More hypocrisy from the IBPhoenix camp?

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Post Reply
Blake
Posts: 198
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 4:12 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA
Contact:

More hypocrisy from the IBPhoenix camp?

Post by Blake »

Here's Ann Harrison just recently, on the Firebird name change debate ( from http://www.mozillazine.org/articles/article3097.html ):

Actually, our initial approach was directly to Asa Dotzler. His responses were consistent and unyielding — our legal staff (AOL's legal staff) says we can and we've done it and that's the end of it.


Here, she notes that Asa's response appears to be "Sorry, but my lawyer says it's legal, so we can use it" and expresses her anger that Asa isn't considering the 'ethical' side of it. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

Now here's Ann Harrison reminiscing on InterBase's "beginings" (sic) ( from http://www.ibphoenix.com/a656.htm -- mirrored in case it gets edited ):

"Groton Database Systems" is an inspired name, inspired by our failure to find any other name that passed trademark search. We were naive new entrepreneurs, so each time we thought of a name, we asked our lawyer "is this OK?" Later we learned that the right question is "can you defend us if we use this?" That sophistication let us change the name to InterBase, a change encouraged by the person who answered the phone "Rrrrotten Database Systems."


I'm sorry, but am I the only one who sees a little conflict here? Later she learned that the right question is simply "can you defend us if we use this"? Ann, can you explain how this is different?
Yikes
Posts: 51
Joined: March 11th, 2003, 7:37 pm

Easy enough. Try this:

Post by Yikes »

That was quite easy to point out. Now what would be more important to point out is what the law specifically says about The Mozilla Organization's use of the word "Firebird." It would be interesting to have a debate with Ann on the legality of it rather than a small seemingly hypocritical statement. If it has been done before, can you quote the post or provide a link?

Personally, I don't care that much what the project name is as long as the browser is in top shape and it isn't a sorry name like phallus. To me, it's only a project name, why fight over it? But, if you do want to fight over it, can you make it short?

I have seen no post yet that provides a solution to the problem. Maybe it would be best to come up with one rather than have a long drawn out dispute (that bores everyone) that may even end in a court battle. The Mozilla name comes to mind. But, then, it creates great PR.
Yikes waz here.
User avatar
Nitin
Moderator
Posts: 3483
Joined: February 27th, 2003, 9:38 pm
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Post by Nitin »

Blake wrote:I'm sorry, but am I the only one who sees a little conflict here? Later she learned that the right question is simply "can you defend us if we use this"? Ann, can you explain how this is different?


Completely agree. I would just quote from Ben Goodger's weblog, what IBPhoenix is doing is nothing more than "attention whoring".

Yikes wrote:I have seen no post yet that provides a solution to the problem. Maybe it would be best to come up with one rather than have a long drawn out dispute (that bores everyone) that may even end in a court battle. The Mozilla name comes to mind. But, then, it creates great PR.


Solution to WHAT problem? There exists no problem, it is only a figment of imagination.
If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
Join the MZ folding@home team.
User avatar
alanjstr
Moderator
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here
Contact:

Post by alanjstr »

How come you didn't post to the name thread ;-) (or, as kerz said http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10053 post on the talkback on the front page)

Actually, this was the last new thread I saw right as MozillaZine went offline. I clicked the thread and poof the forums were gone.

To be honest, I think that this is just going to be a matter for the lawyers. I think the Branding Strategy was pretty clear, so this shouldn't even be an issue any more.
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files
User avatar
priior
Posts: 374
Joined: November 10th, 2002, 3:45 pm
Location: montreal

Post by priior »

i think it's pretty obvious. as vfwlkr mentionned, the database group is just using the opportunity to get exposure.. they don't care about win or lose... they just saw an opportunity to get a LOT of exposure and they're using it to the maximum..

i would be pretty confident to speculate that their download hits have considerably risen in the last few weeks.

now.. if i were responsible for a product... and i see an event happening... and that event is boosting my exposure and as a result my download hits... what do you think i would do? (i would continue sustaining that event so that my exposure grows... and it is so easy.. u inflame a few devoted users about the "injustice".. u make a few strategic "official announcements".. and the rest just plays itself.)



if i were REALLY paranoid, i would even say maybe the mozilla group is even in on it.. maybe a part of agreement they had as permission to use the name.. (giving exposure to the database ppl).... but that would be pretty paranoid.. thank god i'm not. :)
pr[ii]or
Yikes
Posts: 51
Joined: March 11th, 2003, 7:37 pm

Hypocrites? Maybe. Flawed? Yes.

Post by Yikes »

I find a flaw in their legal argument is that a database doesn't equal a browser so it isn't in the same legal category, in my opinion at least.

I find this paragraph by Firbird SQL quite funny:

"Although databases dwell in a separate category of software "commodity", it is a category that has wide impact on the whole software environment, because almost all programs use a database of some kind. Even browsers can have link databases, mail clients can have addresses and messages stored in database, and so on. Intranet and Internet database applications that use a web browser client in an n-tier architecture are becoming almost more common than the traditional client/server model. A cross-platform DBMS such as Firebird imposes an obvious need to ship ancillary modules, such as online help, in web-browser-readable format. Hence, it is already impossible to claim that a web browser would never impinge on the commodity space of a DBMS, or vice versa."

No matter what they tell you, they said it themselves "databases dwell in a separate category of software "commodity." The rest of the paragraph is quite funny how they think a browser is a database! Hilarious! Just shipping online help impinges on the space of a browser? Am I missing something here? Isn't that a hasty generalization? If you read it, it is all quite laughable. Their case would be based on an incredible and child-like imagination if they go to court with this.

Is this hypocrisy? I would rather call it a runaway imagination. They are stretching it.
Yikes waz here.
Post Reply