Paul Kinnucan wrote:
> At 02:42 PM 7/18/2001 -0700, Iain Huxley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm sure you're sick of naming comments etc. by now, and it may be too late,
> >but:
> >
> >In some ways using the word "mode" understates what JDE can do for you - it
> >makes it seem like just some f
Jmode Makes Ordinary Developers Exceptional? ;)
David
-Original Message-
From: Petter Måhlén [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Renaming Proposal
Is jmode short for "Jmode is MOre than a Development Enviro
environment]
> eJIDE [emacs ...]
> j-ide
> Java-IDE
>
> Iain.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Latchezar M. Dimitrov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 2:29 PM
> > To: Paul Kinnucan
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
e
> Java-IDE
>
> Iain.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Latchezar M. Dimitrov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 2:29 PM
> > To: Paul Kinnucan
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Renaming Proposal
> >
>
I think we should all should hold off on the
speculation and wait for what the IP lawyer that Paul
mentioned has to say before making any more
suggestions or encouraging Paul to make any more
decisions.
PS: The JDE User guide
(http://jde.sunsite.dk/jdedoc/ug/jde-ug.html) on the
webpage will pro
Here's another feather in your cap. Since their current trademark
registration was filed for opposition February 20, 2001 and the fact that
the opposition period lasts 6 months, I think you could potentially file
an authentic opposition claim any time before August 20th that could be
used to pre
OK, again based on what I have read in layman terms, if that is the meat
of their argument, then it looks like they are basing their claims on the
generic terms of "dilution" of their trademark. Which basically means
that they feel they have invested significant effort into developing the
name a
At 09:23 PM 7/18/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>You are correct regarding enforcement. Hence the reason that they sent
>Paul the "cease and desist" notice. However, that only means that they
>took a cursory glance at JDE, saw that there might be a conflict and took
>the appropriate measure to notify th
At 12:44 AM 7/19/2001 -0400, Paul Kinnucan wrote:
>Hi Jim,
>
>I am now have second thoughts both about simply acceding and about the
>choice of a name. Your comments make a lot of sense. Maybe I can reach a
>middle ground with J.D. Edwards. The best scenario would be if they
>accepted our continue
Hi Jim,
I am now have second thoughts both about simply acceding and about the
choice of a name. Your comments make a lot of sense. Maybe I can reach a
middle ground with J.D. Edwards. The best scenario would be if they
accepted our continued use of JDE. If they won't accept that, I would
prefer
At 02:42 PM 7/18/2001 -0700, Iain Huxley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sure you're sick of naming comments etc. by now, and it may be too late,
>but:
>
>In some ways using the word "mode" understates what JDE can do for you - it
>makes it seem like just some formatting helper; the rich set of fe
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It all comes down to the fact that sending a cease and desist
> letter seems to be a standard practice (and in fact is required
> of a trademark owner to retain the rights to a trademark).
> This doesn't mean that they will necessarily pursue litiga
You are correct regarding enforcement. Hence the reason that they sent
Paul the "cease and desist" notice. However, that only means that they
took a cursory glance at JDE, saw that there might be a conflict and took
the appropriate measure to notify the potential violator.
They are probably una
Jim LoVerde wrote:
> I guess what I'm saying it that depending on the verbage of
> the letter, it may still be possible to work out an amicable
If you own a trademark but never enforce it, it loses validity.
So, it might be worthwhile for JD Edwards to flex its muscles
at us small fry just bec
Another note with regard to JDEE. I think it would be perfectly legal
because there is no trademark for it, it is a fair description of the
product, and there a multiple examples of one letter off trademarks. E.g.
IBM, IBMA, IBME, IBMI, etc. NBA, NBAA, NBAF, etc.
It all comes down to the fact
OK, more legal research reveals the following. The basic
defenses to trademark infringement claims are listed in 15
USC 1115 (Title 15, Chapter 22, SubChapter III, Sec. 1115).
See http://www.access.gpo.gov/ to browse the law. Quoting a
portion of that section:
> (4) That the use of the na
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Renaming Proposal
Hi,
I like jmode too. How about slight change with big consequencies?:-)
That is, jdm (java development mode of course)?
Thanks and sorry if it's too late.
Latchezar
PS. BTW, I've made a suggestion for j-d-e earlier but haven't heard any
Yeah and what do you put at the top of a file to invoke it?
-*- j -*-
?
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Sherborne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Renaming Proposal
>
>
> To inv
To invoke jde-mode do you type
jmode-mode or jmode ? :)
, 2001 2:29 PM
> To: Paul Kinnucan
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Renaming Proposal
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I like jmode too. How about slight change with big consequencies?:-)
> That is, jdm (java development mode of course)?
>
> Thanks and sorry if it's to
t [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>From: William L Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:15:11 -0400
>To: Paul Kinnucan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Renaming Proposal
>
>
> jmode- is a good choice; could use jm- for
jmode- is a good choice; could use jm- for an abbreviation if it's
not already in use in another emacs package.
-WLA
i like jmode- over j-. jmode is more explicit.
thanks
aaron
At Wed, 18 Jul 2001 07:59:41 -0400,
Paul Kinnucan wrote:
>
> At 01:48 PM 7/18/2001 +0200, Karim Trott wrote:
> >May be I thinking too simple but isn't it feasable to invoke JMode by
> >"M-x j-mode" ?
> >
>
> Yes, one possibility is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Kinnucan write
s:
: Yes, one possibility is to replace jde- with j- in symbol names, on the
: analogy of c-mode. Another is jmode-. Thus, jde-global-classpath might
: become j-global-classpath or jmode-global-classpath.
I would very much prefer jmode- as a p
You wrote:
> At 01:48 PM 7/18/2001 +0200, Karim Trott wrote:
> >May be I thinking too simple but isn't it feasable to invoke JMode by
> >"M-x j-mode" ?
> >
> Yes, one possibility is to replace jde- with j- in symbol names, on the
> analogy of c-mode. Another is jmode-. Thus, jde-global-classpath m
At 01:48 PM 7/18/2001 +0200, Karim Trott wrote:
>May be I thinking too simple but isn't it feasable to invoke JMode by
>"M-x j-mode" ?
>
Yes, one possibility is to replace jde- with j- in symbol names, on the
analogy of c-mode. Another is jmode-. Thus, jde-global-classpath might
become j-global-c
May be I thinking too simple but isn't it feasable to invoke JMode by
"M-x j-mode" ?
Besides I love jde and would also contribute if you need to raise a fund
for jde / jmode.
Karim.
Hi Paul,
I vote for JMode too and I am willing to pay a few bucks to get a
trademark. I hope Richard Stallman is willing to help.
keep up the good work and remember: you're not alone on this one!
regards,
Richard.
I like it.
I'd investigate whether these changes are enough to
satisfy them or whether as someone else suggested they
don't want things like being able to access JMode via
M-x jde-mode
to be changed. I doubt it (and in fact fear that
asking may give them ideas) but I'd prefer that than
h
Hi all,
If, as seems probable, it becomes necessary to rename the JDE, I am
thinking of referring to the JDE as "JMode, a Java Development Environment
for Emacs" or "JMode" for short. I would retain jde- as the prefix for the
JMode lisp code because JMode is, after all, a
J(ava)D(evelopment)E(nvi
30 matches
Mail list logo
