[gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

[Baracco, Andrew W]

What they have done, or not done to Open Book is not much less than a
crime.

Andy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Evelyn Weckerly
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:17 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek

Hi,

No, it was about 2000 when FS was formed. I have never felt that FS was
an improvement over the three companies sepaerately. This lawsuit and
the buy-out make me glad that I didn't renew my sma last December. I was
outraged by the 27-day notice and the Braille notice that kept refering
to the printed form for such crucial things as prices; or else I was
directed to go to the Internet. No sighted person would put up with
that! I regarded that notice as disrespectful of theirblind customers.
Now, of course, I'll have to pay a lot more for the sma. I'm not going
there!

Evelyn

At 12:07 AM 5/23/2007, you wrote:
>It was. Hinter Joyce sold out to Freedom Scientific in the early 90's, 
>I believe.
>Sherri Brun
>
>Please help me participate in the March for Independence at:
>http://nfb.convio.net/goto/SherriBrun
>Thank you.
>"Friendship isn't about those you have known the longest;
>
>but about who came and never left your side."
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jon C. Pierson" <jpierson at gigo.com>
>To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
>
>
>I'm not sure that the legal system won't at least take a long look at 
>the issue (common word being freedom) but my question: when did FS take

>over and when did Freedombox come out? The slide from HJ to FS seems to

>me to have been after I heard of the box.
>
>
>
>
>  Jon C. Pierson
>
>-----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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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