[OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[John F. Eldredge]

Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John
> 
> I think some EU countries (and Switzerland) also have this 5 years
> rule.
> But I'm not a professional lawyer.
> If anybody is, then I suggest that he could offer his services to the
> OSMF as a volunteer (e.g. for a 2nd opinion).
> 
> Yours, Stefan
> 
> 
> 2013/2/4 John F. Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com>:
> > Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
> >> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
> >>
> >> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
> >>  > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
> >> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for
> >> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They
> >> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as
> releasing
> >> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to
> ask
> >> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and
> >> copyright issues.
> >>
> >> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that
> >> the TM
> >> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when
> >> mentioned in
> >>  > proximity of Google services.
> >>
> >> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having
> allowed
> >> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their
> trademark
> >> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a
> Google
> >> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.
> >>
> >> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
> >> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
> >> their trademark (claim).
> >>
> >> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.
> >>
> >> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a
> C&D
> >> is
> >> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach
> of
> >>
> >> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done
> >> something
> >>  > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and
> that
> >>  > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
> >>
> >> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's
> >> *Google*.
> >
> > If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode"
> for 12 years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US
> law, the term is now legally classed as generic, and can be used by
> anyone.  According to
> <http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Trademark_infringement>, while there is
> no Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one
> Federal court decided that such cases were subject to the general
> five-year limit for non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US
> Code.  Usually, the Federal courts follow the precedents set by the
> most similar state case.
> >
> > --
> > John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
> than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Well, I should note that I am not a lawyer, either.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria