[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom

To: "Morbus Iff" <morbus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
From: "Aaron Swartz" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Sep 2003 18:11:15 -0500
Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

But, but, Morbus! You've forgotten about the legal issues!

I've done some serious trademark research, and I don't think any of the current trademark "issues" are actual problems. Trademark conflict has a high bar, made even higher by the fact this is a not-for-profit project, and I haven't seen anything that meets that bar. Instead, the name Atom has been scared off by people with little understanding of the trademark law.

I agree that we should go ahead with Atom as the name.
--
Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
  - From: Maciej Ceglowski

References:
- 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
  - From: Morbus Iff

Prev by Date: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
Next by Date: Re: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
Previous by thread: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
Next by thread: Re: 'Atom' Should Be It's Name, and It's Name Was Atom
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread