Tag Archives: trademark

Free Electrons becomes Bootlin

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/746345/rss

Longtime embedded Linux development company Free Electrons has just changed its name to Bootlin due to a trademark dispute (with “FREE SAS, a French telecom operator, known as the owner of the free.fr website“). It is possible that Free Electrons may lose access to its “free-electrons.com” domain name as part of the dispute, so links to the many resources that Free Electrons hosts (including documentation and conference videos) should be updated to use “bootlin.com”. “The services we offer are different, we target a different audience (professionals instead of individuals), and most of our communication efforts are in English, to reach an international audience. Therefore Michael Opdenacker and Free Electrons’ management believe that there is no risk of confusion between Free Electrons and FREE SAS.

However, FREE SAS has filed in excess of 100 oppositions and District Court actions against trademarks or name containing “free”. In view of the resources needed to fight this case, Free Electrons has decided to change name without waiting for the decision of the District Court.

This will allow us to stay focused on our projects rather than exhausting ourselves fighting a long legal battle.”

Moglen fires back at the Software Freedom Conservancy

Post Syndicated from corbet original https://lwn.net/Articles/742151/rss

Here’s the
latest from Eben Moglen
on the Software Freedom Law Center’s trademark
attack against the Software Freedom Conservancy. “We propose a
general peace, releasing all claims that the parties have against one
another, in return for an iron-clad agreement for mutual non-disparagement,
binding all the organizations and individuals involved, with strong
safeguards against breach. SFLC will offer, as part of such an overall
agreement, a perpetual, royalty-free trademark license for the Software
Freedom Conservancy to keep and use its present name, subject to agreed
measures to prevent confusion, and continued observance of the
non-disparagement agreement.

In the spirit of non-disparagement,
it also says: “In view of this evidence and the sworn pleading
submitted by the Conservancy, we have now moved to amend our petition, to
state as a second ground for the cancellation that the trademark was
obtained by fraud.

Concerning a Statement by the Conservancy (Software Freedom Law Center Blog)

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/738279/rss

The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) has responded to a recent blog post from the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) regarding the SFC’s trademark. SFLC has asked the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel the SFC trademark due to a likelihood of confusion between the two marks; SFC posted about the action on its blog. Now, SFLC is telling its side of the story: “At the end of September, SFLC notified the US Patent and Trademark Office that we have an actual confusion problem caused by the trademark ‘Software Freedom Conservancy,’ which is confusingly similar to our own pre-existing trademark. US trademark law is all about preventing confusion among sources and suppliers of goods and services in the market. Trademark law acts to provide remedies against situations that create likelihood of, as well as actual, confusion. When you are a trademark holder, if a recent mark junior to yours causes likelihood of or actual confusion, you have a right to inform the PTO that the mark has issued in error, because that’s not supposed to happen. This act of notifying the PTO of a subsequently-issued mark that is causing actual confusion is called a petition to cancel the trademark. That’s not some more aggressive choice that the holder has made; it is not an attack, let alone a ‘bizarre’ attack, on anybody. That’s the name of the process by which the trademark holder gets the most basic value of the trademark, which is the right to abate confusion caused by the PTO itself.

SFLC Files Bizarre Legal Action Against Its Former Client, Software Freedom Conservancy (Conservancy Blog)

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/738046/rss

The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) blog reveals a recent action taken by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) to try to cancel the trademark for SFC. On September 22, SFLC filed a complaint with the US Patent and Trademark Office asking that the trademark be canceled because there is a likelihood of confusion between the trademarks:
Registrant’s SOFTWARE FREEDOM CONSERVANCY Mark is confusingly similar to
Petitioner’s SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER Mark.
” On November 2, SFC filed a response that lists the defenses it plans to use. From the blog post: “We are surprised and sad that our former attorneys, who kindly helped our organization start in our earliest days and later excitedly endorsed us when we moved from a volunteer organization to a staffed one, would seek to invalidate our trademark. Conservancy and SFLC are very different organizations and sometimes publicly disagree about detailed policy issues. Yet, both non-profits are charities organized to promote the public’s interest. Thus, we are especially disappointed that SFLC would waste the precious resources of both organizations in this frivolous action.

Amazon Redshift Dense Compute (DC2) Nodes Deliver Twice the Performance as DC1 at the Same Price

Post Syndicated from Quaseer Mujawar original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/amazon-redshift-dense-compute-dc2-nodes-deliver-twice-the-performance-as-dc1-at-the-same-price/

Amazon Redshift makes analyzing exabyte-scale data fast, simple, and cost-effective. It delivers advanced data warehousing capabilities, including parallel execution, compressed columnar storage, and end-to-end encryption as a fully managed service, for less than $1,000/TB/year. With Amazon Redshift Spectrum, you can run SQL queries directly against exabytes of unstructured data in Amazon S3 for $5/TB scanned.

Today, we are making our Dense Compute (DC) family faster and more cost-effective with new second-generation Dense Compute (DC2) nodes at the same price as our previous generation DC1. DC2 is designed for demanding data warehousing workloads that require low latency and high throughput. DC2 features powerful Intel E5-2686 v4 (Broadwell) CPUs, fast DDR4 memory, and NVMe-based solid state disks.

We’ve tuned Amazon Redshift to take advantage of the better CPU, network, and disk on DC2 nodes, providing up to twice the performance of DC1 at the same price. Our DC2.8xlarge instances now provide twice the memory per slice of data and an optimized storage layout with 30 percent better storage utilization.

Customer successes

Several flagship customers, ranging from fast growing startups to large Fortune 100 companies, previewed the new DC2 node type. In their tests, DC2 provided up to twice the performance as DC1. Our preview customers saw faster ETL (extract, transform, and load) jobs, higher query throughput, better concurrency, faster reports, and shorter data-to-insights—all at the same cost as DC1. DC2.8xlarge customers also noted that their databases used up to 30 percent less disk space due to our optimized storage format, reducing their costs.

4Cite Marketing, one of America’s fastest growing private companies, uses Amazon Redshift to analyze customer data and determine personalized product recommendations for retailers. “Amazon Redshift’s new DC2 node is giving us a 100 percent performance increase, allowing us to provide faster insights for our retailers, more cost-effectively, to drive incremental revenue,” said Jim Finnerty, 4Cite’s senior vice president of product.

BrandVerity, a Seattle-based brand protection and compliance‎ company, provides solutions to monitor, detect, and mitigate online brand, trademark, and compliance abuse. “We saw a 70 percent performance boost with the DC2 nodes for running Redshift Spectrum queries. As a result, we can analyze far more data for our customers and deliver results much faster,” said Hyung-Joon Kim, principal software engineer at BrandVerity.

“Amazon Redshift is at the core of our operations and our marketing automation tools,” said Jarno Kartela, head of analytics and chief data scientist at DNA Plc, one of the leading Finnish telecommunications groups and Finland’s largest cable operator and pay TV provider. “We saw a 52 percent performance gain in moving to Amazon Redshift’s DC2 nodes. We can now run queries in half the time, allowing us to provide more analytics power and reduce time-to-insight for our analytics and marketing automation users.”

You can read about their experiences on our Customer Success page.

Get started

You can try the new node type using our getting started guide. Just choose dc2.large or dc2.8xlarge in the Amazon Redshift console:

If you have a DC1.large Amazon Redshift cluster, you can restore to a new DC2.large cluster using an existing snapshot. To migrate from DS2.xlarge, DS2.8xlarge, or DC1.8xlarge Amazon Redshift clusters, you can use the resize operation to move data to your new DC2 cluster. For more information, see Clusters and Nodes in Amazon Redshift.

To get the latest Amazon Redshift feature announcements, check out our What’s New page, and subscribe to the RSS feed.

Ubuntu still isn’t free software

Post Syndicated from Matthew Garrett original https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/45939.html

Mark Shuttleworth just blogged about their stance against unofficial Ubuntu images. The assertion is that a cloud hoster is providing unofficial and modified Ubuntu images, and that these images are meaningfully different from upstream Ubuntu in terms of their functionality and security. Users are attempting to make use of these images, are finding that they don’t work properly and are assuming that Ubuntu is a shoddy product. This is an entirely legitimate concern, and if Canonical are acting to reduce user confusion then they should be commended for that.

The appropriate means to handle this kind of issue is trademark law. If someone claims that something is Ubuntu when it isn’t, that’s probably an infringement of the trademark and it’s entirely reasonable for the trademark owner to take action to protect the value associated with their trademark. But Canonical’s IP policy goes much further than that – it can be interpreted as meaning[1] that you can’t distribute works based on Ubuntu without paying Canonical for the privilege, even if you call it something other than Ubuntu.

This remains incompatible with the principles of free software. The freedom to take someone else’s work and redistribute it is a vital part of the four freedoms. It’s legitimate for Canonical to insist that you not pass it off as their work when doing so, but their IP policy continues to insist that you remove all references to Canonical’s trademarks even if their use would not infringe trademark law.

If you ask a copyright holder if you can give a copy of their work to someone else (assuming it doesn’t infringe trademark law), and they say no or insist you need an additional contract, it’s not free software. If they insist that you recompile source code before you can give copies to someone else, it’s not free software. Asking that you remove trademarks that would otherwise infringe trademark law is fine, but if you can’t use their trademarks in non-infringing ways, that’s still not free software.

Canonical’s IP policy continues to impose restrictions on all of these things, and therefore Ubuntu is not free software.

[1] And by “interpreted as meaning” I mean that’s what it says and Canonical refuse to say otherwise

comment count unavailable comments