Hank, as always I appreciate your comments on these matters. Additionally, I just checked an existing site I created and Sorenson is still streaming fine, and I'd imagine that On2 will as well. I had no doubts that they would as Adobe strives for backward compatibility even though they have made security enhancements that broke existing content in the past.
I'm not sure why he wrote that it doesn't support sorenson On 8/21/07, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. I am not clear what name you are saying red5 comes close to infringing. > > 2. If it does, there are no damages without notice. You cannot sue if you > ask someone to change the name and they do. Its not like copyright > infringement where any infringement creates a statutory liability. Therefore > any intelligent open source project would just change its name. This would > not be a smart strategy for eliminating open source and I *strongly* doubt > red5 is at any risk from this kind of a plan. > > Regards, > Hank > > > On 8/21/07, Donnacha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > RE: Trademarks > > > > To clarify what I meant, this issue has come up in discussion with > > some very switched on people but not, I have to stress, anyone in > > Adobe itself. The context was people in fairly high positions, > > discussing the tricky problem, faced by many proprietary software > > makers, of how to counter OSS competition without provoking a > > publicity backlash; Adobe/Red5 came up as a perfect case study. > > > > There was total agreement that the Red5 developers have been > > meticulous in ensuring that they didn't infringe Adobe's IP but the > > name itself was identified as their Achilles heal, not necessarily > > because it infringes a trademark or servicemark, although it may, but > > because it comes close enough to justify a court case. > > > > The case of a claimant against Red5 would not be strong enough to > > guarantee a win and, therefore, would not be worth taking UNLESS a > > third party anonymously funded the legal costs as a distraction/FUD > > tactic, just as Microsoft part-funded SCO's anti-Linux actions. This > > form of anonymous funding is 100% legal and very common practice among > > American corporations. > > > > In the case of targeting OSS projects, the presumption is that no > > formal structure is in place to fund a defense and that the costs will > > be borne by the lead developers with no prospect, in this type of > > action, of re-couping their costs even if they win - each side eats > > their own costs. > > > > This expensive process massively favors corporations and the vast > > majority of these disputes never make it to court, never come to > > public attention. > > > > As any such action would be a once-off opportunity and would be held > > in reserve until it can be used to maximum effect, probably after the > > project goes 1.0 and a lot of momentum has built up behind the > > disputed name - being forced to change it at that point would be a > > serious set-back. > > > > When the project was initially launched, I presumed that Red5 was > > temporary title, a cute Star Wars reference that would soon be > > replaced with a better name, one for which the .com was still > > available. I never expected it would last this long, I figured that a > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Red5 mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Red5 mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > -- Dominick Accattato, CTO Infrared5 Inc. www.newviewnetworks.com
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
