gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (03/25/88)
[I originally posted this to comp.windows.news,comp.text -- I had
forgotten that comp.lang.postscript existed, too! -- John]
We got a mailing today from Adobe Systems, Inc (the originators of
PostScript) that complains because we are calling our NeWS port
a "full and complete PostScript interpreter". They say, and I quote:
"The interpreter included in your system is licensed to you from Sun
and is not, therefore, a PostScript interpreter."
They go on to say that PostScript is a trademark for interpreters
as well as for a page description language.
They also mention that "It would be an improper use of our trademark
and a factual misrepresentation to refer to a third party interpreter
as using the PostScript page description language if the interpreter
uses a language which differs therefrom, e.g. which is either a subset
(uses less than all the PostScript language commands) or a superset
(uses more than the PostScript language commands) of the PostScript
page description language".
However, in the prospectus from their public stock offerring of
August 13, 1987, they said, "Since one of the company's goals is to
promote the PostScript language as a standard for the representation of
the printed page, the company placed the PostScript language in the
public domain and the company therefore derives no revenue from the use
of the PostScript language by third parties."
According to the above definition, either the Apple LaserWriter or the
LaserWriter Plus does not contain a PostScript interpreter, since they
have different sets of language commands, and Adobe thinks
sub/supersets are not PostScript. Also, the PostScript interpreter in
my original LaserWriter has, I suspect, at least as many bugs as NeWS,
as far as meeting the specs in the PostScript language reference
manual. It is clear to me that if Adobe's products don't pass the test of
what is really "PostScript", the test is worthless and cannot be used to
judge whether NeWS is PostScript.
Comments from the peanut gallery?
--
{pyramid,ptsfa,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com
"Watch me change my world..." -- Liquid Theatregnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (04/01/88)
bp@pixar.uucp (Bruce Perens) wrote: > Just as AT&T has (and exercises) the right to restrict what you can > call "UNIX", Adobe can restrict use of their tradmark "PostScript". This begins to sound like Ada, where the specs are in the public domain but the War Dept. controls who can claim to have implemented it. You are free to implement an Ada, but you can't call it that. You are free to implement a PostScript, but you can't call it that? Something tells me our laws need changing when you can put something's specs in the public domain while keeping its name proprietary. It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark "Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning machine". -- {pyramid,pacbell,amdahl,sun,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "Don't fuck with the name space!" -- Hugh Daniel
stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters) (04/03/88)
In article <4294@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >Something tells >me our laws need changing when you can put something's specs in the >public domain while keeping its name proprietary. > >It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark >"Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning >machine". Under US law, if a trademark name becomes widely enough used for a type of product to be considered to have "entered the language" (I think that's the phrase lawyers use) as a generic designation for that type of product, then the trademark can be invalidated in court. A classic example is "kleenex". "Toaster" might well be another, for all I know. I've directed followups to misc.legal, since this is getting off track. -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters
bp@pixar.uucp (Bruce Perens) (04/03/88)
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes in <4294@hoptoad.uucp> >It's a good thing the first guy to build a toaster didn't trademark >"Toaster" or we'd have lawyers chasing us to call it a "bread browning >machine". If a trade name becomes the "generic" name for something, the owner of the trade name can lose their right to restrict the name. Years ago there was a flap over the status of "Formica", a trade name that became close to generic for laminated mica surfacing. You've heard those silly commericals for "Sanka BRAND decaffinated coffee" - they go to great pains to establish that "Sanka" is not a generic name for decaffinated coffee. I don't know if any of this could apply to the PostScript page description language. Trade names can protect you, too... Suppose you were the vendor of "MacNeWS", and another company came out with a similar but not identical product, and called it "MacNEWS"... Bruce Perens