On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Matt Henley wrote:
> In response to your previous question, I was trying to say that by creating
> a legal entity, you may be giving a focus point for litigation. That was
> more of a devil's advocate point of view and not necessarily my own. I
> think that overall, a foundation would be good.. as it has been for Blender
> ( www.blender.org .
>
> I think that your example below is not a very good one for this case. BMW
> is a globally known name such as Pepsi or IBM that could be successfully
> litigated under trademark dilution. Based on googling "lazarus", I would
> conclude that no one company or product could bring any type of dilution
> proceedings against us.
>
> If there is not a dilution case, it falls back to the original intent of
> trademarks, consumer protection.. are we trying to deceive users into
> believing that they are receiving another, trademarked product? If not, the
> whole compensation portion goes away. You are still left with the
> possibility of a cease and desist type situation, but by having the
> foundation named in a more generic fashion ( Open and Portable Software
> Development Foundation ), you could cross that bridge (change the name of
> lazarus) if it ever became a real problem.
The foundation, yes. I don't think the name of the foundation would present
a problem. The product (in this case: LCL and IDE) would still suffer from
this, though.
Michael.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
