|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Aug 15, 2005 9:39:27 GMT -5
This has been mentioned before a while back in c.s.c., but with the advent of a working system on the horizon, perhaps it is a concern that we need to address...
Jim, I know that you're looking fly under the name "C-Link"
Keith, have you gotten far enough to find the format of the logo graphic so that a modified client could be created adjusting the Q to a C?
Am I being too concerned? Seems that with all the silly DMCA lawsuits presently..... It's something that should be taken into consideration.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Keith HenricksonI on Aug 15, 2005 11:30:17 GMT -5
I am not a lawyer, and someone with some money should perhaps consult one experienced in IP issues.
However, we have a very interesting case here.
First of all, the Quantumlink trademark. Because they haven't used the trademark, nor actively defended it for ten years now, they basically lose it.
The logo MAY be under copyright, however. I forget in the case of a trademark if copyright law applies to the 'artwork' of the logo.
The software itself is copyable. I have a Q-Link update magazine from about 1985-86 where they give permission to distribute unregistered disks. The disk image on funet.fi is unregistered, so we're fine there. It's just a little old.
The reverse engineering is interesting. The software is NOT copy-protected, so I don't see the DMCA coming into play. Sure, they could saber-rattle, but it most likely doesn't apply. Nor are we copying any of their algorithms. We are studying their algorithms to create a COMPLIMENTARY, but not IDENTICAL algorithm. So, it's probably covered under the 'interoperability' clauses.
As to changing the logo, it is stored on one place on the disk. I just need to figure out which 'fork' it is part of, and then a patcher could be written. The patcher could also subtly alter layer 2, so that the servers could confirm the patch.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Aug 15, 2005 11:58:54 GMT -5
The software itself is copyable. I have a Q-Link update magazine from about 1985-86 where they give permission to distribute unregistered disks. The disk image on funet.fi is unregistered, so we're fine there. It's just a little old. It would be wise of us to have a scan of that posted whenever the information on this goes "public" Do you know for a fact that the trademark is 10 years? Perhaps we could assume ownership some how? (Wishfull thinking perhaps) Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Keith Henrickson on Aug 15, 2005 12:09:14 GMT -5
It's not a specific length of time. It's rather a 'use it or loose it' philosophy. And if they let it go undefended even once, and there have been LOTS of references to qlink, or can be shown to not be using it which would be easy, then they loose it.
I know for a fact that the Photon trademark for the old laser tag system was recently reclaimed by fans. The gap was from 1987 to 2004 or so.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Aug 16, 2005 15:07:17 GMT -5
We may be out of luck in obtaining the Qlink trademark. Take a look at this: Copyright © 2005 Qlink Golf. Q-Link is a registered trademark of Clarus Products Int. www.qlinkgolf.com/Scripts/default.aspSeems a silly place for it to wind up... Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Pinacolada on Aug 16, 2005 15:18:24 GMT -5
Yeah, there's stress-reduction stuff under that name too.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Henrickson on Aug 16, 2005 15:33:44 GMT -5
That's why you don't refer to it as qlink. Refer to it as QUANTUMlink. That's taken too, and it goes along with the whole issue of trademarks in separate fields.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Aug 16, 2005 15:39:25 GMT -5
Yeah, there's stress-reduction stuff under that name too. Bet Jim doesn't think of Qlink in terms of "stress reduction" (At least the protocols....) hehe.. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jim Brain on Aug 16, 2005 16:24:05 GMT -5
Here's my thoughts:
I registered CommodoreLink quite a while ago.
When we started talking about naming, I went to grab quantumlink.* and such, but quantumlink.net is $688, while qunatumlink.com is $888+.
Keith is right, one can re-use a name as long as it is in a different field.
But, unless we get donations to buy the domain, I can;t afford that kind of cash for a domain name.
As for commodorelink, I figured to redefine the sprites to be C=Link!, which would fill the "PlayNET"/Quantum space.
The protocol is a lot less stressful with Keith's info. The main issue is finding a server implementation that supports all the nuances of the client.
Jim
|
|