<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Tilghman Lesher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tilghman@meg.abyt.es">tilghman@meg.abyt.es</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:<br>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:<br>
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:<br>
>> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:<br>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Steve Totaro wrote:<br>
>> >> > <a href="http://business.zibb.com/trademark/zaptel/29737279" target="_blank">http://business.zibb.com/trademark/zaptel/29737279</a><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Filing Date:1999<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Zaptel used by Jim Dixon common law trademark with interstate<br>
>> >> > commerce<br>
>> >> > was<br>
>> >> > at the latest 1999 and probably earlier. I cannot find the original<br>
>> >> > BSD<br>
>> >> > driver for the first Tormenta card, but that was the start of the<br>
>> >> > Zaptel<br>
>> >> > Telephony Project. If it was before the federal filing date, then<br>
>> >> > they<br>
>> >> > had<br>
>> >> > no grounds for anything laying claim.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> No. Timeline matters for copyright law. This is trademark law. It<br>
>> >> is completely different.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Um wrong. Pretty clear<br>
>> > cut <a href="http://www.dailyblogtips.com/qa-how-does-trademark-law-work/" target="_blank">http://www.dailyblogtips.com/qa-how-does-trademark-law-work/</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > I could post the actual laws, but this is much more simple for the<br>
>> > layman.<br>
>><br>
</div><div class="im">>> The link says it does not<br>
>> matter who registers first, only who starts using it first. You've<br>
>> done the research, apparently, to figure out when Zaptel Corporation<br>
>> (calling cards) registered their mark, but you haven't done the<br>
>> research to say when they first started using the mark.<br>
><br>
> Read above.<br>
<br>
</div>Zaptel Corporation apparently started using the mark in 1999 or<br>
before, the date of the registration of the mark. Digium (previously<br>
Linux Support Services) released the first version of Zaptel, version<br>
0.1.0, in 2001.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>> Digium has<br>
>> paid staff attorneys, and if they made the determination that it was<br>
>> not worth pursuing, it's a pretty safe bet that Zaptel Corporation was<br>
>> using the mark first.<br>
><br>
> Doubtful, There was a three year moratorium on transitioning from the Zaptel<br>
> name. You would probably have noted that if you really knew the true story.<br>
<br>
</div>I was working for Digium at the time. There was no three year<br>
moratorium, just that Digium was busy on other things, and Zaptel<br>
Corporation had been really patient with Digium about the infringement<br>
of their mark, but finally demanded that Digium do something about the<br>
infringement.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably because they had no leg to stand on, and Digium backed down which is usually the case.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, it was a win-win for Digium, they could get a trademark on their own name, cut out Jim Dixon and avoid the annoyance of this calling card company who would have probably backed down.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Did they sue or just make allegations?</div><div><br></div><div>You keep dodging the relevance of the usage of Asterisk being banned by Google Adwords at the same time that DAHDI was going on. I don't think there was ever response to Trixter's Open Letter to Digium, I will have to check.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think it was just kind of left out there to be forgotten. Whoops, we hold the trademark so we hold the power.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> So in 2005 the decision was made to change from Zaptel to something that<br>
> Digium could put a trademark on.<br>
<br>
</div>The decision was that since we were getting bitten by a trademark<br>
issue on the name, we would find a name that we could put a trademark<br>
on, such that we would not have to go through that rename a second<br>
time. There were lots of proposals internally, and the particular<br>
name (and spelling) of DAHDI was based upon a trademark search to<br>
ensure that we weren't infringing on anything else.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br>Doubtful, until I see a court date, there is no issue. The best they could do in court is force a name change...... No damages, I doubt they would even bother since the companies do completely different things. Jim still has his project name. </div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
>> Additionally, it matters not one whit when the Zapata Telephony<br>
>> Project started, only when Digium started using the mark. The Zapata<br>
>> Telephony project is a completely separate organization from Digium,<br>
>> and if they plausibly have a trademark on the Zaptel name, that does<br>
>> not extend to Digium. Separate organizations, separate trademarks.<br>
><br>
> Again, the driver for the first Tormenta card was called zaptel.<br>
<br>
</div>Irrelevant, because Digium never made the Tormenta ISA card.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>They made the drivers.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
> I did the research, the timelines on when Digium started using the Zaptel<br>
> name from the Zapata Telephony project are not defined and I cannot find the<br>
> code. I will check the repo and see how far it goes back, to .3 I think,<br>
> frame relay.<br>
<br>
</div>Zaptel version 0.1.0, released in late 2001, was the earliest version<br>
I could find.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>See, it is difficult. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
>> >> >> The maintainers of app_rpt have made a strategic decision that<br>
>> >> >> they don't want to do the work to make their code compatible with<br>
>> >> >> DAHDI. There's no technical reason why they couldn't -- there's<br>
>> >> >> several competing hardware manufacturers who have kept pace and made<br>
>> >> >> their work compatible with DAHDI.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Who are these competing vendors???? I know of zero.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Let's start with Xorcom, whose drivers are distributed with DAHDI.<br>
>> >> There are others, some of which work with DAHDI drivers as<br>
>> >> distributed, some of which modify DAHDI post-distribution.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > What is the model or name of the Xorcom Radio Interface? You are being<br>
>> > very<br>
>> > vague and I cannot find that product offering.<br>
><br>
> You snipped a link of mine that makes your look like a silly boy. It isn't<br>
> proper to snip links to change the context of discussion.<br>
<br>
</div>I snipped a link that was utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You<br>
went off on a tangent insisting that I had said Xorcom created a radio<br>
interface, and I did not. I reincluded the relevant paragraph from a<br>
previous email, to remind you exactly what I said.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My mistake, I mistook what you wrote with "competitors", there are no competitors as far as I know.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">
>> I never said that there were competing radio interfaces, only that<br>
>> other companies had kept pace with the changes in DAHDI for their<br>
>> hardware. Xorcom makes a USB-based channel bank, among other<br>
>> offerings, and their xpp USB driver interface was distributed with<br>
>> Zaptel and is still distributed with DAHDI today.<br>
><br>
> And there are several vendor who didn't. Digium botched up, said DAHDI was<br>
> going to be a find and replace function of Zaptel and then sure enough broke<br>
> a bunch of stuff that you claim they did not break. LOL.<br>
<br>
</div>Where exactly did I say that they didn't break anything? I agreed<br>
that the radio interface was broken, and the Zapata Telephony team<br>
made a strategic decision not to update their driver to work with the<br>
new release.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, I may have made a mistake, in this thread, Sean Bright said it. I think in the other thread you "may" have said it, I will have to re-read.</div><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> It is OK to be wrong, I have been involved in this much longer then you.<br>
> Ignorance to these things is to be expected.<br>
<br>
</div>I've been involved in this project since at least mid-2002, and there<br>
is publically archived evidence to that fact:<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020723050749/http://asterisk.drunkcoder.com/" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20020723050749/http://asterisk.drunkcoder.com/</a>.<br>
Unfortunately, the older list archives have long since been lost.<br>
When did you get involved?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sometime in 2002, so I stand corrected. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
-Tilghman<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Steve Totaro </div></div>