🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CuHsvM.DBB@clarinet.com>, Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:
=It would be up to him whether to sue.   A "clari" group on the other hand
=is something that:
=	a) Has a clear commercial value and name recognition
=	b) Has existed for over five years
=	c) Is not a generic term in any sense.
=
=And thus there is a much stronger trademark case for us.

You left out one of the stronger arguments, you control your distribution.
Anyone carrying or transporting clari is licensed to do so.  The proposed
market groups  are freely distributable (that is an assumption; if not then
who would carry them?).  Given the nature of a Usenet hierarchy you might have
an argument for anything you post, but you would be hard-pressed to defend a
hierarchy unless you get everyone to sign a license.

I suspect that any heavy-handedness would be met in the usually Usenet way -
letterbombs, newgroup/rmgroup attacks, etc.  I predict that anyone trying to
control a Usenet hierarchy for the purpose of charging for advertising will
fail miserably.  The future will include advertising, but it will have to be
controlled through service providers like Compu$erve and AOL.
-- 
Larry Blair <lmb@makesys.com>