Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement

I totally agree: everybody should have the ability of using the trademark
"PostgreSQL". However the person who controls the trademark must make a
formal annoucement i.e the rules of usage that is air tight in a court of
law. This act demonstrates due diligence on the part of the trademark holder
and will prepare us for WHEN the day comes that we go to court (mark my
words, it will come).

If this policy has already been said/posted in the past then it must be said
again with the proper references to said declaration. Again, due diligence is
very important.

On January 11, 2005 01:03 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I totally understand your position and you have clearly thought out the
> implications. I do think it is a shame you didn't use PostgreSQL if
> that is what you preferred.
>
> In fact we registered PostgreSQL only to prevent someone else from
> registering it and blocking the community from using it. We want others
> to use it for their products so if our registering it prevented you from
> using it, that is a shame and is not what we intended, in fact the
> opposite. We registered it so you would be safe to use it.
>
> Can someone explain how this is to be handled? I don't think the
> trademark laws really encourage someone to trademark something so others
> can use it and we should figure out a plan.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lance Obermeyer wrote:
> > Since this seems to have stuck a nerve, let me try and explain a bit
> > more behind the naming decision.
> >
> > Many posters seem to prefer if I would have named my product "Pervasive
> > PostgreSQL." To be honest, I agree. That was preferable. However,
> > the inescapable fact is that "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark
> > owned by somebody else. Unless I hold a signed license from the
> > trademark holder, I would be knowingly infringing upon somebody else's
> > property right. That opens me to legal liability of unknowable scale.
> > There are public posts in the advocacy group essentially pledging to
> > not try and enforce the trademark against groups like Pervasive. Those
> > posts are legally unpersuasive. There are others using the trademark
> > presumably without license. That does not preclude the trademark holder
> > sending me (or them) a cease and desist letter, it only makes it easier
> > for me to defend myself.
> >
> > The bottom line is that there is a risk, albeit small, that my company,
> > as well as other companies using the word, could get dragged into court
> > to explain why it knowingly infringed on a registered trademark. That
> > risk is significantly less with the word "Postgres" since it is not a
> > registered trademark. Contrary to popular opinion, companies
> > desperately want to avoid going to court, and we always take the less
> > risky path. So, had there been a mechanism in place to solve this
> > above similar to what Linus has done with the Linux Mark Institute, we
> > wouldn't be here.
> >
> > While I sense there is a desire to paint my intentions as "evil", I
> > can only ask you to believe that it isn't the case. My decisions have
> > been an honest response to navigating waters where opinion (the name
> > "PostgreSQL" is community property) is distinctly different from fact
> > (the word "PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark). My suggestion,
> > whether you accept it or not, is to formally resolve this before the
> > next guy that is trying to be on the right side of the community and
> > the law shows up.
>

robert b