W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: identifier to use

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:16:09 +0100
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@duke.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <uhcmq8eo6.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "BP" == Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

  BP> On 23 Aug 2007, at 14:12, Phillip Lord wrote:
  >> If you loose a trademark

  BP> Trademark *suit*. I.e., you are infringing on someone else's trademark.

  >> and have to stop using identifiers with a "uniprot" in them, then any
  >> system which uses a alphabetical ID is stuffed.  Numbers would be okay,
  >> cause you can't trademark numbers. The law is an ass.

  BP> If the use is widespread for any length of time it's highly unlikely (at
  BP> least under US law, but I think this is fairly general) that someone
  BP> could enforce a trademark against you. The other solution, of course, is
  BP> to use fairly generic terms.

Yes. Likewise, if uniprot disappears, and someone else gets the domain and
starts using it for purposes like giving out fake LSID or purl redirects, that
would be naught and probably cybersquatting. 

It's an outside issue anyway, as far as I can see. 

  BP> Isn't there a pretty strong disanalogy here? 

I would agree...

Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 15:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:29 UTC