[gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

Wed May 23 10:44:49 CDT 2007

FROM: Tom Blume

Voice Mail: 206-312-7844

Hello Everyone,

There has been a lot of discussion on the "Freedom" word.

I have read all of the posts and some people have stated that instead of 
spending money on "lawyers and law cases" more effort should be used in 
improving F.S products.

I agree that many of the new versions of JAWS are not very good and I have 
had many problems using the new versions.

 I must remind everyone that both the ACB and the NFB organizations also 
spend a lot of money on "lawyers and law cases when someone tries to use 
certain words in their names, such as the NFB has total "protection rights 
on the word "Federation when it comes to the blind.

The ACB has also protected certain words, such as the "Braille Press".  The 
ACB has not used this term for a long time and when someone started using 
these words the ACB contacted their "lawyers.

When ever an organization spends "fund raising money for "lawyers and begins 
a law case" against other people using these terms they are using money that 
was raised for assisting blind people with legal problems.

The above statement  is jus a few thoughts of mine.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ankers, Dave (UK)" <Dave.Ankers at baesystems.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

>
> Jonathan,
>
> Well now we know why we pay through the nose to the accessibility
> products big boy don't we.  Instead of investing profits into research
> and development, FS is more interested in nit picking over brand names.
> Personally I did not confuse the Freedom box with Freedom scientific and
> see it as a way of doing away with a smaller company in a niche market.
> FS products are expensive, not only to purchase but to keep up to date
> and every time a new version is released, it seems to take a step
> backwards.  How many times has the newer version not worked as well as
> the old one? Requiring fixes immediately, just look at JAWS version 8!
> FS would do better spending its money where it matters, on its products!
> Leave the smaller companies alone, those that cannot afford JAWS need
> them.  If FS continues, I for one will not be purchasing any more
> products from Freedom Scientific.
>
> Dave
>
> Last week, Freedom Scientific, Inc. filed suit against Serotek
> Corporation for trademark infringement with respect to the FreedomBox
> range of products.
> Since then, the matter has been discussed at length on some
> blindness-related blogs and e-mail lists. I'd like by way of this
> message to clarify what I view as some of the objectives of the suit. I
> am a Vice President at Freedom Scientific, and am extremely proud to
> work there.
> However writing this message is my own initiative as a former technology
> journalist. My aim in doing this is that people at least get a chance to
> consider facts over rhetoric.
>
> Firstly, let me talk a little about trademark law. A trademark's purpose
> is to exclusively identify a source and origin of products. Importantly,
> a trademark only applies to a certain range of goods or services. One of
> the questions I have seen on e-mail lists is, "how can Freedom
> Scientific claim to own the word Freedom." By taking this action,
> Freedom Scientific is not seeking to do this. Rather, Freedom Scientific
> is simply enforcing the Freedom Scientific trademark, which it owns for
> certain goods. Freedom Scientific has invested to establish its
> trademarks and is only seeking to enforce these valuable rights. Freedom
> Scientific has the legal right, and the obligation to its customers and
> shareholders, to protect the use of its trademark in the context of
> assistive technology. The concept of using common words in trademarks is
> common - for example the use of the word Apple to describe a computer
> company. As is well known through recent news stories, Apple is quite
> entitled to own this name in the context of computer hardware and
> software products. It does not, of course, mean that Apple has any
> rights to the name when you eat a piece of fruit. Trademarks can
> co-exist where there is no similarity between the businesses. For
> example, Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets are trademarks, but there is
> no issue there because the businesses' purposes are totally different
> and there is no room for confusion. Freedom Scientific is confident that
> its trademark rights will be upheld. The broadening of scope of the
> FreedomBox products to include products like FreedomBox System Access
> (FBSA) offering access to mainstream applications only exacerbates the
> infringement.
>
> Trademarks are not some abstract thing. They are a company's reputation.
> They are legal property, and you can't simply take someone's property
> without their consent.
>
> Secondly, I'd like to turn to the question, "why now." All sorts of
> bizarre speculation have been put forward as to the timing of this suit.
> Freedom Scientific made Serotek well aware of its position on this
> matter, but unfortunately Serotek was unwilling to negotiate a
> settlement to this matter. No one likes having to go to court, but if
> you genuinely believe your property rights are being trampled upon, in
> the end there is no choice but to do so if you are unable to get a
> resolution any other way.
>
> Thirdly, it has been said that Freedom Scientific is giving the blind
> community no credit by taking this action, and that everyone knows the
> difference between the two product lines. Rest assured, this is most
> certainly not the case. I can tell you that Freedom Scientific has been
> contacted by Serotek customers seeking technical support, or even
> wanting to buy a Serotek product. Thus, there is a likelihood of
> confusion.
>
> Fourthly, a petition has been established by the hosts of ACB Radio's
> Main Menu, calling itself the Save Serotek petition. The grossly
> misleading name of this petition implies that somehow Freedom
> Scientific's objective is to put Serotek out of business. As a result of
> the sensationalist name, many commenters to the Petition have made
> comments to this effect. All Freedom Scientific is seeking to do is
> protect its property and to seek appropriate compensation for the
> unlawful use of it.
>
> The objective here is not to put Serotek out of business. 2007 has
> already seen great innovation from Freedom Scientific and there's plenty
> more to come. Honest competition inspires excellence and is good news
> for the customer. But I stress the word "honest." Yes, many people in
> assistive technology are motivated by a strong sense of purpose and
> commitment to making a difference. But these companies are still
> commercial entities, who have every right to use the legal system to
> protect their property if they think they need to, just as you have a
> right to use the legal system if someone breaks into your house and
> takes something belonging to you
>
> In closing, I hope that those genuinely interested in the facts of this
> matter will take the time to read up on trademark case law, but most
> importantly, will let the judicial process take its course. It occurs to
> me that if Freedom Scientific has got it as wrong as a few people claim,
> then what do they have to fear? A jury will dismiss the case. I doubt
> that will happen though. If the law has been broken as I believe it has,
> then Freedom Scientific is quite entitled to redress.
>
> My hope is that sanity prevails and that Serotek has both the courage
> and the decency to brand its products in a fashion that wasn't already
> being used in this industry. I think they would gain a lot of respect
> from the blind community for acting honourably. Fair competition is not
> too much to ask for, and it most certainly is worth fighting for.
>
> Those interested in the subject of trademarks may like to take a look at
> the Wikipedia entry on the subject, found at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark.
>
> Jonathan Mosen
>
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> gui-talk mailing list
> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 5/22/2007 
> 3:49 PM
> 