[gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

[Baracco, Andrew W]

Actually, there is a femanine hygiene product that has the word
"Freedom" in its name. Does FS have plans to sue the maker of that
product?  Perhaps there would be more money in that than suing a small
two man operation.
Andy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Will Smith
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:15 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek



This kind of nonsense is what one would expect from a corporate flunky.
I now know why I will never buy anything from Freedom Scientific, no
matter who works there or who owns the outfit.

Will
wilsmith at iglou.com
  On Wed, 23 May 2007, Jonathan
Mosen wrote:

> 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
>

_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk