All posts by Bradley M. Kuhn

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

USPTO Affirms Copyleft-ish Hack on Trademark

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/18/uspto-hack.html

I don’t often say good things about the USPTO, so I should take the
opportunity: the
trademark revocation hack to pressure the change of the name of the sports
team called the Redskins was a legal hack in the same caliber as
copyleft.
Presumably Blackhorse
deserves the credit for this hack, but the USPTO showed it was sound.

Update, 2014-06-19 & 2014-06-20: A few have commented that this isn’t
a hack in the way copyleft is. They have not made an argument for this,
only
pointed that the
statue prohibits racially disparaging trademarks. I thought it would
be obvious why I was calling this a copyleft-ish hack, but I guess I need
to explain. Copyleft uses copyright law to pursue a social good unrelated
to copyright at all: it uses copyright to promote a separate social aim
— the freedom of software users. Similarly, I’m strongly suspect
Blackhorse doesn’t care one wit about trademarks and why they exist or even
that they exist. Blackhorse is using the trademark statute to put
financial pressure on an institution that is doing social harm —
specifically, by reversing the financial incentives of the institution bent
on harm. This is analogous to the way copyleft manipulates the financial
incentives of software development toward software freedom using the
copyright
statute. I
explain more in this comment.

Fontana’s
comments argue that the UPSTO press release is designed to distance
itself from the TTAB’s decision. Fontana’s point is accurate, but the TTAB
is ultimately part of the USPTO. Even if some folks at the USPTO don’t
like the TTAB’s ruling, the USPTO is actually arguing with itself, not a
third party. Fontana further pointed out in turn that the TTAB is
an Article
I tribunal, so there can be Executive Branch “judges” who
have some level of independence. Thanks to Fontana for pointing to that
research; my earlier version of this post was incorrect, and I’ve removed
the incorrect text. (Pam Chestek, BTW, was the first to point this out, but
Fontana linked to the documentation.)

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts:

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts:

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts:

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts:

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts:

Node.js Removes Its CLA

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/11/nodejs-no-cla.html

I’ve had my disagreements with Joyent‘s management
of the Node.js project. In fact, I am
generally auto-skeptical of any Open Source and/or Free Software project
run by a for-profit company. However, I also like to give credit where
credit is due.

Specifically, I’d like to congratulate Joyent for making the right
decision today to remove one of the major barriers to entry for
contribution to the Node.js project: its CLA. In
an announcement
today (see section labeled “Easier Contribution”, Joyent
announced Joyent no longer requires contributors to sign the CLA and
will (so it seems) accept contributions simply licensed under the
MIT-permissive license. In short, Node.js is, as of today, an
inbound=outbound
project.

While I’d prefer if Joyent would in addition switch the project
to the Apache License 2.0 — or even better, the Affero GPLv3 —
I realize that neither of those things are likely to happen. 🙂 Given that,
dropping the CLA is the next best outcome possible, and I’m glad it has
happened.

For further reading on my positions against CLAs, please see these two
older blog posts: