One more significant point is that Pervasive is trying to
"say out loud" that with this product they are or trying to be
part of the postgres community. They are not trying to usurp
the word but rather join in the frey.
--elein
PS: Please, please approve my posts...my smtp is broken
from my usual address :-(
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:22:57PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
