Hacker News Reader

Comment by alkonaut | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the point, they are charging to install software, is that upsetting? Is it the fact that it is free software they are charging for that is upsetting?

I can't see the standpoint of mozilla either, surely you can't be required to have permission to use a "brand name" just because you mention that you can install some software for a fee? EDIT: I did read mozillas terms, but still think it makes no sense.

If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?

View on HN

The point is that they're monetizing Mozilla property by using their trademarks and their name recognition without permission.

  If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?

Not if you use their trademarks to push your products and services.

Is the issue that there is a cost directly attributed to the trademarked software? If Dell lets users choose from a list of products to preinstall without cost would that then make it acceptable? What if the system has a fixed fee for build/setup? What if that fee is dependent on the number of different products chosen? At what point are they really "charging" for trademarked software?

I can see how it is a bad thing for Mozilla if dell charges and uses their trademark, but shouldn't it be easy to circumvent by just moving the charges around on the order page?

It would be extremely easy to circumvent.

Sell it as the Dell Software Power Bundle for 50 quid, or so. My take of the problem that there's a direct cost involved as soon as you add Firefox to your order and that's clearly against Mozilla's guidelines.

But what about "Fair Use"? Just owning a trademark doesn't give you the right to forbid other people using it. It's pretty clear from the wording that Dell is offering to install third party software. I'm pretty sure this doesn't violate the trademark, and I don't think Mozilla's policies apply in this case.

A violation of the trademark would be if Dell installed a custom fork of Firefox and called it "Firefox".

It's clear that you do not understand the legal issues here. Then again... it's clear that MOST people commenting here do not understand the law.

Dell is in CLEAR violation here. This is not really an arguable point. The questions really are:

a - why did Dell do something SO fking stupid? b - what is Mozilla going to do about it?

I suspect there are some emergency high level meetings going on at Dell right now.

Please explain why Dell is clearly violating the trademark. Just saying it's CLEAR (in capital letters) is not a sound argument.

If I put up a "Microsoft Windows security patch installation service [price tag]" on ad banners, it would be misleading and consider by most as a shady business. It would also likely attract the legal ire of Microsoft lawyers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com