Am Dienstag, 11. Januar 2005 16:31 schrieb Lance Obermeyer:
> Also, nobody
> else could ever have used the term "Pervasive Postgres" since "Pervasive"
> is a registered trademark. A random person is still free to use the term
> "MyCompany Postgres", since "Postgres" is a generic term, not registered as
> anybody's trademark.
I'm not even so much worried about Pervasive claiming a trademark on a name
that is generally considered some kind of "community property", whatever that
means. What I'm puzzled about is that you are clearly aware that
"PostgreSQL" is a registered trademark, and that you try to sidestep that
problem by calling your product "Postgres". Everyone who is even slightly
familiar with trademark regulations knows that that doesn't work. At the
same time you are undermining our eternal effort to teach people the correct
name of our product. So that leaves me to believe either (a) the legal
department of Pervasive is incompetent, or (b) the marketing department of
Pervasive is incompetent, or (c) you are trying to get away with something,
or (d) you are trying to lay claim on the name "PostgreSQL" through the
backdoor. Please educate us.
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-01-11 17:26:03|
|Subject: Re: Linux Seminar Sheffield UK - 2nd March 2005|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-01-11 17:19:44|
|Subject: Re: Pervasive PostgreSQL Announcement|