|By Heather Meeker||
|November 13, 2004 12:00 AM EST||
In programmer heaven, all software is open source software. Solving problems is as easy as downloading the code you need - none of which comes with any nasty copyright baggage - and the only part you need to write for yourself is the coolest, most interesting algorithm, which compiles, runs, and works on the first try. Naturally, there aren't software patents in heaven, either: I don't think there are any patent examiners who could get through the pearly gates, do you?
When you get there though, I would think twice about using that little red hat logo.
Programmers, now politicized by the free software movement, spend a lot of time arguing about copyrights and patents - whether they're morally right or wrong and how widely they should be enforced. But they don't think much about trademarks. Trademarks, in a way, are the most bulletproof form of intellectual property: more effective than copyright, cheaper to enforce than patents.
What's in a Trademark?Trademarks are really all about consumer protection. This is why trademark laws are so strong and the penalties for violating them can be so high. When you infringe a trademark, you're not just hurting the owner of the trademark, you're hurting all consumers, everywhere. There are two basic kinds of trademark infringement: passing off and reverse passing off. If you write your own operating system from scratch and call it Red Hat Linux, don't answer the doorbell. That's called "passing off" your goods as those of another - in this case a company with a valuable trademark and a strong reputation, whose lawyers will be paying you a visit.
If you take Red Hat Linux and repackage it unadulterated as God Bless You-nix, that's reverse passing off, or claiming another's product as your own. In each case, consumers are being fooled as to the source of what they are buying.
Trademarks in the Open Source WorldAll of this works pretty much as expected in a commercial setting. However, when it's combined with an open source software model, things get a bit, well, interesting. For instance, by definition, any open source software project lets you modify and distribute its software royalty-free. But most open source projects will be more conservative about letting you use their trademarks. Take a look at the policies for the use of the red hat, the GNOME footprint, the Debian swirl, or the Mozilla red lizard (www.redhat.com/about/trademark_guidelines.html, http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/ 2003-November/msg00098.html, www.debian.org/logos/, and www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html, respectively). All of them impose some kind of criteria for products bearing the mark. These criteria range from quality, to interoperability, to the amount of open source code the product contains.
The most popular logo in the open source world, of course, is the penguin named "Tux." This trademark has not been managed with systematic trademark use policies. Consequently, the reputation and trademark strength associated with the mark are weak. The use of the penguin has provided fodder for plenty of amusement (see the discussion of the meaning and history of Tux on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux), but it is not consistently applied. The most common representation is the bowling-pin shaped tuxedo-marked cartoon bird designed by Larry Ewing, but even the average computer programmer, much more so than the average consumer, would be hard pressed to tell you exactly what product it represents. The only conditions for use of this logo are acknowledgment of the author of the logo - no conditions regarding the product on which it is placed. This type of condition is associated more with copyright than trademark.
There is, of course, a copyright in the appearance of any logo. But a logo that represents neither a source for products nor a level of quality for products is, in the end, not really a trademark. Tux is usually described by the software community as a mascot rather than a trademark, and that's probably closer to the truth.
"Linux," on the other hand, is a trademark registered by Linus Torvalds. The use of the Linux mark is policed by the Linux Mark Institute, www.linuxmark.org. The institute was created after a dispute over ownership of the trademark arose. This dispute arose because the mark was not being policed and was not registered - a state of affairs that allowed others to claim rights in it. Linux has been used more consistently than the Tux logo. However, some would argue that it's generic.
Confusion over what constitutes a "Linux" product is evidenced by the ubiquitous reexplanation of the difference between Linux and GNU/Linux.GNU describes a set of tools promulgated by the GNU Project. These tools are usually part of a product distribution that contains the Linux kernel. See Wikipedia's definition of "Linux": "Strictly, the name Linux refers only to the Linux kernel, but it is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel and libraries and tools from the GNU project" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux).
We see that the open source business community handles the issue of passing off much as any other industry. They do the same for reverse passing off. Even the most noncommittal of open source agreements, the BSD license, contains an express statement limiting your right to use trademarks. For instance, the form of BSD license available on the Open Source Initiative Web site says: "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." In other words, no trademark license. This might lead you to think that any organization granting such a license is not worrying about reverse passing off. Remember, though, that even the BSD license requires you to display appropriate copyright notices, and earlier versions contained the "advertising requirement" that became so unpopular and disused in the open source community.
There is a good reason for the similarities between trademarks in the open source world and in the rest of the business world. It's not because open source projects are trying to give with one hand and take away with the other. Trademark law is different from copyright or patent law. It is, loosely put, a "use it or lose it" regime. To be more accurate, it's a "use it correctly, or lose it" regime. This rule, in legalese, is called dilution or blurring. If you own a trademark, and you let others use it on their products without supervision, you will eventually lose your rights in it. The legal way of putting this is that a trademark owner must exercise quality control, or his trademark rights may be diluted to the point that his trademark rights are no longer enforceable. The hobby horse example here is "aspirin," once a trademark, now a generic designation with no trademark value.
While an open source license may give you complete freedom to modify and distribute code, it can never give you freedom to distribute modified code under the licensor's trademark, or the rights in the trademark will eventually evaporate - an event that will benefit no one. Remember that this is all about consumer protection. If consumers trusted Red Hat to distribute a robust, reliable product, and Red Hat let everyone use its name, consumers would no longer know if they could trust a product called "Red Hat." That's dilution in a nutshell.
When the Sky FellI know what you're thinking: I worry too much. If you think open source and trademarks can't collide, think again. Once upon a time, AT&T licensed Unix to lots of universities in source code form, and those universities openly shared improvements and adaptations of the code. Translation: Unix was very much like an open source product, though that phrase would not be coined for another 20 years. One of the recipients of Unix was the University of California at Berkeley, which modified Unix extensively, most notably developing networking code that made Unix work with TCP/IP-based networking products. Then AT&T stopped licensing the Unix source code, turned Unix into a proprietary product, and began charging high prices for licenses. Berkeley, responding to popular demand, began distributing its own version of Unix, called "Networking Release 1," under the BSD license. (To be precise, the facts were more complicated. Berkeley tried to engineer all of AT&T's copyrightable code out of the product. Whether they succeeded is a moot point, given the disposition of the lawsuit.)
A few versions later, Berkeley Software Design, Incorporated, was formed to distribute a commercially supported version of the Berkeley code. That product, sensibly, was known as BSD Unix. AT&T released its own, closed-source, version of Unix, System V. But BSDI was selling its open source product for 90% less. So AT&T sued BSDI, making both copyright and trademark claims. The court found that AT&T had lost its copyright interest in the Unix code used by Berkeley. The case was settled. Essentially, BSDI won. But BSDI promptly agreed to stop using the trademark Unix. (Once again, the facts were debated. Whether BSDI actually used the Unix trademark in an infringing way was disputed - and mooted by BSDI's agreement to cease using the mark.)
The moral of the story is that copyrights are fragile. They can be lost and engineered around. (It is not so easy to lose them today. AT&T lost its copyright under the pre-1978 rule, under which publication without copyright notice caused a work to fall into the public domain. This rule has changed; today, a positive statement ceding a work to the public domain is necessary to lose a copyright.) Patents, too, can be engineered around, and half of them are invalidated when their owner tries to enforce them. Patents, and to a lesser degree copyrights, can expire, but trademarks can last forever. Trademarks claims are often so fearsome that a defendant in a trademark infringement suit will give up without a fight. BSDI fought AT&T's copyright claims and won. It gave up the trademark battle with barely a squeak.
The sky fell once. Having to change brands in midstream is the business equivalent of the sky falling. A company's trademark is usually considered its most important and valuable piece of intellectual property. The conventional wisdom is that the single most valuable piece of intellectual property in the world is the trademark Coca-Cola - not the formula for the product, the trademark. Changing a trademark for a successful product can be more expensive and more damaging to the value of a business than reengineering the product. Part of this is a cautionary tale. Never assume that you can use a trademark with impunity, even when you have a license to use the copyrights that form the basis of the trademarked product. The open source projects that control the red hat, the footprint, and the lizard will not let you do that. They can't, because they are the custodians of those marks for the consumer's benefit.
The Next Battleground?This is more than a cautionary tale; it's a peek into the realities behind how intellectual property works for open source in the business world. Ask anyone how to make money in the open source space and they will tell you roughly the same thing: services, support, and widget frosting. Are those things protected by copyright or patent? Maybe, maybe not. But they are definitely protected by trademark. Companies can, arguably, exercise even more control over their licensees via trademark than they can via copyright. Trademark owners can - and must - supervise all use of their marks. Supervision, however, is anathema to free software, which is premised on the ability to modify software freely, without supervision.
All this would not be so troubling, but the idea of officially sanctioned versions is, in a way, even more important in the open source world than it is elsewhere. In the open source world, reputation is everything.
Skeptics often ask what keeps open source code from forking infinitely. After all, everyone has the right to create his or her own version of open source code. To those familiar with open source, the answer is simple: people trust the official releases of open source code because of the reputation of the gatekeepers of the source tree. Remember, trademark is the same as reputation. Some forking has taken place in the open source world, and trademark battles have not ensued. But what if two factions wanted to release competing versions of Linux - or any other open source project? Which faction would get the right to designate their version with the trademark?
The day may come when those who determine the official versions of large open source projects like Linux will control one of the most valuable pieces of intellectual property in the world - its trademark. Is this the next intellectual property battle in the open source world? Many people are poised to fight a patent fight - but is anyone prepared for the havoc that a trademark fight could cause?
It's a distressing possibility. So distressing, that it makes me think perhaps there are no trademarks in programmer heaven. If there are, I suppose, the question is which one: cross, star, many-armed god? I think, with all due respect, these are all too valuable, too controversial, and too weighed down with historical baggage. I would bet on the only free one: the penguin.
The author's professional bio can be viewed here.
|Aldo Castaneda 11/17/04 07:50:11 PM EST|
I appreciate your response to my comment.
I'm actually working on the "you need a lawyer to do it" part as I'm in my second year of law school.
As to brand "dilution." In your opinion does that concept apply equally to brands whose value arguably derives from trusted functionality and/or reliability (the code in this case) as it does to commercial consumer brands such as say Coke whose value dervies from consumer associations to more abstract lifestyle values which given their more subjective qualities are perhaps substantially more prone to dilution?
One more question if you'll indulge me (That makes two questions I suppose)?
Do you think the nexus of Open Source/Trademark/Financing is fertile ground for a law school thesis? If so is there a particular topic that you view as particularly timely?
|Heather Meeker 11/17/04 06:30:49 PM EST|
Mr. Castaneda, thanks for your comment. It seems to me that the open source community has been, in general, quite tolerant of the development of brand value on open source projects. Most people who view open source as a viable business model would stress that branding is very important, and the way to develop a valuable business is by developing a valuable brand. If you are one of a "loosely assembled team of developers" working on an open source project, and you hope to create commercial value in the project, it's very worthwhile to put some time into mapping out a branding strategy -- whatever it may be. Licensing trademarks for profit is tricky, though. (It is one of those "don't do this at home" things -- you need lawyer help to do it.) You can leverage a brand, but only so much -- before it becomes diluted and loses its value.
I hope that helps, and thanks for reading the article.
|Aldo Castaneda 11/17/04 12:42:59 PM EST|
So given your conclusion with regard to the importance of trademark rights as to Open Source projects - Do you think that the early co-development of code along with trademarks is the key to unlocking the distributed economic potential in open source development?
In other words, can a loosely assembled team of developers open code gain financial leverage by selling rights to trademark usage and at the same time let the code be "free"?
Is trademark the goose that laid the Open Source Golden egg?
Seems it would not be too hard, assuming the release of an official version of code to figure out share ownership as a function of code developed. So that when trademark rights are licensed financial returns (this could be from speculative financing as well) could be distributed accordingly.
Is this already being done? Assuming this might work are problems around defining "share ownership" as a function of code contributed too subjective? Is valuation of the trademarket too nebulous? Would the "community" be adverse to this notion, as it is a for profit concept, albeit one that does't impede the end-user access to functionality?
|Thank you 11/13/04 04:24:51 AM EST|
Nice article. Hopefully the Groklaw community will enjoy this one too. Thank you Heaather!
|Good Job! 11/13/04 04:16:09 AM EST|
Great article to wake up to on a Saturday morning, thanks!
|Good Job! 11/13/04 04:15:35 AM EST|
Great article to wake up to on a Saturday morning, thanks!
SYS-CON Events announced today that Roundee / LinearHub will exhibit at the WebRTC Summit at @ThingsExpo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. LinearHub provides Roundee Service, a smart platform for enterprise video conferencing with enhanced features such as automatic recording and transcription service. Slack users can integrate Roundee to their team via Slack’s App Directory, and '/roundee' command lets your video conference ...
Sep. 29, 2016 05:45 AM EDT Reads: 1,500
Digital transformation is too big and important for our future success to not understand the rules that apply to it. The first three rules for winning in this age of hyper-digital transformation are: Advantages in speed, analytics and operational tempos must be captured by implementing an optimized information logistics system (OILS) Real-time operational tempos (IT, people and business processes) must be achieved Businesses that can "analyze data and act and with speed" will dominate those t...
Sep. 29, 2016 05:15 AM EDT Reads: 1,242
IoT is fundamentally transforming the auto industry, turning the vehicle into a hub for connected services, including safety, infotainment and usage-based insurance. Auto manufacturers – and businesses across all verticals – have built an entire ecosystem around the Connected Car, creating new customer touch points and revenue streams. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Macario Namie, Head of IoT Strategy at Cisco Jasper, will share real-world examples of how IoT transforms the car from a static p...
Sep. 29, 2016 05:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,634
Internet of @ThingsExpo, taking place November 1-3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA, is co-located with the 19th International Cloud Expo and will feature technical sessions from a rock star conference faculty and the leading industry players in the world and ThingsExpo Silicon Valley Call for Papers is now open.
Sep. 29, 2016 04:30 AM EDT Reads: 4,678
The Transparent Cloud-computing Consortium (abbreviation: T-Cloud Consortium) will conduct research activities into changes in the computing model as a result of collaboration between "device" and "cloud" and the creation of new value and markets through organic data processing High speed and high quality networks, and dramatic improvements in computer processing capabilities, have greatly changed the nature of applications and made the storing and processing of data on the network commonplace.
Sep. 29, 2016 04:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,211
Almost two-thirds of companies either have or soon will have IoT as the backbone of their business in 2016. However, IoT is far more complex than most firms expected. How can you not get trapped in the pitfalls? In his session at @ThingsExpo, Tony Shan, a renowned visionary and thought leader, will introduce a holistic method of IoTification, which is the process of IoTifying the existing technology and business models to adopt and leverage IoT. He will drill down to the components in this fra...
Sep. 29, 2016 04:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,813
I'm a lonely sensor. I spend all day telling the world how I'm feeling, but none of the other sensors seem to care. I want to be connected. I want to build relationships with other sensors to be more useful for my human. I want my human to understand that when my friends next door are too hot for a while, I'll soon be flaming. And when all my friends go outside without me, I may be left behind. Don't just log my data; use the relationship graph. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Ryan Boyd, Engi...
Sep. 29, 2016 03:30 AM EDT Reads: 1,377
SYS-CON Events announced today that ReadyTalk, a leading provider of online conferencing and webinar services, has been named Vendor Presentation Sponsor at the 19th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. ReadyTalk delivers audio and web conferencing services that inspire collaboration and enable the Future of Work for today’s increasingly digital and mobile workforce. By combining intuitive, innovative tec...
Sep. 29, 2016 03:30 AM EDT Reads: 3,033
IoT offers a value of almost $4 trillion to the manufacturing industry through platforms that can improve margins, optimize operations & drive high performance work teams. By using IoT technologies as a foundation, manufacturing customers are integrating worker safety with manufacturing systems, driving deep collaboration and utilizing analytics to exponentially increased per-unit margins. However, as Benoit Lheureux, the VP for Research at Gartner points out, “IoT project implementers often ...
Sep. 29, 2016 03:15 AM EDT Reads: 3,578
SYS-CON Events announced today that Pulzze Systems will exhibit at the 19th International Cloud Expo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. Pulzze Systems, Inc. provides infrastructure products for the Internet of Things to enable any connected device and system to carry out matched operations without programming. For more information, visit http://www.pulzzesystems.com.
Sep. 29, 2016 03:15 AM EDT Reads: 1,906
There is growing need for data-driven applications and the need for digital platforms to build these apps. In his session at 19th Cloud Expo, Muddu Sudhakar, VP and GM of Security & IoT at Splunk, will cover different PaaS solutions and Big Data platforms that are available to build applications. In addition, AI and machine learning are creating new requirements that developers need in the building of next-gen apps. The next-generation digital platforms have some of the past platform needs a...
Sep. 29, 2016 03:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,880
If you’re responsible for an application that depends on the data or functionality of various IoT endpoints – either sensors or devices – your brand reputation depends on the security, reliability, and compliance of its many integrated parts. If your application fails to deliver the expected business results, your customers and partners won't care if that failure stems from the code you developed or from a component that you integrated. What can you do to ensure that the endpoints work as expect...
Sep. 29, 2016 02:45 AM EDT Reads: 1,718
As ridesharing competitors and enhanced services increase, notable changes are occurring in the transportation model. Despite the cost-effective means and flexibility of ridesharing, both drivers and users will need to be aware of the connected environment and how it will impact the ridesharing experience. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Timothy Evavold, Executive Director Automotive at Covisint, will discuss key challenges and solutions to powering a ride sharing and/or multimodal model in the a...
Sep. 29, 2016 02:30 AM EDT Reads: 531
Is your aging software platform suffering from technical debt while the market changes and demands new solutions at a faster clip? It’s a bold move, but you might consider walking away from your core platform and starting fresh. ReadyTalk did exactly that. In his General Session at 19th Cloud Expo, Michael Chambliss, Head of Engineering at ReadyTalk, will discuss why and how ReadyTalk diverted from healthy revenue and over a decade of audio conferencing product development to start an innovati...
Sep. 29, 2016 02:30 AM EDT Reads: 2,178
WebRTC adoption has generated a wave of creative uses of communications and collaboration through websites, sales apps, customer care and business applications. As WebRTC has become more mainstream it has evolved to use cases beyond the original peer-to-peer case, which has led to a repeating requirement for interoperability with existing infrastructures. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Graham Holt, Executive Vice President of Daitan Group, will cover implementation examples that have enabled ea...
Sep. 29, 2016 02:00 AM EDT Reads: 1,594
SYS-CON Events announced today that Numerex Corp, a leading provider of managed enterprise solutions enabling the Internet of Things (IoT), will exhibit at the 19th International Cloud Expo | @ThingsExpo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. Numerex Corp. (NASDAQ:NMRX) is a leading provider of managed enterprise solutions enabling the Internet of Things (IoT). The Company's solutions produce new revenue streams or create operating...
Sep. 29, 2016 01:45 AM EDT Reads: 2,058
Fifty billion connected devices and still no winning protocols standards. HTTP, WebSockets, MQTT, and CoAP seem to be leading in the IoT protocol race at the moment but many more protocols are getting introduced on a regular basis. Each protocol has its pros and cons depending on the nature of the communications. Does there really need to be only one protocol to rule them all? Of course not. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Chris Matthieu, co-founder and CTO of Octoblu, walk you through how Oct...
Sep. 29, 2016 01:00 AM EDT Reads: 2,311
"My role is working with customers, helping them go through this digital transformation. I spend a lot of time talking to banks, big industries, manufacturers working through how they are integrating and transforming their IT platforms and moving them forward," explained William Morrish, General Manager Product Sales at Interoute, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 18th Cloud Expo, held June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
Sep. 28, 2016 11:30 PM EDT Reads: 3,975
According to Forrester Research, every business will become either a digital predator or digital prey by 2020. To avoid demise, organizations must rapidly create new sources of value in their end-to-end customer experiences. True digital predators also must break down information and process silos and extend digital transformation initiatives to empower employees with the digital resources needed to win, serve, and retain customers.
Sep. 28, 2016 09:15 PM EDT Reads: 381
In this strange new world where more and more power is drawn from business technology, companies are effectively straddling two paths on the road to innovation and transformation into digital enterprises. The first path is the heritage trail – with “legacy” technology forming the background. Here, extant technologies are transformed by core IT teams to provide more API-driven approaches. Legacy systems can restrict companies that are transitioning into digital enterprises. To truly become a lea...
Sep. 28, 2016 08:15 PM EDT Reads: 374