Java Soft-Real-Time Processor (JSRTProc)

[Lew]

I also have the feeling you might be more concerned with flaming people
or scoring points in some way than you are with carrying out a debate on
the merits. The ridiculous hyperbole at the start of your latest post,
and your general tone, suggest this to me. I hope that this turns out
not to actually be the case. We all sometimes say things that on a sober
second look turn out not to be all that sensible or helpful.

Your devolvement into /ad hominem/ argument bespeaks a weakness in your actual
case.

As does your straw-man denigration of points I didn't make that you attributed
to me.

(Although I can't recall ever myself implying that a large number of
Sourceforge developers in good standing are doing something that's
tantamount to murder. In fact, previously I can't recall ever hearing
anything quite like that from any non-Microsoft source.)

And you didn't hear it here. To say I made such a claim is to proffer a
straw-man argument: misstate my points then refute the misstatement. You have
not addressed the actual points I actually made.

I didn't imply that SourceForge developers are murderers, you silly person. I
claimed that the argument, "You'll get away with it," is just as fallacious
for trademark infringement as it is for murder. Note that such a claim does
not imply that one is as serious as the other.

 

[Larry K. Wollensham]

Lew was very specifically commenting on your claim about safety
in numbers.

Lew was implying a ludicrous slippery slope argument, that endorsing
obeying the letter of the law while ignoring expressed corporate wishes
that go beyond what the law strictly allows them to enforce is somehow
the first step on a slippery slope that leads to murder and mayhem.

Why ?

Lew etc. assumes that they follow the rules.

Which rules? The rules of trademark law or the rules on Sun's website?
They turn out not to quite be the same.

reference != use in the name of your product

Tons of MS-DOS compatible operating systems in the 80s and 90s used
"DOS" in their names. This wasn't apparently considered to infringe
Microsoft's trademarks.

Plenty of web sites exist that use the trademarked names of products in
their names, where those sites are about those products (or about
something completely unrelated with the same name) but not endorsed by
the trademark holder. These are not normally considered to infringe.

Trademark law says that use of a mark in a misleading way, in a way
likely to cause confusion, is infringing, and that's about it. Making
your own programming language and calling it "Java" would infringe (and
Microsoft got sued for doing so). Implying an endorsement by Sun that
you didn't actually have would infringe.

The fact is, not every use of the name that Sun's policy page claims to
forbid is actual infringement in the eyes of the law.

It is quite common for corporate lawyers to overreach in stating terms
of use of various kinds, going well beyond what the law actually permits
them to compel, particularly where copyrights and trademarks are
concerned. DVDs sold here all have warnings that the police will get you
if you use them for anything other than "home exhibition only", though
we have fair-dealing rules that allow other uses of copyrighted video,
such as brief clips for commentary and criticism. It's probably the same
in the United States and other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, it's also quite common for corporate lawyers to overreach
in actually filing lawsuits and sending out cease and desist letters.
Particularly with trademarks, which they feel the need to be seen
aggressively policing. And even if you'd win, it can be expensive to
fight such a suit. Hence the advice that the OP seek legal counsel.

My point is that what the OP proposes doing does not actually infringe
trademark according to my understanding of Australian trademark law. Of
course, this might vary by jurisdiction.

I refer you also to
http://www.inta.org/index.php?optio...Itemid=60&catid=284&page=1&getcontent=1#FAQ75

"When Can I Use Another Person’s Trademark Without Their Consent?

As a general matter, it is advisable to obtain the consent of a
trademark owner before proceeding with use of their mark. U.S. trademark
law, however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered
or unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is made in
good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to
which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with
another’s goods or services. Note, however, that in many countries,
comparative advertising is unlawful.

Relevant considerations for determining whether use of another ’s mark
constitutes “fair use†include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
following:

Bad faith. Intentionally using another’s mark for the purpose of
benefiting from the good will associated with the mark is not a
permissible use of another person’s mark without their consent.

How the mark is used. Use of another person’s mark should not be made
for the purpose of promoting one’s own goods or services without their
consent. Visual placement and prominence of the other mark can bear upon
whether use of another’s mark may be construed as being for one’s own
promotional purposes.

Confusion by consumers. Some uses of another’s mark can suggest
sponsorship or endorsement by the mark’s owner and can confuse consumers
into believing that there is an association between you and the owner of
the mark. This is not a permissible use of another’s mark without their
consent."

This states more or less what I've been saying. Though I don't think the
OP would be infringing, "as a general matter, it is advisable to obtain
the consent of a trademark owner before proceeding with use of their mark".

I don't see why this has become a somewhat unpleasant argument given
that we apparently agree on this particular point.

Especially noteworthy in the above, though, is "U.S. trademark law,
however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered or
unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is ... to
accurately indicate compatibility with another’s goods or services."

This indicates to me that labeling Java class libraries as such does not
infringe in the United States, either, which is probably the
jurisdiction that actually matters in this case.

Not very common.

Are you calling me a liar?

I do not remember seeing any particular evidence

There was a fairly long list of Sourceforge projects that apparently
have not been attacked, several posts ago. If you wish, I will repost it.

If you don't consider such a list to be "evidence" rather than
"speculation" that there exist "numerous Sourceforge projects that
apparently have not been attacked", though, then I doubt any response I
make will satisfy you and then we're done arguing as to continue would
clearly be pointless.

Basing your product on current policy but violating rules is not
a good foundation for a product.

Violating what rules? As near as I can tell, he would not actually be
violating trademark law itself.

And as near as I can tell, he would also have that "safety in numbers"
thing, which is often of import when doing something that is not
actually illegal but which is perhaps unpopular with a relatively
powerful entity that is nonetheless capable of making a nuisance of
itself. As seems to be the case here.

Although again, it is often wisest not to risk the wrath of such an
entity, regardless of what the letter of the law says you can do
(unfortunately). I have never disputed this.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Lew was implying a ludicrous slippery slope argument, that endorsing
obeying the letter of the law while ignoring expressed corporate wishes
that go beyond what the law strictly allows them to enforce is somehow
the first step on a slippery slope that leads to murder and mayhem.

No he was not.

Which rules? The rules of trademark law or the rules on Sun's website?
They turn out not to quite be the same.

That is your claim - so far rather unsubstantiated claim.

Tons of MS-DOS compatible operating systems in the 80s and 90s used
"DOS" in their names. This wasn't apparently considered to infringe
Microsoft's trademarks.

Plenty of web sites exist that use the trademarked names of products in
their names, where those sites are about those products (or about
something completely unrelated with the same name) but not endorsed by
the trademark holder. These are not normally considered to infringe.

And you are sure that do not have permission ?

Trademark law says that use of a mark in a misleading way, in a way
likely to cause confusion, is infringing, and that's about it. Making
your own programming language and calling it "Java" would infringe (and
Microsoft got sued for doing so). Implying an endorsement by Sun that
you didn't actually have would infringe.

The fact is, not every use of the name that Sun's policy page claims to
forbid is actual infringement in the eyes of the law.

Since you are not specifying which jurisdiction you are talking about,
then I find it hard to take this seriously.

I refer you also to
http://www.inta.org/index.php?optio...Itemid=60&catid=284&page=1&getcontent=1#FAQ75

"When Can I Use Another Person’s Trademark Without Their Consent?

As a general matter, it is advisable to obtain the consent of a
trademark owner before proceeding with use of their mark. U.S. trademark
law, however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered
or unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is made in
good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to
which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with
another’s goods or services.

This matches perfectly what is on SUN's page.

But does not apply to the original posters usage of Java.

He is allowed to states that his library works with Java.

But he is not allowed to call it Java something.

This states more or less what I've been saying.

Not at all.

It does not apply at all to the problem in question.

Especially noteworthy in the above, though, is "U.S. trademark law,
however, does permit the use of another’s mark (whether registered or
unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is ... to
accurately indicate compatibility with another’s goods or services."

This indicates to me that labeling Java class libraries as such does not
infringe in the United States, either, which is probably the
jurisdiction that actually matters in this case.

Wrong.

It means that he may state that his library work with Java not that
he may call them Java something.

Are you calling me a liar?

I think you managed to do that yourself.

There was a fairly long list of Sourceforge projects that apparently
have not been attacked, several posts ago. If you wish, I will repost it.

And the relevance to the question asked is ?

Violating what rules? As near as I can tell, he would not actually be
violating trademark law itself.

No evidence substantiating that has been posted so far.

Arne

 

[Larry K. Wollensham]

From the moral perspective: that does not make it right.

No, but then, doing something contrary to the expressed wishes of a
large corporation (but within the bounds of the law) is not wrong or
immoral anyway. (Unless you'd signed an agreement with that company and
then violated it. That would be breach of contract, as well as
dishonesty, oath-breaking, and related moral sins.)

Violating the letter of the law is also sometimes not morally wrong,
though it is always (by definition) illegal.

From the intellectual perspective: it is an unnecessary risk.

I agree with this.

Read the link again.

How rude.

You are allowed to use:

Name: JFoobar
Description: JFoobar allow programs written in Java (TM) language to ...

because in that case Java is not a name but a reference.

According to the law of the land where I live (Aus), you are also
allowed to do some things that Sun might not like, within certain
bounds. Of course, in other jurisdictions that might vary, though I
imagine most of them have a concept of fair-dealing or similar with
respect to trademarks, instead of giving a company absolute and
dictatorial, unlimited and unfettered power over how it may be used.

The same thing is common with copyrights: the law allows certain uses as
fair-dealing without permission of the right-holder, even if the
right-holder explicitly says not to do that with their stuff. It's a
defense against losing in court, though, not against having to pay
expensive attorney's fees because you got dragged into court. The safety
in numbers mentioned earlier can be a defense (albeit an imperfect one)
against that, however.

And Google indexes more than just the product name, so that should
be just as easy to find.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html

Having a crucial word (say, "Java" in the case of a Java-based product)
in the combination of name-and-summary is crucial, and having it in the
name is strongly recommended, according to this article on making your
web site easier to find and use productively by your potential user base
or customer base.

I ask again: what jurisdiction ?

Australia. Yes, it might differ from place to place, but as I said above
I expect most places to have some notion of fair-dealing that limits
what conditions of use a corporation may actually enforce in the courts.
And yes, that doesn't necessarily save you from fighting an expensive
suit (unfortunately), even if it does save you from losing that suit IF
you tough it out and don't run out of money.

Assuming that the product is intended for world wide use, then he would
need to consult lawyers all over the world.

Nonsense. He needs to consult with lawyers in the jurisdiction where he
is actually hosting the product, and that's it.

Note that this allows the OP to do some jurisdiction-shopping, and find
hosting in a country with liberal fair-dealing rules regarding trademarks.

Web sites and e-businesses are generally only held to the laws of the
states and countries where they have a physical presence -- a business
office, a web server, or what-have-you.

There's a possibility that if someone got really vindictive they might
go after the OP where he lives and not just where he hosts his site (if
those are separate jurisdictions), but that's uncommon. Usually when the
complaint is with a web site, the target tends to be the web site, in
whatever jurisdiction physically contains the server.

Of course, there are also means of distributing a product that don't
involve a specific host location at all. Freenet, bittorrent, and the
like. Mind you, if there's no central web presence to sue, the odds of a
lawsuit naming the individual author go up if there is to be a lawsuit.
At the same time, the product itself is pretty much safe from being
taken down as soon as it becomes fairly widespread. Anonymously
releasing something using such methods is one way to thumb your nose at
a corporation that you think is overstepping its legal authority.
Although in the OP's case, it would be unwise now that there are public
newsgroup postings that would be usable to unmask him if he did so,
assuming he didn't change the name. And if he's going to, he may as well
just ditch the "Java" and avoid the whole issue, as you've said.

One thing he can certainly try is calling his product just "JSRTProc" as
its official name, with "A Java Soft-Real-Time Processor" as the usual
accompanying descriptive text, and register jsrtproc.com, or
..sourceforge.net, or whatever.

This avoids violating the letter of Sun's (perhaps partly-unenforceable)
rules while more or less still doing what he wanted to do and possibly
tweaking Sun's nose a little bit. And yours.

 

[Lew]

You're joking. I'm trying to have a civil discussion here, and to try
(with gentle reminders) to keep it within the bounds of civility, and
for this you attack me and assert that my arguments are weak?

That is not an attack on you, it's simply pointing out that by avoiding the
points I actually made you were failing to defend your arguments. And yes, I
do assert that your arguments are weak.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I meant that in the nicest way. Perhaps I shouldn't have responded in kind,
but the twisting of my argument into something so radically different from
what I had said was a silly action.

I point out again that your argument that one shouldn't call SourceForge
programmers murderers is valid in and of itself, but has nothing to do with
what I claimed.

You can't very well duck the points made, call another person out personally,
twist their statements into something completely different, then complain when
your flawed rhetoric is exposed.

Justification of actionable behavior on the basis that Sun is unlikely to sue
you doesn't make the behavior less actionable or more moral. You have refused
over several posts to provide evidence for your assertions, to whit, that
SourceForge projects have received permission or not been dinged by Sun's
legal department. Instead you have turned arguments on their head and
attempted to make the discussion personal. You have failed to acknowledge
that those of us espousing non-infringement have stated the difference between
referring to compatibility, e.g., "a library for Java programmers", and
actually using the trademark in the name of one's product, e.g., "Java
Soft-Real-Time Processor".

People are free to disregard Sun's explicit rules for use of their trademark.
You are certainly free to try to convince Usenet readers that such practice
is both safe and justifiable. I aver that it is neither, and that people risk
trouble with Sun if they attempt to do as you suggest.

Perhaps I am mistaken. The real world will determine if I am, for example, by
"Vagelis" receiving a notification from Sun that they are violating a
trademark by calling their product "Java Soft-Real-Time Processor".

It is a slippery moral slope to suggest that they should try to get away with
an apparent infringing behavior because they probably won't get caught.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, but then, doing something contrary to the expressed wishes of a
large corporation (but within the bounds of the law) is not wrong or
immoral anyway. (Unless you'd signed an agreement with that company and
then violated it. That would be breach of contract, as well as
dishonesty, oath-breaking, and related moral sins.)

Violating the letter of the law is also sometimes not morally wrong,
though it is always (by definition) illegal.

You have a different type of moral then.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980906.html

Give that Google Inc. was two days old when that article was posted,
then I don't think it adequately reflects how Google works in 2009.

Nonsense. He needs to consult with lawyers in the jurisdiction where he
is actually hosting the product, and that's it.

No.

If he want the product to be used all over the world he would want it
to be legal all over the world.

Having a name that is legal in country A, B and C bit not legal
in country D, E and F is not good.

Note that this allows the OP to do some jurisdiction-shopping, and find
hosting in a country with liberal fair-dealing rules regarding trademarks.
>
> Web sites and e-businesses are generally only held to the laws of the
> states and countries where they have a physical presence -- a business
> office, a web server, or what-have-you.

If it was a hosted service, then he could search for a country that
take the money and don't ask to many questions.

But is not a hosted service - it is software.

Of course, there are also means of distributing a product that don't
involve a specific host location at all. Freenet, bittorrent, and the
like. Mind you, if there's no central web presence to sue, the odds of a
lawsuit naming the individual author go up if there is to be a lawsuit.
At the same time, the product itself is pretty much safe from being
taken down as soon as it becomes fairly widespread. Anonymously
releasing something using such methods is one way to thumb your nose at
a corporation that you think is overstepping its legal authority.

If he want to go be in with all the copyright infringers, spammers
and hackers then that is an option.

But I would not suggest that.

One thing he can certainly try is calling his product just "JSRTProc" as
its official name, with "A Java Soft-Real-Time Processor" as the usual
accompanying descriptive text, and register jsrtproc.com, or
.sourceforge.net, or whatever.

Yep !!!!

Arne

 

[Larry K. Wollensham]

That is your claim - so far rather unsubstantiated claim.

I substantiated it with several citations as a matter of fact.

If you cannot be bothered to debate honestly with me then I cannot be
bothered to debate with you at all.

This is an example of such a citation.

This matches perfectly what is on SUN's page.

No, it does not. Naming a Java class library "The Java somethingorother
library" falls clearly within the realm of "to accurately indicate
compatibility with another's goods or services".

But does not apply to the original posters usage of Java.

Yes it does. See above.

He is allowed to states that his library works with Java.

But he is not allowed to call it Java something.

It does not say that in the paragraph quoted above, the one you
erroneously claim "matches perfectly what is on Sun's page".

Not at all.

"Am not, am too, am not" is a very childish manner of debating. I refuse
to sink to your level. Sorry if that deprives you of entertainment. It's
clear that you love a good argument, whether with me or with Lew or with
Peter Duniho or with many other people. It's just a shame you're so
*bad* at it.

I think you managed to do that yourself.

I did nothing of the sort as anyone can see for himself by rereading
this thread.

Your descent into personal attacks and namecalling is just the icing on
the cake of your inability to actually argue your case in a mature,
detached, and unemotional manner.

However, I believe I now have some clues as to the reason for your lack
of detachment, and those clues (with some help from blue, who's much
more knowledgeable about these things than I am) come from your news
headers.

Specifically, the ones that say Organization: SunSITE.dk - Supporting
Open source [sic] and X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed) and Message-ID:
<[email protected]>.

You see, sunsite.dk it turns out is a large open-source hosting and
services site whose number one corporate sponsor is Sun Microsystems,
hence their name. And you seem to have elevated privileges there, to
judge by your news posts appearing to originate there and by several
other factors.

This, and your heavy long-term involvement in this and other Java forums
with a fair degree of expertise, plus a past history (easily visible in
Google's archive) of being very quick to jump at anyone who suggests any
actions that contravene the express (even if unenforceable) wishes of
any corporation, suggests to me that you either actually work for Sun
Microsystems or at least enjoy a close working relationship with them of
some kind.

And that predicts your biases, generally against anyone not treating big
business' wishes as law and particularly when it's Sun.

You stand exposed, Arne. Clear disclosure before participating in this
debate would have been the honest thing to do. Instead you've said
nothing, though you've also made no effort to actually conceal anything.

Anyway, since it's now clear that you are both involved with the
trademark holder at issue here, rather than a disinterested third party,
AND you're not emotionally mature enough to remain calm, civil, and
detached despite that involvement, I think we're just about done here.
(There are a few things in your other post that seem to me to require a
response, though.)

And the relevance to the question asked is ?

That should be apparent, now that I have corrected the quoted material
to be the same as it was in the post where I said that.

What, you thought I wouldn't notice? Now you've stooped to editing the
quoted material in ways other than by trimming it. I think there should
probably be a version of Godwin's law that references this behavior,
something along the lines of "as a Usenet thread grows in length, the
probability that someone will eventually edit someone else's quoted
material in a manner other than merely trimming it approaches one, and
the first person to do so should be considered to have lost the argument
then and there".

No evidence substantiating that has been posted so far.

See? This is why I have a hard time either taking you seriously or
actually having a decent argument with you. Even when chapter and verse
from the International Trademark Association, an authoritative source if
ever there was one, to support my side, you repeat the erroneous claim
that "no evidence substantiating that has been posted so far" several
times. Really, between that and your *ahem* alterations to some quoted
material in this latest iteration, I begin to suspect that you are not
actually attempting to have an honest and meaningful discussion of this
topic at all, but rather, attempting to weasel-word gullible readers
into believing you, infuriate your opponents, and generally troll the
lot of us, or at the very least, you're emotionally involved enough to
impair dispassionate judgment to the point of resorting to frankly
dishonest debating tactics.

Which is why I will have little more to say to you on this, or any
other, topic.

Blue was right about you.

 

[Larry K. Wollensham]

You have a different type of moral then.

I have a normal type of moral [sic]. Most people would agree with me --
one, that ignoring a law widely believed to be immoral and in a way that
victimizes no-one is morally-permissible civil disobedience, and two and
much more importantly, that big business does not have nor deserve
legislative authority in its own right, and therefore it is not illegal
to disobey big business except where one would not also be disobeying
the actual law, and often it is also not immoral to do so.

Really, if I started a garage business, grew it into a
multi-billion-dollar enterprise, and then put a policy page saying "As
company policy, among other things we demand that Arne Vajhøj unplug his
modem and join a Buddhist monastery", do you believe that you would be
morally obligated to do so?

(That, by the way, is called /reductio ad absurdum/. I much prefer it to
/argumentum ad hominem/, not to mention /argumentum ad falsifying quoted
text/ and /argumentum ad ignoring inconvenient evidence posted by the
other side/. (Sorry, my Latin isn't what it once was. If someone would
like to translate those last two so that they sound as highfaluting as
the others, I'll be grateful.)

Give that Google Inc. was two days old when that article was posted,
then I don't think it adequately reflects how Google works in 2009.

If you had bothered to read the actual article (instead of just the
URL), you would realize that the point has little to do with how Google
works and a great deal to do with how the human mind works, particularly
when skimming a list of headlines, project names, summaries, search
results, blog posts, or other similar items.

Java engineers looking for a useful class library are likely to be
especially on the look out for a certain four-letter J-word.

No.

Yes.

(Argumentum ad "am not, am too, am not" again, Arne?)

If he want the product to be used all over the world he would want it
to be legal all over the world.

It would be. Even if it would be trademark infringing to sell some
particular item in Timbuktu, due to some hypothetical peculiarity of
Timbuktan trademark law, it would not be infringing to merely USE it
there, nor to ship it there. As long as the vendor had no physical
presence in Timbuktu, just an e-commerce site in the US that shipped
internationally, they would be completely free and clear.

Well, unless local Timbuktu law overreaches and claims that it has the
power to judge people for actions that did not take place anywhere near
Timbuktu. In which case the company execs might be advised never to
travel there, but still have nothing to fear from the Timbuktu feds so
long as they don't. They can safely ignore any default judgments or
criminal convictions /in absentia/ for anything, at least as long as
it's something with the property that any extradition request because of
it would have the United States State Department rolling on the floor
laughing.

Having a name that is legal in country A, B and C bit not legal
in country D, E and F is not good.

It's not good if you have a business presence in countries D, E, and F,
to be precise. Otherwise, who cares? In practise, it will be hard to do
any kind of business that isn't against *some* local ordinance
*somewhere*. Selling a dance-mix CD will get several of the Muslim
countries seriously ticked off, at least in theory. Yet several
companies do this, and ship internationally, although their product is
"not legal in countries D, E, or F" and in some of these it's likely a
beheading offense rather than a lawsuit!

I see that Thunderbird has betrayed you this time when you made another
attempt to manipulate the quoted material beyond merely deleting some. I
usually find its messing up of quoting annoying (when I try to reflow a
quoted paragraph, rather than dishonestly change the semantics, of
course) but now I find that this has a silver lining after all.

In this case, I can't seem to spot any actual change (other than
trimming and maybe reflowing) to my paragraph, but it gives me cause to
suspect that there was some such change.

I refer concerned readers to
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/c1207f79ac30d61f
for an authoritative copy of my original post, in case they trust that
more than the possibly-altered quote from it above.

If it was a hosted service, then he could search for a country that
take the money and don't ask to many questions.

But is not a hosted service - it is software.

The e-commerce site, open source site, or whatever site that has the
software on it for download is a hosted service. If he wants to have
physical copies on disk shipped, it's likely such a country exists that
has a FedEx or UPS office or similar. In all countries with a sane
enough legal system he can open a retail store if he wants to.

If he want to go be in with all the copyright infringers, spammers
and hackers then that is an option.

But I would not suggest that.

Oh, yes, because file sharing sites are such a cesspool. Fansubs of
movies not even marketed in many languages, live concert audio-captures
submitted by the musicians themselves, and Linux distros, oh my!

(I think I spelled it correctly this time. Satisfied?)

Yep !!!!

I'm glad we agree on something.

I do now recommend to the OP (if he's even still listening) that he
definitely abide by the letter of Sun's "requests" now that it's become
apparent (see my other post today) that Arne is Sun's rottweiler rather
than a random person.

 

[Larry K. Wollensham]

That is not an attack on you, it's simply pointing out that by avoiding
the points I actually made you were failing to defend your arguments.

Very clever. Avoiding the points I actually made by falsely accusing me
of avoiding the points you actually made.

I meant that in the nicest way.

How wonderful for you. It was still an /ad hominem/ attack in a post
that consisted largely of accusing me of same.

I point out again that your argument that one shouldn't call SourceForge
programmers murderers is valid in and of itself, but has nothing to do
with what I claimed.

It has plenty to do with what you claimed. It is silly -- no, frankly
ludicrous to equate not doing what Big Brother Business tells you to do
and murder. You took my advocacy of civil disobedience against
businesses overstepping their legal authority and suggested that it
implied that I advocated anyone committing any kind of crime so long as
they honestly disagreed with the law and had like-minded people to hide
among.

I did nothing of the sort.

I pointed out three facts:
1. Some of Sun's demands go well beyond what is strictly enforceable
under many countries' trademark laws. (I have cited some fairly
strong evidence for this in a different post recently.)
2. Although it is legal to do things that Sun demands you not do but
that lie outside the bounds of what they can legally enforce, Sun
can still sue you and make your life miserable if they take notice
of you. Even though they likely wouldn't win if it went all the way
to a verdict, you're probably better off avoiding that.
3. If you're just one of a large crowd behaving similarly, it's much
less likely you'll be singled out than if you stand alone.

The third item no longer applies to this specific case, though, now that
it's become apparent that Arne is a Sun Microsystems shill rather than
an independent person, and given that he has taken a personal interest
in this instance (to the point of taking every
arguably-anti-doing-what-Sun-wants argument personally, even). Since the
OP has already been singled out by Sun's defacto agent here, the
question of how he can avoid being singled out is rendered moot.

That leaves the other advice: abide by the letter of Sun's demands; do
so while tweaking their nose about it if at all possible, so as to send
the correct political message and not appear to be knuckling under, not
to mention for the greater personal satisfaction it will likely entail.

You can't very well duck the points made, call another person out
personally, twist their statements into something completely different,
then complain when your flawed rhetoric is exposed.

No, you generally can't, not and get away with it, which is why it
mystifies me when I see people like you and Arne doing exactly that.

Justification of actionable behavior on the basis that Sun is unlikely
to sue you doesn't make the behavior less actionable or more moral.

Disobeying Sun's demands regarding the use of the word "Java", while not
actually infringing their trademarks as infringement is defined by law,
is not "actionable behavior" by the normal definition of that term. It
most certainly is not immoral. In fact, no use of the name "Java" is
immoral except to intentionally deceive consumers into thinking
something is either Java (when it isn't) or endorsed by Sun (when it
isn't), since lying is immoral but trademark infringement is not, in and
of itself, immoral. For the most part, though, trademark infringement IS
lying, since the main purpose for trademark law is to attack exactly the
named behaviors, passing-off and misrepresentations of endorsement.
Microsoft was immoral when they tried to pass off a non-fully-compatible
Java-like language as true Java, and got sued for it, and rightly so.
The OP is contemplating doing nothing of the sort, and what they are
contemplating doing does not appear to me to be in any way immoral. Nor
technically trademark infringement.

Nonetheless, it is expensive to get sued even if you're almost sure to
win if it goes to a judgment. The OP is still advised to either use just
"JSRTProc" as the official project name, or to seek legal counsel.
Morals sometimes have to take a backseat to pragmatism, in cases where
it's "this isn't immoral so I really should be free to do it, but I
might get in trouble for it anyway" rather than "this is immoral but I
think it's the easiest way to achieve some eminently worthwhile goal".
(The latter sort of thinking is, of course, one of the better-known
roads to hell.)

You have refused over several posts to provide evidence for your
assertions

That is a damn lie! I have cited and quoted the International Trademark
Association among providing other evidence.

Besides, for the most part, I've stated opinions that you personally
don't agree with rather than made assertions. And the "points" you seem
to think I ignored included several of your own opinions, which you'd
treated as if they were matters of fact. I may have actually ignored
some of those, but I only have to address actual facts and evidence;
mere dissenting opinions do not constitute arguments for your side that
need to be addressed.

Instead you have turned arguments on their head and attempted to make
the discussion personal.

No, that is what you have done.

You have failed to acknowledge that those of us espousing
non-infringement

That would be all of us. I have never suggested that anyone actually
infringe anything. Your sneaky and indirect suggestion to the contrary
is a dirty dishonest lie!

the difference between referring to compatibility, e.g., "a
library for Java programmers", and actually using the trademark in the
name of one's product, e.g., "Java Soft-Real-Time Processor".

These are not, as you seem mistakenly to think, mutually exclusive.

People are free to disregard Sun's explicit rules for use of their
trademark. You are certainly free to try to convince Usenet readers
that such practice is both safe and justifiable. I aver that it is
neither, and that people risk trouble with Sun if they attempt to do as
you suggest.

I have claimed only that it is justifiable, and only where the disregard
does not extend to committing genuine trademark infringement. I have
explicitly disavowed that it is safe; the phrase "safety in numbers"
should properly be read as "relative safety" of course, and I believe I
made it clear elsewhere that it is quite imperfect as a safety net.

There seems to be a bit of a political difference here. You see, I am
somewhat libertarian-leaning, and recognize the existence and importance
of concepts in intellectual property law such as fair-dealing. You (and
Arne) appear to be staunch authoritarians who wrongly believe that
companies have, or should have, the right to absolute control over all
uses of their trademarks and similarly, and that to go against their
wishes is wrong even where it is not actually illegal.

There is, of course, a simple /reductio ad absurdum/ of the latter set
of political beliefs. Supposing you got elected and made it the law of
the land that companies now did have absolute power over the use of just
their actual company names (and not even their other trademarks -- so
Sun Microsystems but not Java). They could demand that others not use
their names in any way they didn't expressly give advance permission
for, for example, and they could enforce those demands with steep fines
and maybe even jail time, no matter how much it might once have
qualified as "fair dealing".

Well, first of all we're going to have to come up with a new name for
that big glowy thing in the sky.

Furthermore, there go all the negative reviews and publicity, "Fooco's
new toy is unsafe" type reports, and so forth. Fooco can rest assured
that its reputation is firmly under its own control, and so what if
thousands of kids needlessly get strangled or suffocated or something
where they could have been warned? They were just kids, penniless and
many of them doomed to long-term unemployment these days anyway. Fooco
has a multi-billion-dollar brand to protect, and by God they have the
right to protect it! Warning those kids' parents would have been
illegal, immoral, and a horrible thing to do to a defenseless
multi-billion-dollar corporation like Fooco that's just trying to
survive and make a profit in hard economic times, and yes, making a
profit is Fooco's god-given right, not a privilege to be dispensed or
withheld at the whim of the market or on the basis of whether their
products are safe or are actually better than the competition or
anything like that. Why, making their actual products superior would
cost too much money when budgets are tight!

Not to mention you'd lose one of the things you Yanks claim to cherish
so much, that precious free speech right of yours, which you often
mistakenly seem to think is a uniquely American thing. (We have some
free speech guarantees here in Australia, for starters.) Companies would
quickly exhaust our dictionary of freely-usable words under Lew's
Super-Duper Extra-Strength Trademark Law(tm). The corporate plunder of
public resources would reach its logical conclusion. Forget Antarctic
resources, or getting that inconveniently-located national park's
protected status revoked so it can be logged to a stubble and then
strip-mined in the almighty name of Profit, the dictionary is where the
REAL money is to be made!

But fortunately, we live in the real world, where trademark law has
limits and you are unlikely to be elected, and moreover, even if you
were, you'd have to somehow get your insanity approved by 51% of the
lower house and then 51% of the upper house (after first passing a
repeal of the first amendment to your American constitution of course).

Perhaps I am mistaken.

I think it has become quite obvious now that you are.

It is a slippery moral slope to suggest that they should try to get away
with an apparent infringing behavior because they probably won't get
caught.

It is not, however, a slippery moral slope to suggest that they *could*
(but probably *shouldn't*) try to get away with an apparently
undesired-by-Sun-but-not-actually-infringing behavior because there's a
good chance that they won't get singled out for a questionable lawsuit.

At this point, however, the question of their odds of being singled out
is moot, because it turns out that in effect they already had been. Arne
is apparently not just a random person here, but personally has ties to
Sun Microsystems, and probably is their unofficial watchdog in this
newsgroup -- and self-appointed to that role, I expect. (His failure to
disclose this (while not making an active effort to conceal it, I admit)
is one of several mildly-to-moderately-dishonest things he has done here
that I've witnessed lately. He spends quite a lot of time and energy
barking at other people about morals, or simply because he believes them
to be idiots, so this is rather ironic. What was that proverb again, the
one about stones and glass houses?)

 

[Vagelis]

Dear Larry,

First off, I'd like to thank you for so gallantly defending neither
me, nor my small project, but rather what is to my eyes common sense.
That, and for offering such an entertaining read!! Your last posts
above really nearly made me cry with their sarcasm and humor! Of
course, your whit and the elegance of the flow of your writing are
both undisputed and made your arguments overwhelming as well.

To be honest, I would have preferred to have started a more "geeky"
technical discussion about my project and perhaps attract some
developers' attention. But maybe this discussion, as it happened,
served that purpose to some extent. I did get an increased number of
hits on the project web.

Just for the record, I want to assure everyone reading this that I
never had any intention to steal the tiniest bit of the glory of Java
and Sun, by including the word Java in my project's name. I wanted to
make it clear that it is a piece of software written in Java, to be
used for Java programs. It came naturally and freely to my mind, as
the obvious thing to do. I'm sure this happened to the authors of
other Java projects on SourceForge that have the word "Java" in their
name, as well. Written in Java, to be used with Java programs, by Java
programmers. So, really, it should be named "Java something."

Finally, I'd like to say that I've decided to change my project's name
to just its short form, JSRTProc. This, not to "be safe" or be nice
with Sun, or because I'm afraid. But rather to avoid any similar
meaningless discussions in the future.

Thanks and best regards,
Vagelis

 

[Lew]

blah, blah, blah

Plonk.

_____________ _____________
`-._ ..::| `-._ ..::| .
`. ..::| `. ..::| /|
| ..::| | ..::| /.|
| ..::| _____ | ..::| / :|
.--------.| ..::|.-' ..::-.---. .-----| ..::| / .:|
| /\ .::. ..:.' ..::`. ' | ..::| / .::| /\
|/ \ .::\../ ..::\ | ..::| / ..::|/ \
..---' '---..::bd _ ..::b.._ | ..::|/ ..---' '---.
`-. .-' .:I (_) ..::m ) | ..::`-. .-'
/ \ ..:/.q ..::w / .| .:' / \
/_.-``-._\..:' ..\ ..::/ / .:| ''---/_.-``-._\
' | ..:.` | ..:`. ..::,' / .::| ..:. `
| ..:| | ..::|`-.__..::-':| / .::' | ..:::|'. ..:\
| ..:J ,' ..:::. ,' ..::/ ..:' ,' ..::::. ) .::b
| ..:/ /____..::::\ /____...:/ .:' /____..:::::/ ..:
|.:,' /.:' / ..:::'
|,' /.' / ..:-'
' ' /,-'
'

 

[blue indigo]

_____________ _____________
`-._ ..::| `-._ ..::| .
`. ..::| `. ..::| /|
| ..::| | ..::| /.|
| ..::| _____ | ..::| / :|
.--------.| ..::|.-' ..::-.---. .-----| ..::| / .:|
| /\ .::. ..:.' ..::`. ' | ..::| / .::| /\
|/ \ .::\../ ..::\ | ..::| / ..::|/ \
.---' '---..::bd _ ..::b.._ | ..::|/ ..---' '---.
`-. .-' .:I (_) ..::m ) | ..::`-. .-'
/ \ ..:/.q ..::w / .| .:' / \
/_.-``-._\..:' ..\ ..::/ / .:| ''---/_.-``-._\
' | ..:.` | ..:`. ..::,' / .::| ..:. `
| ..:| | ..::|`-.__..::-':| / .::' | ..:::|'. ..:\
| ..:J ,' ..:::. ,' ..::/ ..:' ,' ..::::. ) .::b
| ..:/ /____..::::\ /____...:/ .:' /____..:::::/ ..:
|.:,' /.:' / ..:::'
|,' /.' / ..:-'
' ' /,-'

I'd denounce you as a plagiarist, except I can't claim originality for
this myself.

 

[Lew]

I'd denounce you as a plagiarist, except I can't claim originality for
this myself.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Or sarcasm.

 

[blue indigo]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Or sarcasm.

Ah, but there's the rub: which is it?

Then again, considering you plonked my flatmate, maybe my response instead
should be "grrrr!", mate.

 

[Lew]

Ah, but there's the rub: which is it?

Then again, considering you plonked my flatmate, maybe my response instead
should be "grrrr!", mate.

That's entirely up to you. Or you could suggest to him that he calm down
some, as you have done with others such as myself.

 

[blue indigo]

That's entirely up to you. Or you could suggest to him that he calm down
some, as you have done with others such as myself.

With mixed results.

Actually, he seemed calm enough the last time I saw him (a few hours ago),
and he seemed calm enough during the time period of this debate, aside
from some ruffled feathers regarding the accusations of condoning murder
and copyright infringement, or whatever it was he was accused of (I
haven't been paying that much attention to this thread). He seems to think
he was being misunderstood, anyway, and that maybe it was deliberate.
Certainly looks like his attempts to clarify what he meant weren't
successful for some reason.