RE: [chat] Re: NZ Company resuses to duplicate Knoppix CDs

["Jon Biddell" <jon@xxxxxxxxx>]

-=> So there is a non-compete clause. The clause probably
-=> is there because they
-=> may be sole producer for Microsoft software CDs in New
-=> Zealand. The question
-=> I ask myself is: If I am a major software manufacturer
-=> and I give sole
-=> rights of production to a company then maybe I want
-=> this company in exchange
-=> to give up the right to produce competing products.
-=> Moral? I don't know.
-=> Fact is that is probably the situation and it makes
-=> sense from the business
-=> point of view.

Leaving out the non-compete clause, WHAT COMPETITION ?  All they are
doing is producing copies of a CD-ROM for a client - the contents of
that CD-ROM are irrelevant to their business - in fact, provided
they are assured that said CD-ROM contains nothing illegal, it is
questionable whether they even have the right to know what's on
there.

Posting this wasn't meant to be M$ bashing, just pointing out a
ridiculous business practice.

-=> I would enjoy a discussion how the following product is
-=> in any way legal:
-=>
-=> http://www.lsl.com.au/reference/dual-linux-may03-note.php
-=>
-=> 1. It's a duplication of GPL code including trademarks.

Which , on teh face of it, appears to be legal (caveat: more
research is required)

-=> 2. It creates a new product based on two commercial
-=> products (probably
-=> without permission of the original owners)

Assumption: you don't know that the original copyright owners didn't
give their permission.

And even if they didn't, I can't see that this isn't covered by the
GPL.

-=> 3. It puts the two original products in direct
-=> competition (This makes the
-=> Microsoft non-complete clause seem reasonable to avoid
-=> such acts.) which the
-=> original owners may not have intended or given permission to.

Not necessarily correct - if places two 'competing' products on the
same media, but does nothing as far as I can see to promote one over
the other.

I have the same setup at home on my server - Mandrake and Redhat
distros on the server for installation - I use SuSE for the server,
Redhat for a 'crash and burn' box, and Mandrake for my 'production'
workstation, and at work.

>To sum this up I can only agree with a duplication company asking
questions
>when they duplicate images. It is their business to ask the
customer: Do you
>own the rights to duplicate this image? Last I know all the Linux
companies
>selling duped CDs on the web never asked for the right to duplicate
products
>(trademarks contained within them).

I disagree - their 'duty of care' would be limited to getting the
client to sign an agreement releasing the company from any and all
liability for any lawsuits, trademark infringements, etc. Of course,
if the CDs are to be labelled, there would need to be discussion
about trademarks, etc.

After all, when you look at what is being done, all they are doing
is duplicating an "electronic image" - the company shouldn't care
about, nor should it be held responsible for the contents of said
image.

Different story if thew company itself was duplicati ng and selling
illegal copies of things, as they would have to know the contents
and would know that they were illegal.

A case, from the company's POV, of "ignorance is bliss".

>Which has a greater legal power? GPL or trademark law? More
lawsuits to
>come....

Yes, most definately there needs to be a 'test case' - I'm not a
practicing Lawyer (I was 15 years ago, but that's another story),
and am not up on current legislation, but it would seem that all the
company in question did was reject a valid customer request and give
themselves a bad name in the process.