Hi,
let me start by saying that I agree with Dariusz's opinion that we should discuss this as a community, and perhaps move on from 'debate by press release' into more focused formats like Google Hangout or IRC office hours in order to find common ground, share our research, and highlight the many outstanding questions that need to be addressed before we can make an informed decision about the right path forward.
On that topic, 'debate via press release' is an unfortunate side effect of multilingualism and our translation software; it is more efficient (for both sides) to have published 'statements' that are static so that the translators have been able to effectively communicate the facts about the community logo, the trademark opposition, and the WMF position, into 20 languages already.
As far as David's point is concerned, the focus should shift away from the 'two individuals' whose names appear on the forms, to the 30 people who have publicly supported the abandonment of the community logo trademark; and there are many more unofficially or non-publicly supporting, or are concerned but not able to make an informed decision yet. All these people should be able to participate in a discussion such as the above-mentioned Google Hangout or IRC.
As far as the WMF's argument of us filling the opposition after community consultation had already started, the opposition needed to be formally filed in order to be taken seriously, as all previous discussions had been marginalised.
The prior users of this logo, including people who have created derivatives, deserve to know the legal basis on which the WMF believes that this logo can be legally trademarked by the WMF, which would effectively make the existing users give up the rights they have had and exercised unimpeded since 2006. It is our hope that the WMF will be able to provide a legal basis for their action that the Board of Trustees and community consider acceptable and ethical, as the Foundation's actions are done in our name.
If it is legal, let us see the rationale and evaluate it. This doesn't need to progress to a court, nor are we likely to win in a court against Jones Day, to be honest. We are funding this opposition 'cheaply', which means we are doing a lot of the legal research and drafting of briefs ourselves, to reduce how much of our legal counsel's time we are billed for, and we have limited funds. A few people have offered to help with the costs, but we're hoping to keep this low key in the hope a solution can be found by a well informed community during a good faith mediation process. If we all lawyer up, drowning the real issue of this dispute in legal paperwork, it will only prove once more that legal muscle wins, and do nothing to solve the underlying problem.
While legality and ethics of the trademark registration are important, there are other options that we should explore. For example the Debian project only has a trademark on their logo combined with stylised 'Debian'. The logo without stylised 'Debian' is not trademarked. The same principle could be applied to the community logo, leaving it not trademarked, and the WMF trademarking the community logo combined with stylised 'Wikimedia' or 'Meta-Wiki'. It is an approach that has worked for Debian. They even had someone outside their community reuse their free logo, and Debian survived uninjured and with zero legal expenses. :-) (http://sanacl.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/inappropriate-use-of-the-debian-logo/)
-- John
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ 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