David Grove writes:
> Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
> coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
> considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
> not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
> hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, "Horse hooey!"*
These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
profit. They specifically are not a computer software company
(well, they, of course, do or have developed some software
for profit, but this fact does not reach to this example) nor do
they possess a proprietary interest in Perl. There is a strong
argument that the above assertion (or any cause of action initiated
on the basis of this assertion) reaches too far and, consequently,
would fail.
I suspect whomever made the above assertion was actually saying
the *company* would consider it a violation and, therefore, seek
judicial relief for *the perceived* violation. A company's
perception of a violation is a far different thing from a court's
decision there was, in fact, a violation. Again, as I mentioned,
there are strong arguments to the contrary.**
Folks really gotta remember to take legal arguments as what they
are, legal *arguments.* They decidedly are *not* court
decisions.***
/acy
--------------------
* Well, maybe his remark was a bit stronger than, "hooey,"
but ... y'all get the idea.
Please note, my exclamation is directed at the person who made
the assertion *to* David about how using anything that looks like a
camel would be considered a violation. It specifically is *not*
addressed at David or his relating of the same.
** The above said, please note, imo, this is decidely off-topic to
this list, and I'd suggest any further discussion on the matter be
taken off list. (I don't mean to arrogant the decisional authority
of this list to myself; but only to be sensitive to the topic of the
list and the expectations of list members.)
*** One last remark: Often, even court decisions are not
dispositive, for any number of reasons.
