Thanks Dariusz for your wise words which I fully agree upon.
I my understanding this issue has three underlaying aspects: *A legal technical one. What is the real meaning and implication of a "collective membership mark". A straight forward issue *The spread among us community members between idealists and pragmatics. I see this difference being most manifested when we discuss protection of articles often being vandalized. And here I believe it is a strength for the totality that we have both group among ourselves - it leads to more balanced decisions (but also often after heated debates) * An old latent suspicion between "WMF/Board" and community member/Chapters. This is an old story and where we have lately seen some signs his "tension" was decreasing, our interaction and trust in each other becoming better. And sometimes this tension is seen to be between Order and Anarchy, but I do not buy this interpretation. We should all in the movement actively try to live up to our motto "Assume good faith" at the same time as we of course should continue to discuss constructive our complex intraorganizational issues that turns up
I feel real, real sad when I perceive this issue, which is only an internal issue with all competence and input being within the movement, is turned into being handled outside the movement, inside a official legal framework. Even more sad knowing all key persons involved in this issue to be competent, very important to the movement and equally dedicated to our common vision/mission.
I have no advice to give how to get the issue resolved or how to proceed or how to act, but urge all involve all involved parts and other actors within the movement to act so this issue can be taken back from "the outside world" and be bought back to the movement to be resolved among ourselves.
Anders
Dariusz Jemielniak skrev 2013-10-10 09:05:
hi,
while writing about "two individuals" was probably well-meant (so as not to point fingers), to my non-native ear it sounds unfortunately close to police reports lingo :) Also, while I perfectly understand why WMF needs external representation, and why Jones Day's in-kind donated support is used, it is also clear to me that the "two individuals" may feel cornered and perceive it as an move to resolve the issue by force (in the face of obvious disparity of legal brainpower and resources).
I may be wrong, but my own and personal view is 100% in line with what Craig wrote: irrespective of the result, taking this dispute to court will be a failure on both sides.
Ideally, if both sides could agree on a mediation by one or more parties acceptable to them, this could wind things down a bit and perhaps lead to a better understanding of the views (as well as of the legal mechanics and consequences of the choices). Also, since both sides act with a strong perception of protecting the community's interest in the way they see fit best, the community's wider feedback may help in resolving the issue.
Just my two-cents.
best,
pundit
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:09 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Referring to John and Federico as "these two individuals" comes across as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. Are you quite sure this is the effect you're after?
On 9 October 2013 07:13, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
The legal team have provided some background on the hiring on Jones Day
in
this action. Here is their comment:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation...
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, tomasz@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote on September 26, 2013, 15:22 UTC:
Trademark don't self-enforce, they are "enforceable" as long as someone
believes to you when you use them as threat tools. So yes, I suppose
they
might.
... and given that the WMF just hired the infamous Jones Day bullies as their representative before the OHIM to fight an opposition filled by
their
own volunteers (me and Federico), I don't think it's an unfair view.
I suggest that everyone interested in the subject read < http://www.dmlp.org/blog/**2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-** jones-day-blockshopper-**settlement<
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/thoughts-jones-day-blockshopper-set...
and related links for an overview of a 2009 Jones Day lawsuit against a start-up company Blockshopper.com which Paul Levy called "a new a new
entry
in the contest for grossest abuse of trademark law to suppress speech
the
plaintiff doesn't like".
I'm aware that, being a party of the opposition, I shouldn't really comment on the WMF's litigation tactics, but it still leaves me wonder about the point of hiring, as some say, "one of the worst trademark
abusers
in history", as their representative in this case.
Tomasz______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe