OSM Roundup
Dean
James Joyner has a roundup of various perspectives on OSM, for those of you interested.
Meanwhile, on the claim that they've trampled another company's trademark, OSM has given an explanation that seems perfectly legitimate: the name was not trademarked, was approved by their lawyers, and used a domain name that was open.
I've been involved in numerous entrepreneurial ventures. I am not a partner or investor to this one, just signed up as a contributor, but this strikes me as a perfectly legitimate response. These days it's virtually impossible to come up with a name that doesn't sound like someone else's unless you just bang random letters out on a keyboard. If the name OSM isn't trademarked by anyone in a similar business, and if the domain name's available, then that's that. A DBA, a corporate name, and a trademark are all different things.
I don't see a serious problem here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- OSM Roundup
- Pajamas Media/Open Source Media Faux Pas?
If I were to sell a new diet cola drink and called it dC, and trademarked dC while using "the best diet
coke" in my advertising, wouldnt I still be liable for infringement even though the Coca-Cola Company has trademarked "Coke", not "dC" ?
What you have to realize--and please, check an attorney on this and I think you'll find I'm right--is that you aren't automatically granted a trademark just based on your corporate name. Your best way to get a trademark is to register it with the government--that's what the "TM" and "R" logos mean, that you've either applied for the trademark, or have been granted the registration. You can also claim to have a trademark just by having done business under a name for a long time, but that's harder to do and not as easy to enforce.
"Open Source Media" is one company's corporate name. They don't so far as I know claim to have trademarked it, or even to use that as their DBA. And as a small venture they're going to have a hard time claiming that OSM is somehow trading on their well-established good name--especially since they aren't even doing business under it.
I am pretty sure that using a corporate name - even if it hasnt been explicitly trademarked - but which does bear large similarity to someone else's trademarked name, is grounds for infringement.
any lawyers in the house?
The Open Source Media corporation isn't even doing business under that name, their DBA (Doing Business As, the name they're publicly known by) is different, and, they're in a different line of work, and... seriously dude, they got nothin' on OSM.
Who does look to have somethin' on OSM is OSI, who have specifically trademarked the term Open Source. Both the Pajama guys AND "Open Source Media" may in fact be in violation of that registered trademark. Open Source Media, ironically, has less problem since they don't do business under that name, but OSM, just by using the phrase "Open Source," may indeed be violating OSI's trademark.
They're also skirting a fine line, since the Open Source community may come down hard on them.
The most relevant standard is "likelihood of confusion", as per the name of Ron Coleman's blog. If the public is likely to confuse Pajamas/OSM with the other OSM, then the other OSM has grounds to complain.
But since (as you say) the other OSM isn't even operating under that name, the likelihood of confusion seems small to me.
The whole thing seems like something that should be settled quietly and amicably behind the scenes. No one intentionally did anything wrong here, so they should work out a settlement and be done with it.
I also don't think this is something anyone here or on any comment thread is going to solve. This dropped ball notwithstanding, the Pajamas folks are smart folks with some knowledge of IP, so they and their lawyers can work all this out without our help.
Was this new name run past you, Dean, one of the major contributors? My impression is that it was not.
And is such a term so empty of content as to be freely interchangable with "Pajamas Media?" I suspect not.
Toss in the subsequent confusion and it seems only more bizarre.
If you do a search for OSM, there are a bunch of active trademarks. Only one looks relevant, serial number 78738751, it was filed 10/23/05 and, while I don't recognize the person's name, it looks like the PJ guys.
There is one "Open Source", serial number 78582544, that looks close, Entertainment services, namely, a continuing series of audio programs about current events and culture via radio and global computer networks.
Open Source University could possibly make a case, maybe not.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know very much about trademarks so I won't opine on the viability. I do know a fair amount about patents, but that's a different creature.
I don't find the phrase "Open Source Media" to be empty of content in any sense. It's quite descriptive. I am a bit uncomfortable in that it's not descriptive in the same way as the open source model of software, which is something I'm a big believer in. But Eric Raymond has it right. With normal media you go through several layers of filters. With this medium you go through maybe one but usually none. You know whose stuff you're reading and what their biases are and where they stand.
I mean, seriously, what term would be more descriptive in your mind?
Can you please explain to me what you think OSM is all about? If you’ve got confidentiality agreement issues, I can understand that, but I would like to hear as much as you can divulge at this point.
I really don’t get it. I’ve been to the OSM site a couple times both days now. There’s not much there to give me a clue what its all about. Or to motivate me to even want to come back again. It leaves me with a combination of a yawn and a head scratch.
Who is the customer here? Me? Advertisers? What is the product or service provided? Where is the value to the customer?
If OSM is acting as an ad broker, or as a one stop shop where big dollar advertisers can hook up with many, appropriate blogs, then I can understand that. But as a portal, or aggregator, or alternative to the MSM, I don’t see much value added.
And keep in mind where I am coming from here. I am NOT a blogger. I dabbled a bit once, and it was fun. But my feast or famine free time situation doesn’t allow me to do the format justice, IMO. And I LOVE my day job, so I have no aspirations of leaving that behind or anything.
But I love blogs, especially their interactive nature. I consider myself to be a blog power user. I read and regularly comment at 5-6 particular blogs just about every day, and at 5-10 others occasionally. And on top of that, I fit the Holy Grail demographic target audience the advertisers lust after.
So I think I am the kind of person the advertisers, and OSM, want to target. If I am the ultimate consumer here, then there might be something wrong, because I jut don’t get it. What is OSM going to provide me that I don’t have now? Or are advertisers the ultimate consumer of the OSM service?
Help, please.
The blogger gets to do away with hustling for ads.
They further plan to use all this to further promote what the bloggers doing. There is also talk about adding functionality to make news gathering and reporting easier for those who are signed up.
Basically, the short answer to your question is it isn't for consumers directly, although hopefully it'll evolve into a portal where some consumers who still don't understand blogs will come to discover them. The main purpose is to create a better advertising environment.
I honestly don't see why anyone thinks it's complicated or bewildering, except to realize: YOU aren't supposed to be excited about it. Advertisers are.
Thanks Dean,
That's pretty much in line with what I figured OSM was all about.
But reading what some other bloggers have been foaming and frothing about lately had me wondering if maybe I missed something.
Maybe the OSM hype-meisters overshot their target a bit. But in the ad business, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
"Open Source Media," to me implies something akin to Open Source software, which is a very different model. It's also a lot blander and less attention-grabbing.
Get a mess of hits, that way. ;->