

License agreement for using the term "Hackathon" - cedel2k1
https://my.doctape.com/s/t3fQl7

======
Mithaldu
On their website ( <http://www.young-targets.com/free-licences/> ) they claim:
"There will be no license fees for the use of the trademark “hackathon” for
non-commercial purposes in Germany. ... There will no wave of lawcease-and-
desist letters rolling through Germany."

Yet looking at the details of the doctape hackathon, it's a free event with
free food for the participants. You could argue that it might have some
commercial character since participants are expected (mind you, not forced,
only expected) to hack up something doctape-related. However i'm fairly sure
this does not fall under the definition of a commercial event.

With this Lutz and his friends have tipped the card and made clear their
intentions of simple extortion.

------
Udo
So it's all about the 2500 € licensing fee. That didn't take long, the ink on
the Trademark registration is barely dry. Trademarking a common term and then
extorting licensing fees is a disgusting business practice, but I can see how
they'll get away with it since "Hackathons" are such a niche thing.

As I said in the thread where the registration was discovered, it's a real
shame nobody discovered this during the (long) period where we could still
have filed an objection to the Trademark. Now it's too late.

Someone will have to try and fight this in court.

~~~
atuttle
I think this is a honest attempt at creating a gatekeeper for the use of the
term and protect it from corporate interest. I also believe that the example
of the doctape hackathon shows how this attempt does not work very well.

~~~
Udo
So a company extorting money from anyone who uses a common phrase to organize
a certain type of event is what you perceive as being a " _gatekeeper for the
use of the term and protect it from corporate interest_ "? In what kind of
backwards universe does that even make sense?

In the original thread about the Hackathon trademark you advertised for
Nachtausgabe's IT recruitment "branch":
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5650052>

Are you by any chance working for them or an affiliate company?

~~~
atuttle
I think I was not clear enough: I too believe that registering the term as a
trademark does no good to the developer community. But I don't think that the
reasons behind this have to be some kind of extortion scheme, or that the
reasoning for the trademark (<http://www.young-targets.com/free-licences/>)
have to be completely made up. I would like to see the trademark go away, I
just don't like how quickly accusations came up.

>Are you by any chance working for them or an affiliate company?

No.

~~~
Udo
_> But I don't think that the reasons behind this have to be some kind of
extortion scheme_

Well, that is what is _actually happening_ out there as we speak, so there is
really no room for interpretation here. It's clear what their scheme is and
they implemented it as quickly as they possibly could.

 _> I would like to see the trademark go away, I just don't like how quickly
accusations came up._

That licensing extortion letter looked pretty genuine to me, so I don't think
this falls under the definition of mere accusations anymore. Once again, it's
what's actually happening. They were accusations when the first thread about
the trademark started, but now there is actual hard evidence that our
assumptions were in fact correct. And just to be sure, it would not have made
any sense for that company to register the trademark if they did not have a
plan exactly like this. So it's not really a surprise either.

 _> No._

So there is absolutely no connection? I apologize if this is true and I'm
being overly cynical.

------
Mithaldu
They just updated their page with a note stating that they will delete the
trademark: <http://www.young-targets.com/free-licences/>

~~~
JMCQ87
At this point, I will only believe it after it happened.

------
devopstom
Just refer them to the reply of the case Arkell v. Pressdram in 1971.

<http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm>

