Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
KDE GUI

KIllustrator Changes Name to Kontour 154

Posted by CmdrTaco from the letting-the-dust-settle dept.
Kelmar writes "I found this story on The Register about how KIllustrator is changing it's name to Kontour. Looks like that is not the worst of the problems though. The law firm that originally sent the notice is also asking for $2000 just for sending the letter. Apparently they did this without the consent of Adobe, who is also not too happy about the tone of the letter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KIllustrator Changes Name to Kontour More

KIllustrator Changes Name to Kontour

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Why not /. the law firm with pennies?? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And don't forget to ask for a receipt...
  • Ford Motor Company has announced litigation against the creators of Kontour, claiming it "dilutes the trademark of their successful mid-range sedan, the Ford Contour".

    Ford is seeking monetary damages equal to the engineering invested in the Contour, as well as all marketing expenses and manufacturing costs for 650,000 Contours, totalling $3.4B
  • It also seems to be a bit of a vigilante type system. Why not let the goverment do this, with an impartial trying of fact?
    Well, why allow private lawsuits at all? Let the government watch all interactions, and settle all disputes with an impartial trying of facts!

    I am not claiming that the German system is perfect. It is one way to draw a boundary between public and private affairs, and I consider it to be a reasonable boundary. In the US, the lawyer would probably looked for somebody who downloaded the program, tried to install it under Windows and failed. Then he would sue for all real or imagined problems of that person...is this any better? "Yes, your honour, if the program had worked, I would have stayed at home and the lightning would have struck someone else."

    I assume that were the University to refuse to pay (or the Dr.) that the law firm would go to court. I then assume that it is nearly impossible to get a court to disagree with the law firm. At least, in the US, that's the way it would work.
    This is by no means certain. However, German Universities are publically financed and in my experience usually do not have a large law department, the funding, or the willingness to contest such things. So the law firm might just try to bluff (or, more likely, someone incompetent send off a standard letter without considering the non-standar situation).
  • No. Abmahnungen (cease-and-desist letters) can be sent for various reasons, including trademark infringement.

    It is also possible to send such letters on behalf of the public, to enforce consumer protection laws, but this can be done only by organizations that are registered as consumer protection organizations, and they only get registered if they're non-profit (I think). Most law firms are however working for profit, and thus cannot sue on behalf of the public.

    I was under the assumption that Adobe did not authorize the actions. In that case, the Abmahnung can only be based on consumer protection laws, fair business practice law, or similar laws in the public interest. Of course, if Adobe is involved, you are right.
  • In this case, it seems (at least as far as German law has been explained in this and other discussions) that the law firm can, at its own discretion, decide who must pay for what. Further, the 'what' is damage and confusion to the public.
    Perhaps things are not entirely clear. The lawyers (on behalf of the clients or on behalf of certain non-profit organizations) send a cease and desist, and includes a bill for this service. If the addressed person or organization feels that they recieve this without legal justification, they can go to court (or let the laywer go to court), and the normal judical process will lead to a verdict, using the same (hopefully) impartial judges as in the US.

    The major difference is who is allowed to initate the action. However, if you look at todays story [slashdot.org] about Nader complaining to the FTC, the overall scheme is very similar. The major difference seems to be that Nader uses a federal intermediary.

  • There seems to be a pretty widespread misunderstanding even among many Germans. The so called cease and desist letter (or Abmahnung, literally admonishment) typically is not send to protect Adobe's trademark (this is Adobe's job, even in Germany), but to make the offending party comply with consumer protection laws. These laws forbid someone to e.g. package any lemonade and sell it as Coca Cola, not to protect the value of the trademark, but to protect the consumer from inadvertedly buying a different (inferior) product.

    So the lawyer is acting not on behalf of Adobe, but on behalf of the public. This generally is reasonable (it shifts the burden of enforcing laws from the tax payer to special organizations which are not supposed to do this for financial gain). However, as always, the system can be abused (and you can count on a lawyer to find the most efficient way to abuse it).

  • A =GERMAN= Law Firm is suing an America, in America, over an alleged infringement of an American trademark of an American company that never hired the German company in the first place.

    And the German law firm now wants to be paid $2,000 for the privilige of the legal equivalent of "First Post"!

    I say the firm should be modded down.

  • The new name is much better anyway.
    See? A little lawsuit never hurt anyone.
  • I know. I read the story too.
  • Adobe would probably do well to give these developers $2000 to pay off the lawyers; it's not like it's a lot of money for them, and it would be a great PR move.

    They probably ought to be able the sue the law firm, too. If what the firm did (sending such a letter to a private citizen about a non-profit product) was kind of shady, and it soiled Adobe's good name, I'd expect them to be able to sue. If nothing else, they probably used Adobe's trademark to deny Adobe business while making a profit themselves.


  • I actually like it better and it's original (I hope ;)
    Keep up the great work guys!


  • willing to change the name be an implied acknowledgement of guilt ?
  • Heck, I could send people letters, then demand they pay me for it!

    And you'd make a great German lawyer!

  • Not the first time such a thing has happened. See Apple, Carl Sagan settle suit over names [petting-zoo.net].
  • Now they're going to be in trouble with this [contoursoft.com] outfit - I'm SURE Kill^h^h^hontour could be used for real estate sales.

  • Finally an example of a legal system that is nearly as fubar'd as the US legal system.

    Yes I am a US citizen.

  • But doesn't this depend on an actual infringement having taken place? Now that the product has changed to Kontour, could Adobe (with a promise from the authors of Kontour) say "That's okay, we really didn't think that Killustrator infringed," and the whole case would drop?

    That is, if Adobe specifically says that "Killustrator" is not infringing in Germany, the law firm has no case, and can collect no $$ (or, rather, DM). Right? Or do they collect regardless of whether infringement actually occurs?

    Obviously, this depends on a good faith understanding that Kontour won't change back, in the case that Adobe truly (secretly) does dislike "Killustrator".

    Just a thought. I don't expect Adobe to jump to this company's defense, but it might be interesting.

  • Re:Let's get this right... (Score:3)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <.gro.tensad. .ta. .divad.> on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @07:19AM (#79768)
    No, that's not right. You might have to read the story to find out the answers

    I did read the story. Both before I posted my comment and after you suggested I read it. Where am I wrong?

    Does actual infringement of a trademark not need to be proven? If that's the case, then they could send a letter to McDonald's saying that "Big Mac" might conflict with "Windows 2000" and win another chunk of change. I assume this is not the case, so, if Adobe says there's no infringement, then there's no infringement, and the law firm shouldn't be able to collect any money, right?

    Or would this need to be determined via a trial? Has Kontour publicly agreed that Killustrator infringes, or have they changed the name out of the goodness of their hearts, not admitting guilt, to avoid trouble?

    [Aside: I appreciate the fact that lots of people don't read the posted articles. However, don't assume that, just because someone makes an error in a posting, they haven't read it. If you see something you think they got wrong, don't simply say "that's not right." Give them details, eh?]

  • They never HAD Adobe's business. (Score:5)

    by dschuetz ( 10924 ) <.gro.tensad. .ta. .divad.> on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:52AM (#79769)
    That's what's scary about this. It's a 3rd party suit. The law firm has no connections to Adobe whatsoever, from what I understand. They simply said, "hey, look, this probably infringes," and they send a letter and say "you gotta change it, and BTW, you owe us money now." Adobe never hired them, and they get no benefit (other than a possibly infringing name being removed).

    Essentially, it's legalized vigilant--vigalantee--er... add "ism" to "vigilantee." :)

  • This name change business was on slashback already last night.

    But that lawyer business is news. Isn't it nice to sign away power of attorney?
  • While I do not advocate taking human life in general, or in particular, I do not think killing all of the lawyers would be a service. They are an unfortunate necessity if we are to have a society governed by laws rather than people/cult images.

    However, killing each and every Intellectual Property lawyer (of which these "patent" attourneys are a part) would be a tremendous service to humankind in general. Then again, putting them out of business by repealing said laws would have the same effect and be much more socially acceptable.

    Unfortunately, in a world with governments by, of, and for the corporations things probably won't change until some sort of bloody revolution does take place (possibly resulting in the aforementioned bloodbath). Alas, even then nothing of substance will have changed ... merely the names and faces of those oppressing the public, stripping us of our freedoms, and actively inhibiting technological and social progress.

    So, in the end, killing all, or even some, of the lawyers will have no effect, other than making a whole hell of a lot of us feel a whole hell of a lot better. Reason enough, perhaps.

    [ For the humor impaired, the preceeding was meant toung in cheak, as humor. If it offended all you law-types, so much the better. If it encouraged you to go out and take human life, please go get some psychological health before you hurt yourself or anyone else. Unless, of course, you are an "intellectual property" attourney, in which case you are encouraged to hurt yourself ... severely. ]
  • How about people who don't know the difference between patents and trademarks? Should they be killed as well?

    Well, since my post basically said that, while it would probably benefit humanity if IP lawyers were killed doing so could well be pointless, not to mention ethically and morally wrong, it would seem follow that killing Patent Lawyers who send cease and desist letters to individuals for alleged trademark violations probably isn't a great idea either. Satisfying, yes. Useful, perhaps. But still wrong, morally and ethically, alas, and quite likely pointless as well.

  • Can Adobe sue the lawyers for harming their rep? (Score:3)

    by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @07:17AM (#79773)
    It is ironic that there exists a country whose civil law is even more screwed up than that of the United States (I lived in Germany for several years and was thankfully unaware of this particular protection racket), something I would have found unlikely after reading about the recent FBI detainment of a Russian software engineer at the behest of Adobe for making public the woefully inadeqaute state of their much-touted PDF copy protection scheme.

    This begs the question, though, namely, can the German firm in question be sued for their unilateral actions by Adobe, for (perhaps irreperably) harming Adobe's reputation among libre software users (who number in the tens of millions at this point). Can they be sued in Germany for their actions? How about the United States? And would the suit hold up, given how much Adobe's own actions against those who expose consumer fraud on their part (and yes, the content providors are "consumers" of their flawed copy protection schemes in a very real sense, and are IMHO being sold a bill of goods fraudulantly) harms their reputation among reasonably well informed IT professionals both inside and outside of the Free Software Community?

  • Why oh why won't Microsoft release a drawing program called Billustrator

    Now that would be a long, drawn out court battle.

  • You know, IntelliNaming and ActiveConventions are worse.
  • If that sort of trademark infringement is valid, then one should be highly fearful that Kontour might (through causing too much CPU utilization, disk thrashing, whatever) cause the cooling system of a computer to be inadequate, just like the cooling system of the early Contour exhibited inadequacy handling the demands of cooling an idling Duratec V-6 in typical US summer conditions.

    People operating computers in environments other than coldrooms, overclockers, and owners of multiprocessor systems are particularly cautioned.
    On the other hand, people who are capable of telling the difference between a car and a software application are encouraged to use Kontour, taking advantage of its superior price-performance.

    MOO;IANAL.

  • This was already announced here [slashdot.org] the other day, by the way.

    If I were Adobe, and if I didn't have bigger fish to fry [slashdot.org] as far as bad PR this week, I'd take out after that law office with my big legal stick that I normally reserve for hackers that point out security flaws in my products. These renegade lawyers have smeared Adobe's name through the mud with the open source community, doing what would have been irrepararable harm had not Adobe already drawn a bead on its other foot, and now want to charge them for it. Unbelievable.

    [Q] What do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

    [A] A good start.

  • So at the same time that I learn I should be forgiving Adobe for a misdeed attributed to them that they (probably) didn't do, I learn of a new one that they did.

    O, well. I don't have to revise my opinions of them, merely the reasons. Sigh. I'd really rather that they would act honorably, and justify a good opinion. Much rather.

    OTOH, if they were so disapproving of what was done, why was there no public statement in support of Dr. Sattler? So I don't think that I can actually assume that they really disapporved of it, merely of the response that it got.

    I suspect that Adobe's evaluation was more along the lines of "That was ill-considered. Pick your targets more carefully from now on." At least that would be consistent with the public evidence.

    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • I haven't heard of Adobe denouncing them for this action. Why shouldn't I assume that they had prior approval, in general, for this class of action. For all I know Adobe is being miffed at them for PR reasons. Appearantly they don't need a contract, so that kind of evidence couldn't be expected.

    And Dr. Sattler is still stuck with a bill from an extortionist, in the name of Adobe.

    Unless Adobe takes definite steps that indicate to me that they didn't approve, I'm going to continue to believe that they did.

    The only step that I've heard of so far is to have someone arrested for speaning at a conference. And this was fairly clearly done at their behest. And this wasn't the German branch, but the US branch. So rather than my opinion of them getting better, I find it is getting worse, as I pay more attention to their actions.

    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.

  • Re:Where do we send money? (Score:3)

    by HiThere ( 15173 ) <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @07:46AM (#79780)
    The law firm used their name. They have been silent about this. They have not, so far as I have heard, issued any public statement saying that they disapprove of the action or of the process.

    And I have no evidence that the law firm acted without their general approval. Merely that it could have. And the Register has said that Adobe disapproved or something (the bad PR?) about the case.

    Appearantly the law firm acted in a vile, repulsive, extortionist, and legal manner, given German law. There is probably no legal recourse that Dr. Sattler, or anyone else, except possibly Adobe, have. And I doubt that Adobe would bother, since they haven't even bothered with a public statement of disapproval.

    I don't think the action was against the desires of Adobe. I think they just wish people would be quiet about it. And given the balence of the evidence, I suspect that the law firm had at least a tacit understanding with Adobe that allowed them to use Adobe's name in such an action.

    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • Knoqueror?

    Surely you mean Killustrator? :)

    Cheers,

    Tim
  • Nope, sorry KDE and esp KIllustrator is essentially a German production (the master development servers are hosted in Germany) and Dr Uwe Satler works at a German University (Magdeburg). It's only Adobe who are US owned and even they have registered offices in Germany, so US law dossn't apply (unfortunatley in this case, but they don't recognise software patents in Germany [yet] so it's not all bad)
  • Most trademarks only apply within their own domain. I suppose exceptions to that would be names of supermarkets that sell things with a broad range of domains.

    But since a Ford Contour is a car, unless Kontour is in the car selling business, they shouldn't have a problem IMHO. But IANAL.
  • you should do so. It brings up a good point:

    The Law Firm who sent the letter was not acting as an agent of Adobe. In Germany, it's common practice (apparently) for law firms to send out these kinds of letters when they see a trademark violation, regardless of who the clients are, and they expect to be paid for your violation.

  • Actually, I like the name Kontour. It's pretty clever, like Konqueror and Krayon. Also, the K convention is a good thing - makes KDE applications instantly recognizable as KDE apps, and gets stuck in people's minds.

    Now that Adobe's (legitimate) concerns have been addressed, I hope the KDE crew tells those nosy, blood-sucking lawyers to stick it!

  • Maybe you should have JAAGL (Just Asked A German Lawyer).

    The law firm was not retained by anyone, especially not Adobe. The firm was acting alone, in an apparently common move in the German legal system, when it sent it's letter demanding money. How this law benefits Adobe or is different from extortion, I'm not sure.

    -sk

  • It looks to me like nobody wants to pay the lawyers...
    And for the first time the people who are going to be screwed are... the lawyers.
    Wooo, the world is changing so fast lately!!
  • Now I think I get it. And yes, I can see the similarities (especially after having read the other /. stories today).

  • In my way of thinking, this makes the actions of the German law firm even lame. In what manner was the law firm protecting the public from purchasing the wrong thing? I suppose if Germany is one of those countries where there is metered internet access, but if it's 30 DM per month unlimited, what exactly is the public risk?

    It also seems to be a bit of a vigilante type system. Why not let the goverment do this, with an impartial trying of fact? I assume that were the University to refuse to pay (or the Dr.) that the law firm would go to court. I then assume that it is nearly impossible to get a court to disagree with the law firm. At least, in the US, that's the way it would work.

    (BTW, I'm a USian. This is my analysis of your laws. If anyone reads this and says "fuck you, we do things our own way" I reply "fuck you, you certainly don't shut your yap and avoid criticizing our laws". It's a two way street. Let's face it, the laws in EVERY country are fucked up.)
  • Well, why allow private lawsuits at all? Let the government watch all interactions, and settle all disputes with an impartial trying of facts!


    Typically (again, blanket reminder, from a US perspective unless otherwise stated) private lawsuits are decided by impartial tryers of fact: judges. In this case, it seems (at least as far as German law has been explained in this and other discussions) that the law firm can, at its own discretion, decide who must pay for what. Further, the 'what' is damage and confusion to the public.

    In the US, the lawyer would probably looked for somebody who downloaded the program, tried to install it under Windows and failed. Then he would sue for all real or imagined problems of that person...is this any better?


    In one sense: something happened. In most instances in US law, something has to happen. Until recently, 'potential' problems aren't or weren't actionable. It would certainly help the case (at least my opinion of it, not necessarily the legal justification of it) if they could find one person who had suffered measurable harm from the confusing name. Barring that, I would like to know of a plausible situation where one person COULD come to harm (physical or monetary) owing to the confusion.

    Were there a Corel Killustrator for $99.95, I could see it. Not a freely downloadable KDE/Linux Killustrator.

    I am not claiming that the German system is perfect. It is one way to draw a boundary between public and private affairs, and I consider it to be a reasonable boundary


    Perhaps this is the trick that is keeping me from accepting what you are saying. I was under the impression from the earlier post that German companies (or their representatives) could undertake actions like this for the "public good". If that is the case, then while a line between public and private concerns is important, it matters not, as this issue is a public one. Given that it is a public issue, a public forum should be the one to decide it (and that is a gut, emotional response. I'm sure that had I paid attention when reading Locke, et al. that I could offer a more reasoned response. But from my POV, it just makes sense.)

    Ahh, found the quote from the earlier post:

    So the lawyer is acting not on behalf of Adobe, but on behalf of the public.


    Then let the public pay. I didn't pick those attorneys to protect me (okay, yeah, I'm in the US, but let's pretend I'm a German citizen).

    I'm sure that this issue (and the laws upon which it hinges) are more in depth than presented here. I'm also quite sure that owing to differences in national mindset, I might never fully comprehend the rationale behind them.

  • I think I just slipped into a world created by Kafka.

    Kafka was just documenting what was already out there. It's been out there for a while now :)
  • Excuse me, but you're ignoring Yankee Ingenuity: We were rounding up Japs in concentration camps on our own before we knew of what the Germans were doing.

    If Intellectual Property Rights were as rigidly asserted then as they are now, who knows what advancements we'd be enjoying now.

  • Re:Let's get this right... (Score:3)

    by handorf ( 29768 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:37AM (#79793)
    A german law firm is sending a cease and desist letter to a German citizen(I think) (Dr Kai-Uwe Sattler) at a German university (University of Magdeburg) on behalf of the German branch of an American corporation, by whom they were NOT retained.

    And the whole thing is legal in Germany.

    While it may be sneaky and underhanded, it's legal in the country where the events are taking place.
  • Bollocks.

    We have quite strong laws in the UK about libel and slander - if they posted anything knowing it to be untrue they could be sued for a lot of money.

    A lot of the whining about The Register comes from wierdo Americans who don't understand humour.
  • Even better, how about the good doctor give Adobe a dollar, and the whole thing would be considered to have been settled out-of-court.

    Essentially it already has, but no financial exchange has taken place. I was once given a dollar to sign an NDA when I started working at a new job to make it more official.
  • Appearantly [sic] the law firm acted in a vile, repulsive, extortionist, and legal manner, given German law.
    Unless I misread the explanation of the law given by Florian Gleisner at the end of the article, I don't think that's quite true:

    "Several law firms in Germany have taken up the business of writing "Abmahnungen" to anyone who earns money with a product that can somehow be construed to infringe on somebody else's copyright." (my emphasis)

    If that distinction is correct, since Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler gives away the software, he should be safe from this law firm's attack.

  • Great. This teutonic ambulance-chaser has zeroed in on someone without defenses while appearing to represent the interests of a company not particularly inclined to take notice of the "offending" free program.

    The OS programmer gets stressed and Adobe gets a ration of dung in the form of "900lb Gorilla" bad publicity.

    We can look forward to more fun of this sort as WTO regs begin to be enforced and shady lawyers begin to exploit loopholes.

  • Wrong (Score:3)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:35AM (#79798) Journal
    They are suing a German, in Germany over an alleged infringement of a German trademark.

  • Problem is, they might not have any "real" client. This "Abmahnungen" stuff is a very lucrative business, and certain lawyers (Gravenreuth [google.com]) can survive solely on that...
  • > [Q] What do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

    [Q] Why don't sharks attack lawyers?
    [A] Professional courtesy.

  • > Could Adobe sue the law firm for damaging its reputation?

    Or for using the Adobe mark without their permission. That would be excellent...

  • > Question is, are there analogues to this strange legal quirk in other countries (like the US?)

    In the US, it's much easyer. There Adobe simply sicks the goons to haul off any dissidents ass to jail [slashdot.org], and that's it. But hey, they'll probably claim it wasn't done on their initiative either... I only wonder why the Russian ambassy didn't protest louder against this obvious violation of the Human Rights of one of their citizens.

  • > Adobe would probably do well to give these developers $2000 to pay off the lawyers

    They would also do well to pay off Dmitry Sklyarov's bail [slashdot.org] so that he can get back to his democratic home country...

  • Next thing, that same law firm will sue them on behalf of Ford for infringing on the name Contour.


    All the good themes have been taken and turned into Theme-parks. - HHH, Pump up the Volume

  • I think I'll send *them* a letter, and then bill them for reading it....

    If this works, I'll never have to work again!!!

  • So, it appears that in some countries, vigilantes and snitches are encouraged throughout the system, eh? Oh well, I guess I'll never do business in Deutchland again.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Where do we send money? (Score:3)

    by shed ( 68365 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:32AM (#79810)
    I hope I'm not the only one that would like to contribute something towards that $2k.

    Someone should post an address for donations.
  • IANAL, but there is no contract between Adobe and this law firm. Hence, neither Adobe or Dr Kai-Uwe Sattler need to pay a thing. This is the equivilant of someone cleanning your car without you asking for it, and then demanding you pay them for there effort. This would not stand up in an American court. If this did, watch out. There would be HUGE problems for a lot of companies.
  • I'd send an equally threatening letter charging $2001 for the time needed to read the letter...

    ...but I'm a bastard that way.
  • 'Nuff said.

  • Phew. (Score:2)

    by szcx ( 81006 )
    I thought I was going crazy, that my grip on reality was slipping. Did KIllustrator really change its name to Kontour, or did I dream that I read this [slashdot.org] article yesterday?

    KIllustrator is now known as 'Kontour' (after Adobe claimed that KIllustrator was too close to Adobe Illustrator, in case you haven't followed the news).
    Was that a figment of my fevered mind? Apparently not [slashdot.org].
    I found this story on The Register about how KIllustrator is changing it's name to Kontour
  • The German law firm is not working for Adobe. Adobe apparently has nothing to do with the cease-and-desist letter being sent. Read the article again and be enlightened.. :o)
  • Ehm.. Did you read the article..? The German law firm is not acting on behalf of Adobe. Adobe never hired these guys. So Adobe is in no way responsible for what the law firm does. And I think that we might see some action from Adobe's part against the law firm. At least that's what I'd like to see.. :o)

  • In related news... (Score:4)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:54AM (#79817)
    Ford has filed a multi-million dollar suit against Dr. Kai-Uwe Sattler for his use of the name Kontour, saying that it infringes on the name of the Ford Contour.

    When informed of the suit, Dr. Sattler said he would then change the name to "KItsADamnIllustrationProgram,Alright?"

  • Well, that's funny, coz a few weeks ago, we had a bomb attack against a lawyer firm here in Holland... somebody is actually doing this.
    --
  • I've seen Slashdot repeat itself before, but I think that this is the first time that a single story truly managed to duplicate two [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] stories in one shot -- one of which is still on the front page! :)

    I want y'all to know that I fully expect this incredible thoroughness to continue.

  • Re:earlier on /. (Score:3)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:32AM (#79820) Homepage Journal
    Didn't we hear about the name change in Last Night's Slashback [slashdot.org]?
  • At the risk of being A) the eight hundredth person to point this out or B) flamed beyond all recognition, wasn't this story in Slashback?

    Ok, with my thinking cap on, I suspect maybe the new-news is that Adobe's law firm isn't backing down on the $2000, despite Adobe possibly being less than thrilled. "Lawyers don't work for free!" was the quotation I'd heard bandied around.

    Yeah, it's an asshole thing to do. But, let's look at it this way - did they do something? Yes. They both sent out a letter (expensive paper) and got the name changed. Is that worth $2000? We'll just have to see.
  • How about just hyphenating it to:

    kill-us-traitor
  • Yeah. McNobody uses McNames to make products McPopular. It wouldn't make any McMoney.

  • Disclaimer: IANAL, but I'm from Germany and I try to follow news on our IP law.

    From the article:
    "It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter, and demand payment from the company on the receiving end of the letter. Apparently some law firms make a good living at this."

    The idea behind this, crazy as it sounds, seems to be that the law firm acts in the interest of the recipient of the letter, by letting him know that violates someone's IP and might face damages if he continues to do so. For this "service", the law firm can indeed charge money.

    Not paying up is the only way to stop this business.

    Right. If the recipient declares that he will desist from whatever he is asked to, but does not pay, the law firm can only sue him and prove that sending the letter was in fact in his interest.

  • No, Bob(TM) would have realized that the company name is Microsoft(TM), not Windows(TM) before hitting submit.

  • Re:Kweer (Score:5)

    by aozilla ( 133143 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @07:42AM (#79826) Homepage

    Gnot to gnitpick, but the gnext gnaming convention is gno gnicer...

    Word(TM). Windows(TM) doesn't Exchange(TM) any letters in the names of their Works(TM). They Access(TM) a Word(TM) directly out of the dictionary sitting on the Bookshelf(TM) in their Office(TM). They've made a lot of Money(TM) doing that, and their Outlook(TM) for the future is even better. A lot better than the Outlook(TM) for Me(TM), anyway.

  • on the Internet.

    This reminds me of the "enterprising young men" in New York City who come up to cars stopped at traffic lights and begin washing the windows, then obstruct the car and demand payment for services rendered.

    Seriously, if I were Adobe I'd retain a different German law firm to sue these guys for "endangering Adobe's good name."
  • There's an excellent update on the Reg explaining the concept of these unsolicited cease and desist letters, incl. the German legal stance on them. Check it out.
  • ... I heard they were accompanied by Gillette, that also has 'Gillette Contour' shaving stuff (at least they do in Europe)
  • Gee, what an easy way to get Jon Katz involved. I wonder if we will now get a 3 part essay about your comment.
  • Adobe never hired them

    Out of curiosity, would German law then permit Adobe to sue the law firm for something along the lines of defamation, in that even though Adobe never made a move on the KIllustrator people, they've now gained a pretty horrible reputation which could possibly damage their global sales revenue?

    Little countersuit for, say, 1/2 a percent of Adobe's annual revenue, or the cost of a major publicity campaign to restore their reputation, or similar?

    Or even (getting a bit twisted here) a suit for commercial abuse of Adobe's trademarks "Adobe" and "Illustrator" in the lawyers' quest for 2000 dollars?

    TomV

  • Kontour and Ford Coutour (Score:3)

    by Frank T. Lofaro Jr. ( 142215 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @08:40AM (#79832) Homepage
    There is a car called the Ford Contour. Any lawyers care to comment on the implications of Kontour vs Contour? Any risk of a lawsuit?
  • What a racket! I guess, they don't even need to advertise, "you thought about a car accident, call 1-900-sue-them."

    I am really suprised that they did not get 20 or 30 letters, all asking for $2,000 per letter.

  • Contour is an american name. Too bad also, the new Mondeo has been praised by the Euro press as a great handling platform. Its also used in the Mercury Cougar (which we *can* get) and the Jag X-Type.
  • except in their innovative business model, they don't actually need clients. Adobe sure doesn't retain them. Under German law they are apparently free to send out letters to anyone who appears to infringe on someone else's copyright, even if they have no business dealings with the copyright holder (apparently, they don't even need permission).

    They then turn around and charge a couple thousand DM to the recipient of the letter, even though the "infringer" immediately complied with their demands.

    Pretty nice, eh?

    ---

  • Except it wasn't a lawsuit, just a letter from a legal firm that Adobe didn't even hire. Now they expect to be paid legal costs by the guy that got the letter even though he changed the name (even though he probably didn't really need to).

    ---

  • In the US, Contour was discontinued a year or so ago.

    It's an interesting automotive story. Mondeo was initially intended as a "world car" - that would be designed centrally for the Euro, US, Latin American, Asian, etc. markets instead of separately. Ford invested over $1B in this effort, but although Mondeo has been successful in the Euro market, Contour (and Mercury Mystique) never took off in the US. They had to rework it significantly to accommodate Americans' preferences (big-ass cupholders, auto transmission) and so the economies of scale never happened in the way that Ford expected.

  • Could they be any more short sighted? They might collect the $2K, but if Adobe really doesn't like their tone and how they handled/are handling this, they'll probably be cut loose. Short term gain, long term loss. They'll probably just continue to harass people on behalf of their other accounts.

  • Re:Kweer (Score:5)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:45AM (#79858) Homepage
    What a Kweer name. I don't think that a naming Konvention like that is going to help them make in roads into the marketplace.

    Gnot to gnitpick, but the gnext gnaming convention is gno gnicer...

  • Kweer (Score:4)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:30AM (#79861)
    What a Kweer name. I don't think that a naming Konvention like that is going to help them make in roads into the marketplace.

  • If you didn't read about this earlier, you might want to check out these /. stories [slashdot.org] about the Adobe vs. KIllustator name conflict.

    -Kraft

  • jeez - those lawyers take time out of their busy schedules to write a nice letter helpfully explaining a possible copyright problem that is none of their business but fully within the scope of German law and now nobody wants to pay them for their trouble!?!? What has this world come to?

    Do you have any idea how much time and effort it must have taken for those lawyers to randmonly overhear someone mention the name "Killustrator" down at the Kaffeehaus and write a couple of letters? Wow...lawyerin' is a tough gig! No wonder people love them so much :-)
  • Perhaps if instead of emailing these cannibalistic lawyers who just want to eat people, we could email their clients and let them know how unhappy we are that they have chosen such a tyrannical firm. I'm sure if it came to dropping their demands or losing one of their real clients, they would make a more sensible choice.
  • possible that this is because Adobe had not hired the law firm to do this job. It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter.

    So I guess while we were savaging Adobe for this attack, Adobe had nothing to do with it all along. Question is, are there analogues to this strange legal quirk in other countries (like the US?) Are there good reasons to end the practice in Germany, and if so, is anyone trying to do so?

  • good thing though (Score:5)

    by nilstar ( 412094 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:29AM (#79889) Homepage
    Imagine, shortening the name instead of changing it.... "killus"....

  • Jusīt donīt pay them! (Score:3)

    by andres32a ( 448314 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @06:36AM (#79891) Homepage
    From the article: "It seems that in Germany law firms can write cease and desist letters to businesses they think are infringing another company's trademarks, without being employed by the latter, and demand payment from the company on the receiving end of the letter. Apparently some law firms make a good living at this." Not paying up is the only way to stop this business. The university shouldnt pay a dime. Next thing we know even /. is going to be asked for me from some law firm just for sending a letter...
  • I wonder why German courts have never held that
    this protection racket is illegal. After all,
    eating vegetables is in my interest, but having
    somebody unsolicitedly tell me to eat more vegetables
    and then charge for consulting services, that would
    be thrown right out.

  • No, that's also wrong... (Score:5)

    by j7953 ( 457666 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @08:24AM (#79895)

    No. Abmahnungen (cease-and-desist letters) can be sent for various reasons, including trademark infringement.

    It is also possible to send such letters on behalf of the public, to enforce consumer protection laws, but this can be done only by organizations that are registered as consumer protection organizations, and they only get registered if they're non-profit (I think). Most law firms are however working for profit, and thus cannot sue on behalf of the public.

    (There has been a case recently where a "consumer protection organization" has lost their right to sue because they were also doing business for profit. Read this article [heise.de] (german) if you're interested.)

    Also, a lawyer can't just act on behalf of someone who is not their client.

    It is however possible - and I guess that's what Adobe did - to hire a law firm to "protect your trademarks", and them let them do so on their own, without asking you about each and every case.

    Disclaimer: I am German, and live in Germany, but IANAL.

  • Re:Where do we send money? (Score:3)

    by Kenyaman ( 458662 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2001 @08:33AM (#79896) Homepage
    Maybe I'm stupid.

    If the law firm took it upon itself to send the letter, why should ANYBODY pay? If Adobe asked them to send it, then they were working for Adobe, and Adobe should pay (though might be able to sue to get it back from the KIllu..oops... people as costs of defending their trademark.

    But if, as it sounds, the law firm sent the letter out of the blue, I fail to see why they think they should get paid.

    Heck, I could send people letters, then demand they pay me for it! :)
  • That's the wacky thing: Adobe doesn't employ them. In Germany, lawyers can send these letters on anyone's behalf, even yours. I wonder how much of this firm's income is from these selfless acts.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close