Delirium writes:
I would personally hope that our main interest in the trademarks is not their commercial value, but their usefulness in furthering our stated charitable mission, by reducing confusion on the part of potential users and reusers of our content.
You needn't worry on that score. I think you probably understood the reference to "commercial value" as an indication of an effort on the Foundation's part to completely exploit Wikimedia trademarks for commercial purposes. In reality, we mostly don't take advantage of opportunities to do that, but we need to secure the trademarks anyway to ensure that other entities don't misleadingly employ our trademarks in commercial ways.
That said, we do look at business opportunities in which we promote our mission through licensing of our trademarks to a partner -- typically a partner that provides access to Wikimedia project reference materials or that supports our own capacity to provide such access. We also reserve the right to license the trademark for the production of things Wikimedians tend to want, like T-shirts and coffee mugs.
Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially. It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
--Mike
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially. It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing anything when someone uses it without asking?
Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your own?
Anthony
2008/11/25 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially. It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
Yes.. Actually it works in such a way, that if you ask for permission to use any Wikimedia logo you get negative answer as long as you do not persuade guys form San Francisco office that it is in line with their idea what is OK and what not. Persuading them is a kind of game with hidden rules. They keep the rules of obtaining the permission in their heads and do not communicate it directly to you. You just have to find these rules in a trial and error process.
On the other hand there is nobody to seek actively for trademark violations. If you tell guys from the office about abuse and this is serious thing in terms of business scale, you may expect some legal action to be taken. However if you do not ask for permission and simply do what you feel is OK there is quite high probability that nobody catch you, as long as your business is not very large.
If it is clever trademark management I don't know.. Maybe there is some sort of logic in this, but I am probably not smart enough to see it :-)
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing anything when someone uses it without asking?
Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your own?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by telling people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing anything when someone uses it without asking?
Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your own?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
Nathan
This said, Anthony has a point.
Ant
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
telling
people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing anything when someone uses it without asking?
Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your own?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
I didn't make any points, I asked questions. If you can think of a different way to phrase the questions while still obtaining the answers to them, please feel free to rephrase them.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.comwrote:
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What are you saying here? Do you think free speech is promoted by
telling
people "no" when they ask if they can use your trademark, but then not doing anything when someone uses it without asking?
Is that something they taught you in law school, or did you learn it on your own?
Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony, you can probably ask a question or express your disagreement without being disparaging, right? I know sometimes you choose not to when being critical of the organization, but it would probably improve the chances that Foundation staffers like Mike take your points seriously.
Nathan
This said, Anthony has a point.
Ant
Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask questions. I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail forum.
I really don't understand what Mike was trying to say. My second question was designed to express what precisely it was about his statement that I didn't understand. And my third question, which I suppose was the one considered "disparaging", was somewhat pre-emptive. Mike has a tendency to answer questions of this sort with an appeal to his status as a famous lawyer, and therefore as someone whose statements are (in his mind) beyond question by us little people. So I wanted to clarify in advance which parts of his statement he thought could be understood (and not just accepted without question) by those of us who decided not to go to law school.
Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask questions. I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail forum.
Your second question was something of a leading question. It came across as if you were trying to make a point.
I really don't understand what Mike was trying to say. My second question was designed to express what precisely it was about his statement that I didn't understand. And my third question, which I suppose was the one considered "disparaging", was somewhat pre-emptive. Mike has a tendency to answer questions of this sort with an appeal to his status as a famous lawyer, and therefore as someone whose statements are (in his mind) beyond question by us little people. So I wanted to clarify in advance which parts of his statement he thought could be understood (and not just accepted without question) by those of us who decided not to go to law school.
I've noticed that tendency as well, although I'm not sure your question will help at all. It you had worded it more like you just did it would have been better, although knowing Mike I don't think it would make any difference to his response.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
questions.
I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail forum.
Your second question was something of a leading question. It came across as if you were trying to make a point.
Well, like I said, I was trying to clarify what exactly it was about his statement that I didn't understand. To ask a good question, you kind of have to make a point, don't you? (Was that last question I just asked a question, or a point? What about that one? Or that one?)
Maybe I should make a confession here. I honestly believe that Mike Godwin has much more knowledge than I do about free speech issues, and especially how they relate to trademark law. In fact, I haven't yet formed an opinion on how free speech issues apply to trademark law. It seems to me to be self-evident that telling people that they can't use your trademark and not policing the use of your trademark are contradictory, and apparently this seems self-evident to others on this mailing list as well (hence the accusations that I'm trying to make a point). But having not devoted my life to studying this issue, it may very well be that I'm wrong. If that's the case, I hope Mike can clarify for all of us why this isn't contradictory. On the other hand, maybe Mike misspoke and can correct himself, or maybe I misunderstood him and he can clarify.
When I was in college I quite often asked professors questions which pointed out seeming contradictions in what they were saying, and I never did so to make a point. Sometimes it turns out the professor was wrong. Sometimes they misspoke. Sometimes I misunderstood them. In all three cases there are possible positive outcomes to my having asked the question. Yes, there are also possible negative outcomes, but we're supposed to assume good faith, aren't we?
2008/11/25 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Well, like I said, my purpose wasn't to make a point, but to ask
questions.
I've learned better than to try to make points in this particular e-mail forum.
Your second question was something of a leading question. It came across as if you were trying to make a point.
Well, like I said, I was trying to clarify what exactly it was about his statement that I didn't understand. To ask a good question, you kind of have to make a point, don't you? (Was that last question I just asked a question, or a point? What about that one? Or that one?)
It depends on the question, but a request for clarification does often require you to make a point first in order to explain the confusion. I guess it's all about how you word it (I'm really not the one to be giving advice on tact, though!).
On the other hand, maybe Mike misspoke and can correct himself, or maybe I misunderstood him and he can clarify.
I think that's the most likely explanation. Mike doesn't always explains things well to us laymen, he probably knows exactly what he means and he's probably right, but we just don't have the prior knowledge required to understand his comment. I guess lawyers aren't used to a bunch of geeks checking up on them constantly!
When I was in college I quite often asked professors questions which pointed out seeming contradictions in what they were saying, and I never did so to make a point. Sometimes it turns out the professor was wrong. Sometimes they misspoke. Sometimes I misunderstood them. In all three cases there are possible positive outcomes to my having asked the question. Yes, there are also possible negative outcomes, but we're supposed to assume good faith, aren't we?
Indeed, asking questions is always good, it's just a matter of how you ask them.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote: [snip]
In fact, I haven't yet formed an opinion on how free speech issues apply to trademark law.
[snip]
I think it's helpful to consider a pair of somewhat tangential questions:
"Is it a violation of your right to free speech that you can't write me contract to sell me the brooklyn bridge, as you do not own it, with impunity?"
"Is it a violation of your right to free speech that I have chosen not appoint you as my personal spokesperson, authorized to represent me to the general public?"
Take some time and consider these carefully. I believe it will provide you with insights on trademarks and free speech.
Cheers.
I would think that selective enforcement is used because it costs so much to sue in this country. Just my two cents.
________________________________ From: Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
2008/11/25 Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org:
Without criticizing Mozilla at all, I'll note that we're not that much like Mozilla in the scale on which license trademarks commercially. It's probably difficult for anyone outside the Foundation to imagine the sheer number of licensing opportunities we turn down on a daily or weekly basis. I've also been told that, in comparison to other nonprofits that hold commercially valuable trademarks, we're remarkably *un*aggressive in policing them. You might almost think the Foundation's legal strategy were being run by a free-speech lawyer.
Yes.. Actually it works in such a way, that if you ask for permission to use any Wikimedia logo you get negative answer as long as you do not persuade guys form San Francisco office that it is in line with their idea what is OK and what not. Persuading them is a kind of game with hidden rules. They keep the rules of obtaining the permission in their heads and do not communicate it directly to you. You just have to find these rules in a trial and error process.
On the other hand there is nobody to seek actively for trademark violations. If you tell guys from the office about abuse and this is serious thing in terms of business scale, you may expect some legal action to be taken. However if you do not ask for permission and simply do what you feel is OK there is quite high probability that nobody catch you, as long as your business is not very large.
If it is clever trademark management I don't know.. Maybe there is some sort of logic in this, but I am probably not smart enough to see it :-)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org