Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 5080759" data-attributes="member: 2732">Actually, the problem is no legal precedent has really been set I believe when it comes to publishing.  Does a software package with the name Microsoft in it constitute non-infringement.  This seems to be a grey area of the law that has not been decided yet, at least not through litigation.  For example, this organization mentions that on <a href="http://www.worldlawdirect.com/article/317/trademark-law-non-commercial-web-publishing.html" target="_blank">this page</a>.The key thing also is that different attorneys will have different ways of interpreting--which is how law precedent is decided, by litigation and judicial interpretation of that litigation.  It's also probably biased by the role of the attorney and their beliefs.  You'll probably get different views of IP law if you talk to a lawyer like Lessig than you would from a Hollywood attorney.  Similarly, S'Mon might have more liberal interpretations of fair use than an attorney whose primary purpose is to protect his client.I do hope we get some more clear legal precedent to the limit of non-commercial use of trademarks.  I dislike overzealous trademark protection--I think McDonald's goes a little to far with their interpretation of "Mc", I don't think Steve Jobs should have a lock on iWhatever.  But I also think if somebody names their RPG rules D&D, or somebody uses the term Microsoft or Apple in their Freeware utility, it's not right.As far as if LW has a lock on "Army Builder" goes.  I don't see it as being hard for users or chilling towards free speech.  You can call the software by a lot of other names.  Army constructor, army maker, army developer, army designer, army calculator.  And that's only if you don't take out the army part--replace with military, etc.</blockquote>

Verification