quickly, but we are just as happy to have it "reversed", which in some sense will more firmly cement that our position was correct all along...
Amazingly enough, we have owned the trademark since 2002 (we changed our name in 2001, and it took that long to get the trademark registered in the US). There was _no_ hope of a Foundation at the time. Yet, by your own admission, you and others continued to invest marketing money in the brand. Why?
Because we believed (and still want to believe) in the good of all the parties involved. I guess when we started investing in promoting the software there was no confusion with the name, now there is.
My point is that the confusion has existed since 2001. This is 4 years later, and you continue to invest. It's obvious (to me) that we haven't behaved in any way that should cause people to stop investing in the brand, and that we continue to try to be creative in finding ways to make people feel even more comfortable in continuing that investment (like Rob's recent suggestion of having the ZF be the ultimate arbiter).
The more amazing part is that now that we will transfer the IP to the Foundation, and give an _irrevocable_ license to the Foundation for the use of the word ZOPE to brand the software (which can _never_ be taken back, even if someone acquires us), but somehow, _now_ you are worried about investing in the Zope brand. I simply can't connect the dots.
I guess its because IANAL, but I just:
1) Don't understand how an irrevocable license works.
Straight from the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irrevocable "Impossible to retract or revoke: an irrevocable decision." Note the word "Impossible" in the definition...
2) Am still unclear of licencing issues, when Rob spoke at EPC about the foundation it was very unclear as to who would make decisions on licensing, in some cases ZC would have the final say, and in some cases the ZF. It just seemed confusing to me.
We have attempted to clarify that in writing in Rob's post on Tuesday. The Foundation will be responsible (100%) for any licensing involving the Software, and ZC will not be involved. For any "business" use of the word Zope, ZC will be involved if there is any ambiguity regarding whether the business use implies ZC.
3) ZC is a very small, yet very powerful part of the Zope Community (maybe this is just my view from Europe). Can you explain to me exactly what benefits ZC has in holding the trademarks as opposed to them being held by an independant foundation? The fact that ZC doesn't want them to be held by an independant 3rd party makes me think something sinister is planned on the horizon.
Sinister? We want two things from holding the trademark: 1) No confusion as to the source of our products. 2) The right to license the mark to those that see value in it. Since the rights that 99.9% of the community are interested in are covered 100% by the license to the ZF, there should be a handful of people world-wide who will be unhappy with this (if everyone truly understands the issue), and those people are unhappy today anyway, since we already own the mark.
Two months ago, you would invest, when there was no Foundation on the horizon, and the Zope software could be revoked by a future acquirer of ZC. Now, there will be a guaranteed future for the Zope software and brand forever, independent of ZC, but that's somehow now "risky" for you to invest...
Yes a future acquirer of ZC could try and revoke the software, but it is licensed under the ZPL so is joint ownership. I think this creates enough of an incentive to prevent this happening as much of the code is contributed by people other than ZC.
We are talking apples and oranges here. You could always fork the software. Before the ZF though, your fork would have had to be renamed and the brand equity you so desire would be gone in an instant. With the new ZF, and our irrevocable license to it, no acquirer can _ever_ take back the word Zope from the community (or more properly from the ZF). This is _way_ better than the situation you are currently in, but somehow, the TM debate rages on.
I agree that Rob's suggestion was a good one, and the fact that I agreed to it shows that we are more than willing to work with the community to find _reasonable_ ways to solve problems.
Yes, it is reasonable and it is a start of dialogue. This is a distinct improvement over last week's approach of 'We are not negotiating anything. Hand it over or we set our lawyers on you'. When I *specifically* asked Lois if something like this was possible she re-iterated that you would not be willing to enter any further discussion.
Let's make another important distinction here. We were not, and are not willing to negotiate with ZEA over the registration of our TM. We are _more_ than willing, and have _always_ been willing to listen to the community regarding issues that can help the community grow. So, when the current TM dispute is behind us, and it is obvious to one and all that we own the TM wherever we choose to register it, we will be happy to continue to find even more ways to make the community feel comfortable regarding TM and anything else, for the growth of the community, and the benefit of all.
Perhaps European law is different that US law, but Rob stated clearly that the contract would name ZC's successors and assigns, which makes it legally binding on anyone who purchases ZC as well. In the US, that contract would survive the sale of ZC. I see no reason to be paranoid about that eventuality, as long as you would trust the initial contract between ZC and the ZF.
OK, in which case, that makes sense to me. Combined with Rob's idea of letting the board of the ZF make the decisions on licensing issues I think I personally am happy.
Excellent! Like I said in my first post yesterday, even with the current dispute ongoing, it is our intention to fulfill every promise we have made with regard to forming the Foundation and delivering the code and the license for the marks. The only thing we said was there might be a delay in the formation, until the dispute is resolved. Perhaps, since you are a member of the ZEA, you can help make some of your other members more comfortable, and help accelerate the resolution of the dispute. If not, that's fine too.