Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Tony Cooper |
| Date | 04/05/2014 22:18 (04/05/2014 16:18) |
| Message-ID | <1al0k9d51p3hcog2bbekkgo4mvc6echi65@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | nospam (32m) Sandman (7h & 26m) |
On 5 Apr 2014 16:07:20 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanIt usually handled by a series of actions. The first is simply a letter to an alleged violator from the firm's attorney telling that person to cease and desist an action that is considered to be a violation. That's usually enough.
In article <8070k99hl7asj5s54eif3hf9gco981q58p@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:SandmanI'm a bit unsure whether or not you mean that only the company Adobe have legal right to call third party plugins "Photoshop plugins", where the third party plugin developers musyt change the order of the words and add a "for" to be legally valid.Tony Cooper
You shouldn't be unsure. "Photoshop" is a registered trademark of Adobe. That's legal protection. How that registered trademark is used is up to Adobe to enforce.
And how do they enforce it?
From there, the next action would be to ask for an injunction or court order for the violator to cease and desist. If this is granted, and the violator persists, it goes to court as a civil action.
Adobe, of course. As the holder of the trademark, they decide who is infringing on their rights. From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not Adobe's case has merit.Tony CooperSandman
Adobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements.
Infringements according to whom?
In some cases of trademark infringement, where the holder of the trademark does not pursue infringement, the courts have ruled that by allowing infringement to go unchecked, the holder has abandoned their right to later enforce the infringement. That's why it's a "ticking bomb" when it isn't pursued. See Bayer and "aspirin".
The Lanham Act is the primary federal trademark statute in the US. You can find out more about it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act, but specific information should be gained by reading the actual statutes.Tony CooperSandman
The availability of plug-ins are beneficial to Adobe because it makes Photoshop a more useful program and more desired. It would be costly for Adobe to crack down. That doesn't mean that they don't have the legal right to do so.
According to what law?
Anytime you use a trademark of some company without their permission, you are taking a chance of having that company take some action. If you post a tutorial you'd be flying under the radar, but that chance is there. Part of what brings your action to the attention of the trademark holder is how extensively you've promoted the misuse. Posting a tutorial would not be an extensive misuse.Tony CooperSandman
If you develop a flavoring that can be added to Coca Cola, and call it a "Coca Cola Flavoring", Cocoa Cola would most probably take legal action.
On what do you base this theory? What if I were to post a "Photoshop tutorial", or hold a "Photoshop class"? Same thing, according to you?
The sensible thing to do is just what I've brought up: use language that states that the product - plug-in, tutorial, or class - is a product *about* the trademarked item and not a product *of* the trademark holder.
Just grabbing a book off my bookshelf, Martin Evening's "The Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® Book" used the ® symbol to designate that these are Adobe trademarks and contains a notice that these are trademarks of Adobe and the sentence "product names and services identified throughout this book are used in editorial fashion only and for the benefit of such companies with no intention of infringement of the trademark. No such use, or the use of any trade name, is intended to convey endorsement or other affiliation with this book."
It's a lawyerly statement, but the short form is "we are not affiliated with Adobe but we are here to teach you how to use an Adobe product."
It's a good supposition that Peachpit Press has a letter on file from Adobe granting permission to use Adobe's names and trademarks. That's pretty standard operating practice for publishers.
What about other instances where a manufacturer encourages third party solutions for their products, say.. Apple? So Apple owns the trademark "iPad", right, so the only "iPad dock" would be one made by Apple - no one other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?I did a very cursory search, and the only instance I saw of such a product that is not offered by Apple is Amazon's. In that case, the descriptions are "IPEGA Speaker and Charger 2 in 1 Stand Mount Cradle Multi-Function Docking Station for iPhone 5/4/4S, iPad 2/3" and others like this. Note "for".
However, it doesn't have to be "made by" Apple. If Apple distributes it, the actual maker is immaterial.
For the record - I am totally with your line of thought, what I am questioning is the entire "can". Anyone can call a plugin a "Photoshop plugin" and Adobe can do nothing about it. And it is my position that they don't want to do anything about it.You have a good point. I mistakenly used "can" when I should have used "could". "Can" has the meaning of "it's possible", and that's not the meaning that I wanted to impart.
The creator of a plug-in *should* call it a "plug-in for Photoshop" to eliminate any ambiguity.
No, the actual case was to protect the brand name, or trademark. The basis of the action was that "Coca Cola" and "Coke" are not a generic term for "soft drink". This kind of action is a "use it or lose it" prompted action. They sent people into Orlando restaurants (Church Street Station was a very publicized example) to see if the waitstaff stated that the product served was not Coca Cola. The action so angered Bob Snow, the owner, that he banned Coca Cola products from all of his holdings.Tony CooperSandman
They've shown that they make an effort to protect their trademarked name by forcing restaurants in the US to say "We serve (name of beverage)" if the customer orders a "Coke" or a "Coca Cola" and the restaurant only serves Pepsi or some other beverage.
Indeed - but that was in order to enforce the brand where "Coke" could refer to a competing brand.
It would be applicable here if "plugin" was a common word that people usually connected with Photoshop but used it for other cases as well."Plug-in For Photoshop®" has the same effect.Tony CooperSandman
Apple attempted a "get tough" policy with "App Store", but abandoned it.
Again, not towards their third party developers who they very much encourage to refer to the App Store as... the App Store.
In fact, you make quite the opposite case here. If third party developers were to only call their software "plugins", then Adobe would probably want to encourage them to include their trademarked name in the moniker as well - to ensure branding. In short, a developer that calls his software "Photoshop plugin" strengthes the brand.
You're not following. What's at issue in the area genericizing a trademark is that if the holder does not take action to protect the use, then holder can lose the right to protect it in the future. Adobe may very well like the proliferation of plug-ins, but not like how the trademark name is used.Tony CooperSandman
The reason that firms take action to protect their trademark is to prevent that trademark from becoming a generic term as happened to the makers of aspirin, escalator, thermos, and many other products.
Indeed. "Photoshop plugin" is not such a case, however, since it does not encourage a generic usage of the brand name. Quite the opposite.
C'mon, you can't rule out something based on what has been discussed in the past if it contributes to what is being discussed now. Discussions evolve and expand.Tony CooperSandman
Adobe does not want "Photoshop" to become a generic term for "image processing software", but they have to balance their need to protect with the benefits of allowing the erroneous usage to continue.
But we're not discussing the "errroneous" usage of "Photoshop" to refer to "image processing software".
Even so, this is part of the trademark issue. Remember Adobe's campaign to get people not to say "Photoshopped"? That was in line with the genericization of the brand name.
Well, if you can't find meaning in my words, then move along to something else. You seem to want me to find someone else to say what I'm perfectly capable of saying.Tony Cooper
Sandman:Sandman
And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this but meaningless words.
To you, "substantiation" seems to be providing a link to someone else even if the link does not substantiate the premise. Posting links to misusers of something does not prove that they are right.Tony CooperSandman
In your opinion, but then we know that understanding words is not your forte. nospam also argues with the premise, but his defense is "everybody does it" or something like that.
I see you forgot to append any substantiation for your position in this post as well. So you're firmly set with a big fat zero for your claim.
-- Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
03/13/2014-
-
