Fighting for freerecyling

Just added this blog to technorati

As part of my approach to increasing my blog’s visibility… See the sidebar for Blog Information.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | | Leave a comment

The future of freecycling starts here and now

I have opened a proposal on fcnext for the future of freecycling. This is a proposal, not a point for discussion. I am happy for the proposal to be rejected, since it will save me a lot of work. If it is acceptable then there is a poll for members to indicate assent.

The poll closes in a week on the 5th October. If accepted then a board will be formed in the following week. After which I would hope focus groups to be formed made up of freecycling moderators of all freecycling groups around the globe.

This then will become the de facto way that freecycling would go forward. Remember right now this is a proposal, not a debate. Therefore I ask the fcnext moderators to delete any and all comments should they appear, unless they are a simple assent or dissent.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | , | Leave a comment

You have been warned!

It has happened before, and is it now about to happen again. Moderators everywhere are totally afraid of speaking out about TFN in case TPTB report them to Yahoo for “trademarking abuse”, which in the past has resulted in group deletion, sometimes without not notice!

Yahoo, PLEASE listen to me. Stop doing this. TFN’s trademark claims are in total disrepair. For them to instruct you to delete a single group is a total abuse of common decency and that fact that they quote that at any group that speaks to a journalist surely is to be discouraged.

Dare I add this link? How soon will it be before this group is deleted/delisted? 10 seconds, and counting…

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | , , , | Leave a comment

Badly conceived, badly executed, result was…

The Ninth Circuit added some further comments to their judgement, as highlight by MVS Blawg – Filewrapper.

“Interestingly, the Ninth Circuit extended its analysis to include TFN’s essential request of preventing a party from using a mark in a generic sense.  TFN was at risk of having its mark become generic, and therefore lose its ability to distinguish its services.  Unfortunately for TFN, the Lanham Act does not provide a means to prevent others from using a trademark in a generic sense or expressing one’s opinion as to the strength of a mark, or encouraging others to do so.  Therefore, Oey’s actions and his encouraging of others to take action are not actionable under the Lanham Act.”

This court case, brought by TFN was ill-conceived from the outset, if you listen to the audio of the hearing a month or so ago there is ample evidence that the delivery on behalf of TFN was done badly.  Now how did that result go?

Freedom of speech 1, TFN 0.

The word on the block is that Deron is going to try to spin this as a win for TFN.  Good luck is all I can say.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | Leave a comment

Phenomenal growth of The Freecycle Network

There is an interesting spin regarding the way TFN goes on with its trademarking fiasco regarding the growth of freecycling across the globe. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the whole argument in favour of trademarking is that somehow it “protects” the movement.

I simply ask, WHAT! Is this movement in need of protection?

My guess is that Deron is fearful, and probably cannot sleep at nights in case some big corporate such as say WMI or Microsoft, or even Yahoo, or whoever comes in and grabs the word freecycle and thereby takes over the world of freecycling.

Let us just study this for an instant. Firstly if there is one thing we can all agree on is that Deron knows how to send out and email. He did, for example send one out in 2003, was it March or May or something like that. It advertised a bed he no longer wanted. Almost overnight 500 members were responding that they wanted his bed. Oops, sorry, I mean to say that 500 people were offering similar beds. Nope, even that is wrong, now what was it…

Oh, yes, freecycling was somehow born.

Now perhaps someone can enlighten me as to when exactly Deron got it into his head that trademarking was the way to go, but my guess out of the four year history of TFN it was probably just over two years ago. So let’s just say that trademarking and cease and desist letters have been going around for just over two years. Now think, if you will dear reader what this has meant to the phenomenal growth of TFN that its powers that be laud on about so much.

  • The first two years… Well it is certainly true that before trademarking was ever started TFN had phenomenal growth. Surely that is why Deron got it into his head to start trademarking, that because of phenomenal growth that trademarking was somehow “worthwhile”.
  • The second two years… It is also true that since divisive trademarking started TFN has had phenomenal growth. Surely that is why Deron got it into his head to continue trademarking, that because of trademarking phenomenal growth was somehow going to be a reality.

(Actually in the latter paragraph the phenomenal growth has been stilted a little since there have been a surge of groups that have either been ejected or otherwise left the fold. In reality this has never impacted on TFN’s statistics on number of groups, since always TFN creates one or more AstroTurf groups to “replace” them. But that is a digression.)

The point here is that there is absolutely no common sense argument in favour of TFN’s trademarking war. There never was, and there never will be. All trademarking has done for the freecycling world is to create its own cesspool where personal emotions and egos fly high in a battle, sometimes actually fought over in a court of law.

I mean what did all the time, resources (including Deron’s time) and money (much of it virtual) spent in the US courts have to do with removing items from landfill, or building freecycling communities?

Sadly trademarking is all to do with someone’s ego, Q.E.D.

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | , , , | 1 Comment

We are not here to try to close TFN, and never were

If I can quote from the 43(B)log post regarding the Oey versus TFN decision in favour of Oey,

Also, Oey didn’t disparage TFN’s goods or services; rather, many of his statements “appear aimed at ensuring the ongoing success of TFN and its services.” He said things like, “Let everyone know that TFN does not need to control freecycling for TFN to be successful”; “[Keeping the term ‘freecycle’ in the public domain] fits well with a ‘viral’ marketing approach to freecycle. People hear about it and want to know where it came from–which will lead back to [TFN] without strong trademark enforcement. It will also generate lots of goodwill”; and “My alternative also has consequences but I firmly believe it is a much better choice for [TFN] in the long run.” (TFN might consider itself damned with faint praise.) Continue reading

September 28, 2007 Posted by | freecycle | , , , , , | Leave a comment