On 17 June 2010 11:37, Peter Gervai <grin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:25, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
