Re: Comment on drafts in last call

[Thor Simon <tls%cs.stevens-tech.edu@localhost>]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 05:49:10PM +0200, jml%ssh.com@localhost wrote:
> 
> Regarding the Secure Shell I-D's presently in WG Last Call:
> 
> The name "SSH" is, and always has been, a major identifier of SSH
> Communications Security Corp. To protect the identifier in commercial
> settings, we have obtained trademark registration for the name in the
> United States, Europe, and Japan.

Hey, look!  Their low-quality, high-priced lawyers told them to "assert
their trademark rights" again in Yet Another feeble attempt to cover
up the fact that they screwed up.

Once more, folks, the real deal on this:

1) They have no trademark on "ssh" nor on "SSH".  They have only a
   trademark on *one particular typed representation* of the letters
   "ssh", as used in their corporate logo.

2) They have fraudulently claimed here and elsewhere that they own the
   name "ssh" and that nobody else can use it, when in fact they own
   only the rights to one particular drawing of those glyphs.

3) They have wasted countless time, effort, and money of the other
   participants in this working group with specious threats of legal
   action here and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, even their own law firm
   admits, in those very threats, that:

4) "SSH" is an abbreviation for "Secure Shell", and thus...

5) "SSH" cannot be trademarked, as abbreviations cannot be trademarked.

Need I mention that 6) "Secure Shell" is a generic term, which cannot be
trademarked, thus rendering this whole debate even more idiotic?

I have supplied copious documentation of all of these points both in this
forum and (with the help of Jason Thorpe) at an IETF meeting.  This
documentation has included copies of all trademark files, with full history,
for any mark containing "ssh" in its description, as well as copies of
extensive correspondence with attorneys, including the "smoking gun" letter
in which SSH's own counsel admits that "ssh" is an abbreviation.

As evidence of further duplicity, while originally attempting to coerce
this working group into changing the name of the protocol to "Secure Shell",
these same parties had a *pending trademark application for "Secure Shell"*.

This kind of continued harassment of other IETF participants is completely
unconscionable.  It is *precisely* why the IETF should have a policy
requiring authors or editors of standards-track documents to disclaim
trademark rights to the words used in the document title and to the protocol
name.  Unfortunately, when I last brought this up in POISSON, which our WG
chair suggested was the proper forum for these concerns, I was pretty much 
shouted down.

Perhaps the continued existence of the problem (unethical draft 
authors/editors naming protocols/standards so as to set up intellectual
property ambushes for other implementors) will serve to help persuade that
the problem is real, and that some solution needs to be found.

For the moment, it would be nice if *this particular* harassment would
stop, before it wastes enough of my time and money that it becomes
economical for me to simply seek a declaratory judgement to shut these
idiots up.  My lawyer is a nice guy and I don't like wasting his time
dealing with the corporate drone morons who are milking SSH Comm Oy for
billable hours after their own mistakes have helped make their own client's
position not only unethical, but also totally untenable.

Thor