<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:21 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 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>
</div><div class="im">>> > <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 commerce<br>
>> > was<br>
>> > at the latest 1999 and probably earlier. I cannot find the original BSD<br>
>> > driver for the first Tormenta card, but that was the start of the Zaptel<br>
>> > Telephony Project. If it was before the federal filing date, then 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 layman.<br>
<br>
</div>Clearly, you need to re-read it yourself. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wrong, I understand and looked into the founding of the company and the entire history.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Read above.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Doubtful, There was a three year moratorium on transitioning from the Zaptel name. You would probably have noted that if you really knew the true story. So in 2005 the decision was made to change from Zaptel to something that Digium could put a trademark on.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, the driver for the first Tormenta card was called zaptel. </div><div><br></div><div>I did the research, the timelines on when Digium started using the Zaptel name from the Zapata Telephony project are not defined and I cannot find the code. I will check the repo and see how far it goes back, to .3 I think, frame relay.</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>
</div><div class="im">>> > 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 very<br>
> vague and I cannot find that product offering.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You snipped a link of mine that makes your look like a silly boy. It isn't proper to snip links to change the context of discussion.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">
</div>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>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And there are several vendor who didn't. Digium botched up, said DAHDI was going to be a find and replace function of Zaptel and then sure enough broke a bunch of stuff that you claim they did not break. LOL.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is OK to be wrong, I have been involved in this much longer then you. Ignorance to these things is to be expected.</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>
<br>
--<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Steve T </div></div>