At 01:12 PM 2/05/2003 +0100, you wrote:

> > In his article of this title, Ben Goodger has now done a second run on
> > cleaning up the trademark infringements:
> > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/why/
> >
> > Good on yer, Ben.
>
>I still think that this page is a bit 'late' since Mozilla
>will switch to the phoenix engine soon, and drop the
>Firebird Name, then it should be pushing Mozilla, rather
>than trying to pump up an internal 'work in progress'.
>
>p.s. David Tenser is to thank for the latest update!

Yes, I agree, it should be reinforcing the "Mozilla for preference" thing
if the branding policy is to be taken seriously. But, each time they
actually replace a "Firebird" or "Firebird TM" reference, they are
technically correcting a breach. That's a quantum leap from absolute denial.

David Tenser's own site is still in breach, see the first sentence at
http://texturizer.net/firebird/. Take the link from his site to "Mozilla
Firebird Forums" ( http://www.mozillazine.org/forums/index.php?c=4 ) and
see what's on that page; and try googling "firebird" + "help".

While, at least, Mozilla is getting around to addressing the technical
legalities issue, the sad, ironic and totally incomprehensible thing about
all this, is their apparent hard-line refusal to regard the topic from any
perspective except as a legal threat.

The main issue for us isn't that they broke the law. The message they
mistakenly took from this is that, whatever happened, we weren't going to
sue. The message they are not hearing is that we don't *want* to sue and
wouldn't have any reason to do so if they simply fixed the problem.

Our main issue is the effect of associating the "Firebird" name and
trademark with Mozilla. They did wrong by neglecting it in the first
place. They did neglect it and they got hammered. The longer they keep
neglecting it, the more they encourage their noisy kiddies to trivialise
it, the more they bum-rush the grownups in their *own* community who
comment unfavourably about it, the deeper they dig themselves into the
swamp of infamy. That ought to matter to them more than the threat of
being forced into court.

This thing isn't about winning or losing on legal technicalities. It's not
about "proving" that brand dilution hurts us. The fact that the
FirebirdSQL Foundation could take them to court and "win" should be a
side-issue. Winning in court proves nothing except that someone is a loser.

It's about being receptive to the arguments and fixing the damage. It
should have been enough, back then on April 14, that we opposed what they
did. It's *still* enough and we *still* want to help them fix it.

Helen