On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Matt Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:29:45AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > You can use a trademark in a descriptive sense -- very clearly fair use, > > even if I'm not a lawyer. You don't have to call the Boston Marathon "that > > long race that they've got every year in Boston". > > Right, but - let's say that Burger King acquired McDonald's fryers, > oil, fries, seasonings, etc - all from legitimate suppliers, lets say > from the same suppliers that provide McDonald's with their supplies. > Even though the fries would be exactly the same as McDonald's fries, > they can not call them McDonald's fries. That's analogous to building from source. it's not what I'm discussing. If, otoh, Burger King actually buys McDonald's product for resale then it should be able to represent it as such. > > On the Boston Marathon, you can not create athletic gear with the > Boston Marathon logo and sell it. Likewise you can not use the Red > Hat logos to sell things without a trademark license. The point is that I have a package created by the original manufacturer. What RH is seeking to do is correctly identifying that what I have is an exact copy of Red Hat linux. I see some difficuly explaining that "These CDs I have on offer contain Red Hat Linux" at PLUG and that those same CDs "do not contain Red Hat Linux" at my office. Or that they only contain Red Hat Linux only if I don't (give them to you, or sell them to you "for a nominal fee."). It's doing it in a discriminatory fashion because some organisations can do exactly the same thing without any legal problems and without payment of any fee to Red Hat. -- Please, reply only to the list.
