- 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>
>>>>> "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... Phil
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 15:16:26 UTC