[gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

[Baracco, Andrew W]

These kinds of cases seldom actually get to court.  I think that Freedom
Scientific either wants to drive Serotek out of business, or perhaps put
Serotek into a position where FS can buy them out. They're not doing
this for nothing, and this will come back to bite them in the long run.
I do not own an FS product, and this kind of action will insure that I
never will.

Andy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Don Moore
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:20 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

What would have happened if AT&T went to court over the same issue with
GT&E or IT&T?  They'd have been laughed out of town.  And to think these
clowns are wasting the money they could be spending on making the Vista
product as good as Window-Eyes product, to hire some ambulance chaser to
screw the little blind guys.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Smith" <wilsmith at iglou.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:15 PM
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

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