effects and incompatibilities between GPG1.0.6 and PGP CKT 0
Mon Jul 9 01:55:01 2001
This message is in MIME format
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On 08-Jul-2001 Florian Weimer wrote:
> PGP 2.3a et al. were relased by 'Phil's Pretty Good Software'.
> Mr. Zimmerman probably sold the trademark together with his other
>> Fact is that they don't seem to go after all those altered versions.
> But nobody can be sure that they won't in the future.
This is not entirely true. Trademark law is similar to patent law, whereby a
known trademark 'infringement', if it is not defended, essentially ceases to be
an infringement. You give license to use the trademark be default if you do
not defend it.
I would have to, if sued by NAI for trademark infringement (as an example),
however, prove that NAI knew about earlier trademark infringements and did not
defend them. Or, I need to prove they SHOULD have known.
I do not believe that it would be difficult to prove that NAI either knew
about, or should have known about (if it were watching the trade properly in
which they released a product they sought protect with a legal trade mark)
infringements of the 'PGP' trademark by people with unlicensed and widely
distributed versions of PGP years ago. In fact, much of it was long before
they even owned the trade mark.
PGP <tm> is indefensible. At this point, Microsoft could come along and
release MS PGP 8, and there is nothing NAI could do. It would make for a
court case with some fireworks, and MS would look like a bully (sorry - more
of a bully), but they would win. There is ample precident in trademarks that
were much less widely infringed for much shorter periods of time than PGP.
BTW, I am not commenting on the morality of this. Just the reality.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
End of MIME message