Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Phoenix To Change Name 549

Posted by Hemos from the way-up-in-the-sky-where-the-little-birds-play dept.
e8johan writes "Phoenix, the Mozilla-based web browser, is forced to change name. The new name has not yet been decided, but it is being discussed . The reason is that the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies dislikes the trademark infrigment. Next week version 0.5 will be released, with a new name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Phoenix To Change Name More

Phoenix To Change Name

Comments Filter:

  • About that name change... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EchoMirage ( 29419 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:48AM (#4774789)
    It's important to note that this has been debated on and off in the Phoenix community for quite some time. Many of the users and theme developers are quite opposed to Phoenix changing its name, but the developers insist that it's a necessary evil. A proposal for the name change on the MozillaZine board spanned into a 20-page discussion.

    Whatever they finally decide upon, it's going to take quite a while to win the approval of the users.

    • Re:About that name change... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aonaran ( 15651 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:50AM (#4774805) Homepage
      Can you trademark well known mythological creature's and hero's names in the US? I'm pretty sure you can't in Canada then again IANAL.

      • Re:About that name change... (Score:5, Informative)

        by javatips ( 66293 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:09AM (#4774904) Homepage
        Nothing in Canada's trade mark law prohibit you to trademark a mythological name.

        The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has a nice document resuming what can and cannot be trademarked. [ic.gc.ca]

      • Re:About that name change... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:03AM (#4775222) Journal
        ..the trouble is that "trademark" law is "expanding". In the past, no one would consider bringing such an obviously wrong accusation.

        This would only be a problem if a prospective customer would be confused between item A && item B based on an infringing trademark. For instance, Phoenix Bios and Foenix Bios - the latter would obviously be infringing. But in this case, Phoenix the Web Browser can never cause confusion because there is no possibility of a web browser-item being confused with a bios-item.

        So, even a layperson can see there is no infringement - BUT- in the new universe of corporate-lawyer as bullies , Phoenix Bios only has to accuse Phoenix Web-Browser in order that the Browser people would have to change the name, *because* they havnt the $ resources to buy their justice.

        THAT is the real tragedy here.

      • Re:About that name change... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Daniel Phillips ( 238627 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:35AM (#4775416)
        Can you trademark well known mythological creature's and hero's names in the US? I'm pretty sure you can't in Canada then again IANAL.

        Clearly, Phoenix is a generic name from mythology, and Phoenix the bios company is merely taking advantage of the fact that it's easy to bully a group of volunteers, whether there is a case for infringment or not. Not only is Pheonix a non-original name, but there is also no possibility of confusion between Phoenix the bios and Phoenix the browser, or any possibility for Phoenix the browser to trade on the goodwill of Pheonix the bios maker. Such goodwill as Pheonix the bios maker has left that is. I don't know about you, but this company just made it onto my black list, right up there with Adobe (remember Killustrator?). No Phoenix bioses will make it into any project that I have control over.
        • Wasn't Killustrator an obvious case of infringement?

          Where Adobe has a vector based graphics program called Illustrator.

          Where Killustrator is an open source vector based graphics program.

          They could have called it Kill, and there would be no case for infringement.

          Or they could have called it KVector. Or KPotato. Or Kantor. But they chose to call it Killustrator, which, remove the K, is a *trademarked* name. Now, if Killustrator was an open sourced Ogg Vorbis jukebox, there wouldn't be a problem because there's no way to confuse Killustrator Jukebox with Adobe Illustrator...

          It's as if the browser was named PInternet Pexplorer. Hmmm.

          Or if Microsoft made a game console called the Microsoft XPlayStation.

          Hmmm.

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InsaneCreator ( 209742 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:49AM (#4774796)
    I'm sure the browser has many more users than BIOS, since I've NEVER seen a computer with Phoenix bios.
  • What's the relation between this browser and the products of that company? How can they force the name change?

    Does this mean that I can never use "Apple" as a name for my program?

    • Re:What's the relation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:56AM (#4774831) Homepage Journal
      I sincerely doubt you'd get away with naming a program that got relatively popular 'Apple' without legal proceedings being brought against you, no.

      Trademarking has got ludicrous, especially in the USA, and ANYTHING which is a noun in the dictionary should *not be allowed to be trademarked* IMHO. Fine, allow a custom name to be trademarked, like perhaps Hoover, but not Phoenix or Apple.

      • Hoover is not a custom name (Score:4, Informative)

        by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @12:32PM (#4775769)
        Neither is Ford, Cheverolet or R.J. Reynolds. These are all just people's names.

        General Electric isn't a "custom" name in the tradition of Exxon and Acura either and both words are dictionary words.

        "Bob's Hoover Repair Shop" wouldn't be a custom name either, being a combination of a common proper noun and ordinary dictionary words.

        Perhaps more to the point would be the name of an actual veterinary clinic not far from my home: "Honest Bob's Pet Repair Shop."

        I'd wager there isn't another Honest Bob's Pet Repair Shop anywhere in the world. This phrase, made up of nothing more than a common name and common dictionary words is a legitimate trademark.

        Historically there has been no problem with this concept. The problem has only arisen recently when rich and litigously agressive companies seek to claim *ownership* of a word due the their holding of a trademark.

        This is pure bunk. Honest Bob's Pet Repair Shop does NOT have the exclusive right to the use of the word "pet" or "shop" or "Bob's," even with regard to other veterinary clinics. Nothing in either trademark law itself or the history of litigation over trademarks implies that right.

        The trademark is for "Honest Bob's Pet Repair Shop" * as a whole.* As a whole it is a "custom" name.

        To complicate matters using particular art may be a mark. That is, in fact, why it's called a trade*mark* rather than tradename. A common lawyer trick is to trademark a particular word displayed in a particular *way.* This appears to be what Phoenix Technologies has done. They have invented a "custom" font for the word Phoenix and trademarked it. Such a mark does *NOT* confer exclusive rights to the *word,* only the graphic in the abstract sense.

        That doesn't stop the lawyers from waving around their trademark registration on the graphic and claiming exclusive rights to the word the graphic contains. Have YOU got the $20,000 and 5 years it would take to fight them? They do. In their case it's their job.

        In your case it's your life ruined. Guess who wins?

        Trust me, the lawyers ( at least the good ones, there are crappy lawyers who actually haven't a clue about legal philosophy. Go figure) are perfectly aware of all of this. They know they don't necessarily have a case ( in this instance they might because both companies deal with computer software) but take these threatening tactics anyway. Their company hired them to trample the opposition and that's what they do.

        It isn't the fault of trademark law.

        If anything it's the fault of the damned Judges, part of whose job is to throw out obviously bullshit complaints, or at least deal with them in a fairly summary fashion. Nowadays pretty much every doofey complaint gets the full dog and pony show and just the pretrial fillings alone in such a case are enough to break the average Joe.

        KFG

        • Neither is Ford, Cheverolet or R.J. Reynolds. These are all just people's names.
          General Electric isn't a "custom" name in the tradition of Exxon and Acura either and both words are dictionary words.

          Yes. By 'custom name', I meant one that wasn't an English noun.

          Historically there has been no problem with this concept. The problem has only arisen recently when rich and litigously agressive companies seek to claim *ownership* of a word due the their holding of a trademark.

          Yep. What I argue is that it shouldn't be possible to claim that you have the treadmark of a single common English noun, or a (very) common phrase in English, such as "that's life". I'm informed by my dad, who is a solicitor, that in Britain, that is exactly the case. Dunno about America.

          That doesn't stop the lawyers from waving around their trademark registration on the graphic and claiming exclusive rights to the word the graphic contains. Have YOU got the $20,000 and 5 years it would take to fight them? They do. In their case it's their job.

          WRT 5 years: You don't need to spend every second of your 5 years fighting a case. That's what your lawyers are for. The case SHOULD be a minor inconvenience, with you telling your lawyers the particulars of it and them handling the legal side.

          WRT $20,000: Surely, after winning the case, the prosecuting company should be forced to pay you back your legal fees in full PLUS inconvenience payments. That would discourage this kind of legal challenge.

          In your case it's your life ruined. Guess who wins?

          If they don't have a legit case, YOU should win.

          If anything it's the fault of the damned Judges, part of whose job is to throw out obviously bullshit complaints, or at least deal with them in a fairly summary fashion. Nowadays pretty much every doofey complaint gets the full dog and pony show and just the pretrial fillings alone in such a case are enough to break the average Joe.

          I'm not so sure the problem is the judges not throwing out bogus cases. I think the real problem is either REALLY stupid judges actually upholding stupid complaints, or REALLY stupid juries upholding them. If every stupid prosecution case failed, and was made to pay the defense's legal fees PLUS compensation for the inconvenience, this kind of shit wouldn't happen half as much.

    • Re:What's the relation (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cenonce ( 597067 )

      There doesn't have to be a direct relation.

      Marks are compared using a two part test: Similarity in the marks and Similarity in the Goods and Services

      Comparing the marks is easy: similarity in sound, appearance and meaning. Here, the marks are identical.

      Comparing the goods and services is a little trickier: Similarity of Goods/Services, Similarity of Use or Users, Similarity of Marketing/Marketing Channels. I think the BIOS people have some strong arguments, but I don't think it is an open and shut case. The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (and I would bet, a couple of Courts) have held that there is no per se confusion in general, and specifically that there is no per se confusion for computer goods and servicess. Obviously, that's because computer goods and services run the gambit. For example, I don't think the consuming public would confuse identical trademarks for computer monitors and web design services. Both involve computers, but there has to be more than that.

      Phoenix BIOS may be arguing that they are a famous mark. Takes less than you think to be "famous", but still, I don't know if they meet the requirement like Apple Computer does.

      Apple pretty much has Apple wrapped up for anything related to computers, and they can argue sucessfully that they are a famous mark.

      I can only guess that Mozilla doesn't want to deal with litigation and Phoenix BIOS knows that.

      Yeah, it seems childish on Phoenix BIOS' part, but it is often a "slippery slope" argument when trademark holders don't protect their assets... they run the risk of letting their mark be "diluted" until it has very little value or goodwill anymore.

    • Re:What's the relation (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:08AM (#4774901) Journal
      What's the relation between this browser and the products of that company? How can they force the name change?

      I think Phoenix Technologies are most know for their Phoenix BIOS, but they also develop Phoenix FirstView Connect. After reading the product description, it takes no genius to see they're related in functionality:

      "Phoenix FirstView Connect 3.0 is a powerful, complete software platform that enables digital device OEMs to introduce robust, interactive Internet functionality- as a primary or secondary function- into their consumer electronics devices quickly and affordably. Providing industry-leading, standards-based support such as HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0, DOM 2,0, Javascript 1.4 and Flash 4 with a small code size, FirstView Connect was designed specifically for the emerging Information Appliance market and is ideally-suited for adding new value to both traditional and next-generation digital devices. Having delivered value at the core of digital devices for the past 20+ years, Phoenix provides a flexible and extensible software solution that you can depend on now and in the future."

      So you could say they also have a browser. :-P

  • I've got it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Morky ( 577776 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:49AM (#4774801)
    How about "Internet Browsing Masterpiece"? Call it IBM for short.

  • It's a tricky one... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dr.robotnik ( 205595 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:50AM (#4774806)
    ... as the only thing that can rise out of the ashes of a phoenix is another phoenix!

    AnotherPhoenix(tm) just doesn't have quite the same ring however...

  • Mozuki (Score:5, Funny)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:50AM (#4774807) Journal
    It has to be Mozuki. Mozilla, Mozilla....and Mozuki.

  • Hmmm..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:52AM (#4774811)
    Maybe Arizona should sue Phoenix Technologies for using the Phoenix name. Of course then we'll have the Greeks suing Arizona for stealing the name and then maybe Egypt will sue Greece, Arizona, and Phoenix Technologies in an effort to claim what is rightfully theirs.

    We can only hope an actual Phoenix doesn't show up to claim what belongs to him/her/it.

  • Name suggestions (Score:5, Funny)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:52AM (#4774812) Homepage
    How about "Award"? Hmm, maybe not... "AMI"! Nah, that won't work either...

  • Cast your votes (Score:5, Funny)

    by BoBaBrain ( 215786 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:53AM (#4774813)
    Next week version 0.5 will be released, with a new name

    Like "Version 0.6"?

    Personally I would go for "Feenicks"

  • Name suggestion (Score:5, Funny)

    by ascii ( 70907 ) <ascii@ERDOSmicrocore.dk minus math_god> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:54AM (#4774817) Homepage
    How about "The browser formerly known as Phoenix"?
  • before we get into flaming phoenix (bios) let's just say phoenix (the browser) is pre-1.0 and so is the name.

  • Mothra (Score:2)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 )
    How about Mothra? Since they kinda compete.

  • Trademark Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ctrl-Z ( 28806 ) <tim@@@timcoleman...com> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:55AM (#4774829) Homepage Journal

    "The reason is that the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies dislikes the trademark infrigment[sic]."

    That should say that Phoenix Technologies dislikes the perceived trademark infringement. Whether or not there is actual trademark infringement in this case is very disputable.
    • My thoughts exactly, as a BIOS manufacturer isn't in the same arena as a browser.

      However, should Phoenix (BIOS) wish to pursue this through the courts, Phoenix (browser) wouldn't be in a good position to defend itself. Sometimes it's easier to "roll over" and just change names.

  • In the script... (Score:5, Funny)

    by goon america ( 536413 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:55AM (#4774830) Homepage Journal
    [Mozilla looks at Phoenix]

    Mozilla: I shall call him Mini-me!

  • From the dupes dept. (Score:3, Informative)

    by popeyethesailor ( 325796 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:56AM (#4774833)
    and yes, it is a dupe [slashdot.org].

    • This isn't a duplicate story but rather a follow-up, announcing that the Ph??n?x project is no longer "considering" a name change but has, in fact, decided to change its name. Should have been a Slashback.

      Moral: Always do a first level trademark search [google.com] before you decide on a name for your software package.

  • I mean...both have to do with computers, Phoenix (the BIOS manufacturer) has been around for a long time, and I can see that they don't really like their name being used for something entirely different - which might confused people who don't know much about computers - like 'hey my computer also says Phoenix when it boots up, so it must be this same company'.

    I mean: the KIllustrator vs. Adobe Illustrator thing some time ago was a bit weird, because Illustrator can be seen as a more general word that can't be trademarked.

    However, in this case we are talking about the exact same name being used for different products - and it's not like 'Phoenix' is a generally used, meaningfull word that shouldn't be trademarked, in my opinion.
    • Both having to do with computers didn't cut the mustard with the judge who threw out Microware Systems Corporation's suit against Apple over Mac OS 9, despite Microware's trademark on "OS-9," use of the name OS-9 since 1980, and Macintosh users who to this day post Macintosh questions on comp.os.os9 and nearly universally refer to that version of the Macintosh operating system as "OS 9".
  • Let's call it BHBCWB - Butthead Bios Company Web Browser....

  • Which mythological creatures are left (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:59AM (#4774852)
    Minotaur
    Leprechaun
    Kirin
    Unicorn
    Gelatinous Cube
    Rust Monster
    Jabberwocky
    C'thulu (doesn't count but who wouldn't love a browser named C'thulu?)
    Type IV Demon

  • FFS (Score:5, Informative)

    by G-funk ( 22712 ) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @09:59AM (#4774857) Homepage Journal
    Hate to tell you this, but trademarks are allowed to be _real words_, y'know. Just because stones have rolled for millennia doesn't mean you can expect to call the browser Rolling Stone.

    BZZT! Wrong! You can call the browser Rolling Stone. You cannot however, start a band called rolling stone, or sell music under a label called rolling stone. When will people learn that a trademark is a narrow thing? Phoenix bios is a software product, like the-browser-formally-known-as-phoenix, so it's fair enough they complained.

    • Re:FFS (Score:3, Funny)

      by stud9920 ( 236753 )
      like the-browser-formally-known-as-phoenix,
      You found it ! TBFKAP, or for readability's sake TEFKAP, The Explorer Formerly Known As Phoenix.

  • Before we all start siding with the underdog... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gwappo ( 612511 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:00AM (#4774861)
    ... might I remark that Phoenix in my ever so humble opinion is fully in it's right?

    It outdates the browser by quite a bit, and has worked hard to built a reputable brand for itself. Everyone I know has at least heard of Phoenix bios, and it would be a huge disaster for them if the Phoenix name in association with computers would intuitively refer to a browser instead of their BIOS.

    Bottomline is that they should have thought about this before they named their browser phoenix.

    'nuff said.

    • so? (Score:2)

      by RelliK ( 4466 )
      It outdates the browser by quite a bit, and has worked hard to built a reputable brand for itself

      Phoenix *BIOS* has nothing to do with Phoenix *browser*. The two names do not create confusion, so Mozilla folks can use the name. A tradamark applies to one specific area. This is wy we have Macintosh apples and Macintosh computers, or, more recently, Windows XP and Athlon XP.

  • Yep dupe [slashdot.org]. Last time it was only in the developers section though.

    Anyway, how about Internet Navigator? I think having a name that tells you what it does is a good start for converting n00bs.

    ----------
    the site that David Letterman DIDN'T want you to see [wallpaperscoverings.com]

  • a name to help it catch on (Score:5, Funny)

    by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:03AM (#4774873)
    I think it should be called...

    Microsoft Internet Explorer 7

    then people will not only understand what it is, but they will go ahead and download it.
  • like...RIAA - Refactored Internet Access Application.

    Yup, no grounds for anyone not in the software business to complain about that name ;)

  • Pheonix?

    Baz

  • Infringement (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) <slashdot3&phroggy,com> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:13AM (#4774930) Homepage
    Legally, the Phoenix browser [mozilla.org] does not infringe on Phoenix Technologies [phoenix.com]' trademark any more than the University of Phoenix [phoenix.edu], the City of Phoenix [phoenix.gov] (or even the City of Phoenix [phoenixoregon.net]). However, notice they said "The kind folks over at phoenix.com" - Phoenix Technologies has every right to be unhappy about about the Phoenix browser, and if they have politely asked the name to be changed, then this really isn't a legal issue. The Phoenix browser can be renamed simply to be nice.

    IANAL, and I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is Slashdot after all. :-)
  • Phoenix, AZ has been called that way for decades before even the concept of a BIOS was born.

    Why should this 3 million citizens city have to change name because of a stupid company that has only name recognition among nerds anyway ?

    And what should they call it instead ? Arizona City ?

    Ridiculous.
  • Internet Information Searcher (IIS)
    Phoenix Is No Bios (PINB)
    Better Internet Organizing System (BIOS)

    ah well,
    other will make up many more.
  • Could it be Phoenix Mail [lemley.net]? It is computer related, it does have the word Phoenix in it... and more strangely, it has been available much longer than Phoenix the browser without any action taken on them by Phoenix Bios.

    Or is there a selective method of choosing so-called infringers?

  • Salamander (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leoboiko ( 462141 ) <leoboiko @ g m a i l . com> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:21AM (#4774981) Homepage
    Salamander is a very good name. It's a mythological creature related to fire, like Phoenix, and it's a lizard, like Mozilla.
    I hope that, if they change the name, they use this one.

    • Basilisk and other monsters of mythology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Simon Kongshoj ( 581494 ) <skongshoj@NOsPAM.oncable.dk> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @02:24PM (#4776349) Homepage
      Another lizard monster of mythology is the Basilisk. This bad fucker will turn its prey to stone with a gaze, like the Medusa. There's also a quite cool similarly named real-life lizard, which is capable of running across a water surface without sinking. Other fun mythological monsters that could perhaps make good browser names include the Roc (a gigantic bird, like a Phoenix), Fenris (the wolf monster of Norse mythology), or Jormangund. The latter might in fact be appropriate (although unfortunately long and difficult to pronounce), since Jormangund (also called "Midgaardsormen", the Midgaard Serpent) is a gigantic dragonlike serpent which encircles the realm of humans (Midgaard / Earth). I somehow like the association of a web browser with a creature that encircles the world.
  • Since they are not in the same market, and from what i see, not 'playing' on the otehrs success to trick people.. no real dispute here.

  • ...because Flagstaff doesn't want to share their name, either.
  • Seriously. I wish someone would have the balls to stand up and fight this kind of crap. Hell, if we all started crap flooding Phoenix.com's email inboxes with hate letters, they might give up on pressuring the Phoenix browser team.

    Let's face it, the courts generally don't care about you unless you have money or influence. So now we must take our battle against greedy and stupid corporations to the streets, or at least the net. Its not right we have to resort to this, but the more I read /. every day, the more angry I get and the more I see that the system is failing the people entirely.

    Its time to take it back the only way we have left, though a massive grassroots campaign to fill their boxes with angry letters and to push every negative thing about that company into the limelight as much as possible until they cave in to our rightful demands that they use some fucking common sense.
  • Phoenix is a word thousands of years old, it has been used in mythology, in movies, to name places, as a last name, and in many other places. The word and idea have been around long before copyright and trademark and therefore should not be able to have trademark rights at all. This is like M$ tring to copyright generic words to describe their software like windows, word, notepad, etc. Good thing those cases lost, we would have to have to pay royalties whether we bought windows 9x or double hung Anderson's.

    The only reason this is enforceable is because the lawyers of america will do any dirty trick in the book and be able to win the case. It has been proven that you can get away with murder if you have enough $$.

    Again, lawyers are ruining America. Every day is another day where they harm our rights. This process can only be stopped with an armed revolution.
  • Call it Tucson, just down the road.
  • As far as I know Phoenix is a common word that is commonly used in situations when someone gets out from an apparently irrecoverable situation.

    In fact, Phoenix is the english variant of the greek Phoinix [theoi.com], the famous mythic firebird that gave birth to a common european phrase: "recovering/reviving from the ashes". Also, it is the name a city in the US that is well known around the world. Phoenix's owner is Phoebus/Apollo the Greek/Roman God of the Sun. I didn't see that Mozilla people named its browser "Phoenix Technologies"... So, why these guys would be so picky about trademarks?

    Well probably they don't want to loose their first place in Google [google.com]

  • Domino's Pizza/Domino Sugar (Score:5, Informative)

    by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:43AM (#4775093)
    How's this for a precedent: [216.239.33.100]

    "Whether a mark is sufficiently distinctive to be capable of being diluted is a similarly open-ended question, and a mark's position on the "spectrum" of distinctiveness will not be dispositive.81 Even well-known, inherently distinctive marks may be incapable of being diluted if there is extensive third-party use. Under this theory, Domino's Pizza, Inc., successfully argued that its mark DOMINO'S for pizza delivery services did not dilute Amstar's arbitrary and famous mark DOMINO for sugar.82"

    Google turned up 6,190,000 matches for "Phoenix", btw.

  • Recursive acronym, anyone? (Score:3, Funny)

    by thinduke ( 150173 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:52AM (#4775158) Homepage
    Like:

    MNM - MNM is Not Mozilla.

  • Call it: The Browser Formerly Known as Phoenix (Score:3, Funny)

    by LittleStone ( 18310 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @10:55AM (#4775175) Homepage Journal
    TBFKAP

    I like that

  • I vote for Kleenix (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wolfier ( 94144 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:00AM (#4775205)
    Well, at least they're both lightweight...

  • A page out of Princes Book (Score:3, Funny)

    by tourettes ( 97445 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:12AM (#4775293)
    How about we call it: - "The Browser formally Known as Phoenix".

    I would say sorry to those who can't see that character, but you are actually the more fortunate.

  • New name (Score:5, Funny)

    by HunterD ( 13063 ) <legolas@evilsoft. o r g> on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:20AM (#4775346) Homepage
    I propose:
    "Phoenix the web browser, not PhoenixBios who are a bunch of fsckers"

  • How about Gryphon? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by baquiano ( 518850 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @11:39AM (#4775442)
    From Mythological Characters [essortment.com]:
    First among these creatures is the majestic gryphon. The gryphon has very distinct characteristics, with the body, hind legs, and tail of a lion, conjoined to the head and claws of an eagle. It is also said to have the wings of an eagle and feline ears. Gryphons run rampant in Medieval art and literature.
    Gryphons look also similar to Chimeras, so it sounds good to me.

  • Naming conventions? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @12:04PM (#4775600)
    Why do we have to stick with mythical figures or variants of the word Phoenix? I mean Phoenix made sense - a bird that, after having been consumed in flames, rises from its own ashes (the ashes being the Mozilla project - I suppose the imagery may be objectionable to Mozilla project fans, but there's some basis to it). I mean this made sense from a marketing perspective.


    But we can come up with other names that make sense too. How about something that harkens to the Netscape name (not so obviously that it presents a trademark issue of course). Example: Lightscape (or Litescape). Maybe that's too similar, and we should expand the search to related themes. Galeon used this approach for its name, which is a decent name. Some other cool ship name?


    Something like K-meleon, on the other hand is a shitty name (if for no other reason than it's not only hard to spell and thus hard to search for and find on the web).


    If you can find a mythological name that seems appropriate (has some associated imagery) and sounds decent rolling off the tongue then fine. Otherwise, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the mythological figures/Phoenix-alike names. I don't want this to end up as another open source project rendered inaccessible to a wide audience by a shitty name (think: Ogg Vorbis). I'll never be able to download and install something on my mother's computer if I have to tell her it's an Ogg Vorbis player.

  • Thank god! (Score:4, Funny)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @02:13PM (#4776301) Homepage
    ...The reason is that the BIOS manufacturer Phoenix Technologies dislikes the trademark infrigment.
    Phew!

    I've lost track of the times I've restarted my machine, held down the delete key and tried to load up slashdot using the BIOS instead of the web browser by mistake. Now I can surf again without fear of making this foolish mistake!

  • Another idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @02:29PM (#4776377)
    Somebody else just pointed out that the Chimera browser (Mac OS X/Cocoa GUI using Gecko rendering engine) is now called "Navigator" or "Chimera Navigator" but the project is still called "The Chimera Project". This apparently was due to threat of lawsuit there by some trademark holder on "Chimera".


    Why not take the same approach? Call it "Project Phoenix" or "The Phoenix Project" and call the browser something bland? IIRC, a trademark only applies to exact wording - i.e. "The Phoenix Project(TM)" does not infringe on "Phoenix(TM)", even if they both are vaguely software-related in some way. At least it puts you in a defensible position. Just an idea anyway. Let me know if I am completely wrong. Obviously, Phoenix can still sue and argue trademark dilution if they really want, but they would have to prove that there's a reasonable chance for confusion. That seems difficult no matter what. And frankly, Phoenix can sue them anyway if they want, even if they've ceased the offending usage (they can still argue damage has been done to their brand recognition - hah!) - no reason to run scared from a lawsuit, it just encourages more frivolous suits.

  • Time for word games: (Score:3, Funny)

    by A_Non_Moose ( 413034 ) on Thursday November 28, 2002 @07:46PM (#4777581) Homepage Journal
    Fenix
    Penix
    Foenix
    Pfoenix (as in price pfister the pfaucet maker)
    PfuckUPhoenix (just remember, as above, the F is silent :) )

    And there are the old standbys from the browser wars:
    Internet Exploiter,
    Internet Exploder
    (and one of my fav's)
    Nutscrape.
    .

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close