[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] Remove chan_usbradio and app_rpt.

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Tilghman Lesher <tilghman at meg.abyt.es>wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> > I am not sure why it is not maintained when Jim Dixon has the code on
> >> > the repo, supposedly something in Asterisk is broken and broke
> app_rpt.
> >>
> >> No, when the change from Zaptel to DAHDI was made, the API was cleaned
> >> up in the process, and that broke the interface.  The change from
> >> Zaptel to DAHDI was all about someone else's trademark on the Zaptel
> >> name.  The maintainers of app_rpt have made a strategic decision that
> >> they don't want to do the work to make their code compatible with
> >> DAHDI.  There's no technical reason why they couldn't -- there's
> >> several competing hardware manufacturers who have kept pace and made
> >> their work compatible with DAHDI.
> >
> > I know all about the name change.  The name change was bogus anyways, a
> > calling card company and a company that works with a multi function VoIP
> > platform are different enough to have the same name.
>
> That's a nice legal theory.  Will it hold up in court?  Do you have
> the money to spend to see if it will hold up in court?  Digium has
> staff attorneys, and they apparently either didn't think that it would
> hold up in court, or they didn't want to spend the money to make it
> hold up in court.  It is much easier and less costly to change a name.
>

Easy and beneficial to change the name, don't blame it on that calling card
company, Digium declined to contest the merits of the stop and desist.

It also gave Digium something to put a Federal Trademark on, just like
Asterisk.  A win-win.


>
> > http://business.zibb.com/trademark/zaptel/29737279
> >
> > Filing Date:1999
> >
> > Zaptel used by Jim Dixon common law trademark with interstate commerce
> was
> > at the latest 1999 and probably earlier.  I cannot find the original BSD
> > driver for the first Tormenta card, but that was the start of the Zaptel
> > Telephony Project.  If it was before the federal filing date, then they
> had
> > no grounds for anything laying claim.
>
> No.  Timeline matters for copyright law.  This is trademark law.  It
> is completely different.
>
>
Um wrong.  Pretty clear cut
http://www.dailyblogtips.com/qa-how-does-trademark-law-work/

I could post the actual laws, but this is much more simple for the layman.


> > The timeline is incredible, Zaptel -> DAHDI (2008) Digium bans use of
> > Asterisk in Adwords (2008).....
>
> I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Digium already had a trademark on
> the Asterisk term before the trademarking of DAHDI.
>
> > Who are these competing vendors????  I know of zero.
>
> Let's start with Xorcom, whose drivers are distributed with DAHDI.
> There are others, some of which work with DAHDI drivers as
> distributed, some of which modify DAHDI post-distribution.
>

What is the model or name of the Xorcom Radio Interface?  You are being
very vague and I cannot find that product offering.

This is all I could really find on Google about Xorcom Radio Interface.
An exchange starting between John Todd and Tzafrir Cohen.  Funny the second
reply is saying exactly what I am, for profit.

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.telephony.pbx.asterisk.user/227141


> *
> *
> -Tilghman
>
> -
>

Thanks,
Steve Totaro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20120309/fa447170/attachment-0001.htm>