djbdns: An alternative to BIND

Tue Apr 12 21:01:44 UTC 2005

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> > But even if they did purchase the copyright from Berkeley, we are talking
> > about what amounts to packet signatures. Fair use allows one to create
> > interoperable products. [DMCA 1201(f), I think].

> You can't "purchase a copyright" to a trademark, Dean.

I didn't say you could "'purchase a copyright' to a trademark".  Such a
phrase is nonsense. [I am the LPF president for 14 years, I know a bit 
about trademarks, copyrights, and patents. The LPF is the reason you don't 
have 'user interface copyrights', and is why you have things such as Zebra 
and Quagga.]

But I should have said 'purchase the trademark', instead.  Usually, when
one purchases a copyright, one also gets the trademark. One can purchase
them separately--Indeed, I just reminded the IETF lawyer of this recently.  
For example, The Open Group owns the trademark for Unix. Novell claimed
never to have transferred ownership of the patents, and SCO owns the
copyright.

> If someone already *holds* a trademark -- something one gets by
> *activity of commerce*, 

You do not get a trademark merely by activity in commerce.  Rather,
activity in commerce is a prerequisite to obtaining a right to a
trademark.  A trademark must be identified as a trademark or registered.  
And if you haven't used it in commerce, you have no rights to it.

> you can purchase a *license* to use it.

Yes, you _can_ purchase a *license*, if a license is offered. But the mark
itself can also be sold.  Same goes for a copyright. Same goes for
patents.

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   