Nate Vack <[log in to unmask]> [...]
> Not allowing trademarks and patents for FOSS is complex if they're
> allowed for software at all -- should someone reading a patent and
> providing a free implementation invalidate that patent? That's the
> exact opposite intent of patents. (Note: I think software patents
> should not exist at all.)

Mathematics is not patentable, at least here and at least so far, so
yes, if the full implementation in software alone is obvious, it
clearly isn't a valid patent.

> If FOSS projects are immune to trademark suits, should I be able to
> start a competing open-source catalog and call it Koha or Evergreen?
> That seems like an undesirable outcome.

As I understand it, if you did, even without a trademark, you would
still probably be committing a range of civil offences, including
"passing off" and various advertising or trade descriptions offences,
in English law at least.

The main thing a registered trademark brings to that party is
criminalisation (and so the ability of government agents to prosecute
autonomously, at the taxpayers' expense and regardless of the wishes
of project contributors) and I feel that's neither necessary nor
desirable.

Hasn't this happened already, though, with Liblime starting some
competing Kohas and using trademark registrations to back up their
failure to rename their forks?  (Although most of us call them LAK,
LEK and LK, to try to reduce the confusion.)

Which brings me to a question which probably people here can help to
answer: are there similar civil offences of passing-off, misleading
advertising and trade misdescriptions in the US?

Thanks,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha