Comments on: Mozilla and Trademarks http://ipinthedigitalage.com/mozilla-and-trademarks/ CPSC 182 at Yale College Mon, 18 May 2009 01:26:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mike M http://ipinthedigitalage.com/mozilla-and-trademarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1557 Mike M Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:59:28 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=570#comment-1557 I find it ironic that Mozilla's defense of its trademark here has actually substantially defeated the purpose of trademarks, identification of a product's source. If Iceweasel is nearly identical to Firefox, it really does come from Mozilla and its name should reflect that. A Debian user who didn't follow the legal battle would likely (and justifiably) assume that a browser named Iceweasel had very little to do with Firefox. The lack of the Mozilla trademark would therefore be misleading, which is the opposite of the standard model of infringement. Defining the "source" (in the trademark sense) of an open source software project seems more difficult. When software is proprietary, the mark owner is the single source of distribution for the software: we don't see these sorts of trademark issues with Internet Explorer because only Microsoft can distribute IE. Open source projects break that coincidence, and the typical result seems to be an awkward tension between free software ideology and aggressive defense of IP rights. I find it ironic that Mozilla’s defense of its trademark here has actually substantially defeated the purpose of trademarks, identification of a product’s source. If Iceweasel is nearly identical to Firefox, it really does come from Mozilla and its name should reflect that. A Debian user who didn’t follow the legal battle would likely (and justifiably) assume that a browser named Iceweasel had very little to do with Firefox. The lack of the Mozilla trademark would therefore be misleading, which is the opposite of the standard model of infringement.

Defining the “source” (in the trademark sense) of an open source software project seems more difficult. When software is proprietary, the mark owner is the single source of distribution for the software: we don’t see these sorts of trademark issues with Internet Explorer because only Microsoft can distribute IE. Open source projects break that coincidence, and the typical result seems to be an awkward tension between free software ideology and aggressive defense of IP rights.

]]> By: Ben http://ipinthedigitalage.com/mozilla-and-trademarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1543 Ben Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:30:01 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=570#comment-1543 Incidentally, Mozilla's had significant trademark trouble with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian" rel="nofollow">Debian</a> Linux distribution. Debian sticks to a hard-and-fast rule of not including any proprietary materials at all (so no proprietary drivers, no copyrighted artwork, etc.). Mozilla holds copyright to their logo, and refuses to release it under CC or another copyleft license. Because Debian rejects all copyright, they wound up drawing their own alternate artwork and substituting that in for the version of Firefox they shipped with their operating system. Initially, they kept the Firefox name (with permission from Mozilla). But a couple years after they changed the artwork, Mozilla <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project" rel="nofollow">sent lawyers</a> after them and informed them that their use of the trademarked name was unacceptable. The Debian project chose to resolve the dispute by simply rebranding the browser. Debian these days ships with the "Iceweasel" browser installed by default, which is identical to Firefox except for the artwork and the default inclusion of some proprietary plugins. Incidentally, Mozilla’s had significant trademark trouble with the Debian Linux distribution. Debian sticks to a hard-and-fast rule of not including any proprietary materials at all (so no proprietary drivers, no copyrighted artwork, etc.). Mozilla holds copyright to their logo, and refuses to release it under CC or another copyleft license. Because Debian rejects all copyright, they wound up drawing their own alternate artwork and substituting that in for the version of Firefox they shipped with their operating system.

Initially, they kept the Firefox name (with permission from Mozilla). But a couple years after they changed the artwork, Mozilla sent lawyers after them and informed them that their use of the trademarked name was unacceptable. The Debian project chose to resolve the dispute by simply rebranding the browser. Debian these days ships with the “Iceweasel” browser installed by default, which is identical to Firefox except for the artwork and the default inclusion of some proprietary plugins.

]]> By: Stuart S http://ipinthedigitalage.com/mozilla-and-trademarks/comment-page-1/#comment-1509 Stuart S Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:09:48 +0000 http://ipinthedigitalage.com/?p=570#comment-1509 In the case of Mozilla, it seems that their good faith to not limit innovation through trademark (i.e. relinquishing the rights to the RSS feed symbol) is a crucial component of why they have been so progressive. I wonder if there is any systematic way (such as an industry-wide corporate policy or actual legislation) we could get companies to take this progressive stance if you remove the "good faith" of a foundation/corporation from the equation... In the case of Mozilla, it seems that their good faith to not limit innovation through trademark (i.e. relinquishing the rights to the RSS feed symbol) is a crucial component of why they have been so progressive. I wonder if there is any systematic way (such as an industry-wide corporate policy or actual legislation) we could get companies to take this progressive stance if you remove the “good faith” of a foundation/corporation from the equation…

]]>