On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
As much as I hate to admit it, they have a point this
time.
No, actually they don't have much of a point at all.
We can't
just accept every demand to take down a page and leave it down for a
fortnight.
But see, this is exactly what happens when you trust the Register to
report on anything accurately. We certainly do NOT "accept every
demand to take down a page" nor is it normal or usual for a page to
be "down for a fortnight".
Every case is different, and while it is of course sensible to always
be vigilant for ways to improve the OTRS system and practice, the
Register was completely unfair in their "reporting".
I don't have access to OTRS, so I don't know
what this was
about, but from the talk page it would appear to be related to
trademark issues. Since when have encyclopedias been restricted from
using trademarked terms? We're not selling lava lamps, we're just
talking about them - IANAL, but I'm pretty sure trademark law does not
apply.
That's right, but real legal threats from real lawyers have to be
taken seriously. I think this case could have been handled
differently, and that's worth talking about. But the hysteria of the
Register is well known, and should be taken into account here.
--Jimbo