On 17 June 2010 11:37, Peter Gervai <grinapo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:25, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote many things.
My sidenote is that if you believe in what you say then you imply
Wikipedia, Wikimedia and everything we have with 'wiki' string in it,
and every method we use which described as 'wiki-way of web
publishing' violates Ward's intellectual rights since it was him who
first used the word, who conjured up the method and made it known.
We're not talking about patents; we're talking about trademarks. Who
conjured up the method is completely irrelevant, as I have already
explained. This complete lack of understanding of trademark law is
precisely why people shouldn't be trying to guess whether something is
a violation or not. I have not once claimed that it is a violation. I
have said that it might be one. That is the most I can say with my
level of understanding of the relevant law and it is clear I have far
more understanding of the relevant law than anyone else in this
discussion.