Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John > > I think some EU countries (and Switzerland) also have this 5 years > rule. > But I'm not a professional lawyer. > If anybody is, then I suggest that he could offer his services to the > OSMF as a volunteer (e.g. for a 2nd opinion). > > Yours, Stefan > > > 2013/2/4 John F. Eldredge <j...@jfeldredge.com>: > > Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > > > >> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the > >> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended. > >> > >> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes: > >> > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: > >> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for > >> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They > >> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as > releasing > >> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to > ask > >> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and > >> copyright issues. > >> > >> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that > >> the TM > >> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when > >> mentioned in > >> > proximity of Google services. > >> > >> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having > allowed > >> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their > trademark > >> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a > Google > >> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible. > >> > >> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do, > >> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing > >> their trademark (claim). > >> > >> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands. > >> > >> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a > C&D > >> is > >> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach > of > >> > >> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done > >> something > >> > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and > that > >> > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation. > >> > >> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's > >> *Google*. > > > > If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode" > for 12 years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US > law, the term is now legally classed as generic, and can be used by > anyone. According to > <http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Trademark_infringement>, while there is > no Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one > Federal court decided that such cases were subject to the general > five-year limit for non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US > Code. Usually, the Federal courts follow the precedents set by the > most similar state case. > > > > -- > > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better > than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Well, I should note that I am not a lawyer, either. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
