Not saying which interpretation of that line is right or wrong, but it
would seem to me that if Chris' interpretation is correct you wouldn't
have to mark it as PI.. its simple ommision from the Open Content of the
product would seem to be enough.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 12:58:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 1 says PI must be clearly identified to be such. This is the
heart
of our disagreement.
Right, Weldon, and here's the problem I have with Chris'
interpretation. The PI Definition says (with some intervening words
removed):
"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and
identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; and any other
trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product
identity by the owner of the Product Identity...
By Chris' readings, product lines, product line names, logos, and
identifiying marks including trade dress would PI without declaration,
but any other type of trademark must be identified as PI to be PI.
That seems WAY arbitrary. Why would I need to declare the registered
trademark for my company as PI, but I would not have to declare the
unregistered common law trademark on my product line as PI. Why would
my company's logo be automatically protected, but my company's name
(which is not a product name or product line) requires a PI designation?
The seeming arbitrariness of that notion compels me to take a contrary
reading.
Apparently you feel the same way.
Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l