On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 10:52, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > - He didn't bother to check to see whether the name was in use when he > picked it.
Someone not making a commercial product shouldn't have to worry about a name collision with something they've never heard of. > - The lawyers were polite but firm. > > - He apparently made no attempt to negotiate, just told them no. Twice. I'd missed the part where the lawyers contacted him directly. The next step should have been a lawsuit, not to do an end run around the law by trying to convince someone else to enact extralegal enforcement on their behalf. > - His own account didn't dispute the possibility of confusion between two > software packages with the same name. He could have argued "My software > in > a command-line tool for creating Javascript projects; yours is a chat > client. There is no possibility of confusion between the two." But he > gives > no indication that he did this. > > It probably wouldn't do him much good if he made that argument, since the > courts tend to use the "Moron in a hurry" test. If a stupid person who is > not paying attention could be confused by the reuse of the name, then it > shouldn't be allowed. They're both software, right? It's not like one was > software and the other was a brand of chocolate biscuit. But, judging > from > his own story, it doesn't appear he even made that argument. A) His software is a command line tool, how's someone looking for a phone app going to find it in the first place? B) His software costs no money, so no harm has been done even if someone looking for the phone app finds it and "buys" it by mistake. Even if the interpretation of the law used by the court _is_ that phone apps and command line tools are the same "area", this is, if true, a failure of the system that people should fight against rather than just accept. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
