|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, elek wrote:
> As much as I'd like to "burn all GIFs" - I'm going crazy here.
>
> As a web designer - I've got a gazillion GIFs on sites all over the place.
> I used GIFs since not all browsers can read jpg's or png's.
>
> So now - I have all these GIFs on web sites and no time to get them all
> switched.
>
> I wonder if this is why they held out so long before saying "okay now we
> want our money"...
>
> I knew they pretty much "owned" the format but I thought the vendor of the
> image software needed the license (I'm not exactly brilliant when it comes
> to copyright/trademark/patent laws and I'm still not quite sure I
> understand which vendor licenses are and are not acceptable).
I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as any legal advise, but I wouldn't
start converting everything to png just yet. Unisys may not have a legal
leg to stand on because they did not enforce the patent from the start.
The svlug list has some interesting discussions on the subject. One of
the more intersting posts follows.
Chuck
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Javilk <javilk@polly.mall-net.com>
To: paul@opencountry.net
Cc: alvin@planet.fef.com, dfox@belvdere.vip.best.com, svlug@svlug.org
Subject: Re: [svlug] EVENT: Burn All GIFs Day.t
I have had a bit of to-do with lawyers... some are even my friends.
(Not "trial" lawyers, but the kind who advise.)
> I'm not a lawyer but I believe the legal principle is "estoppal".
> Estoppal says that you have to enforce patents, trademarks, and other
> intellectual property rights as soon as you know that they have been
> violated. You can't wait and decide much later esp. if someone has been
> using your stuff for a while. It was the reason that Xerox lost when
This is correct. And a number of years ago, Unisys publicly stated
that they were not interested in the users of GIF files, but only in those
who wrote commercial software for creating those GIF files.
It is a principle of law that one can not, having agreed upon a
contract, suddenly change the terms part way into the performance of that
contract without risking damages if the other parties to the contract
would be harmed. Suddenly trying to extract $5,000 per two sites after
having publicly stated that it was OK to USE these images, would be
considered:
* breach of contract
* entrapment
* clear (stated vs constructive) abandonment.
and probably:
* harassment
They do not have a leg to stand on, and their lawyers know it, but if
this is true, have been told by management to make some noises.
Does ANYONE have an original letter from Unisys' legal department, or
any quotes from such, to post here? If this had been done earlier, I
missed it. The exact wording is very important.
I have taken some law workshops, been attacked a few times by lawyers,
been named in at least one suit, and even hired then a few times.
Lawyers will only do what they are told. Very often, they are told to do
something a little on the edge, will respond to the client with a series
of options, and the client may chose some set of actions which although
may not have a strong chance of success in court, may well push the
intended persons to back off.
My most recent battle was when a blue-green algae company threatened
to sue me and a number of other persons regarding unfavorable pages about
their products. Most of the other people, having received letters from a
bona fide legal firm, removed the pages. This despite a number of them
being in countries other than the USA -- well beyond the reach of US law!
I informed them that I was a third party supplying space to the author, so
I could not, in absence of a court order, arbitrarily break my agreements
with said author; though I would be more than willing to comply with such
a court order against the author should one be provided. (I did point out
that all the material consisted of quotations of scientific research, and
that if their client felt that freedom of the press did not apply, it
would seem more appropriate for them to address the academic institutions
and individuals who had provided the quotations...) We had a few
go-arounds, but I kept asking for a court order against the author, which
they did not supply. Eventually, their (real) suit against the author was
thrown out of court, and they gave up. They did not have a leg to stand
on, despite some Washington State equivalents of anti-food defamation
laws.
Does that mean the lawyers lost? Think again...
The lawyers swept 90% of the unfavorable material off the web! For
the company, that was a MAJOR victory! And THAT was what they hired the
lawyers to do -- present a (one sided) point of view coached in legal
terms.
I rather suspect that Unisys is trying to shake a few sites for cash,
and the lawyers, unless they are imbiciles, know exactly what they are
doing -- looking for idiots to burn, probably as a way of showing a
prospective major client that they do mean business about licensing.
> As usual, the lawyers are heavy handed and don't take a reasonable
Lawyers do what they are told to do by management and marketing
types. Their primary concerns are showing they are taking steps to
protect what they are protecting so that, in the unlikely case that there
would be a major case against them, they have reems of proof that they
have been protecting the material. Very often, law and marketing are at
opposite ends of the seesaw. Remember how secretaries use to say they
would "xerox it"? Marketing loved that! Legal would write polite but
nasty letters to anyone who printed "xerox copy" rather than "Xerox(r)
copy".
> course like publishing guidelines for proper use e.g. as AT&T did with
> UNIX. It protected their rights to the name and they didn't waste time
> chasing "civilians". AT&T informed its friends about how to use the
> name UNIX. Paramount sent threats to its friends and fans. The
Very often, there is a difference between what a lawyer says and what
a "civilian" understands. Most "civilians" cringe before anything from a
lawyer, (as I did the first time,) rather than bothering to clearly state
their point of view and enter into a discussion outside of court. Most
lawyers and their clients DO NOT want to go to court due to the expense
involved, but would prefer to clarify or rectify something. Every time I
have been informed that I was infringing a trademark, I have politely
stated the basis of my claim, (dates, common usage, etc.), and asked them
to clarify the basis of their claims. In most cases, that was enough. If
they had been able to state prior use, I would have backed off; but in
those cases, I happened to have the earlier use, etc. (I did the searches
before using the terms, they had not.)
> wants to bother? I think it would be more interesting if huge numbers
> ignored Unisys, kept using giffs and said so publicly. Do they have
> enough lawyers to sue a huge amount of netizens?
It would be interesting to post excerpts of said legal notices on the
web, as a form of asking advice, rather than formal complaint, which, if
not properly done, could be construed as "inappropriate". The letters
are, of course, copyright, so one has to be careful about the "fair use"
doctrines.
> - If you own some intellectual property, don't "protect" it by
> threatening your friends and customers. Red Hat, one of the world's
> worst companies when it comes to PR and spin, did just that over the
> poster using their images.
There are threats, and things perceived as threats. It is a matter of
how things are worded. I would not fault Red Hat for attempting to retain
their claim to the trademark, only to the manner in which they did so.
they had every right to object to that use. They might have considered
asking for some phrase in the margins such as "Red Hat logo and "Red Hat"
are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. Used with permission."
> - Use lawyers to make sure you have covered your bases but don't let
> them loose in public and keep them away from your friends and customers.
Right!
Do you use engineers to justify your design and construction
techniques after you have built a bridge and had it collapse? Like
engineers, the most effective use of lawyers is to KEEP you out of
trouble, not GET you out of trouble.
Make your lawyers aware of the overall intent of your campaigns.
Involve them early so they understand the strategy of your marketing
efforts, and can advise you about how to avoid dubious positions, and keep
situations from deteriorating to the point where sharp words and threats
of legal action are needed.
- javilk@mall-net.com -----------------------------
-------- MS asks "Where do you want to go?" -------
------- Linux asks "What do you want to do?" ------
-- It is doers, not goers, who built this world! --
--------- Member: http://www.svlug.org/ -----------
--
echo "unsubscribe svlug" | mail majordomo@svlug.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to unsubscribe
see http://www.svlug.org/mdstuff/lists.shtml for posting guidelines.
_______________________________________________
Plug maillist - Plug@lists.nothinbut.net
http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|