Comments on: Sandvine menaces p2pnet

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 May 2008 05:01:58 +0000

ahaha am i the only person who noticed the guys name? wayne “crookes”? lmao

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 25 May 2008 01:05:03 +0000

Does anyone think that Sandvine would have screamed trademark infringement if that same image had been put up on a site containing articles complimentary of Sandvine ?

By: taosk8r

taosk8r — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:21:57 +0000

Keep up the good fight, Jon.. Don’t let the assholes get ya down. Godspeed, and Namaste!

By: Harry Nads

Harry Nads — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:22:09 +0000

Harry Nads Headquarters fully supports your war against Sandvine and every other communist entity that attacks you. If you need our support just holla.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:27:04 +0000

“I’m pretty sure things would be very different if I was on an equal financial and legal footing”

They would not ever dare to call since they know they are wrong.

I am sick and tired of all these corporates parasites who act like selfish psychopaths, with no moral standart, no sense of justice and who conduct themselves like criminals.

If I was them I will be carefull because a business is a fragile thing easy to bring down and we don’t need lawers for that. Also the exec in charge of these nasty businesses are not invicible.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 24 May 2008 14:37:41 +0000

” Although the use of Sandvine’s name etc is fair use under copyright, denigrating the brand (the graffiti on the logo) is not ”

Use for parody or commentary still applies … nice try.
How much they pay you ?

By: Rekrul

Rekrul — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:27:37 +0000

For what it’s worth, I just clicked on every ad on the site that I could find.

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:44:01 +0000

“The trademark is similar to a patent in the protections it affords.”

I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t have a lawyer on tap, but surely that would apply only if the trademark was in some way hi-jacked for illegal use, applied in or on another product, perhaps, or copied?

This was comment, not re-use.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:37:09 +0000

Although the use of Sandvine’s name etc is fair use under copyright, denigrating the brand (the graffiti on the logo) is not. Its more similar to taking a coca-cola ’script’ logo and modifying the tag-line.

A trademark is different than a copyright or use of the identify. The trademark is similar to a patent in the protections it affords.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:19:35 +0000

This is the “power” I guess that comes from wealth. To get whatever you want by phony legal threats. And they WILL get it too unless people like Jon stand up for themselves and for what is right. Most wealth is not obtained honestly, and dirty tricks are part and parcel of the game.

By: Jack Harris

Jack Harris — Sat, 24 May 2008 01:13:46 +0000

Onya Jon, I wouldn’t cave in to intimidation either. Keep hemming in the crooks

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:01:44 +0000

Thanks, Robb:

Now see http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16020

Cheers!

By: Robb Topolski

Robb Topolski — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:46:16 +0000

Hey Sandvine,

This is to let you know, Sandvine, that use of Sandvine’s corporate identity in a news story about Sandvine’s products is a completely fair use under U.S. law and, most likely, Canada and the U.K. (points of Sandvine’s presence).

The very reason Sandvine would select a particular Sandvine font and Sandvine color is to help non-Sandvine people associate Sandvine’s name in context with Sandvine’s marketplace. While Sandvine is the owner of Sandvine’s marks and names, Sandvine’s name and products are both is in the news and industry buzz.

You’ve developed this Sandvine branding for the public to use to identify Sandvine, and now you dare complain when Sandvine’s name, and the fonts and colors chosen by Sandvine to represent Sandvine are somehow chosen by a reporter issuing news about Sandvine? Why not also take him to task for mentioning your name, Sandvine, which is no more and no less part of Sandvine’s corporate identity (e.g. — they all mean the same thing — Sandvine).

If this Sandvine news report instead carried a picture of “Mayor McCheese” in front of the “Golden Arches,” would Sandvine be more or less pleased about the impact of Sandvine’s “Brand and ID” efforts?

Hey Sandvine? So go pound Sand(vine)!

–Robb Topolski

PS: Get out of the business of selling Sandvine products to customers who want to keep Sandvine’s business relationship with them a secret. Didn’t Sandvine learn anything the first time, or does Sandvine need to lose another 80% in market equity?

By: Paulus

Paulus — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:09:50 +0000

“If you plan to take this further, please contact: David Fewer, Legal Counsel Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic”

Ah HA! Collusion! Newton mentions the CIPPIC in his FIRST ARTICLE !!! http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15991 and now it is representing him!

This is shameful

By: Alter_Fritz

Alter_Fritz — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:51:55 +0000

“We expect it to be down within 30 minutes from now.”

Was there an “or else” behind that sentence?

BTW Google tells me for typing define:vine the following way:

A plant with long stems (woody or not) which depends on other plants or surfaces for support. Vines may get that support by means of[…]
or
a plant that creeps along a surface or requires support to grow upward

With stuff that “creeps along a surface” I normaly associate slimy shit and organis[s]ations[/s] mns that depend on others are defind either as “a human baby” or “a parasite”. I doubt that Amanda Weber is a cute little baby when she can articulate such demands that you quoted!

–
Alter_Fritz