textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/JENNINGS/GENERAL/idiots.txt

Original Message Date: 22 Jan 92  22:43:12
From: Odinn Sorensen on 2:231/77
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: FidoNet and ShareWare
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:231/77
Hello Tom!

I am the author of the FidoNet compatible mail reader/editor, GoldED. <20>
GoldED is distributed as ShareWare, and new versions are announced in the <20>
relevant "newfiles" echo(s).

For the purpose of organizing the ShareWare income from GoldED, as well as <20>
other programming jobs, I have started a small business here in Denmark.

Recently this has caused a few people in the net I am a member of, to <20>
openly condemn me for me and my software being "commercial", and that I <20>
should therefore pay for my so-called "advertisements" in the newfiles <20>
echo(s). In fact, my announcements of new versions are just like any other <20>
announcement of a ShareWare product. I am just being singled out because I <20>
have decided to start a business.

A few days ago, your name was dragged into the discussion: You own the <20>
copyright for the FidoNet name, and make no money from it. My opponents <20>
now wonder aloud why I don't have a bad taste in my mouth for thinking <20>
that I have a right to make money from producing FidoNet compatible <20>
software.

Well... I would like your official opinion on the matter, and I would also <20>
like to have confirmed whether or not your own Fido software is or is not <20>
in fact either ShareWare or commercial (as I believe I have read <20>
somewhere).

This msg and your reply will (with your permission of course) be forwarded <20>
unedited in the local net-sysop echo as an item in the ongoing discussion.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation, and sorry for bothering you with <20>
this nonsense.

Odinn

--- GoldED 2.32/A0119+

Original Message Date: 27 Jan 92  23:16:51
From: tom jennings on 1:125/111
To: Odinn Sorensen on 2:231/77
Subj: re: FidoNet and ShareWare
^AINTL 2:231/77 1:125/111
Sheesh, this net gets so silly sometimes.
 
I think it is stupid to flame people for selling software. Period. 
*Even* FidoNet-related. It is *not* the same thing as 
"commercialization of FidoNet", which, to me, would mean using FidoNet 
-- I mean exploiting -- for purely commercial purposes, ie. having 
entire nets hosted and controlled by commercial interests of any kind 
(any). 
 
Far as selling shareware goe4s, well hell, I've been selling 
Fido/FidoNet, the original and design-center for the whole @)(*# 
network, since 1984. So there. :-) The world will not crash down 
around us if you charge money for YOUR program. 
 
Besides, I downloaded an apparenly functional version of GoldEd, for free, <20>
and 
apparently it wasn't stolen :-) (Nice by the way, but too many 
features for my taste... before you are disappointed, consider I still 
use PMATE as a text editor, version 1983...)
 
If the world thinks your program stinks, it will fade away to nothing, 
whether you give it away or charge. If it's great, but you charge too 
much, it will go away also. GoldEd seems popular, and shareware. 
 
SEAdog is purely commercial; not shareware. Thom Henderson has a 
commercial intent, but he also benefits the hobbiest side, inarguably. 
Phil Becker SELLS TBBS only. No shareware. He hasn't collapsed the net 
either.
 
Finally, I wish people would not use my name as a weapon to defend 
"their side", damn, but I hate righteousness of any flavor.  

I wish people (not you) would keep in mind this net is for 
communicating and fun, not necessarily in that order. I always wonder 
at the motives of righteous people.


Original Message Date: 08 Feb 92  22:55:28
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Your registered marks.
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
Hi Tom,

 >>        here's a nice little excersize to think about.  It's
 >> not hyperthetical
 >> so a real answer would be appreciated but don't spend any
 >> money on lawyers.

 > Huh?! What does this mean? Is it a joke, or an intentional prod or
 > dare? (I will assume its merely poor wording.)

          Well I'm English but perhaps I have been out of the country for <20>
too long <grin>.  I meant that the information which followed was NOT <20>
hypothetical (Yes, I didn't spell it right!).  The company I mentioned is <20>
very small and they are not doing any work involved with Fido Software or <20>
FidoNet, as far as I know, so it's not worth going to war over this <20>
<grin>.  Sorry for any confusion.

 >>           We have a couple of guys in Finland who have
 >> started a small company. They have called that company,
 >> FidoNet Ky.

 >>           The question is, where do you stand in this?  Do
 >> you own the "FidoNet" mark world-wide?  Not that you would
 > (Finnish law being what it is), but could you force this
 > company to change it's name?  What happens if they start to
 > trade world-wide?

 > I believe most European states have reciprocity agreements with US
 > govt patents and trademarks. If there stuff coems here, they will
 > be in direct violation of U.S. trademark law.

          As far as I know, they are simply a small retail outlet but I <20>
will get more information.

 > I would ask them please, do not name their company "FidoNet".
 > Period.  Even if they find it strictly legal. It *is*
 > misleading. (I use one of the two best computer software
 > trademark lawyers in the U.S.; I will ask about it.)

          Ok, and I will try to talk to the company over here, if I can <20>
find their telephone number.

 > And since you asked, if they persist, they will be on my shit
 > list.

          Well it was a friendly enquiry on their behalf and I'm only <20>
trying to help you out!  Hell, I'm just some guy caught in the middle here <20>
Tom and I'm trying to do YOU a favour.

 > I hope *they* are using lawyers. I do. I take the trademark stuff
 > VERY seriously. It is the direct interest of the FidoNet members,
 > all of them, including them, and you, to keep the trademark
 > unsullied.  (ANd it makes me *no money*, zero.) The trademark
 > will be defended, I can assure you of that.

          Ok, let's keep out shirts on here shall we.  It doesn;t make me <20>
very happy when I bring something like this to your attention and then I <20>
seem to be the one that's getting shouted at!!!!  This company has <20>
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me and I'm 100% on your side in <20>
this affair, so can we chill out a bit please?

 > I wouls ask you please to forward this message, or its contents,
 > interpreted, and let them know how important this is. It's not a
 > joke at all.

          I understand it's not a joke and I understand how seriously you <20>
take your trademarks, that's why I contacted you in the first place. I <20>
don't see you have anything at all to worry about here as, to the best of <20>
my knowledge, this company is a very small (1-2 person) operation and is <20>
only involved in retail trading.  I will do my best to help you out and <20>
get you all the information I can as well as getting them to talk to you.

 > ANd if they insist, could you provide me with contact information?
 > (Actually, I'd like their address now, if you have it.)

          I don't have that information to hand but I will get it for you <20>
next week.


                                                   Cheers,

Original Message Date: 14 Feb 92  18:52:45
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Use of trademark "FidoNet" in Finland
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
 * Originally by Ron Dwight, 2:220/22@fidonet
 * Originally to Tom Jennings, 2:2/1
 * Originally dated 14 Feb 1992, 16:22

Hi Tom,
       I have been in contact with the owners of the company "FidoNet Ky" <20>
in Finland and there response is basically that they have not been <20>
informed of any trademark violations and the company name "FidoNet" or any <20>
of it's variations are not previously registered here.  Quite how this <20>
stands in Finnish law I am not aware.

          Here is contact information for the company:

          FidoNet Ky
          Peltomaenkatu 6B
          04250 Kerava
          Finland


          As I said before, I am mearly trying to help you out in this <20>
matter, but it's basically none of my concern.  I am not involved in ANY <20>
way with this company, have never done business with them and have no <20>
immediate intentions of doing so.

          On a totally unrelated matter.  What do you feel about an <20>
officially registered organisation calling itself the "Finnish Fido Users <20>
Association"?


                                                   Cheers,

Original Message Date: 18 Feb 92 08:22:10
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Your registered marks.
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
Hi Tom,

 > No problem here, I received your explanation OK. Looking back at
 > the original message the following things gave me the wrong
 > impression:

          It's really amazing how easy it is to give and receive the wrong <20>
impression using this media.  OK I'll take some of the blame as well.

 > (1) that the company in question was involved in the FIdoNet (due
 > to the name I assumed this)

          As far as I know, the company has no involvement, at the current <20>
time at least, has no involvement with FidoNet itself.

 > (2) you knew them personally, which I assumed meant you would
 > have told them informally that they should ask, etc

          I did not and still do not know any of the people involved in <20>
this company.  I have spoken, once, with the person on the other end of <20>
the telephone simply to tell him about the 'problem'.

 > (3) the "not hypothetical" (spelling was correct of course :-)
 > seemed almost jokingly casual re: the actual content.

          As they are only a small outfit and have no active involvement <20>
with FidoNet, I am inclined to look upon this matter a lot more light <20>
heartedly than perhaps you.  They have no intentions, as far as I know, of <20>
making problems for FidoNet and I do not believe anything malicious was <20>
intended when the company was created.  In other words it's probably not a <20>
big deal, but you should be informed in any case.

 > Hence the perceived irritance. My apologies.

          Accepted and forgotten.

 > If they're not involved in FidoNet in any way, I assume "f i d o n
 > e t " means some thing in Finnish that I am not aware of.

          It has no meaning in Finnish whatsoever and the name must have <20>
been taken from us.  As far as I know they do not have a node number in <20>
FidoNet, but I could be wrong.

 > Legally, as far as trademark enforcement goes, 1 person or IBM
 > Int'l doesnt make much difference. I do acknowledge that in
 > reality, one is likely to go further in recognition. (But
 > previously I was assuming they were related to our FidoNet
 > network, and of course even 1 person then has a large audience,
 > and use of the trademark in the FidoNet without my permission
 > is a terrible thing -- for the FidoNet mainly.)

          Point taken.  The company has not advertised in any of the <20>
EchoMail conferences and I would most certainly jump upon them, with VERY <20>
large boots, if they attempted to do so.

 > So thanks for the further info! Now that I have these new facts --
 > could you please let them know what the story is, re: trademark
 > etc, and if they are selling anything computer or communication
 > related (dogfood, furniture, paper & pencils, etc are fine --
 > similar fields are not) they should talk to a lawyer about it.

          I will do that.  If they inform me of any outcome, I will keep <20>
you posted.

 > Again, sorry for any perceived animosity, it was due completely to
 > misunderstanding. Thanks again for relaying the info to me!

          I was mostly confused because I know from past communications <20>
that you are generally not agressive towards folks, but I am under a lot <20>
of pressure here lately trying to get zone 2 sorted out and operating in <20>
some kind of reasonable manner.  My problem is not being able to please <20>
all the people all the time <grin>.

Take care.


                                                   Cheers,

Original Message Date: 18 Feb 92  03:28:34
From: tom jennings on 1:125/111
To: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
Subj: re: Use of trademark "FidoNet" in Finland
^AINTL 2:220/22 1:125/111
Again, thanks for the info. I assume you got my previous msg re: my 
misunderstanding. I hope all is well between us!
 
> they have not been informed of any trademark violations and 
> the company name "FidoNet" or any of it's variations are not 
> previously registered here.  Quite how this stands in 
> Finnish law I am not aware.
 
I haven't heard back either. I will assume there is no problem, and ig 
if they are following legal advice there is probably no problem. It is 
curious though.

>           As I said before, I am mearly trying to help you 
> out in this matter, but it's basically none of my concern.  
> I am not involved in ANY way with this company, have never 
> done business with them and have no immediate intentions of 
> doing so.
 
ANd I do appreciate the information, truly. 

>           On a totally unrelated matter.  What do you feel 
> about an officially registered organisation calling itself 
> the "Finnish Fido Users Association"?
 
This is not a problem at all. It would be no different than saying 
"the IBM users assoc." Technically-speaking, they should put "Fido is 
a registerd trademark..." somewheree in one of their printed things 
(same as if the Oshkosh Ohio IBM club printed up "IBM club..." 
stationariy) but really, unless they get to large size, or incorporate,
 it practically-speaking doesn't matter. (You didnt hear that from me 
:-)
 
My positoin in FidoNet is I think a bit hard to understand, but to me 
is quite clear. (I am in an odd position in this all, you have to 
admit... :-)
 
The situation is slightly precarious. We have this gigantic beast 
called "the fidonet" that is going under a registered trademark, 
"FidoNet", registered to me. (See the nodelist, etc.)

Practically speaking, I have limited resources, though there are 
certain umm resources I can call in in event of major trouble. Only 
had to once. Nothing bad happened, luckily. Som ehave gone off the 
deep end of "What if... Tom J decides to ..." etc with the trademarks, 
etc. ALl I can say is -- watch what I *do*, not what others say I 
do... in fact, I'm pretty obviously keeping it in trust for the 
network at large, at my own expense even. 
 
I try to be ruthless with blatant abuse, because of the way this stuff 
works; if you let known abuses of trademark/patent rights go unopposed,
 it is the same as handing it over. (If people sneak around, its 
another story, luckily.) Its easier to keep it clean, as it were, than 
to fix it once its done broke.
 
ANd the environment is ver,y very strange. It is essentially a large 
collective. In spite of the bully-boy *C network (some of it anyways). 
There is a broad consensus at some levels (yes, some would like to 
push it in one direction or another...) and its surprisingly resistant 
to certain Evil Forces. We're militantly anti-commercial, going 
overboard in many instances, but far preferable to the opposite. For 
instance.
 
It all appears very, very different from my position. I try not to 
meddle. I wonder how much I cou;ld if I tried. (I doubt I'll ever try 
& find out :-) I get asked lots of wierd questions, and I try to act 
like a conscience, at a very high level of abstrction (ie. FidoNews 
direction and suchlike) without meddling in daily operation. 
 
Oh well. I'm running on. Bye!


Original Message Date: 26 Feb 92 16:13:59
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Use of trademark "FidoNet" in Finland
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
Hi Tom,

 > Again, thanks for the info. I assume you got my previous msg re:
 > my misunderstanding. I hope all is well between us!

          Of course it is and I apologise if I "bit" a little.  I am <20>
having HEAVY problems here in trying to get zone 2 nets into some sort of <20>
order.  It has lost me a few friends and made me somewhat nervous of late, <20>
but I believe the job has to be done.  Never mind, I'm jsut another *C <20>
'bully-boy' <grin>.

 >> they have not been informed of any trademark violations and
 >> the company name "FidoNet" or any of it's variations are not
 >> previously registered here.  Quite how this stands in
 >> Finnish law I am not aware.

          It is my belief that unless a trademark IS registered in Finland <20>
then it may be registered under Finnish law.  I have done this with <20>
"Softronic", the name of one of my companies even though it IS a <20>
registered mark in the US.  I cannot use it in the US but they cannot use <20>
it in Finland.  Sounds realistic to me and I guess the same would be with <20>
your mark.  With this company, they are registered as a trading company <20>
and as far as I know, the company has not registered the "TradeMark" as <20>
such.  In all cases the registration is only valid in Finland (perhaps <20>
Scandinavia), so there is no problem in reality.

          If you wanted to trade here or they wanted to trade in the US, <20>
then you would simply have to talk about it <grin>.

 > I haven't heard back either. I will assume there is no problem,
 > and if they are following legal advice there is probably no problem.
 > It is curious though.

          I agree.

 >>           On a totally unrelated matter.  What do you feel
 >> about an officially registered organisation calling itself
 >> the "Finnish Fido Users Association"?

 > This is not a problem at all. It would be no different than saying
 > "the IBM users assoc." Technically-speaking, they should put "Fido
 > is a registerd trademark..." somewheree in one of their printed
 > things

          Ok, I will ask them about this.  Keep cool and enjoy the spring.


                                                   Cheers,

Original Message Date: 08 Sep 92 08:34:00
From: Steve Crager on 1:130/67
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: A question about Fidonet policy, if you'd be so kind
^AMSGID: 1:130/67 504b031a
Mr. Jennings:
 
 
I've a question concerning conference moderation.
 
In a conference where policy specifically states that "messages should be <20>
polite in nature", would the phrase 'Goddammit' be considered an impolite <20>
use of the English language, and thus a violation?
 
Thank you for any help you can provide on this issue.
 
 
 
 
Waiting anxiously for your reply,
sgc * 1:130/67