> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 8:20 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Sander Steffann; Marc G. Fournier; Andrew Sullivan;
> pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I am being interviewed by OReilly
>
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The idea of calling it "Postgres SQL Server" has merit
> because it is so
> > close to what we already have, just an added 's' and a space.
>
> ... and a M$ trademark violation suit, just waiting to happen whenever
> M$ decides we are big enough to be a threat.
>
> Stay far far away from any name including "SQL Server".
>
> (I still like plain "Postgres" though.)
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-862516.html (march 2002 article)
'However, in a preliminary ruling issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge
John Coughenour said the suit raised "serious questions" about whether the
word "Windows" is entitled to trademark protection.'
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-893895.html (april 2002)
'Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic
terms cannot be protected. No company could obtain trademark rights to the
word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer, for example.'
My Google searching didn't turn up anything suggesting that this case had
ever been resolved-- does anybody know differently?
-ron
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>