🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3265q2$gqc@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Mary Morris <marym@Sun.COM> wrote:
>Can someone enlighten me as to how rights to a newsgroup hierarchy can be
>purchased?

They can't.  They're wrong.

Usenet is not for sale, since nobody owns it.

--Dave

barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:

>In article <3265q2$gqc@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Mary Morris <marym@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>Can someone enlighten me as to how rights to a newsgroup hierarchy can be
>>purchased?

>They can't.  They're wrong.
>Usenet is not for sale, since nobody owns it.

Hmmm... the same goes for the internet, yet CIX is selling it just
as well.

Ming
-- 
Eu-Ming Lee  ming@interaccess.com
"Someday you will ache like I ache." -Hole
He who has the most # of extra lives when he dies, wins.

In article <326agt$nn4@bosnia.pop.psu.edu>,
David Barr <barr@pop.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <3265q2$gqc@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>Mary Morris <marym@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>Can someone enlighten me as to how rights to a newsgroup hierarchy can be
>>purchased?
>
>They can't.  They're wrong.
>
>Usenet is not for sale, since nobody owns it.
>
>--Dave

True, but untrue.  English isn't for sale either, nobody owns it, but
one can, under law, get ownership of particular words (made up or otherwise)
used in specific contexts.

We, for example own the trademarks "clari" and "clarinet" when it comes to
newsgroup hierarchies -- (though a newsgroup of the form rec.music.clarinets
would probably not infringe this mark.)

We also control that hierarchy under contract with our customers, but
trademark law also gives us ownership of it in the sense that we can
prevent non-customers from making use of it against our will.

To say one "purchases" the rights to a hierarchy is not quite right.
(Not yet.)   One gains rights through the act of creation, which one
might sell down the road.  It's not a matter of taking something from
anybody, but of creating something new, and owning/controlling it after
you do.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

In article <Cu8p2F.Ey@clarinet.com>, Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:
>To say one "purchases" the rights to a hierarchy is not quite right.
>(Not yet.)   One gains rights through the act of creation, which one
>might sell down the road.  It's not a matter of taking something from
>anybody, but of creating something new, and owning/controlling it after
>you do.

But unlike you, The Internet Company (internet.com) never actually
created market.* .  They only announced that they were planning to.

Can you sell the right to create something that you never got
around to creating yourself?
-- 
Ron Newman		 		MIT Media Laboratory
rnewman@media.mit.edu

In article <1994Aug9.003040.23346@news.media.mit.edu>,
Ron Newman <rnewman@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cu8p2F.Ey@clarinet.com>, Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:
>But unlike you, The Internet Company (internet.com) never actually
>created market.* .  They only announced that they were planning to.
>
>Can you sell the right to create something that you never got
>around to creating yourself?

I would expect so.  After all, if somebody tried to create "market.*"
without Rob's permission then he could sue them based on what I know
of the law, particularly if there was any evidence they were trying
to capitalize on his PR campaign for it.

Thus he could charge them money to transfer the rights.

-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

In article <ming.776385237@interaccess> you write:
>barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
>
>>In article <3265q2$gqc@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>>Mary Morris <marym@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>>Can someone enlighten me as to how rights to a newsgroup hierarchy can be
>>>purchased?
>
>>They can't.  They're wrong.
>>Usenet is not for sale, since nobody owns it.
>
>Hmmm... the same goes for the internet, yet CIX is selling it just
>as well.
>
>Ming

That is like selling the moon.  One can sell access to it, but not the entire
item.  (Until a really big tugboat is designed to move it...)
Telling someone they're "selling" one or the other is a marketing lie, err, 
ploy, I mean hyperbole.

jna

Well, I assume they have an agreement like the clarinet folk have - that
no one is going to access the group without signing a license, and that
anyone passing msgs to these groups without signing the license will be
sued, etc.

Don't think that usenet is not for sale - it has been for some time.
Besides clarinet, there are the americast folk as well.
-- 
:s Great net resources sought...
:s Larry W. Virden                 INET: lvirden@cas.org
:s Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614
The task of an educator should be to irrigate the desert not clear the forest.

In article <ming.776385237@interaccess>,
that stupid club <ming@flowbee.interaccess.com> wrote:
>barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr) writes:
>
>>In article <3265q2$gqc@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
>>Mary Morris <marym@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>>Can someone enlighten me as to how rights to a newsgroup hierarchy can be
>>>purchased?
>
>>They can't.  They're wrong.
>>Usenet is not for sale, since nobody owns it.
>
>Hmmm... the same goes for the internet, yet CIX is selling it just
>as well.
>
>Ming
>-- 
>Eu-Ming Lee  ming@interaccess.com
>"Someday you will ache like I ache." -Hole
>He who has the most # of extra lives when he dies, wins.

That's about as far off-base as you can get Ming.  

The CIX is not selling the Internet.  They are selling a transit guarantee
and services to their members, which happen to include routing on *two*
CISCO 7000s in California.

The CIX can no more sell the Internet than Interaccess can.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice/Fax: [+1 312 248-8649] | 5 POPs throughout the area, all 28.8 equipped
MCSNet is a CIX Member       | Email to "info@mcs.net" for a more information
Ask about "MCSNet Rewards"   | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net

>True, but untrue.  English isn't for sale either, nobody owns it, but
>one can, under law, get ownership of particular words (made up or otherwise)
>used in specific contexts.

>We, for example own the trademarks "clari" and "clarinet" when it comes to
>newsgroup hierarchies -- (though a newsgroup of the form rec.music.clarinets
>would probably not infringe this mark.)

>We also control that hierarchy under contract with our customers, but
>trademark law also gives us ownership of it in the sense that we can
>prevent non-customers from making use of it against our will.

>To say one "purchases" the rights to a hierarchy is not quite right.
>(Not yet.)   One gains rights through the act of creation, which one
>might sell down the road.  It's not a matter of taking something from
>anybody, but of creating something new, and owning/controlling it after
>you do.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
>The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

I suspect that under legal test , Brad, you would find that you own the 
copyright to all materials which you distributed under the clari heirarchy.  
The heirarchies themselves are, however, a product of the netnews environment 
created by usenet.  It would undoubtedly make for interesting law, but the 
reality is you could not enforce nonposting to the clari heirarchy if you 
tried.

Rather it is impolite and inconvenient to others to post to the clari 
heirarchy.

It is probably in everyone;s best interest to:
 
     1)  not overstate one's ownership
     2)  be polite

The law is a very dull instrument and resolution of these kinds of questions 
will require a careful use of a scapel! 

Regards.
 
Don Rolph w-rolph@ds.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-699-1263

In article <328ktn$bau@Venus.mcs.com> karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>The CIX is not selling the Internet.  They are selling a transit guarantee
>and services to their members, which happen to include routing on *two*
>CISCO 7000s in California.

>The CIX can no more sell the Internet than Interaccess can.

How do they get their access to the Internet? That is, must a person or 
organization go through a "provider", and if so, why?

In article <pjh.3371.2E491362@pjh.jvnc.net>,
Pete Holsberg <pjh@pjh.jvnc.net> wrote:
>In article <328ktn$bau@Venus.mcs.com> karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>The CIX is not selling the Internet.  They are selling a transit guarantee
>>and services to their members, which happen to include routing on *two*
>>CISCO 7000s in California.
>
>>The CIX can no more sell the Internet than Interaccess can.
>
>How do they get their access to the Internet? That is, must a person or 
>organization go through a "provider", and if so, why?

The CIX?  The CIX is a trade association of providers.

If you don't want to go through a provider, become one - start leasing lines
from telcos, and negotiate peering arrangements.  That is a (albiet
expensive) choice.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice/Fax: [+1 312 248-8649] | 5 POPs throughout the area, all 28.8 equipped
MCSNet is a CIX Member       | Email to "info@mcs.net" for a more information
Ask about "MCSNet Rewards"   | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net

In article <Cu8p2F.Ey@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
|> 
|> True, but untrue.  English isn't for sale either, nobody owns it [...etc]

You might get an argument from the French, who would say that English is
frequently, er, "procured".
-- 
(Geek Code 2.1) GCS$/G$/L/M$/S$/T/O (-)d(-)(--) (!)H s:+ g- p1(+) au+ a38>? w+
                !v(?)(*) C+$ UI(S)(?)++(++++$,on DSINet) P+>++++ L(-) 3(-) E---
                N++>+++ K(++)>++++++ W+ M--- V-- -po+(---) Y+ t++(---) !5 j1(x)
                R G?>+++ tv+ b+++ D+ B---- e->-- u@ h+(*) f-(?) r++(*) !n y++

In article <w-rolph.584.00082C2F@ds.mc.ti.com>,
>I suspect that under legal test , Brad, you would find that you own the 
>copyright to all materials which you distributed under the clari heirarchy.  
>The heirarchies themselves are, however, a product of the netnews environment 
>created by usenet.  It would undoubtedly make for interesting law, but the 
>reality is you could not enforce nonposting to the clari heirarchy if you 
>tried.

Would you care to suggest what legal test you refer to here?  Nothing I
know about trademark law would prohibit its operation in this environment.

Trademark law prohibits the use of trademarks by other parties in a way
that might confuse the public or which might attempt to unfairly capitalize
on the good will or reputation associated with a mark.  There is no
"except when it comes to newsgroups."
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I would expect so.  After all, if somebody tried to create "market.*"
>without Rob's permission then he could sue them based on what I know
>of the law, particularly if there was any evidence they were trying
>to capitalize on his PR campaign for it.

>Thus he could charge them money to transfer the rights.

What keeps me - a pretty normal net.citizen from sending out a newgroup
for market.* ? O.K. - rmgroups by god-knows-who. Netiquette. But LAWS ?

Jens
-- 
Jens Stark         root@foobar.hanse.de    CI$: 100112,144

Brad Templeton (brad@clarinet.com) wrote:

: I would expect so.  After all, if somebody tried to create "market.*"
: without Rob's permission then he could sue them based on what I know
: of the law, particularly if there was any evidence they were trying
: to capitalize on his PR campaign for it.

Nawwww...a trademark must be a *unique* mark.  The word "market" in 
regard to the Internet is not unique since there are lots of newsgroups 
where people market things.  A clear and obvious use for the Internet is 
in marketing things using formats such as a buy/sell/swap newsgroups.

Your mark, "Clarinet", on the other hand is a unique word which is not
obvious.  By the same token, Microsoft can trademark the name "Windows"
since the name is not obvious for computer uses (or wasn't obvious at the
time they began using the mark), but they can't trademark the name "Word"
for their word processing program, since "word" is an obvious reference to
word processing. 

--
dk@crl.com      	I'm always on the lookout for consulting jobs in
San Francisco		business management and PC hardware/software.

In article <32fdsi$nqg@crl2.crl.com>, David A. Kaye <dk@crl.com> wrote:
>Brad Templeton (brad@clarinet.com) wrote:
>Nawwww...a trademark must be a *unique* mark.  The word "market" in 
>regard to the Internet is not unique since there are lots of newsgroups 
>where people market things.  A clear and obvious use for the Internet is 
>in marketing things using formats such as a buy/sell/swap newsgroups.
>
>Your mark, "Clarinet", on the other hand is a unique word which is not
>obvious.  By the same token, Microsoft can trademark the name "Windows"
>since the name is not obvious for computer uses (or wasn't obvious at the
>time they began using the mark), but they can't trademark the name "Word"
>for their word processing program, since "word" is an obvious reference to
>word processing. 

You are correct that Market is not nearly as trademarkable a word when it
comes to naming newsgroups.

You'll probably get a lot a mail about the name Windows, which microsoft
does not hold as a trademark to their regret.   Lots of windowing systems
use the term windows to refer to what they did before MS windows.
Now "MS Windows" *is* a Microsoft trademark.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

In article <32fb75$244@foobar.hanse.de>,
Jens Stark <root@foobar.hanse.de> wrote:
>brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>What keeps me - a pretty normal net.citizen from sending out a newgroup
>for market.* ? O.K. - rmgroups by god-knows-who. Netiquette. But LAWS ?

Trademark laws vary from country to country, so I can't speak for where
you live.  In the USA.

a) Rob announced plans for a market hierarchy where he would sell
advertising, and worked to get this covered in other media as well.  He
thus established some awareness of the name, though he has not yet
created the hierarchy.

b) If you were to create such a group, he could argue that your doing so
would cause confusion between the groups you created and his, and that
this would hurt the value of his.  He could thus sue you for
trademark infringement.

However, this is clouded by the fact that:

a) He has yet to create the groups, and they're a bit overdue

b) He's selling his rights in the name to somebody else

c) The term "market" is arguably a generic term.   Ie. one might even
use the sentence, "misc.forsale is a market newsgroup."


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.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> writes:
    Brad> It would be up to him whether to sue.  A "clari" group on
    Brad> the other hand is something that: a) Has a clear commercial
    Brad> value and name recognition b) Has existed for over five
    Brad> years c) Is not a generic term in any sense.

    Brad> And thus there is a much stronger trademark case for us.  --

Nope, no generic term here.  Us clarinet players must be infringing.

By the way, I claim the trademark on these hierarchies:

grep 'net$' /usr/dict/words
Barnet
baronet
bassinet
bayonet
Bernet
bitnet
bluebonnet
bonnet
cabinet
castanet
clarinet -- Ooops, Brad got this one.
cornet
coronet
csnet
dragnet
ferromagnet
gannet
garnet
hornet
Janet
magnet
net
paramagnet
planet
signet
sonnet
sunbonnet
tenet
--
John Dowding
dowding@ai.sri.com

Brad Templeton (brad@clarinet.com) wrote:

: You'll probably get a lot a mail about the name Windows, which microsoft
: does not hold as a trademark to their regret.

Actually, you're right.  I just noticed that "Windows" has a TM after it, 
indicating that Microsoft intends to register it as a trademark, rather 
than the (R) which would indicate it is already registered.  Okay, let's 
use another example, a stronger one: Excel (R).  

--
dk@crl.com      	
San Francisco		

[Follow-up trimmed.  Have a nice day.]

In article <CuHsvM.DBB@clarinet.com>, Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:
>Jens Stark <root@foobar.hanse.de> wrote:
>>What keeps me - a pretty normal net.citizen from sending out a newgroup
>>for market.* ? O.K. - rmgroups by god-knows-who. Netiquette. But LAWS ?
>
>Trademark laws vary from country to country, so I can't speak for where
>you live.  In the USA.
>
>a) Rob announced plans for a market hierarchy where he would sell
>advertising, and worked to get this covered in other media as well.  He
>thus established some awareness of the name, though he has not yet
>created the hierarchy.
>
>b) If you were to create such a group, he could argue that your doing so
>would cause confusion between the groups you created and his, and that
>this would hurt the value of his.  He could thus sue you for
>trademark infringement.
>
>However, this is clouded by the fact that:
>
>a) He has yet to create the groups, and they're a bit overdue
>
>b) He's selling his rights in the name to somebody else
>
>c) The term "market" is arguably a generic term.   Ie. one might even
>use the sentence, "misc.forsale is a market newsgroup."
>
>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.

There's one other problem.  If your trademark becomes a "generic term",
you will lose your trademark.  That's why Xerox got so bent out of shape
years ago and started telling people "not every photocopier is a Xerox".

I don't think "market.*" is trademarketable in any sense of the word.

"DNetMarket.*", on the other hand...
-- 
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=                       "He was my strongest weakness."                       =

dowding@ai.sri.com (John Dowding) writes:
>    Brad> And thus there is a much stronger trademark case for us.  --
>
>Nope, no generic term here.  Us clarinet players must be infringing.

Wrong, John.  You can't trademark nouns, only adjectives.  Brad's company
has trademarked "Clarinet" and "clari" as it applies to online services
only.

Oh and by the way:
>net

You must be a newbie ("new" as in 7 years or fewer on the net): "net" was
the first (and at the time, the only) non-local hierarchy.



-- 
-- Joe Buck 	<jbuck@synopsys.com>
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
***** Stamp out junk e-mail spamming!  If someone sends you a junk e-mail
***** ad just because you posted in comp.foo, boycott their company.

In article <DOWDING.94Aug14015551@gansett.ai.sri.com>,
John Dowding <dowding@ai.sri.com> wrote:
>Nope, no generic term here.  Us clarinet players must be infringing.
You must have missed the earlier messages in this thread where this issue
was touched on.
>
>By the way, I claim the trademark on these hierarchies:

One can not simply "claim" a trademark.  One has to use it, and one acquires
rights to the mark by being the first to truly use it to identify something.
As noted, a trademark is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't build a
mark unless it is clear what sort of noun the adjective applies to.

That's why we can have Apple Computer and Apple Records and Apple Auto
Glass and several other Apple XXX companies.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

In article <32kuoc$m2t@crl.crl.com>, David A. Kaye <dk@crl.com> wrote:
>Brad Templeton (brad@clarinet.com) wrote:
>
>: You'll probably get a lot a mail about the name Windows, which microsoft
>: does not hold as a trademark to their regret.
>
>Actually, you're right.  I just noticed that "Windows" has a TM after it, 
>indicating that Microsoft intends to register it as a trademark, rather 
>than the (R) which would indicate it is already registered.  Okay, let's 
>use another example, a stronger one: Excel (R).  

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  Microsoft *tried* to claim "Windows"
as a tradmark in computer operating environments, but they failed in
court, much to their chagrin.

You are free to make your own computer OS or graphical environment called
Windows.  But you can't trademark it either.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.
The net's #1 electronic newspaper (circulation 65,000) -- info@clarinet.com

In article <CuK8ou.CII@clarinet.com>, Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:
>As noted, a trademark is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't build a
>mark unless it is clear what sort of noun the adjective applies to.
>
>That's why we can have Apple Computer and Apple Records and Apple Auto
>Glass and several other Apple XXX companies.

Didn't Apple Computer and Apple Records reach an agreement to stay 
out of each others' business areas?  And didn't Apple Computer have to
pay some money to Apple Records once their computers started to be
used in the music industry?
-- 
Ron Newman		 		MIT Media Laboratory
rnewman@media.mit.edu

In article <CuK8ou.CII@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

 BT> One can not simply "claim" a trademark.  One has to use it, and one
 BT> acquires rights to the mark by being the first to truly use it to
 BT> identify something.  As noted, a trademark is an adjective, not a
 BT> noun, so you can't build a mark unless it is clear what sort of
 BT> noun the adjective applies to.

 BT> That's why we can have Apple Computer and Apple Records and Apple
 BT> Auto Glass and several other Apple XXX companies.

	As Alamo Rent a Car found out, to its dismay, when it attempted
to prevent the trademarking of the term 'Alamo Bowl' (to be the name of
the college bowl game to be played in the Alamodome in San Antonio
[where, aside from having a counter at the airport, Alamo Rent a Car has
no business connections]).  The lawyer for the Alamo Bowl committee, as
part of his rebuttal brief, presented four pages of the SA telephone
book, starting with the Alamo Academy of Fine Arts and ending with Alamo
X-Ray Clinic.
--
Sten Drescher			2709 13th St #1248
smd@floyd.brooks.af.mil		Brooks AFB, TX 78235
RIPEM and PGP public keys available via finger
#include <disclaimer.h>
"That's not funny."
	-George Stephanopoulos, when Leon Panetta said about a group of
visiting children: "I thought they were the White House staffers,"
quoted in Newsweek.

>>>>> "Brad" == Brad Templeton <brad@clarinet.com> writes:

    Brad> As noted, a trademark
    Brad> is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't build a mark
    Brad> unless it is clear what sort of noun the adjective applies
    Brad> to.

Did you read this in trademark law somewhere, or just make it up?

Clarinet is clearly an noun, not an adjective.  Clarinet
communications is a compound noun, not an adjective noun combination.

Adjectives can take adverb modifiers (very clarinet communication),
and take comparative and superlative forms (clarineter,clarinetest).  
Adjectives don't take singular and plural form, and don't have to 
agree with the main verb:

The Clarinet is run by Brad.
The Clarinets are run by Brad.
*The Clarinet are run by Brad.

--
John Dowding
dowding@ai.sri.com

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>