Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Your Rights Online

BitTorrent to Sue Over Trademark 245

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-p-i-ro-nee dept.
joe 155 writes "The people at BitTorrent are to begin to protect their rights through lawsuits if necessary: "The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware" They also plan to put into action a system where by people will have to pay a licence fee to use the name in the hope of cutting down on adware distribution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitTorrent to Sue Over Trademark More

BitTorrent to Sue Over Trademark

Comments Filter:

  • irony? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kevin.fowler ( 915964 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:34AM (#14659903) Homepage
    I know that BT is used in many cases to distribute legitimate, legal content... but an article about BT protecting their intellectual property has to get a little chucle out of you.

    • NO, you mixed itup. Re:irony? (Score:5, Informative)

      by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:09PM (#14660171) Homepage Journal
      No, there is no intellectual property law.

      There is trademark law. That say you call you produckt xxx and nobody else can call themself xxx. If you would make a movie and call it the "the revenge of bittorent" Bram would let his lawyers loose on you only for the name.

      Then there is copyright law. If you would publish a movie in the cinema called "the revenge of bittorent" you would have to sue bittorent users of violating your copyright by distirbuting the movie over the BT network.

      There is also patent law, but that is not involved here. (...YET....)

      Anyway, the lawyer win.

      • Re:NO, you mixed itup. Re:irony? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:15PM (#14660213) Journal

        There is trademark law. That say you call you produckt xxx and nobody else can call themself xxx.

        I'm pretty sure that "XXX" is in the public domain now. Otherwise I'm in trouble ;)

      • You've got trademark wrong... (Score:4, Informative)

        by DarkMan ( 32280 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:32PM (#14660347) Journal
        Trademark is specific to a specific 'trade'. So, actually, I _could_ make a move called 'Revenge of BitTorrent', and that would be fine [0]. I just couldn't make a swarmcast filetransfer application and call _that_ BitTorrent (Or, possible any file transfer application - the edges of a given 'trade' are, as always, a little grey).

        Thus, I could quite happily sell a hot beverage called Ford, in a cup of a style that I trademark Mercedes, with a Porchse stirring rod, and there's nothing the car companies can do (unless they have a product within the relevent trade spaces).

        Classic example: Apple computer and Apple records.

        [0] Well, no trademark infringement. The movie would suck, 'cos I'm real bad at making movies.
        • Classic example: Apple computer and Apple records.

          Worst example ever:
          -Apple sued Apple.
          -Computer Apple now also distributes music with (apple) iTunes.

          • And Apple(Beatles) is currently suing Apple (Computers) for using the name in the music space after agreeing not to in the origianl trademark infringement settlement.
            • Apple (Computers) should just buy out Apple (Records), rename the (record) company, keep the Apple trademark, and resell the (record) company and its other assets. They'll lose a little on goodwill because of the name change but it will be a lot cheaper than these stupid court battles. Most of the value in Apple Records is due to its back catalog.
              • Apple (Records) isn't a publically traded company, and a lot of it's value is in the practically infinite possiblities for suing Apple (computers) over and over and over. The current owners would only profit by selling it for more than they can get out of Apple (computers) for the rest of the life of the universe, and Apple (computers) would only profit by buying it for less than that. I think the only way out is for Apple to give in to the legions of the misinformed and call itself 'Macintosh'
          • If I were in any position of power at Apple, I wouldn't suggest buying out Apple Records. Rather, I'd send them a modest proposal: a "merger", treating them as equals. I'd say that I like their music and their past business model, but that model is going to be really challenged by the coming all-electronic distribution system. So instead, as Apple's new Music Division, their job would be to pioneer the new future. They'd sign up lots of new startup bands, whose music would be distributed by iTunes. Each
        • Another Example would be Mcintosh audio and Macintosh computers. Porsche the automobile and Porsche design studio. However those people's names and courts generally won't give a company exclusive rights to that name. But if you make up a name, then you are entitled to that name for all products. That's why drug companies make up nonsensical names, like Viagra. You can't make up Viagra Golf Clubs.

        • Re:You've got trademark wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by wile_e_wonka ( 934864 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @01:21PM (#14660751)
          Ummm, this is wrong. For brands that are sufficiently strong, you can't use their name for anything. There are lots of factors to take into account, but you picked some particularly strong trademarks which make your example incorrect. This is because: imagine I start producing pajamas that say Coca-Cola on them. Even though Coca-Cola is a soft drink company, their trademark is so strong that if I made Coca-Cola pajamas somebody could perfectly reasonably think that the soft drink company distributed those pajamas. Because confusion is likely, my use of the trademark is illegal even though the goods are different. This is called "dilution" of a trademark.

          BitTorrent doesn't have the strength Coca-Cola does, but it does have some things on it's side--for example the name is quite arbitrary, well known amongst the same type of people that would use these other "BiTorrent" things, and most of all *the impostors were intentionally trying to make money off BiTorrent's good name.*

        • Thus, I could quite happily sell a hot beverage called Ford, in a cup of a style that I trademark Mercedes, with a Porchse stirring rod, and there's nothing the car companies can do
          Eh, like many things in the law, it's not quite that simple. Trademarks also protect from consumer confusion. I can't start up a hamburger joint called McRonalds for instance, since consumers might be confused and think it's associated with McDonalds. It could be possible that consumers might be confused by a cup style called

      • No, there is no intellectual property law.

        There is trademark law.

        I am afraid you are confused about what intellectual property law includes. Trademark is a type of intellectual property.

        The classic three types of intellectual property are:

        Copyright ( 17 U.S.C. 1-1332)
        Patent ( 35 U.S.C. 1-376)
        Trademarks (15 U.S.C. 1051-1141, a.k.a The Lanham Act 1-45, as amended.)

        Also usually included in the term Intellectual Property:

        Trade Secret
        Trade Dress
        Rights of Personality

        I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice

        • I am afraid you are confused about what intellectual property law includes.

          I think you are the one who is confused. The GP is correct that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" law. If you disagree please point out where in the law the term "intellectual property" is ever mentioned. Hint: you won't find it, because it is not a legal term, therefore discussing laws about a made up term is meaningless. Grouping the disparate laws surrounding trademarks, copyrights and patents (and related t

      • In the US, and it primarily consists of three things:
        Patent, Copyright, and Trademark.

    • Re:irony? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Feasoron ( 939800 )
      While BitTorrent is frequently used to distribute others property illegally, this is not what it was orginally intended for. The original purpose was faster file transfer, specifically designed to help DeadHeads share legally live concert sessions and the like. Seeing that as the original cause, this new step is in spirit with the original concept: easy, reliable file transfer.
    • The reality seems somewhat nicer. The summary says they only plan to flex their muscle at the adware-bundled clients, which will discourage people from making them (hopefully), so we can have our Torrent clients that don't spy on us. Hurray for Bram (if that is, in fact, his intent) for helping protect us from spyware.
    • Can they even trademark "BitTorrent" anymore? Arguably the term has become a generic. You BitTorrent something. You have a BitTorrent client. It's hard to describe a "BitTorrent" client without using the word "BitTorrent".

  • Free Software? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:35AM (#14659909)
    Wont this just hurt the makers of Free/OSS software? They're the ones who can't afford this type of thing. The adware people are the ones making money, and as such, can pay the fee.

    • Re:Free Software? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tweekster ( 949766 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:48AM (#14660026)
      Any reputable client does not contain spyware/adware anyways so this wont matter to the OSS ones

      basically the scum that repackage a client and trick people into downloading it (on some trackers) will have a problem...which is great.
      screw them, they are scum
      • just as a sidenote, I just downloaded Opera 9 preview today with uTorrent and while it was downlading a message poped up telling me that uTorrent is free and that if I have paid for it I should somewhere with the URL of the page where I downloaded/purchased it.

        Now, I agree with them, as uTorrent is not GPL (to my best knowledge) but, if it was a GPL (like azureus), I *believe* the GPL does not prohibits the ability to sell it does it?, as long as you give the code and the changes (if you modify it) when som

    • Re:Free Software? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tronicum ( 617382 ) * on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:08PM (#14660158)
      Company president Ashwin Navin told ZDNet yesterday: "We're sensitive to people calling their software BitTorrent to achieve a certain level of popularity in order to distribute spyware and adware."

      As long as the Software is not using the trade mark BitTorrent within its name, it should not be affected. And many have names distinct names ... (like Azureus [sourceforge.net])

      • Re:Free Software? (Score:5, Informative)

        by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:52PM (#14660482)

        "As long as the Software is not using the trade mark BitTorrent within its name, it should not be affected."

        and it isn't adware or spyware. That's the whole point of the licensing program... to go after the adware/spyware people. Not the OSS software. Bad guys, not good guys.

        • Trouble with trademarks is that if you don't protect them, you could lose them.

          That means that BitTorrent may find itself having to choose between suing the makers of an Open Source BT client or giving up their mark. Which will they choose?

          • "That means that BitTorrent may find itself having to choose between suing the makers of an Open Source BT client or giving up their mark. Which will they choose?"

            If the Open Source client is adware or spyware, then I hope they choose to sue them. There's no excuse for releasing adware or spyware, even if you're bathed in the blood of OSS.

            If the client is not adware/spyware, no need to sue them. Charge 'em a license fee of one dollar for all of eternity, and move on.

            The point of the program is to

            • unlike patents, you need to charge everyone the same.
              If you only charge a group of people which you deem 'bad', Then your claim that you need to protect your tradmark at all becomes very shaky.

              And there are plenty of reasons to release adware and/or spyware. You just don't happen to like those reasons.(me either, but that's not the point.)

      • As long as the Software is not using the trade mark BitTorrent within its name, it should not be affected. And many have names distinct names ... (like Azureus)

        I'm a BitTorrent fan and all that. My favorite client is Bittornado, I do not care for Azureus.

        Anywho, can someone point me to the mentioning of BitTorrent owning a trademark?

        I see here, http://www.bittorrent.com/tos.html [bittorrent.com] , that it says:

        use, display, frame or utilize framing techniques to enclose the Sites, or any individual element or materials wit

    • Call it something else. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:12PM (#14660191)
      Different name, same thing... Happens all the time in all industries.

       

    • Re:Free Software? (Score:5, Informative)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:31PM (#14660344)

      "Wont this just hurt the makers of Free/OSS software?"

      No, unless said free/OSS software is adware or spyware.

      "The adware people are the ones making money, and as such, can pay the fee."

      Software must meet security standards before the vendor is allowed to use the name. Adware and spyware vendors won't be given a license, no matter how much they pay.

      This is what the summary stated:

      "The company will set the lawyers on anyone using the BitTorrent name, and trademark, if they are using it to distribute spyware or adware"

      In other words, I don't think this is a RTFA situation, but a RTFS issue.

      • Re:Free Software? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Bent Mind ( 853241 )
        I'm probably wrong... However, I thought the concern of "hurt the makers of Free/OSS software" was based on the fee imposed by the license. From TFA: "Anyone wanting to use the name must demonstrate their software is reasonably secure and pay a small licensing fee." Granted the article says nothing about how much this small fee is or what the terms are.

  • Defending the Trademark (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:36AM (#14659918)
    IIRC a Trademark is worthless unless it is defended. Defence against people misusing it is necessary for them to have the trademark upheld in the first place.

  • A Torrent of Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kyouteki ( 835576 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .iketuoyk.> on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:38AM (#14659934) Homepage
    Bram Cohen obviously has the right to protect the name: the software is open source, the name is not. But more than that, he's protecting the reputation behind that name. He's not attacking the coders of Azureus, or even tracker-websites like UnrealTorrents that use part of the trademark in their name. No, he's going for people using his trademark maliciously...attacking spyware in the way that is easiest and best for him. Certainly this stirs more pots than just me running AdAware on my Windows box, no?

    • Re:A Torrent of Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raboofje ( 538591 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:46AM (#14660006)
      Indeed.

      Also, this is probably a message to the world (and possibly judges at some point...) that BitTorrent is mainly targeted to users with legitimate goals. That it is not purely a tool for pirates.
    • No, he's going for people using his trademark maliciously...attacking spyware in the way that is easiest and best for him.

      I'm going to be cynical here and say that anyone who is planning to start extracting money from people is *not* going to say "We're doing this to chisel money from people". SCO didn't say "Boy, we found a great way to freeload off the Linux world, and we're going to try that!" They said "We're trying to protect the work that we've put into advancing technology" or something like that.

      O
    • (IANAL)

      Couldn't this backfire on him, though? One of the rules about trademark law is that the holder of the trademark must regularly police infringments. The idea is to prevent a trademark from entering common usage (think "Xerox"), then surprising competitors years later with infringement lawsuits.

      If Cohen lets a bunch of "infringements" slide, then selectively goes after one bad actor, he may put his legal argument in jepoardy.

      (again, IANAL, but I think that the "easy" way around this problem is to forc
      • you're correct on both counts: it's a real legal risk, but it's also trivial to get around. he could easily craft a zero-cost licensing agreement with usage restrictions. then he could go after people who don't sign up for trademark infringement, and breach of contract for any who misrepresent their activities.
    • No, he's going for people using his trademark maliciously...attacking spyware in the way that is easiest and best for him. Certainly this stirs more pots than just me running AdAware on my Windows box, no?

      But then again, perhaps he Bit off more than he can chew...

    • Part of a larger pattern (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:29PM (#14660324)
      > Bram Cohen obviously has the right to protect the name: the software is open source, the name is not.

      No. This is an example of a greater pattern of abuse that needs to be addressed soon, especially with GPL3 set to enshine it as acceptable practice.

      What I'm talking about is this: Developer(s) toil away and produce Free Software. Software becomes popular. Developers suddenly file a trademark and begin to monitize it. See Linux(tm), Firefox(tm) and now BitTorrent(tm). Granted Linux isn't being heavily monitized YET but the shots have already went across the bow. Firefox has already told me to change the name in my RHEL rebuild. See a pattern? The problem is that the package is only known by its name, which until recently was freely usable so nobody has even given any thought what else to call it. Calling everything "The package formerly known as foo..." just doesn't scale.

      I propose we forbid this practice. If commercial interests need a trademark that is understandable, but they should undertake the expense of focus groups to pick a new name and the PR to popularize it. This is especially important with BitTorrent since it is not just the name of a client but also the name of the protocol. So sorry Bram, you are a genius but you are wrong on this one. Pick a new trademark for your client or even new forked version of the protocol you want to lock up in an "IP" box.
      • No. This is an example of a greater pattern of abuse that needs to be addressed soon, especially with GPL3 set to enshine it as acceptable practice.

        I have to disagree. These people aren't "monetizing" their trademarks. If you'd followed what Bram is doing, and read the FA, you'd know that he is trying to keep people from using the BitTorrent trademark to disseminate spyware and adware. As with Linux(TM) and Firefox(TM), the trademark is a tool to ensure the continued high quality and reliability of the O

        • Re:Part of a larger pattern (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @01:40PM (#14660925)
          > Firefox can't exactly have hundreds of people distributing code that they call "Firefox,"
          > now can they?

          Can't exactly have Free Software if we aren't allowed to redistribute binaries now can we? They need to decide which they are, a Free Software project or a proprietary product that is a free (small F) download sustained by advertising arrangements. And be not deceived by their prattle about quality control. They are interested in maintaining their co-branding agreements for default search engine and bookmarks and enforcing crap like this new spyware html tag they are introducing.

          Don't believe me? Watch how many major distributions either remove the spyware tag or add a UI control to disable it, my money is on zero. When the stink finally becomes intense enough it will be revealed that the trademark license agreements they all signed forbids it.

          It is time to ditch the Firefox brand name in the Free Software world and pick an unencumbered one. Yes it will create confusion in the marketplace, which is what Firefox is counting on btw, and RedHat and Suse will probably keep drinking the Kool-aid for a few years thus creating even more confusion. But the alternative is far worse. The alternative is they get away with it and a dozen more projects follow the allure of money. Next thing ya know a new distribution will be all but impossible to get off the ground because of the need for trademark lawyers. Of course RedHat and Suse wouldn't mind that world so perhaps they understand the situation perfectly.

          We draw a line in the sand now or not at all because later will be too late.
          • Come on why are you trying to mix things up? Being free as in speech software doesn't grant you the right to grab the name and use it as yours. It's the SOURCE that's free, not the BRANDING, and that's what GP was pointing out.

            Is it really that hard to understand the consequence if (IF) Gator/Claria brand their adware-rich browser Firefox? And do you really think Mozilla has all the resources to verify all the individual "Firefox" browsers out there are not malicious?
            • So if you distribute a modified version of the Firefox source you have to remove all references to the name "Firefox"? That sounds pretty much like what you're saying. If independent software packagers risk running afoul of the intellectual property lawyers retained by open source projects then what sort of mess have we created?

              The right thing for the BitTorrent people to do would probably be to pick a different brand name and stick to that -- say FileStream, for example. If the FileStream-branded BitTorren

              • So if you distribute a modified version of the Firefox source you have to remove all references to the name "Firefox"?

                Yes. But it's not like they have made that difficult. If you compile Firefox from source, by default you get an application named "Deer Park" -- unless you enable the "--enable-official-branding" option.

                If independent software packagers risk running afoul of the intellectual property lawyers retained by open source projects then what sort of mess have we created?

                Even if there is no bu

      • *hush*

        This is Slashdot.

        If it's Open Source and a popular program, no matter what they do, it's the right thing. If it's a popular company (e.g. Google/Apple), no matter what they do, it's the right thing (censorship? oh yeah, absolutely).

        I agree with you. This is a disturbing trend, and it does not matter what purpose it is being used for, you are going against the spirit of OSS.

        So, today it's spyware and adware - who's going to define what it's going to be tomorrow?

        The spirit of open source is not in letti
        • One of the original tenants of the GPL is that when distributing modified copies, one must acknowledge that it is not the original work. Using trademark law to require folks to make it clear that their modified derivatives are not endorsed by the authors of the original software is an extension which is clearly in line with these principals.

      • I don't understand what your problem is. So, they don't want you to call the RHEL firefox package 'firefox'. That means they want you to create a fork for packaging it in RHEL. Go ahead and do it.

        Really, it's stupid of them to do this, since, as you pointed out, the package name is how people know the project. So create a fork, and watch the fork start getting lots more attention than the main project because it's easy to find from the package name.

      • When Firebird changed to Firefox they told you about the trademark policy. It's not like they were using the name for a long time then suddenly came up with this stuff.
        • > When Firebird changed to Firefox

          Well no, I thought it was because Firebird was already claimed. Besides, the whole point of Free Software is freedom to redistribute. RedHat puts a whole SRPM tree up and says "It's Free Software under the GPL/BSD/etc." So people take them at their word and rebuild it, now it turns out it isn't. They signed Trademark agreements that aren't redistributable, making their software unfree even though the package has License: GPL in the .spec.

          The point is that if everyone

  • First fees for Email... Now for Bittorrent? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Have all these companies gone fee crazy? Next thing you know there will be a fee for posting on Slashdot to reduce the spam.

  • Won't this have the opposite impact, and just hurt open-source cleints like Azureus? Most open source projects can probably not afford to pay the license fee to use the BitTorrent name, whereas big adware/spyware vendors most certainly could (I'm thinking WhenU/Claria, here).

    • Re:Won't this hurt open-source clients? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:53AM (#14660075) Homepage
      If it's a symbolic fee (say $1), somebody will probably be willing to cough it up for whatever the open source client is.

      On the other hand, it will require everybody using it to be registered with BitTorrent!

      If the registry requires the registrees to specify the purpose of using the name, they now have legally agreed not to use the name for any other purposes. Since "distributing adware/spyware" is obviously not an acceptible description, this will make those companies very easy to sue.
    • I doubt they intend to try to make money from Azareus. I hope what they're trying to do is to clamp down on some of the bastardized BT clients that are around; these are just people grabbing someone else's client code, sticking in spyware, and redistributing.
      Check the "malware-free" column here to see which clients will likely be "asked" to stop using the BT name:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorr ent_software [wikipedia.org]

  • I can't agree (Score:5, Interesting)

    by typical ( 886006 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:41AM (#14659959) Journal
    I can't agree with this move.

    BitTorrent is not *just* the name of the software package (and I would agree with Bram on going after people who simply try to trade off the fame of the package), but also the name of the protocol, which many other packages than his own implement and have for some time. That may be unfortunate, but such is life. That protocol achieved public awareness by the number of servents available.

    My guess is that "BitTorrent" is no longer trademarkable, given the amount of time that it has been in common use -- common use for a period of time without challenges does negate trademarks. However, the sorts of hobbyist programmers writing BitTorrent clients aren't the sorts who are going to mount a legal fight.

    One possible fix would be doing what happened with trampolines. "Trampoline" with a capital "T" is trademarked, but "trampoline" simply refers to the device itself. Perhaps "BitTorrent" could refer to the software package, and "bittorrent" to the protocol. Still, I doubt that Bram would settle for this.

    I really hope that people settle on another name for it (preferably with the same "bt" abbreviation) that is the same, instead of the name fragmenting into eight zillion different names (I remember Sony calling Firewire "iLink"...). "ByteTorrent?"

    No matter what, it's a frusterating situation, that's for certain.

    • Re:I can't agree (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tenareth ( 17013 )
      A trademark is started with common usage more often than not. It is very trademarkable, as is Google, even though people use it as a verb, even when referring to Yahoo or other search engines.

      • Re:I can't agree (Score:4, Informative)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:15PM (#14660218) Homepage
        I don't think so.

        A trademark has to identify the origin of a good or service so marked and has to indiciate that the quality of that good or service is consistant with others that bear the same mark.

        If the mark, in the minds of the relevant consumers, doesn't distinguish the origin from competitors (e.g. if people think that Google and Yahoo are the same) then the mark can no longer function as a trademark and will suffer from genericide.

        It is okay for a mark to be a word in common usage -- e.g. apple the fruit, and Apple for computers -- but not in the field where it is being put to use as a trademark. No one can get a trademark on apple for fruit, but they can use it in totally different fields, which is how we get Apple for computers.

        So if you have googol used generically only in mathematics, then that's fine. But when people use it generically to refer to any old search engine, that's when Google stops being a protectable mark. Xerox has been fighting this fight for decades, trying to prevent people from using the word xerox as a noun (for either photocopiers or their output) or a verb (for when you make photocopies on a photocopier). If they stop, or their efforts are shown to have been ineffective, then everyone gets to use the word xerox when referring to their machines.

        Just like escalator, elevator, thermos, shredded wheat, trampoline, cellophane, and so on. The public can kill trademarks casually.

        Personally, I think that anyone trying to make BitTorrent a mark will have a tough time of it. They've been idle too long.

      • Bzzt. (Score:2)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 )
        If companies started using the term "google" to refer to searches that did not involve the Google.com Web site or products produced by Google the company, you bet your ass Google would sue. Trademark owners are required to vigorously defend their marks or else they risk losing them.

        There are various popular examples. Aspirin, for instance. At one time it was a brand name -- I believe owned by the Bayer company. But enough other people started using the word as a generic that the trademark was eventually los
      • Nobody used Google as a verb before Google was trademarked.

        Google trademark:
        Filing Date September 16, 1998 Renewed in 2004.

        There was another google in 1996, but their trademark is abondoned. They where a clothing line.

    • Well, Java is a programming language AND the common shortcut name for SUN's implementation (everyone here, at least (non techies), calls Java "Sun Java JDK", especially when talking about the J2SE VM on desktop computers) and don't we Slashdotters all wish Java was free software, and that the trademark would be used to enforce the compliance? Now there's not such a big difference between a communication protocol and a programming language.

      Or isn't it the same with the enforcement of the Linux trademark?

    • Re:I can't agree (Score:3, Informative)

      by sehryan ( 412731 )
      I would disagree. I would call "torrent" the protocol, not BitTorrent. Either way, BitTorrent is easily a protectable trademark. Just because a particular vendor's brand name for a product becomes a way to refer to the product in general does not mean that the mark is not enforceable. Band-aid and Kleenex are the obvious examples of this.
      • Kleenex and kleenex are not trademarked.
        KLEENEX is tradmarked.

        You can not selectivly inforce your trademark and hope to retain it for any period of time. Trademarking something that is all ready used in the same context as the attempted trademark is risky and probably wouldn't servive a court battle.

        Not If he where to tradmark BITTORRENT, he would be fine.(assuming no one else has it and it is not being used for bittorrent client all ready.)

        Now if I can onlt remember how to get the little tradmark symbol to
    • How about saying: My program is called Azureus, and it is a client to the BitTorrent(TM) protocol?

    • Huh? The point of the licensing program is to stop the adware makers and the spamware makers from applying the "BitTorrent" name to their crap.

      How will that affect the rest of us?

      "However, the sorts of hobbyist programmers writing BitTorrent clients aren't the sorts who are going to mount a legal fight."

      The program is designed to stop the adware / spamware writers. These typically aren't "hobbyists."

      "I really hope that people settle on another name for it (preferably with the same "bt" abbrevia

  • A recent article... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @11:47AM (#14660011)

    There is a recent article - mentioned on /., I believe - that mentioned "bit torrent" [sic] software. The author of the article appeared to have equated BitTorrent with P2P in general, much like people say "I need a Band-Aid" when they actually need "an adhesive bandage" (or a "sticking plaster", depending on geography).

    A secondary aspect of the current BitTorrent legal efforts might be to prevent BT from falling into the realm of Xerox, Hoover, and Kleenex: brand names that have been co-opted into common/generic usage.

  • Opera Software the first to pay? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by worb ( 935866 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:12PM (#14660193)
    Opera announced an agreement with BitTorrent [opera.com] the other day. Opera first included BitTorrent in 8.02 and then 8.10 (which was never officially released), but then went quiet about it. Now BitTorrent showed up again in Opera 9.0 Preview 2 [opera.com]. Was this because BitTorrent approached Opera and wanted them to pay up? Is Opera the first to pay BitTorrent Inc. for the "privilege" of using the trademark?

  • Spyware or adware? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wheatwilliams ( 605974 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:19PM (#14660245) Homepage
    Why don't they sue anybody who uses BitTorrent to distribute illegal, pirated copies of music? That might make a positive contribution to the world.

    • Why don't they sue anybody who uses BitTorrent to distribute illegal, pirated copies of music?

      For one, because they wouldn't have any legal right to do so.

      They are suing companies based upon violation of their TRADEMARK, if the company in question happens to be using the BitTorrent trademark in conjection with any type of spyware.

      They don't have any right to sue companies that aren't using the BitTorrent trademark, even if they are distributing spyware, porn, music, movies, etc.

      In your world, how would Bit

    • Because they technically have little to no standing in that matter. They'd be stuck with something like slandering brand name or something. Crowbar makers can't sue the users of crowbars who give crowbars a bad rep by using them in crimes. They do have standing if you violate their copyrights, however.

  • Does this apply to Blizzard's warden? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mustang Matt ( 133426 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:25PM (#14660294)
    Blizzard was one of the first large companies to use bittorrent to distribute game patches.

    However, their patches include warden which is technically spyware. Have they already paid a license fee or are they in for trouble from the bittorrent people?
    • Blizzard should also be sued for the Suckiest implimentation of BitTorrent ever.
      IT is much faster to download the patch from filecloud, and run it myself.
      Substantially faster.
    • Technically, 'spyware' is any kind of software that sends any information over the internet about your computer or data. For example, all filesharing programs allow people to 'spy' on what you have shared. Warden isn't as bad as people thing. Its one of the main reasons I still play the game. Namely because they have a framework in place to detect hacks/cheats/etc that would have ruined the game by now. Who the hell wants to play a game that you know you're screwed in because you don't cheat? You know

  • Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by pilkul ( 667659 ) on Tuesday February 07, 2006 @12:29PM (#14660329)
    That headline really ought to say "BitTorrent to Sue Spyware Makers over Trademark," because as of now about 2/3s of the comments are people saying "BitTorrent is dead because Bram is going to sue uTorrent and BitComet and other legitimate clients! Nooo!" Look, I know this is slashdot and people don't RTFA but you could at least RTF summary. They're only suing scumbags. This is a good thing.
  • I doubt you can selectively apply a trademark like that. If bittorrent only goes after spyware/adware companies then bittorrent refers to a ton of very distinct programs. Either it is a brand name, in which case they have to go after all imitators, or it is a generic term and anyone can use it. Otherwise they aren't trying to defend a trademark, they are trying to get control over the bittorrent client market and sit and decide who can be part of it and not.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close