Symantec asks G4L to stop infringing on Ghost name

G4L has been around for how many years? A bit slow on the uptake is Symantec.

I have always wondered about trademarking a common word. Claiming that you own the word Ghost seems a tad presumptuous if you ask me.

heh, yes. Like 'windows'

>I have always wondered about trademarking a common word. Claiming that you own the word Ghost seems a tad presumptuous if you ask me.

That's because you don't understand the law.

It's the same concept as Domino sugar and Domino's pizza.

IP protection has a notion of "thickness and thinness".

Patents are thick -- if you own the patent to a practical application of some patentable construct, nobody else can do the same thing in the same way for any purpose without your permission.

Copyrights are a little thinner, at least in theory. If two authors independently come up with the same story, each could obtain a copyright. The kicker in that is a matter of proving that neither copied the other, but it happens. That concept, by the way, is the basis for the Chinese Wall, which is how the original IBM PC BIOS was cloned to launch the IBM-compatible PC industry.

Trademarks are thinnest of all. Trademarks are meant to identify the source of a product, and apply the test of consumer confusion.

So, Domino sugar and Domino's pizza ( the litigants in a very important trademark case, btw) can each use "domino" in their name, but couldn't keep anybody from using domino to refer to, ummm, dominos. Domino's pizza also could not market a line of Domino's sugar and Domino sugar could not market a line of Domino pizza.

> and Domino sugar could not market a line of Domino pizza.

Yes, but could Domino market a "pizza sugar" designed to enhance the taste of pizza? That would be an interesting question to put before a court, wouldn't it?

Oh, and the problem here is that G4L and Ghost are in the same market space, so there is a clear possibility of confusion (at least I believe that's the legal concern, am I correct Dino?). Just dropping the Ghost part completely and using only G4L might be enough to satisfy a court. There's no obvious connection between G4L and the term Ghost in the mind of your average consumer.

>Yes, but could Domino market a "pizza sugar" designed to enhance the taste of pizza?

No, they couldn't, or, at least, not under the Domino's name.

***edit***

Whoops!! Dyslexic dino strikes again. Yes, they could and there would be no issue with it.

>Oh, and the problem here is that G4L and Ghost are in the same market space, so there is a clear possibility of confusion (at least I believe that's the legal concern, am I correct Dino?).

Yes, that is correct. It's why you saw the recent dustup between Apple Computer and the Beatles' Apple Corporation. Apples forays into music create the potential for confusion of the two.

Open Source patents?

Quoting:G4L

When I see it, I automatically read "Generation 4 [Programming] Language"...

It still took them four years!

On the same note, what about G4U, which I believe was out first? hehe

>On the same note, what about G4U, which I believe was out first?

There was a dustup regarding G4L being a ripoff of G4U and the authors refusing to give credit where credit is do.

I don't use G4L, and that is why.

> I don't use G4L, and that is why.

Partimage meets my needs, so I've never bothered looking at G4L. And since we use Ghost at work, I have access to the real thing if I need it.