[legal] Jabber Foundation Trademark Policy

[Gabe Wachob]

OK, I didn't realize you were set up to actively review trademark license
applications. I suspect that will take a significant amount of time, if
OpenID is successful... maybe I'm wildly off. As I read this policy, anyone
producing an implementation/product or a service using the OpenID name would
need to ask for a license from the licensing committee.

Looking at the Jabber TM policy, anyone offering a service using the Jabber
name has to pay a one-time fee of $500. There is no language about the
service offering being for-profit vs. non-commercial. Do we really want
that? (http://www.jabber.org/trademark/reqs.shtml and
http://www.jabber.org/trademark/who.shtml): 

"if you plan to market a product or offer a service to the public using a
mark that identifies the JABBER based product under a name that you consider
your product name, like the "Acme Jabber Server" or "Applied Jabber
Consulting" you are required to apply for and obtain the low cost one time
royalty license described elsewhere on this web site."

I spose you could offer a service and not use the OpenID name and not have
to charge $500 - merely stating that you comply with OpenID probably doesn't
(and can't) invoke the TM licensing fee requirements. 

	-Gabe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johannes Ernst [mailto:jernst+openid.net at netmesh.us]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:02 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob
> Cc: legal at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [legal] Jabber Foundation Trademark Policy
> 
> 
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 16:49, Gabe Wachob wrote:
> > Do we want to have a trademark committee? See
> > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/how.shtml
> 
> The OpenID Foundation board has a trademark committee, and that's why
> we are having this discussion ;-)
> 
> http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/OpenID_Foundation/Committees
> 
> > If you look at http://www.jabber.org/trademark/approved.shtml and
> > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/pending.shtml, it really looks like
> > they
> > aren't putting their process into action - there are only about 9
> > approved
> > licensees (incl individuals and open source projects). This may have
> > something to do with the migration to XMPP (as the followon to
> > Jabber), but
> > it sure looks like this process may not have actually been complied
> > with in
> > many cases...
> 
>  From talking to the guys at the Jabber Software Foundation, I have
> learned that in their view, the policy has been a good success.
> 
> I would tend towards the view that if they have been successful in
> their view, we will be more successful adopting whatever worked for
> them than -- with limited resources -- attempting to do it ourselves
> at this point in time. Having said that, nobody would argue the
> policy couldn't evolve over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johannes Ernst
> NetMesh Inc.
>