Community
Participate
Working Groups
Currently, before the project can be created, EMO performs a trademark search and if the name is being contributed along with the code (as opposed to created at proposal time), the contributing company must sign a trademark transfer agreement. This can introduce significant delays, as it involves getting two legal departments to agree. In the meantime, the project team is unable to get started. I propose that EDP be amended so that the trademark search and execution of trademark agreement (where necessary) be deferred to incubation stage. This would be similar to how IP review of contributions is handled.
FWIW, our current process of doing the trademark search/reassignment tends to go rather smoothly. I'm not sure how I feel about amending the process to handle relatively rare corner cases. I'm thinking of the amount of process we'll have to put in place to undo a project creation if a late-stage review uncovers problems.
Just frustrated with how long this has been taking for Sapphire. In many ways, the argument for this change is similar for what created parallel IP process. Given choice, project teams are generally willing to accept certain amount of risk of having to back-pedal if it means getting going quicker. It would be good to get some idea regarding the frequency of trademark review uncovering problems that required name change. I can think of one example... Mylyn. Others? I would think that if the frequency of problems is on the low side that there would be an overall benefit to allowing this to run in parallel to other startup activities.
(In reply to comment #2) > I would think that if the frequency of problems is on the low side that there > would be an overall benefit to allowing this to run in parallel to other > startup activities. As a general rule, I agree. However, modifying the process will require effort; and bandwidth is currently in low supply around here.
Is that something that the community can help with? I wouldn't mind helping to draft the revisions...
Sure. But keep in mind that there are legal issues to consider. IANAL, but I am concerned that creating a project--even temporarily--that violates somebody else's trademark could have serious negative repercussions. The Foundation will be very risk averse in this area.
Of course. Perhaps we can structure something similar to the way parallel IP works. First a quick pass and a decision of whether to grant parallel status. If granted, the project can be created while research and paperwork continues. If the quick pass identifies potential problems, then the foundation would have the discretion to deny parallel status. May be not relevant in many cases, but in case of Sapphire, this would have saved at least a month. I will draft proposed text changes for review.
The delay you are experiencing is both rare and unfortunate. Most Eclipse projects move through the process without difficulty. The timing of our Trademark review is designed to balance risk and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort (e.g. a scenario where a project is created under one name, only to find after the fact that it must be changed to another). The gate to creation often serves also as a motivator for companies to engage in Trademark assignment discussions. In our experience, after a Project has been created, it is often more difficult to get a company to engage in these discussions. Given the balance we believe we are able to achieve with our current processes, we are not in favour of changing anything at this time. Janet
It is the same consideration and balancing act as the rest of the IP review, right? From the conservative legal position, you want to complete all of that before allowing any work on the project. From the position of encouraging forward progress, it is essential that as many things as possible run in parallel. The middle ground that balances both positions is parallel IP process. It could be extended to cover trademark review. The risk of having to rename a project after the fact can be mitigated by doing a quick review pass to flush out obvious problems as part of granting (or not) of the parallel status. > The gate to creation often serves also as a motivator for companies to engage > in Trademark assignment discussions. In our experience, after a Project has > been created, it is often more difficult to get a company to engage in these > discussions. Going to a parallel process would only move this gate, not remove it. Project backers would still be motivated to engage in the trademark assignment discussions, but those discussions can happen in parallel to other activities on the project. > The delay you are experiencing is both rare and unfortunate. Most Eclipse > projects move through the process without difficulty. Yes, I understand that. However, we should work on eliminating delays where sensible and possible regardless of how many projects that affects. Delays of any sort affect business and make Eclipse less of an attractive place to conduct open source development. Sapphire has been delayed almost two months by this. Process started on 7/29. As of 9/21, it looks like we are almost there. I'd like to help future projects from experiencing similar frustration.
I'm marking this as WONTFIX. As Janet has stated, this is a relatively rare corner case.
