> The way to go is not to "assess the threats". But rather to asses the > own usage of trademarks, to avoid future threats.
Anyone can be sued for any reason. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung Assessing threats is sensible. You can't eliminate them all, no matter how hard you try, and when the possibility of being sued is remote, you can treat it as negligible. Would you have recommended that the Chungs refrain from putting up the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign? I make no comment about whether this particular threat is credible; I haven't been closely following the thread. For all I know, Nintendo might have a legitimate claim. I'm just warning against an overly conservative/paranoid outlook. > And overall, responsible parties for distribution shall be still > consider the global impact. As trademark law in one country is not same > like in other country. Judges may react totally different within one > court, and unspoken of different countries. Encryption is illegal in some countries. Maybe the FSF should refuse to distribute cryptographic software, for the benefit of people in those countries.
pgpnCxsIFs0VL.pgp
Description: PGP signature