canonical – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Canonical Apologizes For Trademark Bullying… And Again… And Again

from the how-to-respond-to-accidental-bullying dept

Last week, we were among those both surprised and disappointed to find out that Canonical, makers of the Ubuntu operating system, had been acting like a trademark bully. However, the company appears to have quickly and thoroughly responded to the claim, apologizing multiple times and explaining everything in great detail. If you want to see how to respond to a flub, this is not a bad example. First, Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical’s founder posted an apology via Google+ flat out stating that the company had messed up:

This was a bit silly on our part, sorry. Our trademark guidelines specifically allow satire and critique (‘sucks sites’) and we should at most have asked him to state that his use of the logo was subject to those guidelines.

He later updated the post to note that thanks to the ridiculousness of trademark laws, in which you’re often expected to “defend” your mark to avoid losing it (though, really, that’s only supposed to apply to situations where there’s a likelihood of confusion…) they should have just given the FixUbuntu site a free license:

We are obliged to have SOME agreement in place with anyone using the Ubuntu logo. Rules for nominative use are subjective and thus a policy and agreements are required if we want Ubuntu to remain a defensible mark. It’s a pain but that’s the system.

In this case we should just have said ‘you may use the mark if you say that you are doing so with permission’. I guess a new guy made a bad call, but that happens and there’s no point in beating Canonical up over an inadvertent slip.

At around the same time, Steve George from Canonical posted a blog post again explaining in more detail that the company is very open with its trademarks, even for sites that criticize them (though, he did ridiculously claim that there might be some confusion here — which seems highly unlikely):

In the case of fixubuntu.com, we were concerned that the use of the trademark implied a connection with and endorsement from the Ubuntu project which didn’t exist. The site owner has already agreed to remove the Ubuntu logo and clarified that there is no connection; from our perspective the situation has been resolved, and we have no issue with the site or the criticism it includes. In fact, far from an trying to silence critics, our trademark policy actually calls out parody and criticism and other uses as being allowed when the marks are used appropriately. (Please make the parodies funny – we need a good laugh as much as anyone!)

Shuttleworth then responded again, in more detail on his own blog, explaining how the company was too aggressive and how it was a mistake. As he noted, there are some instances where it helps to be able to really threaten abuse, and here the lawyer who sent the letter “chose the wrong template”:

In order to make the amount of correspondence manageable, we have a range of standard templates for correspondence. They range from the “we see you, what you are doing is fine, here is a license to use the name and logo which you need to have, no need for further correspondence”, through “please make sure you state you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of the company or the product”, to the “please do not use the logo without permission, which we are not granting unless you actually certify those machines”, and “please do not use Ubuntu in that domain to pretend you are part of the project when you are not”.

Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. It was no different, however, than a bug in a line of code, which I think most developers would agree happens to the best of us. It just happened to be, in that analogy, a zero-day remote root bug.

There are still some reasonable criticisms to be made of this whole thing. For instance, some may argue that a better way to deal with the situation in the first place would be to make the change the FixUbuntu site was advocating for in the first place — better protecting users’ privacy. But, on the whole, it’s pretty rare to see a company so openly admit to mistakes being made and explaining in so much details what happened.

Filed Under: fix ubuntu, mark shuttleworth, trademark, trademark bullying, ubuntu
Companies: canonical

Disappointing To See Canonical Act Like A Trademark Bully Over Ubuntu

from the get-over-it-guys dept

Well, this is disappointing. Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, apparently has decided to act like a trademark bully. The maker of a fairly popular version of Linux sent a cease-and-desist letter to the website FixUbuntu.com, which is a website run by Micah Lee (who happens to work for EFF), that shows Ubuntu users how to disable a default feature in Ubuntu that Lee reasonably considers to be privacy invading. It’s pretty straightforward, but Ubuntu’s trademark lawyers are trying to kill it. While the letter is more on the friendly end of the spectrum, it’s still problematic. It argues that Lee does not have the right to use the logo:

To keep the balance between the integrity of our trademarks and the ability to to use and promote Ubuntu, we’ve tried to define a reasonable Intellectual Property Policy. You can read the full policy at http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy. As you can see from our policy, to use the Ubuntu trademarks and and Ubuntu word in a domain name would require approval from Canonical.

Unfortunately, in this instance we cannot give you permission to use Ubuntu trademarks on your website and in your domain name as they may lead to confusion or the misunderstanding that your website is associated with Canonical or Ubuntu.

So, whilst we are very happy for you to write about Ubuntu, we request you to remove Ubuntu word from you domain name and Ubuntu logo from your website. We would highly appreciate if you could confirm you have done so by replying this email to us.

Of course, legally, this is hogwash. As we’ve been pointing out for years and years, the case law is pretty damn well established around so-called “sucks sites” (sites that criticize or discuss a brand, including using that brand in their own domain) are not, in fact, trademark infringement. In response, Lee and his colleagues at EFF came up with a wonderful disclaimer they’ve added to the site just to make it extra clear that there will be no confusion:

Disclaimer: In case you are either 1) a complete idiot; or 2) a lawyer; or 3) both, please be aware that this site is not affiliated with or approved by Canonical Limited. This site criticizes Canonical for certain privacy-invading features of Ubuntu and teaches users how to fix them. So, obviously, the site is not approved by Canonical. And our use of the trademarked term Ubuntu is plainly descriptive—it helps the public find this site and understand its message.

How often do you get to put the terms “complete idiot” in a disclaimer?

Of course, as Lee also points out, if Canonical really wants the site to go away, they can make that particular feature opt-in instead of default. But, even if they don’t, their cease-and-desist demand is meaningless, because it’s not infringement. It’s too bad that a company that is an open source leader would also get into trademark bullying, even if it’s done so with a smile.

Filed Under: disclaimers, micah lee, privacy, sucks sites, trademark, trademark bully
Companies: canonical

Canonical Goes Big In Attempt To Crowdfund Exclusive Ubuntu Phone

from the real-time-market-research dept

It’s no secret that Mark Shuttleworth, the CEO of Canonical, maker of Ubuntu Linux, has very strongly embraced the mobile ecosystem as the future. Back in May, he famously “closed” bug 1 listed for Ubuntu, which was “Microsoft has a majority market,” declaring that this was no longer true, thanks to iOS and Android (mainly Android).

Android may not be my or your first choice of Linux, but it is without doubt an open source platform that offers both practical and economic benefits to users and industry. So we have both competition, and good representation for open source, in personal computing.

Even though we have only played a small part in that shift, I think it’s important for us to recognize that the shift has taken place. So from Ubuntu’s perspective, this bug is now closed.

This came a few months after Canonical had announced that it was launching Ubuntu for mobile platforms back at MWC.

Now they’re taking it up a notch with an incredibly ambitious crowdfunding campaign on IndieGogo, trying to raised $32 million in one month, for an exclusive new hardware device, the Ubuntu Edge, which will only be available to backers of the project (if it gets funded). The video Shuttleworth put together is worth watching:

Basically, they’re trying to build the ultimate smartphone, and they appear to have rethought a few key design elements, including using sapphire crystal for the screen, rather than easily cracked glass. The software will work with Android, so you wouldn’t have to totally do without Android, or its vast developer community. It’s definitely an interesting campaign. The idea isn’t to be “in the smartphone business,” but rather to set a new high bar that will push others (and, of course, to encourage more people to use Ubuntu, both for mobile and desktop). As Shuttleworth notes, they’re not going to be selling any more of these outside of the IndieGoGo campaign, though they may do similar crowdfunding campaigns in the future with the goal of continuing to drive the market forward. It’s a fascinating strategy: if the rest of the world isn’t innovating fast enough, lead the way yourself with the express intent that others will follow and help make your software more valuable in the process.

One other interesting tidbit: they set up the campaign so that if people bid on the first day, they can get the phone for 600,or600, or 600,or230 less than it is throughout the rest of the campaign. The campaign shot through half a million very quickly and is still going up from there, but I wonder if it will slow down a bit after the first day and the price goes up.

If this project reaches 32million,itwillmorethantriplethemostsuccessfulcrowdfundingprojecttodate,thePebblesmartwatch,whichraisedover32 million, it will more than triple the most successful crowdfunding project to date, the Pebble smartwatch, which raised over 32million,itwillmorethantriplethemostsuccessfulcrowdfundingprojecttodate,thePebblesmartwatch,whichraisedover10 million. But, this is exactly the kind of project that crowdfunding was made for — because it really is investing in a somewhat risky project, while also acting as a form of market research. People who are buying into this are buying into the vision — which is definitely a risk. The phone hasn’t been built yet. All the imagery are renderings, rather than prototypes. And, you never know how the execution will turn out. Personally, I’d rather see and feel a phone before I shell out 600or600 or 600or800 for the device, but for people will to support the basic idea of advancing mobile computing, it appears that many see it as a worthwhile contribution towards that goal, whether or not the device itself turns out to be worth it.

It’s quite impressive to see how quickly they’ve brought in so much money — and it will really say something about the hunger for moving the space forward if they can get to 32million.Ofcourse,evenifitdoesn’treachthe32 million. Of course, even if it doesn’t reach the 32million.Ofcourse,evenifitd​oesn’tr​eachthe32 million goal, the project is clearly successful on multiple levels. As we’ve noted in the past, crowdfunding projects that don’t reach their goals are not “failures.” They’re smart market research at work. If there isn’t a big enough market for these phones, Canonical just saved itself a ton of money by not going ahead with the actual production. And, at the same time, they still get a ton of free publicity for the mobile software… So whether or not this project hits its goal, it’s crowdfunding done right.

Filed Under: android, crowdfunding, mark shuttleworth, market research, pushing the envelope, smartphones, ubuntu
Companies: canonical

Ubuntu Users To Get To Vote With Their Wallets In Support Of New Features

from the probably-a-good-investment dept

Free software is famously close to its users, drawing on them for warnings about bugs (and sometimes fixes), as well as ideas and suggestions for future developments. But I don’t think any project has previously gone so far as to encourage ordinary users to make financial contributions directly in support of new features they want. That’s precisely what Canonical, the company that oversees the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution, plans to do:

> Today, we’re making it easier for people to financially contribute to Ubuntu if they want to. By introducing a ‘contribute’ screen as part of the desktop download process, people can choose to financially support different aspects of Canonical’s work: from gaming and apps, developing the desktop, phone and tablet, to co-ordination of upstreams or supporting Ubuntu flavours. It’s important to note that Ubuntu remains absolutely free, financial contribution remains optional and it is not required in order to download the software. > > By allowing Ubuntu users to choose which elements of Ubuntu they’re most excited about, we’ll get direct feedback on which favourite features or projects deserve the bulk of our attention. We’re letting users name their price — depending on the value that they put on the operating system or other aspects of our work. That price can, of course, be zero — but every last cent helps make Ubuntu better.

As this notes, even if people don’t offer money, their views on what’s important to them can still be gathered, and that’s valuable information for developers who need to prioritize their work.

In principle, letting people support new features of interest sounds like a good idea, since it gives users a chance to vote with their wallets. But it comes in the wake of a plan to let people search for items on sites like Amazon from within the Ubuntu operating system, for which Canonical would presumably get paid if purchases were made as a result. As the hundreds of comments on the blog of Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Canonical and Ubuntu, indicate, this has raised a number of concerns about privacy and the direction of the Ubuntu project.

Some might see both moves as evidence that Canonical still isn’t making as much money from the Ubuntu ecosystem as it needs to, and that Shuttleworth is looking to bolster income. Four years ago, he admitted that Canonical was “not close” to breaking even, and that it would “require time and ongoing investment” to make it do so. Given Ubuntu’s place as probably the most popular GNU/Linux distribution, users must hope that Shuttleworth will still be happy to invest in Canonical, and hence in Ubuntu, for a while yet. Perhaps that’s another good reason for Ubuntu fans to start paying at least some of the development costs under the new scheme.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: features, free software, money, ubuntu
Companies: canonical

Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Predicts That Countries Who Limit Patents Will Have More Innovation

from the but-of-course dept

The BBC has an interesting article about Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu, and some of the innovations Canonical is working on. There’s some good stuff in there, but what caught my attention was the bit at the end about patents:

“We know that we are sort of dancing naked through a minefield and there are much bigger institutions driving tanks through,” Mr Shuttleworth says.

“It’s basically impossible to ship any kind of working software without potentially trampling on some patent somewhere in the world, and it’s completely impossible to do anything to prevent that.

“The patents system is being used to slow down a lot of healthy competition and that’s a real problem. I think that the countries that have essentially figured that out and put hard limits on what you can patent will in fact do better.”

Of course, this is the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do — but pretty much everyone who’s actually innovating these days seems to recognize the same thing. What amazes me is that we haven’t seen more of what Mark hints at towards the very end: countries providing explicit safe havens around patents. We have examples of this in the past — perhaps most famously, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the latter half of the 19th century. The Netherlands dumped patents entirely, while the Swiss limited what was patentable massively (to the point that very little was considered patentable at all). And both countries saw economic growth as a result — where industry and innovation flocked to both countries because they weren’t being held back by patent disputes.

It does seem that perhaps some folks in the Netherlands remember this. There’s an ongoing effort called the Appsterdam Foundation (in Amsterdam, of course), where part of the goal is to help protect app makers from crazy patent lawsuits. But I’m waiting for even more recognition from countries that this is a real growth opportunity. Assuming that countries have the nerves to withstand having the US taunt them each year with placement on the Special 301 list, there’s a real opportunity for a developed nation to have innovation show up in droves by massively limiting patents.

Filed Under: appsterdam, mark shuttleworth, netherlands, special 301 list, switzerland
Companies: canonical, ubuntu