On Wed, 8 Jul 1992 12:44:00 CST "Jim Milles, SLU Law Library" <[log in to unmask]> said: >I'm not familiar enough with trademark law to say whether Eric Thomas >has a cause of action against the authors of other "listservs"; I have no idea about the theory, but in practice it is not feasible, there are just too many countries involved and "LISTSERV" was never formally registered. >as I understand it, there was an earlier BITNIC LISTSERV before Eric >wrote his program, so he may not be able to claim trademark rights it >the name. Yes, that is why I called mine "Revised LISTSERV" at first. Users dropped the "Revised" eventually, once the BITNIC LISTSERV had disappeared completely. The generally available version of the BITNIC LISTSERV did not support commands at all, so compatibility was not an issue. >However, as a consumer, I feel that I was injured by passing off "Unix >listserv" as the network-standard LISTSERV that the vast majority of >users are familiar with. At the very least, the authors of "Unix >listserv" should, for the protection of its users, make clear what the >differences are. What really surprised me is the way some of the developers of these "unix listserv" reacted when I kindly asked them to call their software something else and explained why. I got typical usenet-ish answers about Freedom and the like. This is surprising given the strong traditions that exist in the academic world when it comes to the work of other people or institutions, copyright or no copyright. I can't think of one place I worked for where management would even consider allowing the development of, say, some group communication software called World Wide Web but totally incompatible with the WWW that was developed at CERN, at least not without first getting permission from the people who wrote it. Eric