Re: [apps-discuss] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09: (with DISCUSS)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 03/07/2013 16:07, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 7/3/13 9:15 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This discuss is initially for my colleagues on the IESG.
>>
>> This update to RFC5451 introduces text containing what are almost
>> certainly the trade marked names of a number of products. This does not
>> seem to be called out in the text, which may be a problem for the trade
>> mark owners.
>>
>> My question (to the IESG) is whether this is something that we need to
>> worry about, or something that we just leave for the RFC Editor to deal
>> with.
>
> So, two comments on this:
>
> 1. Why do you think that the mention of a trademark in a document is 
> something we should at all be concerned about? Referring to a product 
> by using its trademark name is perfectly reasonable. What problem do 
> you have in mind?
>
> 2. Are you referring to the products mentioned in section 7? Section 7 
> has a note at the top that says, "[RFC Editor: Please delete this 
> section prior to publication.]" If those are the trademarks you are 
> concerned about, the point is moot since they won't appear in the 
> document.
>
> pr
>
I missed the note to delete - clearing now.

The reason that trademarks concern me is that there is a legal 
requirement that a company protect or loose the right to a trademark - 
which is why you see Foo(tm)  footnote: Foo(tm) is a trademark of Foo 
Ltd in printed text. Seems if that is not done Foo becomes generic and 
no longer exclusive.

S