It seems that the Linux Foundation has decided that both “systemd” and “segmentation fault” (lol?) are trademarked by them.

  • thesmokingman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Patent troll” and “required actions to preserve trademarks” are two totally different things. The former is objectively bad in all ways. The second is explainable if there truly is a trademark and said gear infringes on the trademark and may be excusable if the Linux Foundation is forced to act to preserve their branding (trademark law is weird). It’s even more explainable if this is a shitty auto filter some paralegal had to build without any technical review because IP law firms are hot fucking mess. I’m also very curious to see the original graphics which I couldn’t find on Mastodon. If they are completely unrelated and there was an explicit action by someone who knew better, the explanation provides no excuse.

    Attacking any company because the trademark process is stupid doesn’t accomplish much more than attacking someone paying taxes for participating in capitalism.

    • rhabarba@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does the Linux Foundation even have a trademark process for “segmentation fault”? According to the poster on Mastodon, these words were the whole design.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        92
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just like champagne only comes from the champagne region of France, true segmentation fault only comes from a linux program shitting itself.

        • bluGill@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Linux is the imposter here. Segmentation fault refers to how the PDP-(I forget) hardware organized memory. It comes from the original unix implementation which linux has never had any part of.

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They aren’t satinf they have a trademark on the phrase ‘ segmentation fault’. They are saying the artwork called ‘segmentation fault’ contains a trademarked image/logo/whatever

          • deur@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            x86 and x86_64 still have segment registers so it’s not exactly entirely archaic, but they’re not really relevant so that doesnt change what you said. I dont have the exact details on who implemented segmentation first, so I cant elaborate on that.

          • squiblet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t matter because trademark law is about usage and active protection of rights, not origination.

            • bluGill@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              It does matter because projects like *BSD can prove continuous usage of the term. As such either the trademark is easy to break (it is common use), or it can only be a trademark in very specific contexts that are unlikely to apply.

              • squiblet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, what I was saying is that whether someone else created it in the 70s isn’t significant for trademark law. If multiple entities have been using it since then without claiming exclusivity would be significant.

        • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You mean Tux? That’s under a custom attribution license, with no noncommercial clause

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doing a search on the USPTO shows no mark for that combination of words. Did the poster share the design? Because either there’s more to the story on their side or there’s more to the Linux Foundation side. For example, an overworked paralegal with no concept of what terms to include. Alternatively, someone being an asshole with a SLAPP suit. We need more information.

      • NaN@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can look trademarks up. They don’t.

        There is more to the story, even if it’s just some overzealous bot or contracted company.

      • thesmokingman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My comment contains “if” because, speaking from professional expertise, there is a good possibility this is happening because of either a legal agreement I don’t have insight into so I can’t comment on or because of incompetence. It could also be happening from malice which, imo, is the kind of SLAPP bullshit Nintendo is deservedly attacked for. I’m not trying fanboy anything here; I’m just saying we need more information for pitchforks. The Linux Foundation has my implicit assumption of positive intent (unlike, say, Nintendo), so I’m willing to wait and see what happened here before I start attacking The Linux Foundation for something we have a screenshot from Mastodon on.

        If you believe my professional opinion is wrong, I would love to learn more about why.