On Feb 6, 2008 6:05 AM, Keith Hodges <keith_hodges at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> stephane ducasse wrote:
> > Hi Dan
> >
> >>> I'm actually nearly done with this process.  I'm in a ridiculous
> >>> discussion about the name.  I had proposed JSqueak and got
> >>> "push-back", as they say, from the trademark folks.  It appears
> >>> that, if I'm willing to call it 'Idaho' or 'Potato' or something,
> >>> then we're good to go.  It's clear Sun is happy to let it go and I
> >>> am too.
> >
> > Excellent. So the problem is squeak in the name? Call it Zork or a
> > bean eating animal like Squirrel and we get done.
> >
> > Stef
> >
> >
> Can someone exlpain why there is a trademark problem with naming
> something "Squeakish"


Given that Squeak's legal status is still being clarified and Disney's role
is part of the discussion, making a strong case for why Sun isn't putting
themselves at risk would be expensive at best. Disney has a reputation for
very effective and aggressive protection of their IP - lawyers everywhere
tread very carefully around them. A Sun IP attorney who wants to keep her
job has to push back on a research project that could potentially(no matter
how remote) step on the lion's tail.

HTH,

Laurence

P.S.
That HP, a Sun competitor is also part of the Squeak IP discussion only adds
to the cost of legal analysis. This is yet another reason why it would be so
valuable for the visible projects to establish an unambiguous definition of
what Squeak is. Even a bare-bones VM and image that required lots of work to
build anything useful from would be better than what we have now.


>
> Keith
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080206/4d314d00/attachment.htm