osCommerce has been trademarked ™

By | August 17, 2009

On August 14th at 5 pm UK time the name ‘osCommerce’ became the registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd (owners and operators of the new osCommerce Project). It is not due for renewal until 2019.

This registration is valid within the United Kingdom, but it is also the only instance world-wide of a legally registered ‘osCommerce’ trademark. We are now entitled to be notified of any attempt by anyone else to register the name ‘osCommerce’ as a trademark elsewhere in the world.

This will allow us to proceed now to officially licence the use of our trademark, and ends the confusion over who is and is not entitled to legaly [sic] use the name osCommerce.

We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.

Miss Rhea Anthony (a.k.a. Vger)
Managing Director
eCommerce Ventures Ltd

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2512693 for anyone who is interested.

338 thoughts on “osCommerce has been trademarked ™

  1. enigma1

    Right lets get to the point. Do you know what will happen now if someone goes and modifies the osCommerce files, strips the original headers and instead adds Rhea’s trademark link with the name of her company? He then re-uploads the package to the open source repository sites.

    Given the documents floating around, someone will go to prison and ain’t gonna be Harald.

  2. Gary Post author

    Hey enigma1 – I don’t know, this sort of thing is way over my head, I am not a lawyer…

    I suspect that Rhea will be along shortly to supply the answer.

  3. TotallyFooked

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to destroy the oscommerce project by stealing its name in order to try to show people they own it, it’s name or it’s code or that they own the community. On the oscommerceproject their logo now shows an R within a circle indicating it is now a registered trademark… WTF is going on?!?!

    This all seems a bit strange to me and I am very disappointed. The next thing eCommerce Ventures Ltd may even write to Harald asking him to remove oscommerce from his logo as he in breach of TM rules yet ‘we’ are the community and the community is ‘us’ so what is going on? What if all developers and coders/designers get legal threats for using the powered by oscommerce message in the footer without adding:

    “oscommerce is a registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd”. Really in that event the disclaimer should read:

    “oscommerce is a registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd but the site you are visiting is made using oscommerce which was around years before eCommerce Ventures Ltd registered the name oscommerce. The oscommerce code is available from http://www.oscommerce.com and is GPL which means oscommerce can be freely distributed and edited but the oscommerce trademark belongs to eCommerce Ventures Ltd who require you to seek their permission before using their UK registered trademark called oscommerce which may be extended to other countries”

    In short, I agree with the views of most people expressed in clubosc and elsewhere: Vger and her company really should have made things easier by advertising her company as one that uses oscommerce as a base for its coding but in essence has a fork called ReadyCart (TM or R within a circle).

    It seems they are using and stealing the oscommerce name driven by greed and money, so by registering it as a TM is really a big fat slap in the face of all community members, I can see no justification for Vger to take this course of action, I think only someone with a strong hatred for Harald could have done all this but it is the oscommerce forum and it’s members that will ultimiately be TotallyFooked along with the brand name 🙁

    Anyone can easily have set up a company called eCommerce Vultures Ltd and provide an oscommerce based fork/store which was a registered trademark called ‘ReadyCart’. I think too many people will be disillusioned with Vger now.

    Is this part of the reason why fwrmedia left their team?

  4. TotallyFooked

    According to the IPO webiste any TradeMark can be appealed and then withdrawn from the person/company it was issued to IF a case can be made to prove someone has infringed on someone elses use of a name (and may have been done in bad form), in the case the oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle) name and Harald/oscommerce community!

    This is what it clearly states:

    “Once a trade mark has been registered there are several different forms of legal action you can take to challenge it.

    Legal costs

    Cost awards in proceedings before us are contributory, not compensatory.

    This means that the cost award is not going to cover all the costs of the proceedings and will only provide a contribution towards the costs of the “winning” party.

    We use a published scale of costs and have discretion to determine the level of the award.

    For further information on cost awards in proceedings please see Tribunal Practice Notices 4/2007 and 6/2008 in our professional section.

    If you decide to withdraw your application after we have received an opposition you will have to pay costs to the opponent. However, if you have demonstrated that proceedings were launched against you with no warning, giving you no chance to negotiate or reach a compromise without legal proceedings then there will be no award of costs issued against you.

    If you decide to defend your application against the opposition and lose the case, you will be required to pay costs to the opponent.

    If you are successful in defending your application you are unlikely to recover all your costs as any award we make is normally based on a set scale”

    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object.htm

    So—–What you say we all get together and file a complaint or go a step further by first listing the people who will complian and then agreeing a date and time for all of us to submit our case together. eCommerce Ventures Ltd can not be in a position to financially fight off everyone 🙂

    How about we all get together and save oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle). We can all make an application to make sure that AFTER our win we will allow the oscommerce trademark to belong to the community and its members which really means Harald. Don’t get me wrong, Haralds mismanagement of oscommerce has been a major factor in what Vger is doing but I prefer the oscommerce name be with Harald and the community rather than Vger and eCommerce Ventures Ltd

  5. Joop

    I am in.

    Online pposition through IPO doesn’t work,

    The current status of this trade mark does not allow you to file an opposition.

  6. TotallyFooked

    Anyone can apply to challenge a TradeMark once it has been issued: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object/t-afterreg/t-afterreg-intervention.htm

    I may use an oscommerce (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle) website to see how many people are willing to register their opposition to eCommerce Ventures Ltd applying for the oscommerce name and then when the time is right they will all be sent out an email stating a date and time to submit their individual case for opposition.

    Any ideas on how to proceed will be appreciated

  7. enigma1

    “I’d suggest that anyone considering opposition to the TM”

    Opposition to the TM? Honestly I don’t see a debate about this scam. Someone comes along steals or attempt to steal the osCommerce copyright that’s about it.

    Anyone implicated, bears responsibility and that does not exclude or give an excuse to the UK IPO or whoever posts this as “news” and promotes this scam.

    “enigma1, i can’t really follow you can you please elaborate ?”
    which part to elaborate on? What I mentioned already happened in part, here is an example, just see the copyright headers:
    http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=335822&view=findpost&p=1399354

  8. TotallyFooked

    This what Vgers website shows in the footer:

    Copyright © 2009 The osCommerce Project.

    Owned and operated by eCommerce Ventures Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 6833607

    the name osCommerce is the Registered Trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd within the United Kingdom, Registration Number: 2512693. Unauthorised use prohibited.

    What a shame she has resorted to this

  9. TotallyFooked

    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-other/t-object/t-afterreg/t-afterreg-invalid.htm

    Invalidation
    Invalidation is the legal procedure that allows anyone to try and remove a registered trade mark from our register. You may apply to remove the entire registration, or only some of the goods or services it covers.

    If you start invalidation proceedings, you become the ‘applicant’ in the case.

    The main reasons why you may want to invalidate, or partly invalidate, the registration of a trade mark are:

    you think the trade mark is one which is not unique to the proprietor and should be free for you (or anyone) in that line of trade to use; or
    you own a trade mark (which does not have to be registered itself) which is the same as, or similar to, the proprietor’s trade mark.

    ==So it seems hopefully soon a few of us will get together and pay £200 to get the ball rolling on behalf of the oscommerce community (dot com, not oscommerce registered trademark capital R within a circle)

  10. Vger

    @ Gary “I suspect that Rhea will be along shortly to supply the answer.”

    There’s a lot of comment here about the IPO and its procedures etc, with some very partial extracts from their website. So let’s get down to it:

    1. Yes, an appeal can be lodged against an existing trademark, but only after a legal appeal has been lodged can others jump into with free objections tagged onto the legal appeal.

    2. Yes, starting an arbitrated appeal only costs £200 plus tax. They advise that the parties concerned try to resolve their differences before hand. Each party must agree to meet the costs awarded against them if it is to proceed. They do say that the costs are “normally” only partial costs, but also advise that these “partial costs” can still run into thousands of pounds.

    3. So, for instance, if there were a legal appeal against our trademark and we lose we may have to pay a couple of thousand towards the legal costs of the winner. But I have no idea what the full legal costs of the winner in mounting the challenge would be.

    4. Before anyone gets too wound up with this I advise that they take a look at the casework of the appeals against registered marks, as we have. They’re all available on the IPO website.

    Harald has already said he is taking legal counsel on this, so my advice to people on the sidelines is to let him get on with that.

    I previously said in response to a post by Peter Bernard, when he said he’d bunged off an email objecting to the application, that “this isn’t kids stuff”, and I stick by that.

    I have no doubt that there were many objections lodged to the original application (at least that’s what our opponents said) and they were obviously considered but disregarded by the IPO.

    If there is a legal post-registration appeal and it goes against us then so be it – that’s the law and we will just have to abide by it.

    Vger

  11. TotallyFooked

    Vger said
    1. Yes, an appeal can be lodged against an existing trademark, but only after a legal appeal has been lodged can others jump into with free objections tagged onto the legal appeal.

    And this is where the oscommerce community will jump in and lodge free complaints against eCommerce Ventures Ltd registering the oscommerce trademark.

    Vger said
    2. Yes, starting an arbitrated appeal only costs £200 plus tax. They advise that the parties concerned try to resolve their differences before hand. Each party must agree to meet the costs awarded against them if it is to proceed. They do say that the costs are “normally” only partial costs, but also advise that these “partial costs” can still run into thousands of pounds.

    Each party does not ‘have’ to agree to meet the others costs. After the community lodge their complaints the IPO will swiftly resolve the matter with minimal legal costs anyway.

    Vger said
    3. So, for instance, if there were a legal appeal against our trademark and we lose we may have to pay a couple of thousand towards the legal costs of the winner. But I have no idea what the full legal costs of the winner in mounting the challenge would be.

    I think once the IPO give a quick end to this matter and give the oscommerce name to Harald your company may be open to other litigation by Harald and the oscommerce team for it seems according to some people you have tried to show that the oscommerce name and intellectual property belongs to you.

    You thought you would control the use of the name oscommerce? You thought you would licence its use to selected partners and assocaites? You will do no such thing when hundreds of people jump in and back up Harald with fee free applications against your company.

    You can still walk away from this with some good will, just approach someone who talks to both you and Harald and make arrangements to have the trademark registered to him and stop using the name ‘oscommerceproject’ and instead use ReadyCart and register that as your trademark and domain. Please think about it for the community, I don’t have much time for Harald because without a doubt he has played a major role in the non progression of oscommerce but please just think about being humble and end this sad little episode and start afresh with your oscommerce based fork called ReadyCart.

  12. Eddy

    This is an absolute disgrace and as a user of oscommerce for many years i will be watching this closely and will be more than happy to chuck in a few quid to Harald if and when he needs it to defend the oscommerce name as well as lodging a complaint when it becomes available.

    It’s a shame that some people think they can get away with stealing from other people, and basically rip the entire community at large off…

  13. Vger

    “Each party does not ‘have’ to agree to meet the others costs. After the community lodge their complaints the IPO will swiftly resolve the matter with minimal legal costs anyway.”

    You obviously haven’t read the site like we have. Both sides in the legal arguement to have to agree to costs if they lose. They do advise that even “partial costs” can run into thousands of pounds.

    True – those who complain in support of a legal appeal wouldn’t be bound for costs – but I’m not talking about them.

    Vger

  14. TotallyFooked

    Eddie said:

    This is an absolute disgrace and as a user of oscommerce for many years i will be watching this closely and will be more than happy to chuck in a few quid to Harald if and when he needs it to defend the oscommerce name as well as lodging a complaint when it becomes available.

    It’s a shame that some people think they can get away with stealing from other people, and basically rip the entire community at large off…

    You are right there will will be plenty of people willing to part with a few quid to fight for the cause. The more I see and read on this topic the more disgusted I become.

    Vger can still walk away from this with some good will, she needs approach someone who talks to both her and Harald and make arrangements to have the trademark registered to Harald and she should stop using the name ‘oscommerceproject’ and instead use ‘ReadyCart’ and register that as her trademark and domain. Vger should start afresh with herr oscommerce based fork called ReadyCart.

  15. Xpajun

    So has Vger lots of pennies to take everyone to court over misuse of her “trademark” and will the courts agree with her that the trademark is valid having been registered errrr…… how many years after the term osCommerce was first coined??

    It’s one thing to ™ but quite another very expensive thing to keep it exclusive

    Just remember the Beatles lost a very expensive case over Apple with Apple Mac

  16. Sol

    Vger

    I have to say I’m totally shocked. I have traded knowledge with you on a few instances in the past, through the OSC forums and you seem a decent, intelligent person. No doubt you have grown a lot through your (free and unhindered) use of OSC, as I have and many thousands of others too….

    So – why the heck are you doing this? It doesn’t make sense!

    Is it purely the commercial aspect that motivates you?

    I agree with the above commentators and appeal to your better judgement that you end this amicably, if not for yourself, then for the sake of so many, many people in the community, for the integrity of the GNU and Open Source concept, and for this iconic product.

    If you choose to continue with this madness, I’ll be ready – along with so many others, to get my chequebook out and support Harald and OSC to defeat you.

    Don’t underestimate the loyalty you’re up against.

  17. TotallyFooked

    Vger should apologise to the oscommerce community for her actions and â„¢ ReadyCart.

  18. Joop

    Hi All..

    Just a small update. Our legal counsel have been busy and have reviewed an unexpected proposition provided by eCommerce Ventures Ltd. More information will be provided in due course.

    Kind regards,

    An ‘unexpected proposal’ worth reviewing ?

    The only proposal should be to give the name ‘oscommerce’ back to the community which is deffending it.

  19. Joop

    This one is just plain funny, Vger crying that somebody stole the name ‘osQuantum’ and registered it at sourceforge.

    Her post from the oscommerceproject website

    ‘Some time ago we announced that the name of the new cart we are building would be “osQuantum”. Following that announcement a supporter of the old project – Peter Bernard a.k.a. “Java Roasters” and “abcommerce” – registered a fake project under that name on Source Forge. Presumably this was to prevent us from registering it there.

    Source Forge upheld our complaint and stripped Peter Bernard of his fake project. We have now registered osQuantum for our use on Source Forge.

    Either close to the time of our 1st Alpha Release, or at the time of the 1st Alpha Release, we will make our code available from Source Forge and other locations.

    Vger’

  20. Java Roasters

    Vger is always a good laugh, she cracks me up. An amusing interlude to my day but now I must get back to work.

  21. TotallyFooked

    @javaroasters

    Vger was a good member of oscommerce, I dont understand why she would try to destroy oscommerce by partioning it. It seems it was done for making money as well as getting her own back at Harald. As for you making mischief at sourceforge, does she have any proof because she is hardly the most honest person after what she did with oscommerce TM

  22. Vger

    Peter Bernard (Java Roasters and abcommerce) did contact me to accuse me, once again, of lying. He said that we has not complained about his fake ‘osQuantum’ project to Source Forge and that he had given it back to us because not holding it was causing problems for us (as if anyone would believe that with his record of opposition to us).

    No doubt you won’t believe us, but perhaps you’ll believe Source Forge, who said:

    “We’ve reviewed your complaint and have removed the ‘osquantum’ project (registered by the ‘abcommerce’ user) from SourceForge.net today. This namespace is now free for you to use in registering a presence on SourceForge.net 🙂

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”

    Vger

  23. Java Roasters

    Vger is always a good laugh, she cracks me up. An amusing interlude to my day but now I must get back to work.

  24. TotallyFooked

    Vger has lost all credibility since starting this madness, she will never be able to build up that respect and reputation again. Its a shame really but she can still do a good deed and save herself from an even bigger oscommerce backlash by accepting what she did was wrong and owning up to it and asking for the oscommerce team and community to forgive her.

  25. Joop

    @javasroasters

    She is still good for a laugh and for even better laughs!
    ———————————————————-

    By Vger August 23 2009 1:20 PMPDT
    The address at Source Forge of the real osQuantum:

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/osquantum/

    The earlier poster is just another of those trying to disrupt our work – and failing as always. Extremely childish, but that’s all we’ve come to expect from them, infantile beyond words.

    Vger

  26. TotallyFooked

    Looks like shes going to hand over the trader mark in a couple of days. Who can believe her and trust her from now on?

  27. Vger

    osQuantum is registered at Source Forge simply because the 1st Alpha release of the new cart will be made available for download from there and at other locations.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with our osCommerce trademark. There’s obviously some wishful thinking taking place on your part.

    Vger

  28. TotallyFooked

    @ Vger

    I for one wish you the best with osQuantum, I am still unsure exactly what your source code is or will be – is it based on oscommerce and is a fork? Or is it a completely different piece of unique coding you and your team created?

    I do wish you success with osQuantum however I also wish this IPO problem can be dealt with without further delay.

  29. Joop

    You already have her answer,

    ‘There’s obviously some wishful thinking taking place on your part.’

  30. Vger

    osQuanum is totally new software, with not a line of osCommerce coding in it. It uses the Kohana framework, uses MVC architecture and is pure PHP 5 OOP.

    You can use any type of database – MySQL, Postgre SQL, MS SQL etc.

    You can use any type of template engine – your choice.

    The first Alpha release is due out by end of January – which is not that far away now.

    Vger

  31. Gary Post author

    “osQuanum [sic] is totally new software, with not a line of osCommerce coding in it.”

    If this is truly the case, why on earth have you started a “turf war” over the name osCommerce?

  32. Matti Ressler

    @Gary РIt has been postulated by a few that osQuanum has just been a diversion from the true intentions of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd while they continued on with what they thought would be the coup de gr̢ce of their narrow minded plot to take over osCommerce.

    As far as anybody can tell, no code whatsoever exists for this imaginary cart other than the Kohana framework (a bad choice IMO). From a business perspective, they have already shot themselves in the foot and many will be reluctant to touch anything they produce (if they ever do) with a barge pole (they are now actually missing a foot altogether, blew it right off with a cannon!).

    I hope that Harald and his team of lawyers pursue this to the full extent of the law. Criminals are criminals and I see no reason whatsoever to extend mercy to them, other than the money factor that always comes into play when reaching a settlement. This is certainly very good leverage in that respect.

    Matthijs van der Vegte just posted some of his latest thoughts on his blog: http://www.matthijs.org/vger_fail

  33. TotallyFooked

    @Matti

    I clicked the link, it was an amazing article written by Matthijs van der Vegte.

    Apparantly it seems Vger tried to buy the oscommerce domain from him too and then said she could have used a similar domain to start her own project but was offering him a chance to sell up.

    What on earth has gone wrong with that woman? Like the article states, she has lost all credibility even amongst those who have no time Harald. This is a real shame because once upon a time she was an oscommerce rock but she was no more or less disillusioned with Harald than you and I so what gave her the right to save or steal oscommerce and say she was doing it for the best of the community?

    I think Harald will first manage to get the oscommerce name transferred to him and then he will (or at least should) start legal proceedings for the detriment caused to him, the community and oscommerce and the fact that is seems blatant theft and financial motivation was the driving force behind ecommerce ventured limited attempts to ‘own’ oscommerce.

    If ecommerce ventures limited is sued by Harald they will have to settle out of court with Harald for the sake of saving barrister and solicitors fees but either way that effectively means the end of ecommerce ventures limited. All Vger had to do was call her project a fork and that would have been it, but she modified copyright headers in her version of RC2 and went on what seems to most as ‘on the rampage’.

    I hope she realises the damage she has done to the community even though inadvertantly she has unified everyone inthe community against her, including the anti-Harald brigade.

  34. Joop

    To be honest i am still not really pro-Harald.
    I think he did leave the community dangling for too long.

    But at least to my knowledge he didn’t try to steal anything from others or tried to make the community efforts sound as his own.

    So not really pro-Harald but anti-anti-anti-Rhea for sure.

  35. TotallyFooked

    7. On the 20th August we put forward a set of proposals to Mr Ponce de Leon which we hoped would resolve the situation without legal recourse. It appears that he had already by that date appointed Beck Greener as his legal counsel. Beck Greener is a UK based law firm specialising in Trademark and IP Litigation.

    She should put her hands up and own up to what she is doing! Instead she is trying to make a defence and it looks really bad

  36. Vger

    With regard to the allegations of breaching copyright.

    On the old osCommerce project website there is a statement that the Shop Front copyright can either be removed or modified.

    On the admin side of v2.0 it still says ‘copyright osCommerce’. It is also a link and it is true that the link takes people to our site, but that has nothing to do with the copyright text. It is there so that people get support in the right place. There is code in v2.0 which was never released as an add-on on the old projects’ website, so for people to look for support there would get the same response as requests there for support for CRE Loaded (they would be told to go elsewhere).

    With regard to any allegation of trademark violation – we hold a legal verifiable trademark. Our application went legally unchallenged over an “Opposition Period” of two months (although known about during the whole of that period and before).

    Vger

  37. TotallyFooked

    I find your stance on this disturbing Vger.

    The example on your website about trademarks is not fair is it? Why go make comparisons about trademarks and so on? If for example your company registers the name Rolls Royce is a country where the Rolls Royce owners have not registered the trademark then it is a dubious move on your part. And if you register the name and then sell cars with the Rolls Royce badge on it and even write to companies selling and repairing Roll Royce vehicles regarding litigation then you have to be prepared for a backlash. What may be legally allowed does not make it morally or ethically correct and it is just a matter of time before the name is withdrawn from your company so why not make a deal with Harald beforehand?

    At the end of the day it is without question that you will have the oscommerce name removed for your company ownership and it will go to Harald, this is a fact beyond doubt. All that remains to be seen is ‘when’ this will happen.

    Please settle with Harald without impractical conditions such as sharing the name etc. Please let it go and call your project something else and call it a fork because it is the best way for all parties and the community to move on.

    Think about it please.

  38. Matti Ressler

    @Vger

    Is this the opinion of your so called “specialist Trademark and IP Litigators”? I doubt it very much, since your remarks defy plain logic.

    Let me tell you from experience. Magistrates are definitely not the fools you seem to think the rest of the World are. When they see that you have trademarked osCommerce with the sole purpose of trying to exercise the rights that belong to the true osCommerce (just ask Gary, since you targeted him right away)and have as well altered the copyright notices in such a way as to lead reasonable people to think that your establishment IS osCommerce, they will very quickly rule that you have breached copyright. They will also rule that you are in dire breach of the Trade Descriptions Act, which is a criminal offense in the UK, plus other numerous breaches of trademark and copyright acts in the UK.

    Yes Vger, you do currently hold a trademark, however one which you have obtained unlawfully. I suggest that you take a look at your own country’s trademark laws, which have clear provisions and penalties for people like you who abuse the system.

    You do not hold a LEGAL trademark, this you will find out in due course. What you have was obtained by deception, omission and in a predatory way which your trademark laws describe as “bad faith”.

  39. Matti Ressler

    Quote Vger:

    “On the old osCommerce project website there is a statement that the Shop Front copyright can either be removed or modified.”

    Yes, it can be removed altogether or modified, for example: Copyright (c) 2009 MyWebsite.com

    It certainly cannot be modified in such a way as to make people believe that YOU and your company are “osCommerce”. It is an interactive copyright notice which identifies the site copyright holder. By default, it identifies osCommerce and their website. The way you have it, it identifies YOU as “osCommerce”, which you are not and never will be.

    Quote Vger:

    “On the admin side of v2.0 it still says ‘copyright osCommerce’. It is also a link and it is true that the link takes people to our site, but that has nothing to do with the copyright text.”

    It has everything to do with the copyright text. The original text in the admin footer is EXPLICIT, as is the advice given regarding it on the osCommerce website.

    /*
    The following copyright announcement is in compliance
    to section 2c of the GNU General Public License, and
    can not be removed, or can only be modified
    appropriately with additional copyright notices.

    For more information please read the osCommerce
    Copyright Policy at:

    http://www.oscommerce.com/about/copyright

    This comment must be left intact together with the
    copyright announcement.

    */

    (emphasis mine)

    I certainly understand the meaning of “can only be modified
    appropriately with additional copyright notices”. I also understand the meaning of “intact”. You clearly don’t…. yes, you do, you just pretend it is not there. Let me educate you, “intact” means that you cannot modify it in any way whatsoever. To be “modified appropriately with additional copyright notices means exactly that! Don’t touch the osCommerce copyright motice, however feel free to append your own if you have made modifications.

    You even went so far as to change the above URL to a page that does not even exist on your site!

    The “support site” link in the osCommerce admin is in the header.

    You will have a VERY difficult time arguing to an educated magistrate that a link contained in a copyright notice is insignificant.

    Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

  40. Matti Ressler

    @TotallyFooked

    My wife is a lawyer specializing in commercial law… she tells me what to look for 🙂

    (contact me)

    Matti

  41. Matti Ressler

    Yes, the *Evil Plot* in all it’s glory (puke).

    These very unprofessional and misspelled letters serve only to further strengthen the position of the true osCommerce in any legal action.

    Vger fell from grace a long time ago… no more feeling sad, since everybody has told her right from wrong. Personally, I would hit as hard as possible, no mercy.

  42. TotallyFooked

    I find it amazing that she actually sent those emails especially to the corporate oscommerce sponsor. What has gone wrong with that woman. Surely if osQuantum is going to be all new code and a state of the art shopping cart why does she insist on trying to make oscommerce hers? Anyone else would try and find a way out and settle with Harald out of IPO and out of court but she is still fighting what is surely a lost cause for herself.

  43. Matti Ressler

    From Tony Blacker’s (Director of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.) LinkedIn profile:

    “The new project aims to take osCommerce into the php5 era with a brand new platform”

    That is to say that “osQuantum” was only a ruse to try and shut people up. Control of the name “osCommerce” is their ultimate goal, along with the “brand awareness that osCommerce has” (quote Vger).

    These kind of public statements by directors of Ecommerce Ventures Ltd will be their ultimate undoing. That is to say, their motivation is a clear intention to steal the goodwill that people associate with “osCommerce”.

  44. TotallyFooked

    The more I read about Vger and her comments the more I am disgusted with her.

  45. Gary Post author

    Interesting that Will Langford doesn’t appear to be part of that project anymore. I’m still quite bothered by the fact that Gary Walker (GLCustoms) and John Oligario (Mibble) and Monika Mathe are involved – knowing these from the old forums I always thought of them as supporters of Open Source – obviously, never take people at face value! If they got out now, they could save their reputation I think. I don’t know anything of Thomas Hodges-Hoyland as he was never really an important player at the old forum.

    It’s interesting, isn’t it, that ALL of the other members of that project are silent. That in itself, screams “what a fsck up”.

  46. Gary Post author

    Some news of Monike Mathe.

    Having had cancer myself, I know just how tough a time this is for her.

    If YOU are the one(s) who are contacting her clients, please STOP immediately – it’s not fair on Monika’s clients or on Monika herself. You also let yourself down, badly – it’s not the actions of people who are fighting for Open Source ethos.

  47. Joop

    I am sorry to hear this about Monika.
    And of course on a personal level i do whish Monika strength in these difficult times and whish her well.

  48. Anonymous

    My thoughts to go out to Monika, and I hope people take note of Gary’s comment regarding petty groups ‘taking the law into their own hands.’

    However I do have to say that I find it incredible that vger is making an issue of this. The amount of hypocrisy that requires is amazing.

    In fact it is slightly sickening, vger herself is playing on Monika’s problems as much as those stupid people who have decided to contact her customers.

  49. TotallyFooked

    I think it is important to take a step back from the core issue which is what many see as disgusting behaviour by Vger by registering and then (what seems to be) trying to control the oscommerce name (trademark) in the UK with possible expansion under the Madrid Protocol.

    Yes Vger’s action are disgusting and in the end (very soon) her company will lose the trademark and Harald will have it, she will still at this late stage try and walk away from this with some kind of face or pride but forget her for a moment and forget her intentions.

    Without a doubt I am sure someone with the sound frame of mind like Monika would never have signed up to Vger’s pet project if she knew the furore that registering the trademark was going to bring. This could maybe be the reason why Robert Fisher (fwrmedia) resigned. I am sure we only get trickles of information that Vger wants us to know.

    I wish Monika good health. I hope her treatments bring her relief and a swift recovery, I would not wish any illnesses on anyone. I hope she can focus on getting through her treatments and considering her situation give oscommerce and all related projects a miss. Whoever is contacting Monika’s clients may be doing it without malice just to bring to her clients attention that she is associated with a company that seems to be trying to steal oscommerce but under the current cloud of her illness this needs to stop immediately please because Monika must be going through so much stress and fear with the cancer.

    It is not appropriate to mention Monika or any of the other people associated with the fork project that Vger created. It is obvious Vger is the ring leader and I blame her for the whole mess. Surely even her ‘team’ can see that if her project is described as a fork and is not using/passing off the name ‘oscommerce’ and is called osQuantum or alike and admits it was wrong to register oscommerce as a trademark then surely no one associated with oscommerce will have any ill-feelings to ecommerce ventures on the contrary most people will wish them success on their venture.

    I hope Monika gets well soon.

  50. Joop

    ‘and admits it was wrong to register oscommerce as a trademark then surely no one associated with oscommerce will have any ill-feelings to ecommerce ventures on the contrary most people will wish them success on their venture.’

    Don’t you think it’s a little bit late for that ?

    It started with the name ‘oscommerceproject’ which already had a lot of resistance.
    They had to wise up and leave the name ‘oscommerce’ allone but instead they trademarked it.

    You say ‘it’s only Vger’ but i disagree, it is everybody who didn’t leave the project as soon as the name was illegally trademarked.

    Don’t you wonder why there still isn’t any osQuantum forum and why they still insist on keeping the TM on there site evenso they know that in the unlikely event that the are granted the right to keep the TM it will be the dead of oscommerce as we know.

  51. Gary Post author

    “It is not appropriate to mention Monika or any of the other people associated with the fork project that Vger created. It is obvious Vger is the ring leader and I blame her for the whole mess.”

    I disagree – I hold the whole “team” responsible equally.

  52. Matti Ressler

    I am very saddened to hear of Monika’s illness and along with everybody else pray for her speedy recovery.

    As Gary notes, Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. are a company and a “team” and as such all are equally responsible. If somebody wishes to mitigate their responsibility, they should step down, as a number have already done (this does not necessarily remove liability).

  53. TotallyFooked

    I was under the impression that the ‘team’ were originally making a fork using the ‘oscanswers’ name and then somehow deviated away from that and began a mission to what clearly seems on stealing the oscommerce brand. It is this perceived theft that I am talking about, yes they all were part of the team but there was in all probability only one person pulling strings and that was Vger.

  54. Matti Ressler

    @TotallyFooked.

    If you have a read of this thread (whats left of it!), you will clearly see that “pulling strings” was not solely limited to Vger: http://forums.oscommerceproject.org/index.php?showtopic=763

    They were all involved and had “team meetings” to confirm their directions.

    Many years ago one of my nephews misbehaved badly and when his father scolded him he exclaimed “I didn’t know that I did it!”. That is ok for children, but not for adults.

  55. Joop

    I am talking about, yes they all were part of the team but there was in all probability only one person pulling strings and that was Vger.

    Some still ARE part or even recently joined the team.
    They are all well thinking people and even if Vger is pulling the (illegal) strings you disagree and walk away or you agree and stay or join.

    Vger probably did promised them large profits if they could steal the name oscommerce but they could have said ‘No thank you’.

  56. Joop

    ‘On another matter, and relating to the post above, we now have proof of further instances of the anonymous “oscommerce user” who has been approaching clients of Monika Math�. We have established that his Internet Service Provider is Australian, and based in a time zone which is 9 hours ahead of UK time and 10 hours ahead of Central European Time.

    We have provided details of his activities and forwarded the full headers to his ISP and requested disclosure of his real name and address.’

    And as soon as we have the address we will send our ‘Bobby’ !

  57. Joop

    I like the name better 🙂 🙂

    It’s mine, mine, mine, mine, mine,,,,,,,

    Sounds familiar

  58. TotallyFooked

    Matti I noticed you have been banned from Vger’s forum and had some posts deleted. I am surprised she has the freedom to post here given the dictatorship style of leadership and control she has over her own forum.

    Nice work pointing out the thread by Tony Blacker and a great reply to his statement. It is a pity he did not even write how sorry he was for what is perceived by many as theft of the oscommerce name.

  59. TotallyFooked

    @joop and “It’s mine, mine, mine, mine, mine,,,,,,,”

    LMAO!!

  60. Vger

    “Matti I noticed you have been banned from Vger’s forum and had some posts deleted.”

    Wrong again. He insisted we remove his profile and his posts, and we agreed to that request because under the forum rules pertaining at that time he had the right to make it.

    It was no great loss to us, just as it seems that it was no great loss to the other project when he was kicked off their team and banned from posting on their forums.

    So if you want to complain about him being banned and having some of his posts deleted you’re complaining to the wrong person.

    Vger

  61. TotallyFooked

    Vger what is going on? For the sake of putting an end to this mess please can you consider giving the trade mark to Harald with no preconditions and call your project as well as cart “osQuantum”.

  62. Vger

    @ Totally Fooked.

    I’m afraid that now this matter is in the hands of IP Litigators the matter is going to have to be resolved in a legal format, and for that reason we have to be circumspect in anything we say that relates to the legal issues.

    We are only able to comment on matters which do not impinge upon the legal issues being deal with between Harald Ponce de Leon and eCommerce Ventures Ltd.

    Vger

  63. TotallyFooked

    @ Vger

    I understand what you wrote but the bottom line is you will have to relinquesh control of the trade mark anyway so why drag the matter out? I have no doubt if you contact Harald through your legal team even at this time he will make a deal not to pursue any further claims against your company. Even on his thread he wrote the matter would end if you called your project a fork and renamed it.

    What is the problem with that? Let him pay you the £299 you originally paid to register the mark and let things be. Please consider it.

  64. Anonymous

    and as further evidence heres a header from one of the files.

    * @package osQuantum
    * @license http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GNU Public License
    * @link http://www.osquantum.org/ osQuantum
    * @copyright Copyright (c) 2009, eCommerce Ventures Ltd.
    * @version $Revision: 44 $
    * @author osQuantum Development Team
    * Last Developer: $Author: tom@hodges-hoyland.me.uk $
    * Last Modified: $Date: 2009-08-09 00:59:41 +0100 (Sun, 09 Aug 2009) $
    * @filesource

    got that from the svn repository before access was restricted.

  65. Joop

    That’s no secred if you have a look at the source:

    * @package osQuantum
    * @license http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html GNU Public License
    * @link http://www.osquantum.org/ osQuantum
    * @copyright Copyright (c) 2009, eCommerce Ventures Ltd.
    * @version $Revision: 44 $
    * @author osQuantum Development Team
    * Last Developer: $Author: tom@hodges-hoyland.me.uk $
    * Last Modified: $Date: 2009-08-09 01:59:41 +0200 (zo, 09 aug 2009) $

    But there’s nothing wrong with that is there ?

  66. Anonymous

    No there’s nothing wrong at all.

    I just found it interesting that they had set up an account on google code, using yet another name.

  67. Matti Ressler

    Licensing is complicated due to the fact that Kohana has a BSD license.

    That is, it is in no way possible for the entire package to be released as GPL.

  68. Gary Post author

    @TotallyFooked

    “I am surprised she has the freedom to post here given the dictatorship style of leadership and control she has over her own forum.”

    My belief is not to dictate what people can and cannot say – so here, on this blog, anything goes – so long as it is to do with the conversation at hand and does not contain any extreme swearing, hate, racial etc – we all know what I mean.

  69. Gary Post author

    Let’s not get sidetracked with the “neutrino” name – I’ve just seen that this was simply a working name at sourceforge – most likely because the osQuantum name was unavailable at time of registration on SF. And that’s all it was.

  70. ABCommerce

    Quote “osQuantum name was unavailable at time of registration on SF.”

    The osQuantum name was registered at sourceforge several days after their public announcement that they would be using the osQuantum name for their new cart. Their decision to use the osQuantum name was made in January several months before that.

    For osCommerceproject they registered all the top level domains, for osQuantum they registered a few of the top level domains

    For osCommerce they tried very hard to have the sourceforge project declared dead as then they could “own” the project. For osQuantum they must have forgotten to register it.

  71. Joop

    We ask your attention for the following missing person report.

    We are looking for Ms. Rhea Anthoney (aka. Vger) who is last seen September 6th, writing on this and other forums.

    The only description we have from her is that she is of averige height, age between 59 and 60 and that she is last seen wearing dark sunglasses.

    It is possible that she is held captive (presumably bound and gagged) somewhere in the vicinity of the headquarters of the well known gangster mob ‘eCommerce Ventures’.

    Anyone who gives us information about her whereabouts so she can be freed and speak again will be rewarded with a direct ban on all osCommerce related forums.

  72. TotallyFooked

    @ joop

    Huhuhbwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    At least there is some humour even after all the Vger and her team have done to oscommerce.

  73. Joop

    It’s quiet on the forums, everybody must be listening to the ‘Tik,tak,tik,tak,tik…..’ and waiting for the ‘KABOEM’.

  74. Gary Post author

    TF; ip21 (ip lawyers for ev ltd) asked for a 2 week extension to the 18th September to gather facts and info pertaining to the issues. Beck Greener (acting for HPDL/osCommerce) gave a 7 day extension which runs out today…so tomorrow we should have more news.

  75. Joop

    From Tony:

    QUOTE
    yes, should be an interesting day. Our best trained carrier pigeon should be dropping something into Beck Greeners laps very soon.

    He means a carrier vulture of course.

  76. tony

    Hi Joop. You obviously think thats hilarious, as you felt the need to post the exact same comment in multiple locations. It was a deliberately tongue in cheek comment, meant to convey in boring, grown up terms: “Yes, we know the deadline is today and Haralds solicitors will be receiving communication”. Apparently saying this in any different way attracts your witticisms.

    Not really a lot we can do now until we get a response. Oh wait, do we need to put a deadline on that too to build up the suspense for the onlookers?

  77. Joop

    ‘Hi Joop. You obviously think thats hilarious’

    As far as it concerns your actions and your posts regarding you and the gang owning the name osCommerce it all is hilarious and rediculous.

    So you yourself are posting hilarious statements as far back as August the 14th.

  78. Anonymous

    So its OK for Vger to post stuff in multiple places (ie here, ecommerce-guide etc., etc) but not Joop

    Its OK for you to make supposedly witty comments, but not Joop.

    I love the smell of ‘hypocriticism’ in the morning.

  79. tony

    August 14th?? As I was on holiday and at least 5 miles from a usable computer from 13th to 20th August I think you have just plucked a random date out of thin air.

    “I love the smell of hypocriticism in the morning” from somebody not even man (or woman) enough to put a name or moniker.

    The anticipation surrounding todays “deadline” seems to have got to a lot of people. Perhaps you were expecting a fireworks display and now find the need to create your own entertainment??

    Anything I have posted has been either to address a direct comment addressed to me or to inform with new information, or to explain my viewpoint on matters. Superfluous statements which are neither helpful, informative or explanatory are intended purely to increase the animosity and antagonism around events.

    Hypocriticism (an interesting concept for a word, and it probably should be in the dictionary) is a word that can be applied to many things and comments surrounding this affair; perhaps “anonymous” is afraid his own glass house might shatter were he to show his identity. Think prior to throwing those stones.

  80. Joop

    Short memory problems ?

    On August 14th at 5 pm UK time the name ‘osCommerce’ became the registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd (owners and operators of the new osCommerce Project).

    Or are you now suddenly NOT part of that gang.

  81. Joop

    But i do now know why you suddenly are posting on this forum and the official osCommerce forum.

    There have been so many people banned from your forum that there is a lack of reactions on your blog posts.

  82. Joop

    See, that’s humor !

    By the way, didn’t you read my ‘missing Vger report’ ?
    And if you did why did’t the gang released her yet ?

    I kind of miss her.
    And again, more humor.

  83. tony

    the missing Vger report did raise a smile. August 14th, OK that comment makes sense now, I apologise. Lack of response is not an issue for me – if anything I would prefer people only commented when something needed to be said (not pointlessly repeated).

    I posted on osC because people were directly quoting me there, so I felt the need to clarify what had actually been said. I posted here because here is where you commented. You also posted it on osC but it was obviously intended for the more select audience this site fosters, so this was the logical venue for response.

    Vger is being held in protective custody at her own request. 🙂

  84. Gary Post author

    Tony – “more select audience this site fosters”

    You have to remember that this site (clubosc) is just about the only place where people can say whatever they need to say without the fear of being banned. And that’s why eCommerce Ventures Ltd (that’s you!) is threatening it.

    Even my name is banned at your own forums, by Robert Easland, just for trying to have a right of response where my name was brought up in connection with some other random user – he never should have mentioned me at all. So you have to realise that all was not well at your own place…and it’s gone down further since then.

  85. Joop

    And i only post on mutiply forums because some people read here and others somewhere else.

    You are also posting everywhere and you also don’t have anything to say because ‘you can’t comment’. I wonder why you don’t stop posting and beeing held as spokesperson for the ‘eVultures’ group. You must by now realize that nothing good can come out of this for you and your reputation.

    ‘Vger is being held in protective custody at her own request.’

    O wauw, the first sensible thing she did in a long time !

  86. Anonymous

    I think I thought quite carefully, both before I posted as Anonymous, and before using the ‘word’ hypocriticism

    And you can analyze and pick apart the grammar of the above to your hearts content.

    You seem to have picked up vger’s obsession with knowing who a certain poster is. Maybe I don’t want a ‘cease & desist’ orders based on your registering of the osCommerce trademark, as happened to Gary !!! (surely only done because he had the temerity to host this discussion)

  87. tony

    @gary – my comment regarding “select audience” wasnt a negative one – or definitely wasnt intended as such. I wasnt party to your banning from our forums, nor did I see your post. I cant say I have agreed with every banning that has happened, and from what I have seen whilst your opposition is obvious, your general approach has differed markedly from others.

    @anonymous – I really couldnt give a fig who you are, but if you wish to criticise then you obviously feel strongly on the matter. A cease and desist notice can only stick where there are reasonable grounds, and if you believe in the truth of your words then you have nothing to fear from such a notice surely?

    @joop – I really cant tell whether you are always posting in a jocular manner or not. We have been criticised for not engaging with our detractors, and I believe Matti himself titled a post “Tony Blacker speaks – finally!” or similar. Then when I do come here, engage with you and try my best to answer your questions, you ridicule me.

    Arguing gets nobody anywhere, it simply makes everybody defensive and leads to further disputes. If your aim is to argue the toss on every single point, then I think my time is being wasted. If you wish to discuss things to enable a better understanding or reach a resolution over the dispute, then go dor it, Im all ears. However, I will not and can not directly comment on an ongoing case for reasons I have made abundantly clear many times.

  88. Gary Post author

    Tony – I have a screenshot of the post which prompted my banning, along with an email from Rhea stating that the reason I was banned is (and I quote) – “My policy is to remove (ban) anyone who only comes to our forums for the purpose of complaining about what we are doing.” and yet the funny thing is that (up to that point) had not complained.

    Anyway, I am glad to see that at least 1 member of eCommerce Ventures Ltd has common sense enough to realise that not everyone is quite as angry as some others. And yet, because Rhea Anthonys judgement is obviously clouded, those people who are not that angry become the first to be threatened with a “big stick”â„¢ – that’s quite pathetic really, wouldn’t you say?

  89. Joop

    ‘If you wish to discuss things to enable a better understanding or reach a resolution over the dispute, then go dor it, Im all ears. However, I will not and can not directly comment on an ongoing case for reasons I have made abundantly clear many times.’

    So what is there to discuss or what questions can we ask you (and get an answer) ?
    How is the weather over there ?

    What are your plans ones you have the name osCommerce ?
    This one probably falls in the category ‘no comments’

  90. tony

    @joop
    1) been a fair day today, not as hot as yesterday though, but still t-shirt weather.
    2) no idea in all honesty. To the best of my knowledge we were and are developing osQuantum, which whilst in the same marketplace as osCommerce is to all intents a completely seperate entity, save for the common denominator amongst the core members being a previous involvement with osC.

    @gary
    Im not going to second guess a colleague, so if they decide that a ban is due, then the ban sticks until the person who implemented the ban says otherwise. I would hope the same would be applied to my judgement on the matter. We might not always agree on everything within the osQ team, but like I said before, if you get two people in a room, theres always going to be an element of politics.
    “My policy is to remove (ban) anyone who only comes to our forums for the purpose of complaining about what we are doing” seems a very fair view to take and is echo’d in osCommerce forums’ own terms of use. Whether or not the statement applied to what you had been doing I honestly cant say having not seen the post, but in any case that discussion is between yourself and Rhea.

    I think you have all seen my approach, and that is to actively engage and try to discuss things openly. Where my hands have been tied by events outside of my personal control, I am limited. Were it up to me as an individual I would have everybody active on our own boards and pro-actively censor what I deemed inappropriate (see loups post on my blog for example). However I can completely see why SOME bans were enforced.

    My original blog post I believe is still valid. It is entirely possible to discuss even the most emotive of things in a calm and professional manner, and this is almost always the way to get the quickest and most efficient resolution to any agreement. Thats why Im here, and hopefully thats what I am doing.

    *edit – d’oh I must be tired if Im getting the spam protection sums wrong.

  91. Joop

    Well it has been an exiting day yesterday.

    The sky is still above me, my cat came up with a great idea for a piece of software and the trademark is still in place (where it should not be).

    Let’s have a nice weekend.

  92. Matti Ressler

    @Tony

    Sign your name in full before you chastise others for “hiding”.

    “However I can completely see why SOME bans were enforced.”

    And nobody can comprehend why Chemo was never banned, since he did far worse than anybody.

    To say that your desire would be to “actively engage and try to discuss things openly” while at the same time saying you would “pro-actively censor what I deemed inappropriate” is a ridiculous contradiction, since history shows your standard of innapropriate to be inappropriate.

  93. tony

    When you sign yourself “Matti” it is out of order to criticise me signing as “Tony”. There is no attempt to hide my identity, and I think its abundantly clear who is typing what.

    You obviously dont wish to actually discuss the matter, because I have made every attempt to answer questions put to me. Of course I wwill censor inappropriate comment, in accordance with forum guidelines. Please cite an example of my inappropriate application of the term inappropriate. I will be interested to look at the example and explain my thinking, if such an example should be forthcoming.

  94. Matti Ressler

    I am not afraid to sign my posts fully 😉

    It is silly to ask for examples, since we all know how much of that which was posted to your forums has been deleted, and not because they broke any forum rule. We will just have to wait for archive.org to bring them all back in all their glory.

    I said that your standard of “inappropriate” is inappropriate, sheesh! Let me put it another way, your standard of inappropriate is double standard, does that make sense?

    I missed your reply as to why Chemo was not banned…?

    Don’t you think it a little farcical the way you hype about standards and rules, but never apply them to yourself or your own Team?

  95. Gary Post author

    @Tony

    I’m still struggling to understand how you (personally) can sit in your office and know that you have people who are telling you that this is wrong, it’s immoral, it’s stealing, it’s etc etc – and yet you carry on supporting Rhea Anthony as if you’re the organ-grinders monkey.

    Don’t you realise the damage you have caused to the open source community? The whole ethos of Open-ness (is that a word?) is now at stake – and the repercussions of what your team is doing here will be felt for years. No creator of Open Source script is now safe from people like you and your team.

    And note, in this few paragraphs, I’m addressing you -personally- … what do you have to say?

    I don’t care about Rhea Anthony – anyone who knows much of anything about past history of osCommerce knows that she was never an asset to Open Source. Are you going to turn out the same way? It looks like it and that’s a crying shame.

    How about you get the other guys over here to answer questions? Do they have the balls to do it? I applaud you for at least trying to be decent about the situation.

    We all know that Karnitsch won’t say boo to a goose while Anthony calls the shots, so we’ll forget her. Mathé is obviously indisposed for good reasons – stay strong Monika.

    Where is Oligario, Walker and Hodges-Hoyland? Put them in the firing line for a change.

    Bloody hell man, even Giovanna Mollevanger is putting more effort into defending the actions of eCommerce Ventures Ltd, than those three combined!!!! And that, for me, says it all!

  96. Joop

    @Tony

    And in that respect putting a testimonial like this

    ‘We continue our involvement with the osQuantum Project, and are currently developing various product elements to structure the new eCommerce Open Source framework. The current mud slinging being directed at osQuantum is NOT detracting us from continued development.’

    on your company website won’t do you any good anymore.
    First of all it is not ‘mud slinging’ and secondly it is not directed at osQuantum.

  97. Tony Paul Stewart Blacker aka tonystewart aka logon.info aka (formerly) niknakgroup

    @Matti – when you were a moderator on osCommerce.com, would you have banned HPDL for an irregular comment – no matter how far beyond the pale? Yes, thats a rhetorical question. At the time Chemo was our lead developer, so a ban would have served no purpose whatsoever. What happened in private communications is private, but the matter was not ignored.

    Your comment regarding inappropriate was directed to me personally, and NONE of my posts (that i am aware of) have been removed from oscommerceproject.com. I still await a single shred of evidence to support your claim. I have tried very hard to stay professional, to answer questions and to engage. If you ask a question, have the manners to listen to the answer even when its not the one you wanted to hear.

    I see you signed this latest post with your full name, but the previous post still highlights your hypocrisy.

    @Gary – Im not sure what benefit it would be to have multiple people posting here from the osQuantum team. Aside from further wasting time that could be spent developing and supporting end users?

    The trademark fiasco will work its way through the system, and until a conclusion has been reached the damage – or otherwise of the actions remains to be seen. However, the episode has forced many dormant giants of the osC world to resurface, and development seems to be moving forwards again. Whether you believe it or not, the intention of our project was to move eCommerce code past the 2003 level. We werent the only ones to notice a decline in forward motion, and we certainly werent the only ones to fear for osCommerce future. The way events have panned out may bring a different impression of our original aims, but nonetheless that is what they were. I could try and make something up which fit history better (and may placate one or two people for a few hours), but the truth is always far easier to keep track of.

    @joop – Mudslinging is the practise of malicious and false accusations (normally in multiple) in the hope that some of it will stick. I think I have demonstrated in full on the oscommerce.com thread quite a few instances of this at me personally, let alone at Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.

    osQuantum is a project completely owned and operated by Ecommerce Ventures. A company that was set up to ensure the future of the code btw, not to milk every single ounce of profit. Therefore mudslinging at the company directly threatens the project – you could say in the same way that alleged actions against osCommerce threatens HPDL or vice versa…?

    @all – I am not in this for financial gain. there are far easier ways of making money that are less time consuming, less stressful and definitely less public. I am also not in it to personally damage any body or any project. I will defend myself where maliciously accused, that is only human nature, but I wont be dragged down into the mire by returning baseless accusations at others. I think I have made some progress with a few individuals who at least are listening to what I am saying, but i am also worried that there is an air of “fundamentalism” and seeing everything in purely black or white amongst others, and those people I dont think anything I write will affect.

    Gary, I honestly appreciate the venue for discussion you have provided here, and thank you for tolerating my long winded posts lol. I am now going to bow out of discussion, unless reasonable questions are asked, as the circle of discussion has spun quite a few times already – as I said those willing to have listened, those not willing to wont regardless how many times I repeat myself.

  98. Gary Post author

    I’d like to know their personal views on the matter – at this point they are seen to be apathetic – which is neither here nor there and is speaking volumes about their personal stance on the subject (in my opinion). At least we know where you and Rhea Anthony are at, even if that is not a desirable place!

    Are you, in any way, related to Rhea Anthony other than via eCommerce ventures Ltd?

  99. Matti Ressler

    @Tony Paul Stewart Blacker aka tonystewart aka logon.info aka (formerly) niknakgroup

    All my posts have “Comment by Matti Ressler” 8-o

    In regard to “inappropriate”, I suggest that you look at your latest blog entries regarding the osCommerce issue.

    The attempts by your company to exercise its “trademark rights” clearly spells to everybody what your intentions are and have always been. Nobody will buy your story about “saving osCommerce”. Neither can you say “Let us do evil so that good will come from it”. We don’t buy that line either.

    You say you are “maliciously accused”, yet I have seen no evidence of this. None of this has anything to do with malice. It has to do with what is right and wrong, whether that be you spamming the osCommerce forums (which clearly you did) or with trying to steal osCommerce (which you have).

    When you are able to say “What I did was wrong”, then we will accept it.

  100. tony

    @Gary – “Are you, in any way, related to Rhea Anthony other than via eCommerce ventures Ltd?”. No, aside from the fact that coincidentally I grew up (16 years ago and beyond) about 20 miles from where she now lives. Before joining the osquantum forums, I only knew Rhea by reputation and one client of mine who hosted on her server. The same goes for relationships between myself and all of the team, save for Chemo who spent a long time back in 2003 mentoring me as I was learning the codebase. I cant speak for the other team members who are not talking and posting, but I would suspect that they have a similar opinion to me and think adding further comment will only confuse the discussion. They quite possibly also have better things to do with their time.

    @Matti, Im not going to give you any more oxygen. You obviously have your own opinion on this, and have absolutely no intention of listening to what I say unless it fits perfectly with your preconception. The malicious accusations and inuendo targetted at me that you have not seen must be hidden by your blinkers. You still have yet to provide one example of my inappropriate use of the word inappropriate. Finger pointing and tutting in my general direction is all well and good, if it floats your boat you go for it.

  101. Matti Ressler

    @Tony

    What you see as “malicious accusations and inuendo(sic)” is valid criticism that you see as such because of your own blinkers. I do understand the unenviable position that you find yourself in and why you are so defensive, however it is up to you to extract yourself from it. You can’t expect people to be “nice” about it. Just do the right thing, then see how things pan out.

    I have not spoken of the “inappropriate use of the word inappropriate”. For somebody who chides others for their command of the English language, you appear to have some difficulty yourself. I suggest that you re-read my comments.

  102. tony

    Matti – 10 posts above this one you wrote “history shows your standard of innapropriate to be inappropriate.” Seems pretty clear cut to me. I asked for one example to demonstrate this, you failed to give it. I have tried exceptionally hard NOT to be defensive, but to be communicative. Sorry if you feel I have failed to do this.

  103. tony

    Sorry, only just noticed this one Matti. “For somebody who chides others for their command of the English language, you appear to have some difficulty yourself”. I assume you refer to “aligp” on the oscommerce.com forum? I actually stated that I commended their English, and wrote that I was sure my own command of his language would be much less. The attention drawn to the poor english was done by the poster himself, not by me. However he then jumped up and down decrying my elitism, after I had not criticised him. Go figure.

  104. Matti Ressler

    @Tony
    “history shows your standard of innapropriate to be inappropriate.” != “inappropriate use of the word inappropriate”.

    You did not understand, so I told you that your standaard of “appropriate” is a double standard. One for you and the other for everybody else.

    You asked for examples of what is inappropriate (by your own standards) and I referred you to your own blog posts regarding the osCommerce trademark. Read it carefully so you can see your own attitude towards people who have criticized you and your company and the way that you speak of them. Then you will understand my meaning very clearly.

    You know that I commented on it in full on my own site, so go there if you are still unsure.

  105. TotallyFooked

    I see lindsayanng has popped in to the oscommerce titles thread: The name osCommerce has been stolen! http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=343171

    What made her come in at that strategic time to give her warped opinions about what is going on with what many see as wholesale theft of the oscommerce name? Her views are pathetic as she is using oscommerce for her own needs but claims in not so many words that Vger and her team have done nothing wrong (morally or ethically).

    So what does she mean when she stated on more than one occasion that HPDL is not fighting or has chosen not to fight the case?

  106. Gary Post author

    Tony – I was asking as I noticed that you are all from Norfolk. I thought to myself, “Norfolking chance” 😉

    It’s a pity that the others don’t want to come and play isn’t it. Says it all for their respect of the osCommerce community = zero.

  107. Gary Post author

    @TotallyFooked – Lindsay normally has a good grip on reliaty, but I think she lost it big time last night. Oh well, she’ll msot likely see what’s what in time.

    @Tony – I still want to know whny this blog was targetted by eCommerce Ventures Ltd. As it makes no money, it can’t be financial – so I’m sure it has to be to do with Free Speech and the control thereof.

  108. TotallyFooked

    Gary, this website was targeted by Vger to ‘test the water’. She needed a guinea pig to flex her muscles and needed to know how easily you would roll-over thats all. Your reaction to ger demand would allow her to devise a strategy to intimidate others as well and no doubt she had already drawn up an incomplete list of website owners to ‘threaten’ but it has spectacularly backfired on her face as Harald and the oscommerce members have fought back in unity.

  109. tony

    @Gary – Incidentally I dated a girl who lived less than a mile from where Rhea now lives (dont know if she lived there then Im afraid) when I was in college back in 1993, but aside from that, no, I have never met her, or communicated with her prior to my involvement with the current project. Norfolk is a big place, and whilst I knew almost everybody from my village, and a heck of a lot of people from my school catchment area, almost all were in my age group….which differs significantly from Rhea’s 😉

    @Matti – already said it, Im not giving you the oxygen of debate. I think suffice to say you have one viewpoint, I have another.

    with regard to lindsayanng – I actually thought she was very supportive of the oscommerce.com standpoint, whilst bringing some much needed intelligence to the debate. However, others obviously decided that the agreement wasnt strong enough, or the criticism not harsh enough so are verbally crucifying her. Funny the same happened to Jan who is wholeheartedly in support of HPDL but has been told “Clearly you don’t support action being taken against your friends “over there”.” Reasoned opinion even in support of your arguments seems to be dismissed completely.

    And I checked, last time she logged onto our forum was June, so shes hardly an ardent fan of ours.

  110. Gary Post author

    Linds doesn’t even remember the correct name of your project, nor the initials of the owner of oscommerce 😉 Her arse must be really sore today.

    I have a whole branch of family in Hunstanton – I went there once in about 1987 and resolved never to go again. I didn’t enjoy Norfolk one bit.

    So why was this blog targetted first then, Tony?

  111. tony

    simple answer? Dont know. I could go into great details and speculation, but simple and honest wins every time.

  112. Gary Post author

    Is it a great leap of faith to conclude then, that although you are a director of eCommerce Ventures Ltd, the fact is that you are not much more than an interested spectator? or, in other words, Rhea Anthony is calling all the shots, and you are having to ride shotgun whether you like it or not…

  113. tony

    Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I am a director of the company and we have regular team meetings as well as director meetings. In any business the managing director is put in place to make the day to day decisions relating to that business. Im afraid Im not going to go down the road of putting everything at Rheas feet, whilst that may shine a nicer light on me, its not a true statement of fact.

    Re: Norfolk…sorry you didnt like it, where I grew up is a beautiful area of the world and I would dearly love to move back. Unfortunately my wife is an Ipswich girl and her family are all here, so here I am stuck. Not the most popular place to live for a Norwich fan, but I seem to have a knack of turning up in places where my views arent popular…..(tongue in cheek)

  114. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums

    I found Lindsay’s arguments rather naive, in that she appears to think that the registrant of a mark will prevail in a dispute. The truth of the matter isn’t so simple, witness the Linux community vs. William Della Croce, which is particularly on point as far as the facts, though it was a matter decided under US law.

    @Gary
    One possible reason for you being targetted is that you are in the UK and the relative ease of litigation should you fail to bow to her demands.

  115. Joop

    @Glen

    Trademark invocation is rather a local (country, european) happening.

    Once a local trademark is in place you can oppose registration in another country because you heve prevailling rights. The only thing is you can’t only oppose and do nothing you have to execute the prevailling right by registering the name in that country.

  116. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums

    @Joop
    Trademarks can be quite local. I don’t know if it is still the case, but at one time US states registered local trademarks. Still, it’s easier to engage in litigation while within the boundaries of your own jurisdiction.

  117. Joop

    ‘Trademarks can be quite local. I don’t know if it is still the case, but at one time US states registered local trademarks’.

    I have read that, well why not they do also have their own taxes. LOL

  118. Joop

    What would you all do if Harald has his European registration and starts sending cease and desist letters to all the oscommerce related websites………

  119. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    I expect that had he wanted to do that, he would have registered the name a long time ago.

    He will, however, have to defend the trademark against improper use, and may need to set up a licensing scheme similar to that of the Linux Mark Institute, the administrator of the Linux trademark, which sub-licenses the use of the Linux trademark perpetually, globally, for free (as in beer), subject to certain conditions. See http://www.linuxmark.org.

    Since the community of osCommerce product and service providers is somewhat smaller than the Linux community, this may not be all that difficult to administer.

    Basically, he will need to go after improper uses of the mark and license the rest.

  120. Vger

    Well, isn’t life interesting. Everyone has been banging on about defending the “osCommerce Community” from the evil eCommerce Ventures Ltd and now someone has applied to register the name “osCommerce” has his own personal trademark in the European Union.

    @Joop – a point well made in your last post, but I don’t think the import of what it means has actually sunk in with you yet.

    @Matti – how do you feel now that someone else has applied to register osCommerce as his own personal trademark? Perhaps you should have registered it yourself – as you were thinking of doing back in 2007.

    @i2Pac – Mattice etc. – what happens with oscommerce.nl if someone holds a European Community Trademark in the name of osCommerce?

    Just to point out one thing – we hold regular Team Meetings, and decisions are taken by majority vote and the majority wins (unlike a certain other project I could mention).

    Vger

  121. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    Rhea,
    I welcome it. Indeed, Harald should have done this years ago, as Linus Torvalds did with the Linux trademark after the Linux community joined to take the Linux name back from a third party who had registered it in the US.

    If he uses the trademark to the detriment of the community, the community will abandon the project and it will die on its own.

    You already made the decision to leave the community, like several before you who forked the project. The difference is that you weren’t satisfied with the community you built, so you want to take ours by force. I didn’t ask to be saved from Harald’s management, and I resent your actions to usurp the project.

  122. i2Paq

    @Vger, it is i2Paq.

    I for one cannot think that HPDL will act the same as you did. You imidiatly started targeting the site’s with letters claiming that they should obay you thirst for money AND control. That was what made me so angry. I realy do not care that you can put an R behind your website’s, products or company -name, it was the way you behaved from the start of osCanswers and some in the company of people that you called “your team”.
    Second is that you run your forums like a dictator, and that is like you behave now while you still hold the name osCommerce (for as long is this might last).

  123. Joop

    @Tony

    ! SHE BROKE LOOSE !

    capture her before she does any more harm.

    @Vger

    There is a difference in destroying something that you started and put a lot of effort in or destroying something you stole and want to destroy in favor of your own development.

    Neither is preferable but i personally have more faith in Harald than in you.

  124. Gary Post author

    Let’s see if the “managing director” knows the answer to a simple question;

    @Rhea – why was this blog targetted first?

    @Tony – when you voted (majority verdict) to target this and other websites, how did you vote. For or against? Did a vote even take place?

  125. tony

    @joop – lol. Like the humour in the midst of everything else, its good to see a light hearted comment every now and again. 🙂

    @gary – as with most companies the minutes of meetings between directors are private and confidential (except to shareholders and for AGM minutes). I can however confirm that major decisions are ALWAYS subjected to a full vote, and majorities are required.

  126. Gary Post author

    @tony – excellent example of a non-answer – which is what you promised not to do…you did say that the only questions you could not answer was those which are part of legal proceedings.

    If I didn’t know better, I’d say you used to be a politician 😉

  127. Joop

    Without a bit of humor this would be a very, very black episode for the osCommerce community as for you lot.

    But do not mistake my humor for kindness.

    Same firstname, was in politics and made a lot of mistakes also. Ring a bell ?

  128. tony

    @gary – yes it was a non-answer on purpose. Individual votes on individual matters are private. As I stated though, majorities are required after a full discussion on any matter put before the team members present. I promised I would answer what I could where I could and I think my responses have given you enough information on the matter without prejudicing the privacy of other team members.

    @joop, “do not mistake my humor for kindness” – I would never make that particular mistake, dont worry ;). And the politics sentence, thats a WHOLE different thread all on its own.

  129. Gary Post author

    Damn my internet connection absolutely sucks today 🙁

    @tony – can I conclude then, that there was a vote asking if eCommerce Ventures Ltd should target websites, and that a majority of the directors voted “yes”. Or put more plainly as a direct question; Was there a vote asking if websites should be targetted?

    As you might have guessed I’m actually more interested in getting to know why MY website has been targetted than anything else. If you (or any of the other directors) can answer that clearly and truthfully (ie without hiding behind words that sound good, but say nothing) I’ll be happy to bow out of the whole conversation. I understand that you have already answered that “you don’t know” and for that I thank you – perhaps you can ask someone who does know, and then relay that information to me – privately (my email address is up there ^^) if you wish.

  130. Vger

    @ Gary – your website was not “targetted”. It was you that put up an article about the new osCommerce Project which I responded to. It’s your site and if you want to close this thread down you are perfectly entitled to.

    However, as this thread has made your website more popular than it has ever been in its history it’s probably in your interests to leave it open.

    As for my comment “we’ll be in touch about your use of the name osCommerce” – has anyone been in touch with you?

    Vger

  131. TotallyFooked

    I am amazed at how Vger coms back here time and time again trying defend her actions.

    Her ally Tony seems to be trying the same tactics but both of them are looking like people who have been rumbled and totally rattled. They look like they know they have been defeated and they are still trying to put on a public face of unity and strength when in reality they know sooner or later they will have the trademark taken away from them.

    I noted Vger saying that ecommerce ventured ltd is in legal communication with Harald and not the community, she said to Matti that Harald has applied for a Europe wide trademark for oscommerce in his own name and not the name of the community, well if that is true who cares? At least Harald should have the name if it means stopping Vger and company having it.

    I read Tony and Vger on various forums write Harald did not put in a legal challenge to the name, so what? No matter which way the situation is dressed up it is clear that at present the trademark is registered to ecommerce ventures ltd and that Harald will be in ownership of it within weeks. It is just a matter of time but because Vger is not surrending the trademark unconditionally the matter is dragging on.

    ‘Why’ you may ask is she not giving up the trademark unconditionally and making the matter dragging on? The answer is simple, if she rolls over too easily then she will give Harald a green light to sue for damages and make a claim for her actions and the detriment it has caused him and the community. She can do all she wants but her actions have a left a horrible long lasting stench that everyone who loves oscommerce will have to put up with for a long time.

  132. Joop

    Tony already said it, the are not giving up the trademark because this way they have some leverage against all the other demands Harald made to them.

    Perhaps they also are planning to oppose the registration of the Harald tranmark which they still can do until they surrender or a judge takes the mark away from them.

    As for Rhea not giving up i think it doesn’t go further than “it’s mine, i’ts mine, i’ts mine……….”

  133. Joop

    He Rhea, there is a post on your forum reqesting paid help with oscommerce.
    Mayby something for you to help pay the legal fee’s ?

  134. Java Roasters

    I am very glad that HPDL has applied for the registered trademark.

  135. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – the post in this blog was provided by you, not me. Is this: “We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.” not a statement of intent? Don’t start trying to claim innocence now.

    LOL @ your (further) muddying of the waters. You really are shameless.

  136. Vger

    @ Joop sorry, booked out until into the New Year – can’t take on any more.

    @ Gary – I’m not denying I said it. I asked you if anyone had been in touch. Well have they?

    @ all the “friends of HPDL” posting here and elsewhere. I have taken all of the mud-slinging you’ve had to dish out towards me personally and towards our project and company, and tried to keep things civilised (unlike yourselves) but enough is enough.

    You really are a bunch of mugs, and I’m hoping that you’ll find that out soon enough.

    Just ask yourself a few questions why don’t you?

    Why are the main ‘oscommerce’ TLDs owned personally by Harald Ponce de Leon, as opposed to being registered to a project and/or business which could carry on without him?

    We don’t work that way, our domains are registered to our project and/or to the company which runs it. No one person can control our assets, they’re held in the name of the project and/or company. We did it that way deliberately so that we wouldn’t end up in the situation that you’ve all been in for years.

    Why is the European Community Trademark application in the name of Harald Ponce de Leon, when it could just as easily have been in the name of the project he leads?

    I’m not givng away any details of the legal issues when I say that it has been alleged that the name ‘osCommerce’ is ‘synonymous’ with the name ‘Harald Ponce de Leon’ – meaning (in this respect) that they are one and the same. We don’t happen to believe that and neither should you.

    @i2Pac re., oscommerce.nl – just ask Mathijs if he believes he’ll keep hold of that domain if a CTM is awarded to Harald Ponce de Leon.

    @Matti – awfully quite now aren’t you? That’s a first. Where does the CTM application leave your “legal interest” in the osCommerce name now? If you are consistent in your often stated beliefs then no doubt you will be opposing the application?

    There’s an old Chinese saying which goes something like “Be careful what you wish for – you may get it.” It seems very appropriate somehow.

    Vger

  137. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – again, further confusion to muddy the waters.

    It’s a really simple question that you appear to be striving to avoid: Is this quote ‘We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.’ not a statement of intent?

    You say that you have been civilised throughout this – I disagree, and this is borne out by any number of posts in which you have been vindictive, argumentative and downright rude. That’s not to say that others have been more or less civilised than you, don’t get me wrong.

    By the way, to answer your question; not by anyone from eCommerce Ventures Ltd. Now will you answer my question posed to you?

  138. i2Paq

    @Gary, I think what Vger is trying to say that no-one has contacted you “yet”.

    @Vger, if you and your company had left the name osCommerce alone then nothing like this would have happend. You and your company alone are guilty of what is happening now in the osCommerce community, do not try to point you finger to anyone else!
    An for the last time: it is i2Paq, with a Q.

    I’m not bothered to inform mattice about the HPDL trademark request, I’m sure they have contact about the whole situation behind the scenes. I do believe that mattice reads more on these blogs then he reply’s, and why should he not.

  139. TotallyFooked

    VGER WROTE:
    Why are the main ‘oscommerce’ TLDs owned personally by Harald Ponce de Leon, as opposed to being registered to a project and/or business which could carry on without him?

    We don’t work that way, our domains are registered to our project and/or to the company which runs it. No one person can control our assets, they’re held in the name of the project and/or company. We did it that way deliberately so that we wouldn’t end up in the situation that you’ve all been in for years.

    Why is the European Community Trademark application in the name of Harald Ponce de Leon, when it could just as easily have been in the name of the project he leads?

    I’m not givng away any details of the legal issues when I say that it has been alleged that the name ‘osCommerce’ is ‘synonymous’ with the name ‘Harald Ponce de Leon’ – meaning (in this respect) that they are one and the same. We don’t happen to believe that and neither should you.

    What rubbish. Non of the community members of that website are in control of anything except the ones who take up their shares allocation. Gary from this forum wasposting on Vgers forum and so was Chemo before he so unceremoniously departed, at the moment members such as the one and only lindsayanng and others who post there have no control over the website as they do not hold shares and that is way Vgers company is set up. The power belongs to those with shares.

    As for Harald and the European trademark application in his name rather than oscommerce community it is irrelevant because of one thing, it makes no difference if Harald is the proposed owner of the name but there is a bid problem if Vger and her company is.

    I think its time to approach Harald and see if he has approached the IPO with a challenge using the coorect format, if he has then it is clear that he has paid £200 to do it which then means any other person can jump on the ‘bandwagon’ and back up Harald without paying any money and by simply completing an online application from the IPO website. I have had enough of Vger popping up here and there without any remorse or shame for what most of oscommerce and its forks users see as theft.

    Shameless tut tut

  140. Joop

    It’s simple the ‘oscommerce community’ is NOT a legal entity so it can’t register a trademark.

    eCommerce Ventures is and Harald (as a person) is so they can.

    Opening fi. a SF project as a community is something completely different than acting as an legal entity.

    Ik can see it on the registration form ‘applicant….eeuh Alebrt, Aldrige, Benito….. until Zxraver. About how much a couple of 10.000.

  141. Joop

    @Gary

    I wonder when your site was targeted for the first time (can’t find it topics are too large) because according to this ‘288a 28/08/2009 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR TONY BLACKER’

    it is possible that Tony ‘B’ didnt even had a vote in it.

  142. Joop

    It is late and when i looked at my last post i read ‘TONY BLACKADDER’ and not ‘TONY BLACKER’.

    The connection was simply made ! BLACKADDER (Rowan Atkinson) and his trusty sidekick ‘Baldrick’ and the frase ‘I have a cunning plan MyLord’.

    I wonder how the boardmeetings of eCommerce Ventures look like.

    Sorry, much to much time on my hands.

  143. Joop

    Did misread it completely, Tony ‘B’ is not Tony ‘Blackadder’ but more Tony ‘Baldrik’

    Just as Blackadder exists in many incarnations throughout the ages, so does Baldrick; whenever there is a Blackadder there is a Baldrick serving him. In the first series of the show, Baldrick is more intelligent than Blackadder, but this dynamic is reversed in subsequent series, with Baldrick’s intelligence decreasing as the show continued. He is the only character other than Edmund Blackadder to appear in every episode of the programme.

    Baldrick continually invents many “cunning plans”, which are scathingly ridiculed by Blackadder (who often ends up using them in desperation).

  144. Vger

    @TotallyFooked – “Non of the community members of that website are in control of anything except the ones who take up their shares allocation.”

    Incorrect, as always. There are ordinary Team Members who are not Core Team Members/Directors, and there are Core Team Members who are also Directors. Except where something can only be decided by Directors everybody gets to vote and majority rule prevails. Where something can only be decided by Directors – again majority rule prevails. We operate a democracy and not a dictatorship. I have explained this before so do try to keep up will you?

    @TotallyFooked – “I think its time to approach Harald and see if he has approached the IPO with a challenge using the coorect format, if he has then it is clear that he has paid £200 to do it which then means any other person can jump on the ‘bandwagon’ and back up Harald without paying any money and by simply completing an online application from the IPO website.”

    Oh do try to keep up with things if you are as interested as you appear to be.

    Harald Ponce de Leon knew of our trademark application the very day it appeared on the IPO website, which was weeks before it was even published for Opposition Purposes. The Opposition Period then ran for 2 whole months. He could have lodged a notice of Legal Opposition any time during that two month period but failed to do so for reasons only known to himself.

    @Joop – “It’s simple the ‘oscommerce community’ is NOT a legal entity so it can’t register a trademark.”

    The point I have been trying to make is exactly that – why is everything owned personally by one individual when it should have been owned collectively? There are any number of means of collective ownership which could have been used. The business model is just one means but there are others, including a Cooperative structure.

    Before I forked the project, before there was even a team and before eCommerce Ventures was registered I emailed Harald Ponce de Leon to tell him what I intended to do and why. I wanted to be completely up front about it. One of the things I said in that email was that if he handed over control of his project to majority decision by his own team, instead of his system of one-man rule, then I would not proceed. I received no reply.

    @i2Paq – sorry, it’s not an easy name to remember the spelling of.

    Vger

  145. Joop

    ‘Before I forked the project, before there was even a team and before eCommerce Ventures was registered I emailed Harald Ponce de Leon to tell him what I intended to do and why. I wanted to be completely up front about it. One of the things I said in that email was that if he handed over control of his project to majority decision by his own team, instead of his system of one-man rule, then I would not proceed. I received no reply.’

    PROOF IT !

    O by the way, you didn’t fork the project.

  146. Joop

    Stupid me, asked for proof and thought i would get it.

    I leave you with a quote from Blackadder (yes i am a fan)

    “it started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better — but apart from that it was excellent.”

  147. TotallyFooked

    Vger is answering questions like someone gone loopy. If she seriosuly thinks Harald could have put up a legal case but chose not to and this somehow is to justify the registration of the trade mark then she is more loopy than the players in Chas and Daves’ Snooker Loopy Nuts Are We video/song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliAPzEsao0)

    So only directors/shareholders and core team members

    The old bag forgot to take off those big fat glasses before writing her reply, http://newoscommerceproject.org/images/ranthony.gif
    VGER WROTE:

    “”Incorrect, as always. There are ordinary Team Members who are not Core Team Members/Directors, and there are Core Team Members who are also Directors. Except where something can only be decided by Directors everybody gets to vote and majority rule prevails. Where something can only be decided by Directors – again majority rule prevails. We operate a democracy and not a dictatorship. I have explained this before so do try to keep up will you?””

    More like correct as always!! What she wrote her means that there are somethings that only directors can vote on yet those directors were not voted in by the members were they? And she calls it democracy. Where was democracy when Gary was banned and Chemo was kept in at her forums? Why can’t ordinary members vote one of their selected members on the board and facilitate the overthrow of her entire board? Ah they can’t do that because it is not a democary so she is spouting rubbish again.

    Vgers age is the defining factor in her obvious error upon error of judgement which seems to be driven by financial motivation and greed, she really needs to get a grip for the sake of the black cat at least.

    The once graceful and much loved Vger who was a much loved member of the oscommerce community has become a laughing stock who many call a thief. Shame on her for her silly antics. Maybe when the SH*T will hit the fan she will blame on the sunshine, the moonlight, the boogie or even the cat :-\ http://forums.oscommerce.com/uploads/photo-22462.jpg

  148. tony

    @joop – you do realise you just asked Rhea to prove a negative….but she has stated publically that exact passage of events more than once, and I am certain if her words were untrue, Harald would have pointed that little fact out.

    Blackadder is also one of my favourite series, and yes that name has been used on me more than once before.

    And I have been a team member for nearly 9 months now, so yes I have been party to the team meetings way before my directorship was confirmed. I love the fact you keep on offering me these ways to wriggle out of things…but thats not the way I work Im afraid.

    Re: HPDL and the CTM application. This seems a very strange turn of events, and more than slightly confusing. UNLESS and UNTIL the current matter with the UK trademark is resolved, he is virtually guaranteed to have his application rejected on the grounds a mark already exists within the European Union. A CTM application is (at minimum) £900. A legal objection to the UK trademark is £200 (according to post above, Im not personally sure of that fee). A discussion directly with us is free (unless conducted via solicitors, in which case it is very expensive). Regardless of what “side” I am on, I find that a perplexing choice of next move, and would wonder who is advising him.

    In terms of implications of a CTM if granted…I think it is worth stating that an intention not yet voiced is not necessarily better or worse than one you think you know. Back in April when the original UK application went in there was a massive kneejerk blogfest of theories as to what the “evil project” would do with a trademark if granted. You all have an amazing amount of faith in HPDL, if it is granted I just pray that your faith is rewarded correctly.

  149. enigma1

    @Gary: You mentioned they contacted you, to take off the osCommerce references via a letter. Was that a registered letter? If not, it has no better value than the weekly pizza-hut flyer they leave on your doorstep. BTW I haven’t read the contents of the pdf files, as with the IPB forums you need to login to get an attached file unfortunately; not exactly suitable for public consumption I would say.

    Seeing how things progress now, seems to me this process may take forever and a resolution is unlikely to happen. It’s a mistake not to target the UK IPO giving pitiful excuses like “they act in good faith” or “there was a loophole”. You know well that’s not the case. If the IPO cannot investigate before authorizing an application then they shouldn’t run the office. What they take the 300 quid for?

    Rhea went through a legal process (a process which sucks in my opinion) and obtained the trademark in UK. Bad news? Yes, but who authorized it? Now given this fact anyone could go in and claim whatever name he wants, if it’s available.

    It happened in other cases including sourceforge.net. Here is an example with the following package that is basically osCommerce and the headers are ripped off.
    https://sourceforge.net/projects/corncart/
    At the time I opened a ticket you can see the response here:
    https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=200001&aid=2545124&group_id=1
    Similar things happened in the google codebase.
    So I am asking. If authority or popular sites promote these things, who should you go after? (Assuming you have the resources at hand). And what kind of history do we write?

    So basically the UK IPO takes 300 GBP allright but if there is a dispute, of course they won’t cover the expenses, despite the fact, they’re responsible for the mess. If they cannot do their job they should put someone else to do it.

  150. Joop

    “I am certain if her words were untrue, Harald would have pointed that little fact out.”

    Words are cheap !

    I want to see what that email said, was it

    1) Harald, i am not happy with you, ik will leave the oscommerce project and start my own fork called ‘osQuantum’.
    or
    2) Harald, i am not happy with you so i will steal your software, your name and register it and after that target the related oscommerce websites and will become rich, rich, rich.

    case 1: I can see that Harald would not react, it has done before.

    case 2: Well no need to comment on that because that is probably not what Rhea said.

    If Rhea says that Harald was warned a long time ago is is worth to know where he was warned for.

  151. Joop

    @enigma1

    ‘What they take the 300 quid for?’

    Just gouverment taxes and administrative costs, nothing more.

  152. enigma1

    @joop: Then perhaps you should remember this next time you pay your taxes or vote.

    Now days with the so called “recession”, why don’t they put some discount module on their IPO site. “Grab ..err.. Buy 2 trademarks now, get one free”, along with a list of the most popular ones to “select” from. They can surely surpass the warez concept and give some real opportunities to the people.

  153. TotallyFooked

    OSCOMMERCE http://www.webtrafficagents.com/WebSiteValue/www.oscommerce.com
    Daily Unique Visitors: 88,959
    Daily Page Impressions: 654,436

    OSCOMMERCEPROJECT http://www.webtrafficagents.com/WebSiteValue/www.oscommerceproject.com
    Daily Unique Visitors: 74
    Daily Page Impressions: 81

    With bold expressions of ‘saving’ oscommerce and starting her own thread it seems no one is really bothered about the ‘doppelganger’ forum so could this be one of the reasons why oscommerce is being targeted by the ‘dark glasses one’? After all it is financially lucrative, ahem.

  154. TotallyFooked

    This was from harald in oscommerce http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=343573

    Wednesday, 16th September

    Our legal counsel have formerly responded to ip21 outlining our requirements for a settlement. A deadline of 21st September was set. Our settlement includes immediately ceasing the availability of their software which is in breach of our copyright and the terms of the GNU General Public License.

    It cant get much clearer than that can it? Sooner or later Vger and company are TotallyFooked whether they hide behind her big fat black sunglasses or the black semi-cute cat!

  155. Java Roasters

    I saw this posted on the “other” forum, a post by GLCustoms

    Quote GLCustoms
    “Unfortunately I had to post one of my contributions released here, All Products at the other project. One of the users on this board who goes by Alex here, and web-project there, felt the need to take my contribution and release it over there as his. While it is flattering that someone likes my code so much, it is not likely that his interest are devoted to the love of the contribution. If they were then why would the original install file be missing and my simple credits be missing from the files?

    Even with all the controversy we see between the original osCommerce and the osCommerce Project, the credits in each file of osCommerce 2.0 Final still retain acknowledgment to the original contributor. With open source you can freely distribute code and scripts as allowed, but it is repugnant to redistribute code as your own without making substantial changes. Unfortunately the only changes made to my contribution was the removal of credits.

    Would you like to explain your actions here Alex? Is this something you do to try to attract more customers to your online services at web-project.co.uk ?”

    Although his quote “it is repugnant to redistribute code as your own without making substantial changes” is quite funny coming from a Team Member of Vger’s project I do agree with him. There is no need for anyone to stoop to the same low level of morals and ethics that The osCommerce Project and its team members have displayed over the past year. Alex should not have done what he did, two wrongs do not make a right.

  156. Gary Post author

    LOL @ Gary Walker aka GLCustoms. On the one hand he’s quite willing to rip off osCommerce, it’s name and website. On the other hand not willing to see his own work ripped off.

    Mind you, it is crapola to have work ripped off. Shame on you Gary L Walker, shame on you Alex whoever you are.

  157. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – still striving to avoid this one:

    Is this quote ‘We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.’ not a statement of intent?

  158. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    I wasn’t happy that Rhea had re-posted the version of Who’s Online Enhancement (3.5.4) that I revised in her library without attribution. It appears that she left the archive intact.

  159. Java Roasters

    @Gary, I think Rhea is still avoiding that one because she is still looking for the spelling error that she can use as her loophole to try and defend something which can not be defended.

  160. TotallyFooked

    VGER WROTE
    Harald will now, presumably, oppose the registration and it will go to legal arbitration, which does have major cost implications. This will take some further months until there is a final decision. And then ….there’s always the USA, which takes 10 months for an unopposed application, and a lot longer if opposed. And then there’s the EU (Madrid Protocol) and goodness only knows how long it takes the EU to get themselves into gear.

    In short the status of ownership of the trademark will be in legal dispute for years, which is more than enough time for us to do what we intend. And whilst it is in dispute and unregistered to anyone no one can stop us using the name ‘osCommerce’.

  161. Joop

    Originally on April 16 already !

    QUOTE (Rhea Anthony (Vger) – April 16 @ 2009 @ 4:12 pm)

  162. Vger

    @ Joop @ TotallyFooked

    So what’s news about that? We knew from the very day that our application first appeared on the IPO website that Harald Ponce de Leon knew about it. We fully expected him to oppose it and for the decision to go to arbitration and be delayed. Perhaps saying “years” was stretching it, because it would probably have been a matter of months until a decision was made.

    You’ll have to ask him why he didn’t oppose it when he knew about it all along. It seems an odd decision on his part (to say the least) not to oppose it BEFORE it was granted and only to oppose it AFTER it was granted.

    Vger

  163. Joop

    Missing the point (again).

    It this piece taht is of interest.

    In short the status of ownership of the trademark will be in legal dispute for years, which is more than enough time for us to do what we intend.

    What where you planning to do ?

  164. i2Paq

    Their intention is clear: take over everything, even small related, to osCommerce and drain everyone from heir money, hobby or lifehood.
    There is just one word for that group of peope and that is that they are Satan in person, or should I say: EVIL.
    They have NO intention to save osCommerce, the only intention is to distroy the whole community, whatever they are saying.

  165. Vger

    @ Joop – No, you’re missing the point, again, all of you are. You’re all running around like headless chickens now but none of you are willing to answer the question of why our application was never opposed by Harald Ponce de Leon when he knew about it from day one – which was weeks before it even entered the 2 month long Opposition Period.

    The total lenth of time it was known about was from 15th April to midnight on the 4th of August, when the Opposition Period came to a close, almost 4 months.

    Come on people – get real – how long does it take to fill in an Opposition Form?

    Vger

  166. TotallyFooked

    Vger is missing the point. Whether Harald knew about an impending IPO registration or not is not the question, nor is there any need to justify why he did not oppose a pending trademark application for the name ‘oscommerce’, what is comes down to is you giving misinformation. Harald can oppose it while it is pending or otherwise, the point is you should not have tried taking something that clearly is not yours.

    You ‘get real’ instead and stop trying to portray Harald as the enemy when you are considered the real enemy by many oscommerce members.

  167. Joop

    “You’re all running around like headless chickens now”

    Perhaps we are, but at least we are not destroying our reputation, company and stand to loose a lot of money when our sorry ass is dragged to court.

  168. Joop

    @Vger

    By the way, ‘to oppose to something’ or ‘to deffend something’ usually means that it is
    under attack. Don’t you agree ?

    That must mean that you are the attacker because being attacked by a saviour doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Even if Harald would say something like ‘I didn’t oppose the name registration because there is a bigger financial gain for me when i keep quiet at first and sue them afterwards’ so what ?
    Who cares how much money Harald can make out of this situation, i for sure don’t.

    We do care about what you tried to do and could do te every one of us who has software here or there.
    The ‘headless chicken’ we are.

  169. Gary Post author

    @TF – what point are you making by linking to the website of Lindsay? I’m a little confused.

    @Rhea – why have you still not answered my very simple question posed to you a number of times? Question again, to save you from craning your neck too much;

    Is this quote ‘We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.’ not a statement of intent?

  170. TotallyFooked

    Gary, Vger will not answer your question as it will show her up for what she is therefore hse is counter-questioning your question with a ‘did any one contact you though?’ pathetic response.

    About lindsayanng, according to the poster in the link he challenged the advice she was giving for adding fixed width, like him I too see it as not the best way to go about it but she came in all guns blazing and would not look at it from the posters point of view. There is a comment from the poster asking why another posters response was removed simply because he disagreed with lindsayanng and agreed with him. This style of censorship was something you know about first hand because you were banned from Vgers forum and from what I can recall Matti has all his posts deleted.

    I posted the link to lindsayanng website to show she is no better than Vger in the sense they both are trying to say boo when it comes to the oscommerce trademark and both possess the same immature ability to be open minded and refuse to look at things from others persectives.

  171. i2Paq

    This somes it up nicely:

    “Vger is missing the point. Whether Harald knew about an impending IPO registration or not is not the question, nor is there any need to justify why he did not oppose a pending trademark application for the name ‘oscommerce’, what is comes down to is you giving misinformation. Harald can oppose it while it is pending or otherwise, the point is you should not have tried taking something that clearly is not yours.

    You ‘get real’ instead and stop trying to portray Harald as the enemy when you are considered the real enemy by many oscommerce members.”

    Vger is hidding behind the only thing that she can say and that is that she wants to “save” osCommerce, but from what? I think that it is obvious from her actions that it is the osCommerce Community that is trying to save osCommerce from Vger and her “60” robbers.

  172. Vger

    @TotallyFooked

    “and from what I can recall Matti has all his posts deleted”

    I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again for those who are terminally hard of hearing, the reason that Matti Resslers posts were deleted was because Matti Ressler insisted upon it. Under the forums rules pertaining at that time we only had the right to keep his posts on the old oscanswers.com forums, so when we switched to using forums.oscommerceproject.org he insisted that we remove them – which we did.

    You’ll notice that Matti Ressler has been completely silent (at least under his real name) since Harald Ponce de Leon applied for the Community Trademark for ‘osCommerce’.

    I can only assume that this is because of what he terms his “legal interests” in the name osCommerce, which he was thinking of trademarking himself as far back as 2007 (just after being booted off Harald Ponce de Leon’s team, against a majority vote of the team itself).

    @Gary – I applaude you for keeping this thread open, though it is in your own business interests to do so – it is after all bringing you more traffic than you’ve ever had before. However, as far as the legal arguements are concerned, you are the least involved of all. Don’t get carried away with your own sense of self-importance.

    As for the “outraged community” fighting the “evil monster” if you take a look at the same people posting over and over again, and the small group of people posting under multiple “anonymous” user names or forum handles, you number at most somewhere between 20 and 25 people – and perhaps not even that much. Hardly a great groundswell of opinion.

    Vger

  173. i2Paq

    @Vger, and again you do not answer any questions but just post new ones.

    As to the fact that “only” 20 to 25 people are involved in the discusion about your theft of the osCommerce name, code and lifehood (if you get away with it). I do not see ANY supporters on you side here, nor on any other forums (not even your own forum!), if I use your way of thinking this could mean you have NONE.

    That Gary leaves this discussion open because it generates traffic, so, who cares. Does he make any money out of it? So what. There are only 2 discussions on this matter, here and on oscommerce.com, maybe you should open a discussion on your own forum, lets see how that will go with all your supporters and traffic.., ow, ehhh, you do not have any….. (supporters nor fair discussions).

    And for matti, what ever reason he has not to speak at the moment, he will tell in time, but again, this has nothing to do with what you have done.

  174. Vger

    How can anyone steal the osCommerce code – it’s Open Source. Anyone can take it, use it and modify it in any way they want.

    As for the name – you are a moderator on the “osCommerce Netherlands” forums, which does not have permission from Harald Ponce de Leon to use the name osCommerce, nor (I believe) is he any too happy about Mathijs owning that domain. So you’re in no position to criticise anyone for using the name osCommerce without permission of Harald Ponce de Leon.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to your forums if or when Harald Ponce de Leon gets a Community Trademark covering all the EU countries. Personally I don’t fancy your forums’ chances of survival any too strongly – not using a top level tld which only contains the name ‘oscommerce’ anyway.

    Vger

  175. TotallyFooked

    Oooo “it will be interesting to see what Harald will do if he gets the name”. Oooo “he will stop you using the forum name”. Oooo “he will do this that and the other”. Grow up Vger.

    Many have modified oscommerce but no one has modified the oscommerce copyright in their code except you and even if others have it is up to the copyright holder who to make a claim against. No one has tried to split oscommerce in two by passing off their own private forum as oscommerce except you. Take those big fat glasses off and see what you are doing!

    Your pathetic excuses for trying to show you have a legitimate right to the oscommerce trademark are down right disgusting. You have no excuses, shame on you.

  176. Matti Ressler

    Wouldn’t you know it! Turn your back for a few days and all the creatures from the slime are crawling all over the place.

    My apologies to everybody else, but life carried me away for a few days 😉

    @Vger !!

    “@Matti – how do you feel now that someone else has applied to register osCommerce as his own personal trademark? Perhaps you should have registered it yourself – as you were thinking of doing back in 2007.”

    I feel fabulous thank you very much! Its unfortunate that it has taken this awful set of circumstances, which you Ms Anthony have created, however its great that the name will finally be registered. While you say that it will be registered as “his own personal trademark”, you only have this point of view because you think that he is like you are. Harald is registering the mark for “US” (that does not include you). It has always been a trademark, however registration gives better protection against people like you. Harald is the project leader. Nobody has any problem with the use of his name on legal documents.

    Your remaining comments also reflect that you think that I am like you or that I think about things in the same way that you do. There again you are very wrong. I wonder just how you will feel when the penny finally drops.

    As for telling everybody about deleting all my posts on your forums, you leave out the part about how you were going to BAN me. Under THAT threat I exercised my rights.

    You are not getting much mileage out of the “scandal” that Harald did not oppose you during the registration process, are you? All I can say is that the osCommerce lawyers are far better than your lawyers (you didn’t even use a lawyer for the registration, since if you had, the application never would have been made).

    Tony Blacker was asked by Gary why this blog was targeted by Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. His answer was: “simple answer? Dont know.”, yet he claims to have voted on the decision. EXPLAIN THAT??? I think the decision making process in your company is far different from what you all pretend.

    Gary has repeatedly asked you to answer a very simple and straightforward question. Answer that also.

  177. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    @Rhea
    “How can anyone steal the osCommerce code – it’s Open Source. Anyone can take it, use it and modify it in any way they want.”

    With one caveat. You cannot remove or modify the copyright notice or attribution. Which is exactly what you did that gives rise to the demand that you cease and desist distribution of “v2.0 Final”

  178. i2Paq

    @Vger, and again you do NOT answer any questions yet your reply exists only from questions.

    Be a “man” and answer at leats the question asked by Gary: “Is this quote ‘We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.’ not a statement of intent?”

  179. i2Paq

    @Vger, if you had not stolen the osCommerce name with a false trademark Harald nor enyone else would have to trademark it, ever. Do not point your finger to anyone here to blame unless you are looking in the mirror blaiming yourself.

  180. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – this is not a popularity contest. If you think I am interested in getting traffic tothis blog, then you are mistaken. This page is in fact NOT the most popular page in the blog – so can you please not muddy the waters further with this line of “defence”. Further, I know I am unimportant, I simply would like to know the answer to the question I have repeatedly asked you.

    Again I ask; Is this quote ‘We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce”.’ not a statement of intent?

    It’s a very simple question, which deserves a simple answer. Now, how about you answer truthfully, instead of putting other people down with your sniping.

  181. enigma1

    @TotallyFooked: you said, “Many have modified oscommerce but no one has modified the oscommerce copyright in their code”.
    That is far from the truth and is complete misinformation, osCommerce derivatives including ZenCart and CRELoaded that at least I have checked, violate the GNU/GPL in principle, because the files of the packages, omit the original copyright headers. What they do is to add a line saying: “Portions copyright osCommerce” which in my view has the sole purpose to marginalize the efforts of the original authors. And in some cases no copyright headers at all. You know there are many tricks someone could do, displace the copyright headers to the bottom of the file or outside the view when editing a file. All these are illegal. If Harald starts legal proceedings against them they will be in trouble.

    @Rhea. You said, “How can anyone steal the osCommerce code – it’s Open Source. Anyone can take it, use it and modify it in any way they want”.
    You can take it and modify it but you cannot mangle the original copyright headers in anyway. Even in your case with the ongoing dispute for osCommerce, you leave them in the original place and add your copyright headers for the mods you do. Now I cannot tell who did that and modified the original osCommerce headers/links, as I cannot download anything from your site without an account. But the files I see posted across the forums have the original copyright headers moded. That’s not good at all and for sure violates the GNU/GPL.

    As of the contribution in question that someone mentioned earlier on that Alex re-uploaded the package, I don’t see a point since the headers were modified in the first place. The whole structure of the file is osCommerce so the original copyright headers should been kept intact then additional copyright headers for the mods of the file should follow as well as where the file came from. Instead I see spamy headers in the first version of the contribution where the osC link was removed and 2 other links were placed instead in it. The most recent version of the contribution, since there is no coding effort, represents some sort of revenge towards the headers nothing more. In my view the contribution should be removed, as these community members do not respect the copyrights.

  182. TotallyFooked

    @enigma1

    I wrote the following but you only commented on the first part: Many have modified oscommerce but no one has modified the oscommerce copyright in their code except you and even if others have it is up to the copyright holder who to make a claim against.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 1 because Harald will get the oscommerce name as he is the project leader and no oscommerce member objects to that, we would rather him have it than you.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 2 because a link will be posted here soon informing people how they can use the IPO website to link make a complaint without paying any fees and linking their claim in with Haralds by default thus making his claim stronger

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 3 because you tried to register something you were not entitled to and your justifications for keeping this matter on going are pathetic.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 4 because you know Harald will end up with the TM otherwise you would never have offered him a ‘solution’ by sharing the name.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 5 because the money you are putting in trying to find a way out of litigation is laughable! Haha I am sooooo glad you are paying money to lawyers for your useless little activity, it sets a precedent for other would-be ‘lets register an existing tm’ mob.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 6 because by the time the case will be won by Harald you will have nothing in the bank and your limited company will probably be wound up. Haha!

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 7 because you did not even register your own beloved Readycart as a tm but chased oscommerce, shame on you.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 8 because you did not even register your own osQuantum as a tm but chased oscommerce, shame on you.

    @Vger
    You are totally fooked part 9. Haha on your litigation fees 🙂

  183. enigma1

    @TotallyFooked “even if others have it is up to the copyright holder who to make a claim against.”
    Sure you did, but in my view whoever is behind a copyright violation is responsible.

    This case, in terms of copyright, is no different than the others and was committed in exactly the same way. What difference does it make if you change a link or the name or the license or relocate or strip the headers completely? You change the copyright headers illegally, that’s the offense anyhow because you are stealing the work of others and presenting it as your own.

    Now in terms of trademark it is new, but my question that goes unanswered really, is why it was authorized in the first place? The way I see it is, if it was authorized what makes you so certain that it will be reversed in time? In time, because it won’t be any good if this process goes on for long.

    So although you may want to have as much opposition as possible by asking people: “they can use the IPO website to link make a complaint” what makes you think it will have an effect? The UK IPO was involved in the first place and they are responsible for this mess. So either they don’t care what trademark they authorize (cuz they get 300 GBP), or they did it on purpose.

    In the former case will be really sad, because that means any trademark can go through. Are these guys totally dumb or there is more to it? If they are dumb sooner or later someone will go and trademark the word “trademark” claiming perhaps royalties on all trademarks in UK. Unbelievable but with all I’ve seen lately is possible.

    Don’t forget if you go after crooks or phantom companies they may just bankrupt or disappear and you get nothing really other than wasting resources. Instead go after their “sponsors” and those who officially approve and authorize the scam.

  184. George Nevis

    @enigma1

    “The most recent version of the contribution, since there is no coding effort, represents some sort of revenge towards the headers nothing more”

    If you would BOTHER TO LOOK, then you would see that the package I uploaded is a 100% complete rewrite. It was written from scratch using fresh files taken from osCommerce RC2a. The code is entirely different, from the database query to the output and also includes manufacturers.

    An apology from you is in order.

  185. Vger

    @ Matti – “the osCommerce lawyers are far better than your lawyers”

    That’s odd, considering that the Chairman of our company actually taught some of the litigators at Beck Greener.

    “(you didn’t even use a lawyer for the registration, since if you had, the application never would have been made).”

    Just as well we didn’t then. I’ve seen Harald Ponce de Leon’s application and I can tell you that as it stands, without any opposition, it will in all pobability fail. Ours was initially worded exactly the same way and got bounced back to us for amendment by the IPO with copies of case law showing why we couldn’t word our application that widely. But we weren’t a specialist IP company so can be excused for getting it wrong first time around.

    @ Matti – Can we take it then that you no longer hold the belief you held two years ago that the old osCommerce project must be taken over (taken away) from Harald Ponce de Leon by a “strong team” or else the advent of Magento would spell the “death of osCommerce” (your wording not mine)?

    @Totally Fooked re., costs.

    Yes, we know exactly how much it is costing us, and we know that it is costing Harald Ponce de Leon exactly the same sort of figure.

    @enigma1 – Yes, if our company could not meet its debts and was wound up then our total liability is limited to our share capital. We are a “penny share” company, and we have no “sponsors”.

    Vger

  186. enigma1

    @George Nevis: “If you would BOTHER TO LOOK, then you would see that the package I uploaded is a 100% complete rewrite.”
    Although the code diffs are outside the scope of the blog here I believe I mentioned Alex uploaded not you. And yes I bothered to look.

    I checked the files few days ago and I remember seeing different things than what I see now. Something was changed since I still see Alex as the maintainer but I do not see his package anymore.

    So there, you have your answer I wasn’t talking about your release because I just downloaded it. Perhaps my mistake was not to check the files again today but I was not expecting things to change that fast.

    In my opinion the right thing you guys should have done, was to inform a moderator about the violation of the copyright headers. By uploading new packages all you do is keeping the package with wrong headers in place with other members downloading and adding to the whole confusion.

  187. i2Paq

    @enigma1 and @George Nevis, please take that discussion elsewere as it will cloud the discussion abot the theft by Vger and her gang.

  188. George Nevis

    @enigma1

    There have been in total 4 packages uploaded. The original by Alex (web-project), another including french translation by leirisset, the package uploaded by Glcustoms and the package uploaded by myself. The only one of these that has the file headers changed to proper osCommerce headers is my package and thus can be the only one for you to describe as “some sort of revenge towards the headers nothing more”.

    I created the package solely because the moderator would not remove all packages. Call that revenge if you like, I don’t care. What I do not like is you saying “since there is no coding effort” for something that was coded from scratch and doesn’t have the elementary coding errors that the original package had.

  189. enigma1

    @George Nevis. Probably the order you said is right. I remember the 2 packages I compared for file diffs, was that one of Alex and the one of Glcustoms few days ago. And between these versions only the headers were different (At least in the main file). I remember though the file Alex uploaded had the osCommerce original headers, it’s the reason of the earlier comments.

    As I mentioned I did not compare your files and so honestly I did not mean to offend you.

    Now you were saying:
    “I created the package solely because the moderator would not remove all packages.”
    So if I understand correctly you did inform them of the copyright violation, but they only removed the first version uploaded by web-project?

  190. George Nevis

    @enigma1

    The file headers in the package uploaded by Alex are:

    osCommerce (Open Source Commerce)
    http://www.oscommerceproject.org

    Copyright (c) 2003 osCommerce

    Released under the GNU General Public License

    Glicustoms was upset because the only thing changed was the removal of his name/link.

    Yes, I reported the contribution, then saw that only web-project’s package was removed (I did say ALL packages in the report), so created and uploaded a whole new package. I could have just corrected the headers, however the coding was so bad I decided to rewrite it completely, including the language files.

    Jan says that soon their project will be history, so it doesn’t matter (I don’t agree it doesn’t matter).

    @i2paq – Glicustoms is one of the “gang”.

  191. Gary Post author

    @George – please check your email – got a question for you…
    Thanks, Gary

  192. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – another post and again you’ve ignored my very simple question. It seems strange that you are willing to come and argue about any small point, muddy the waters as much as you can etc – and yet you won’t answer a very straightforward question. Trying to hide something?

  193. Vger

    @ Gary – I cannot say what was in the offers that have been made to resolve this issue, until the legal issues are actually resolved. I have made it clear already that you play a very small part in this, but nevertheless you do play a small part and on the side of Harald Ponce de Leon.

    So you can repeat your question as often as you like – you won’t get an answer to it this side of an end to this dispute. Is that clear enough for you now?

    Vger

  194. Gary Post author

    More muddying of the water. Well played!

    I’m surprised that it is your view that using the word “osCommerce” on a website constitutes being on the side of HPDL. That makes you, and your “believers” on the side of HPDL doesn’t it? After all, you TM’d the word. Oh no, I’ve just pissed on your leg and told you it’s raining.

    Or is there really something more going on, which you prefer to hide. Yes, I’m pretty sure there is.

    “you do play a small part” – lol, it’s farcical!

  195. TotallyFooked

    So Vger now says she thinks Haralds applciation will fail and this still gives her the right to a trademark that already exists even though it was not registered.

    Vger has stooped so low the gutter is on the horizon for her, tut

  196. Matti Ressler

    @Vger

    So the chairman of ip21 was involved with your registration? No. You admit “Just as well we didn’t then” (have a lawyer). I believe that 100% and this is why you are now in such a poo, even though at the time you ran around telling everybody:

    “In case you haven’t read it in other threads on this subject we have taken legal counsel on our use of the name osCommerce and our legal counsel advises that Harald would not win any court case trying to enforce osCommerce as his trademark”.

    Oh, I am not saying you are lying about “legal counsel”, its just that your “legal counsel” was http://www.lectlaw.com 😀

    I believe that osCommerce needs a stronger team, yes. It needs stronger leadership, yes. The osCommerce project was begun by Harald Ponce de Leon and he is the project leader. Nobody can or should try to take that away from him, he deserves it. So, in my opinion Harald needs to be a stronger leader and needs to put together a stronger team. In this current matter, Harald is showing firm judgement and has listened to good advice. That is a very good sign. Harald began the project at a very young age, however he is now 30. I would hope that milestone will see a more mature and businesslike approach from him, thus far he is doing just fine.

  197. TotallyFooked

    Well said Matti, I could not have put it better myself.

  198. Joop

    @gary

    In the risk of being banned 🙂 🙂 LOL

    “I’m surprised that it is your view that using the word “osCommerce” on a website constitutes being on the side of HPDL.”

    I can’t read this from Rhea’s response she just siad that you are on the side of Hdpl, which you are.

    “Or is there really something more going on, which you prefer to hide. Yes, I’m pretty sure there is.”

    Yes there is and we all know it, making money from the name oscommerce.
    Which of cource she can’t say at the moment, if it was purely personal she could have said that, that wouldn’t harm her case.

  199. Gary Post author

    @Joop – your banned! LOL

    Seriously though, I read it like this;

    1. I got a note saying “we will contact you regarding use of the name “club oscommerce”.

    My thought; obviously cannot be the word club that is problematic, so has to be oscommerce – we all agree on this I think.

    2. “you play a small part and on the side of HPDL”.

    My thought; I’ve never said I’m on anyones side – at least I dont think so 😉 Though I am certainly NOT on the side of Rhea Anthony, that’s for sure.

    So, putting 2 and 2 togther, I can only assume that my use of the word osCommerce is what is Rhea is talking about with regards to “being on the side of HPDL”.

    How do you read it?

  200. Gary Post author

    @Rhea – so, what you are saying is that I won’t get an answer, because you cannot answer, as it might prejudice any ongoing “communications” between the two sets of IP firms. Fair?

  201. TotallyFooked

    Gary you are cutting Vger too much slack by thinking she is refraining from answering your question because of an on-going legal process.

    She is was going to use your blog as a guinea pig to test the water. If you buckled over easily then she would have applied the same pressure to other people to close down sites with oscommerce is their domain, yours incidently is ‘clubosc’ and she had no chance of closing you down.

  202. Matti Ressler

    I think that the intention is very clear, let’s look at it again:

    “This will allow us to proceed now to officially licence the use of our trademark, and ends the confusion over who is and is not entitled to legaly [sic] use the name osCommerce.

    We shall be in touch officially with the owner of this forum about continued use of the name “Club osCommerce.”

    Their intention is to license the use of the mark.
    They claim to be the only ones who can legally use the mark (unless they license it’s use to you).

    Clearly, their view is that the use of the term “Club osCommerce” implies that this blog is sanctioned by them. This could be strongly argued from a legal perspective by a mark holder.

    The final conclusion is that their intention was to present terms to you under which you could use the name and judging from their other letters and announcements, to extract a fee from you for use of the name UNDER THEIR TERMS.

    This means that you would lose the freedom of expression that you blog now enjoys, since you would need to abide by their terms and you can be CERTAIN those would include the removal of any criticism of them.

  203. Java Roasters

    @Matti

    Good points but to add to your conclusions on Vger’s projects web site on the sponsors page there is;
    They will be entitled to call their company “osCommerce ® Corporate Sponsors” and to use the name osCommerce on their website and in any UK based advertising.

    And

    The new osCommerce Project is pleased to receive applications from companies wishing to support the Project. There are two options – quarterly sponsorship and annual sponsorship. The Annual Fee is £2,000, and the Quarterly fee is £600.00. There is a saving of £400.00 if payment is made on an annual basis.

    Since you have to “apply” to be a corporate sponsor then you can assume that there will be conditions attached to the application and approval so I think it is safe to assume that this blog would be censored.

  204. Matti Ressler

    I think that Matthijs put it well:

    Our self proclaimed osCommerce saviour did not wait long to take her shiny trademark out for a testdrive. UK based Gary Burton, a.k.a. wellknown osCommerce crack Burt, had the dubious honour to be the first to receive a nice taste of what was in store for any U.K. competition http://www.matthijs.org/vger_fail

    The mind boggles! How do you think a magistrate would deal with such behavior? A company registers an established trademark, then begins to harass the business partners of the established mark holder?

    Some here have criticized UK law for allowing the mark to be registered. Careful thought however will reveal why the law instead expects the application to be made in good faith. Were the IPO to investigate every application, as suggested here, then this principle would need to be applied to all aspects of government, the costs of which would be enormous and the practical application of which would lead to the entire system grinding to a halt. Its just not practical. You are expected to abide by the law and most people do. When people do not, then the remedies for that are also in place within the law.

    Let us hope that the full weight of the law will come to bear upon Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.

  205. TotallyFooked

    Vger and her pre-planned attempt to take oscommerce away from us is laughable.

    Please note NTL (as it was known then) could not close down the domain containing “NTL” where a forum was set up to list people who suffered bad customer services from NTL.

    Nor has a very powerful eBay owned company called “PayPal” been able to to even apply any pressure on “http://www.paypalsucks.com/”. using the name means nothing but implying you ‘are’ the business is deemed contrary to the registrars contract. In this case Vgers company is the registrar but oscommerce was an existing trademark which was not declared to the IPO by Vgers company when making the application and as Matti pointed out, if they had used a trademark specialist the advice given to Vger and company would have been to not even think about registering the trademark as litigation would ensue and eventual financial losses.

  206. enigma1

    I do not follow very well the point about the names with respect to the trademark issue. For virtually every company every popular product or service there cons and pros discussed across web sites. There are cases like the ones you listed (eg: paypal) yes. But there are also others like with Microsoft or HP that went after Hosts and Sites to claim domains if I recall correctly.

    I believer here we have 2 things.
    1) The osCommerce copyright violations
    2) The trademark for osCommerce

    In my mind there is no ambiguity to any of these,
    1. The copyrights, they belong to osCommerce respectful owners and contributors. Community members, old and present team, Harald and in general to each author who published a contribution or a technical article for the osCommerce framework. So altering the original headers in the files even by one character and releasing them again, is enough to constitute a violation subject to what was changed obviously.

    2. The trademark should be driven by the copyright in this case (even if you cannot find an older registration) as the dispute is directly related to the original osCommerce framework. These aren’t apples and oranges.

    Perhaps for the UK IPO staff it’s easy to sit behind a server panel, click a button, approve something and pretty much recycle the work of thousands of users in a millisecond. At the end of the day if there is a dispute they won’t pay for the damages. So in “good faith” they receive 300 quid per app and they aren’t responsible for what follows.

    Yes sure, if Harald goes to the court he will prove his case. But at what expense? Is it logical for every case the rightful copyright owners have to go through a marathon to reverse the doings of crooks who at the end of the day they will pretty much say “Hey why do you blame us? We went through legal proceedings and got the trademark”.

    Show me here where on the IPO site says otherwise. Step-2 of the trademark application states:

    “One of our examiners assesses your application based on the requirements of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Trade Marks Rules 2000 (as modified). You should read about these requirements in the What are the requirements of trade mark registration? pages.”

    Clicking the first link in the page content we read among other things:

    We will not accept marks which….
    – are not distinctive
    – are deceptive. There should be nothing in the mark which would lead the public to think that your goods and services have a quality which they do not.

    So use your brain, step 2 means it’s the job of the examiner to verify a trademark application properly and not to just click a button.

    Also I posted another link above few days ago with another package that is listed on sourceforge.net which is an oscommerce striped of headers. That person is probably somewhere in Asia. So what now? sourceforge says resolve the dispute with the “owner” of the package pretty much. Are these serious statements? In the same way every warez site could say take it up with whoever uploaded or made the cracks. That’s why you go after hosts, ISPs, authorities so they can rectify their procedures.

    Even if this issue is resolved eventually what guarantees are there, that someone else won’t do it again? What if Harald was in Peru. Do you think it is easy to make arrangements with lawyers from country to country or they’re inexpensive? They are costly and time consuming.

  207. Joop

    Just funny !

    A couple of days ago i registered at oscommerceproject.org and before registration i had to agree with the following terms:

    Forum Terms & Rules

    Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the “Register” button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the ‘back’ button on your browser.

    Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message.

    The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.

    You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

    You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.

    Funny isn’t it.

  208. Joop

    “Harald indicates that this paves the way for an out of court settlement.

    This does not however mean that the game is over for Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.”

    Mmmmm, i wonder.
    If this whole case fizzeles out i will cancel my subscription to oscommerce for once and for all.

  209. Matti Ressler

    @enigma1

    Were we to follow your reasoning, then we should expect that every time I walk into a bank I will be frisked for weapons in case I walked in to rob it, or that my car should be hobbled to prevent me from breaking the speed limit etc. ad nauseam. The law everywhere expects people to be lawful and trademark registration is no different. The applicant is expected to make a lawful application, simple as that. That is how it should be. The duty of the registering officer is to be sure that prior registered marks do not exist.

    You could just as easily criticize osCommerce for not registering the mark (it is well known that is saw this problem coming years ago). Welcome to the real world. Nothing is sacred and nothing is safe. Robbers could come tomorrow and ransack your house. Do we criticize you for not putting up iron barriers or law enforcement for not sitting outside your house to make sure you are not robbed?

    @Joop

    An out of court settlement, which should always have been expected, will mean that essentially yes, it will fizzle out, unless others also take action available to them. Legal representation is very costly and it cannot be expected that osCommerce continue for the sake of vengeance if their demands are satisfied. This of course does not satisfy justice and that is an inherent weakness in the law. In my opinion, where criminality is involved, then prosecution should be mandatory.

  210. tony

    matti, yet again i feel the need to point out that this is entirely a CIVIL matter. Every single charge that even you have accused us of is purely civil, no criminal activity has even been hinted at by you. You have erroneously described a number of supposed offences as criminal, yet every single one of them is civil.

    “In my opinion, where criminality is involved, then prosecution should be mandatory.” Be very careful what you wish for.

  211. Joop

    Tony is right in that, it’s purely civil even when they go to court. It will be the civil court.

  212. Joop

    At leaset art of the fight for the Open Source community is already won, the copyright violation is established and dealt with.

  213. Matti Ressler

    @Joop

    Yes, at the negotiations between osCommerce and Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. are a civil matter. Criminal prosecution can only be instigated by government agencies, such as Trading Standards.

  214. TotallyFooked

    Vger in a criminal court along with her fellow directors, that is a lovely thought!

  215. Joop

    There is always the very slight chance that even when Harald and ecommerce ventures come to an out of court settlement criminal charges are brought forward against ecommerce ventures.

    I do meen ‘a very, very slight change’.

  216. tony

    Matti, the link you posted only includes one criminal offence which has any bearing, “Unauthorised use of a trade mark”. As the trade mark is currently owned by eCommerce Ventures Ltd, that offence could only be bought to bear on another entity, and that would be a very difficult case to bring and as you well know, would most likely not ever make it to court.

    I still have yet to see a single criminal offence that could be brought against either an individual director or the company itself. By all means enlighten me if you see different, but the constant reiteration of allegations of criminality are wearing a little thin.

  217. TotallyFooked

    @Tony

    How many cases are there where one company has infringed someones unregistered trademark and registered it themselves? Not many becuase unlike some vultures sme people and their companys do have morals and ethics.

    How would it feel if you were using your osQuantum unregistered trademark for nearly a decade only for one of your disgruntled ex team members to go to the IPO and register it, only to then write to “clubosQ” giving subtle threats about misusing the name. Not only that but to go a step further and call themselves the osQuantumProject and change your copyrighted code. It would feel sad, you would rightfully be upset.

    In this osQ sceanrio it would be great not only to have the scumbags who used unhanded tactics to register your unregistered trademark hand it over to you, but to see the bas*ards and bi*ches in a criminal court for what they did would be even great! Serve those c**ts right, even the whole of oscommerce and all of its forks would be backing you up as one day some c**t may try and do it to them.

    Now going a step further, it would be wonderful if Harald could also take to court the ‘company’ responsible and those who run it and make a financial claim on various grounds. The icing on the cake would be a criminal case in a court of law where those who plotted (as it seems to many of us) to pass-off oscommerce as their name and their business in order for nothing but financial gain, well I hope it happens.

  218. tony

    @TotallyFooked – “it be wonderful if”….thats one point of view. However, we live in the real world and have to deal with real events and real laws. It would be wonderful if I could get the police involved with all the defamation of character that has been occurring, however that would be a civil matter, so they would not be interested. It would be wonderful if malicious slander carried a prison sentence, but it doesn’t.

    It would seem we are edging ever closer to resolution with HPDL. That should be seen as a good thing I would have thought. Obviously there are still people who feel that their axe has yet to be fully ground, and there are some who still feel genuinely aggrieved. I am sorry to those who still feel their case has not been heard or given any time, but I do think that the interested bystanders who are just using this as an opportunity to have a pop either at the project or at individuals really should pack their toys away and go home now.

  219. i2Paq

    @Tony,

    For me counts that we, the osCommerce community, get what we want and that is our name back and that you cannot use that name in any way ever again.
    What else happens to “you”, I really do not care.

  220. TotallyFooked

    @Tony

    Yes edging closer to a resolution with Harald is great news for everyone. I hope the oscommerce trademark is to be registered to Harald and following that I hope the company Vger owns is made to pay compensation to Harald too but this can only happen if he pursues civil litigation and I hope that is not part of the negotiation.

    As for toys and going home, I say only this, it is widely accepted on oscommerce forums and those who know of the matter that no one should have tried to register an unregistered trademark especially with the dubious statements coming Vger about having enough time to do this and that as resoultion can take a long time. It is widely accepted by many oscommerce users that Vgers registration of the oscommerce trademark was nothing more than theft even though she and you would dispute it.

    I hope her company hands over the trademark and also has to pay legal fees that Harald has incurred. After that I hope Harald takes out a criminal case as well 🙂

  221. tony

    @TotallyFooked. Listen, you have your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it. What you are not entitled to though is to continuously state incorrectly that any of this is a criminal matter. Even if it were, as Matti stated above an individual cannot instigate a criminal case, only authorities can do that. There is NO criminal activity involved anywhere with this case, and even our most ardent opponents have yet to state a single criminal offence that has been committed.

    Stating a civil offence and calling it criminal does not make the offence criminal. With no criminal offence, the alleged offenders can therefore NOT be described as criminals.

    “Vgers registration of the oscommerce trademark was nothing more than theft”. OK, for starters, in UK law, theft is the act of depriving somebody permanently of their property. Property is physical. Intellectuial Property would cover a trademark, it is NOT physical and therefore is not covered by the theft laws. They are covered by Intellectual property laws, and as stated a number of times, they are predominantly civil, and as relate to this case are all civil matters.

    And as to what is “widely accepted on osCommerce forums”, Ive said it before, but for a forum of over 200,000 people, the number of people posting on this is surprisingly few, a segment of which I strongly suspect are multiple accounts to hide the true posters’ identities. I am certain that there are people who are extremely angry by the events of the last few months, and I by no means wish to belittle or decry their opinions, but the general osC community are either apathetic or perhaps want to know the full story before they pass comment. The more recent posters dont have a true and full version of events, as the number of downright false content in the thread is laughable. There is also a large amount of implied content which to somebody outside of the case shows a completely skewed picture of the way things are.

  222. Matti Ressler

    Ahh, the master of obfuscation is at it again. Mr Polite is now Mr Innocent and Mr LawExpert.

    If you were so expert at law, you would not find yourself in the sorry mess you are in. If anything is laughable, it is the way your company consulted ‘lectlaw.com for its legal advice. I am up to the challenge, however don’t have the time this morning, but I SHALL post on my website exact proof that much of your activities are indeed criminal.

    The truth is that now a civil settlement is on its way that you expect to simply get away with it, as often does happen in such matters.

  223. TotallyFooked

    @Tony

    Hold your hand up and apologise to Gary for voting for him to be banned without giving a reason and aplogise to the rest of us for registering the already used yet unregistered trademark “oscommerce”

    @Matti

    I know what you mean. The Vger and Tony duo seem to have all the characteristics of someone who is as guilty as hell and got in too deep. I can only colclude they do not apologise because it is an admission of guilt and they can not do that while Harald is making them pay legal fees bleeding them dry 🙂

  224. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    Tony must know that a listing of offences posted on the IPO web site is likely not exhaustive; merely informative of several common causes of enforcement action.

    While I am not learned in the laws of the United Kingdom, it appears that the following may apply. I direct your attention to Section 94 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which states:

    “94. – (1) It is an offence for a person to make, or cause to be made, a false entry in the register of trade marks, knowing or having reason to believe that it is false.

    (2) It is an offence for a person-
    (a) to make or cause to be made anything falsely purporting to be a copy of an entry in the register, or
    (b) to produce or tender or cause to be produced or tendered in evidence any such thing, knowing or having reason to believe that it is false.

    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable-
    (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both;
    (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.”

    Paragraph (1) appears to apply in this case, but getting the authorities to pursue it may prove difficult, especially given that Harald never registered the mark.

    However, Ms Anthony’s public statements on her web site clearly give the impression that she knew that HPDL was using the mark for a number of years prior to her registration of it. The prior history of involvement by the other directors of eCommerce Ventures Ltd at osCommerce.com should lead a reasonable person to believe that they were also aware of this.

    Ms Anthony’s standard of “abandonment” of the mark is not necessarily the one a court of competent jurisdiction would use. A more reasonable test might be whether the product carrying the mark has remained available (it has, even though by some arguments it is not “actively developed”), and whether HPDL derived any income through use of the mark. Corporate sponsorship schemes on his web site seem to indicate that he has.

  225. Matti Ressler

    It cannot be said that osCommerce is not actively developed or has not been. It can be said that development has been slow, but that is not the same. Both Mark Evans (Sparky) and I for example have osCommerce development branches.

  226. tony

    In one post Matti you exemplify everything that is wrong with this discussion. I have never once said you do not have some valid points, however you then use implication and veiled accusations to make everything seem different to how it is.

    “your company consulted ‘lectlaw.com”. This was a comment made by somebody else (??) on oscommerce. It is NOT a statement of fact, yet here you present it as one.

    “Ahh, the master of obfuscation is at it again. Mr Polite is now Mr Innocent and Mr LawExpert.”. Exactly what am I obfuscating? I am stating plain facts, something you could learn greatly from. Im pleased you see me as Mr Polite, that is (to me at least) a compliment. I have never claimed to be a law expert, in fact I have claimed quite the opposite more than once. I do however know how to use the internet to get legal definitions and my brother is a policeman, so I can quote definitions of criminal activities easily. Mr Innocent…I think you will find I have put my hands up to quite a few things on this very blog. Where I am wrong I am happy to admit it. Where I am not, I will argue my case using facts….again would be nice to see that replicated by others.

    “The truth is that now a civil settlement is on its way that you expect to simply get away with it”. Here you imply again criminal activity, as well as an intent to do wrong, neither of which are substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. I really look forward to your “self important blog” (as others have described mine) post about the supposed criminal activities. You have had enough time already, I am surprised that it doesnt already exist.

    and Mr Fooked, you seem remarkably well informed on certain matters, or at least like to give that impression. Would be nice to know who you really are at some point, but for the moment lets look at what you write. “Hold your hand up and apologise to Gary for voting for him to be banned without giving a reason”. Um, how about you read what I already have written on that matter. For starters I assume you refer to Garys banning from our forum (its not overly clear). I wrote on September 11th directly to Gary on this blog thread “I wasnt party to your banning from our forums, nor did I see your post. I cant say I have agreed with every banning that has happened, and from what I have seen whilst your opposition is obvious, your general approach has differed markedly from others.”. I think thats pretty clear dont you?

  227. tony

    @i2paq – sorry cant get a decent translation of that anywhere. A little help please?

  228. Matti Ressler

    Quote: Rhea Anthony (Vger):

    “As for the ‘trademark’ and ‘copyright’ issues I believe I am correct. You don’t think I’d say that without a good deal of research do you? Just a sample:

    Rights in a trademark/mark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark.
    Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t039.htm

    Nice research LMAO

  229. i2Paq

    @Matti, that is a rough translation, very rough.
    It depends more on the context where it is used.
    It’s more that he talks the same way as Vger, it is never his/her fault but always the “other”. And that is, as we all know: bullshit.

    It would be such a sign of intelligence to just say that they have it wrong and what they did was indecend, but that is to much to ask I think.

  230. Matti Ressler

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
    10769 Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles &c
    (1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright
    owner –
    69 ss.107(2A) & (4A) added by SI 2003/2498. Maximum sentence set by s107(4)(b) increased from the
    original two years to ten by the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act
    2002.
    98
    (a) makes for sale or hire, or
    (b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and
    domestic use, or
    (c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any
    act infringing the copyright, or
    (d) in the course of a business –
    (i) sells or lets for hire, or
    (ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or
    (iii) exhibits in public, or
    (iv) distributes, or
    (e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an
    extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
    an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an
    infringing copy of a copyright work.

  231. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    @Matti
    “It cannot be said that osCommerce is not actively developed or has not been. It can be said that development has been slow, but that is not the same.”

    I agree, but that was one of the arguments that Rhea used on her forum as justification for this entire misadventure.

  232. Glen (posting as SteveDallas in the osC forums)

    @Matti re vger’s quote:
    “Rights in a trademark/mark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark.”

    This is true as far as it goes, but her definition of “commercial use” is far too narrow.

  233. Matti Ressler

    @Glen,

    Yes, exactly. The point actually was that ´lectlaw.com one a prime sources of legal advice for them, which Tony Blacker denied. They ran around telling everybody that they had legal advice that what they were doing was OK, but now Vger admits (above) that in fact they did not consult a lawyer.

    There is plenty of case law regarding open source trademarks, Linux being one of them and what constitutes “commercial use”. Commercial use does not necessarily require the exchange of money. As you say, too narrow a view.

  234. Joop

    It is a fact that Harald made commercial use of the name ‘oscommerce’, there are sponsors.

    The name ‘oscommerce’ is unbreakable linked with the software product ‘oscommerce’.

    So there is commercial trade, no dispute.

  235. TotallyFooked

    @Gary – Great forum
    @Joop – Yes spot on I agree
    @Matti – Nice bit of research
    @Glen – I agree the non development excuse was cited as Vgers misadventure
    @Tony – You vote on all things eh? Democratically eh? Your company is totally fooked by the time Harald ends litigation
    @Vger – You are totally fooked and your company is totally fooked as well by the time Harald ends litigation 🙂

    Will ecommercelimited have any trade after this debacle has ended? The peopel from that forum are posting here with no regret and no shame, tut

  236. tony

    “The peopel from that forum are posting here with no regret and no shame, tut”

    @TotallyFooked’s request I reclude myself from discussion. You ask for involvement, then get antsy when you get what you ask for. No problem, bye. (would still love to know who you really are though….time will tell I guess)

  237. TotallyFooked

    Before you go, no sign of an apology Tony?
    No sign of an apology for registering the “oscommerce” trademark at the IPO when you knew that it was already an existing unregistered trademark since around 2000?

  238. Matti Ressler

    @Tony – “I reclude myself from discussion”

    I am sorry, but what exactly are you opening? Did you mean you are opening yourself TO discussion?

  239. TotallyFooked

    I look it up on the net. Reclude means to open or to unclose!

    I guess that’s not the first time anyone associated with that lot got it wrong 🙂

  240. Matti Ressler

    Well, he did brag that he doesn’t sit there with a thesaurus on his lap but instead has an unfathomably rich command of English, but then, these guys really don’t have a reputation for educating themselves, do they?

    Tony’s silence on my quote from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is particularly telling. There is no escaping the truth other than to run, so he has found the first excuse he could fabricate to do exactly that.

  241. tony

    Typo in my previous post, should read “preclude” (To save your googling – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preclude, second definition is the intended meaning, as in I am excluding myself voluntarily from further discussion). Thanks for the amusing commentary though. Matti, your post on copyright deserves no comment (being an extreme leap from actual events to what is defined in law as well as the vast majority being completely irrelevant anyway), as do the vast majority of your posts. It wasnt an excuse, it was a request from an ally of yours which I accepted (and not the first time I was asked to go away), but I very much doubt you will even acknowledge I have written that as it doesn’t fit neatly into your pre-conceived ideas about me.

    Gary, just wanted to say thank you for hosting this and having the grace to allow me to post my side of the story, as well as listening to my responses to your questions even if certain other readers didnt want to hear them.

    To the others – Dont worry, I wont be back again.

  242. Matti Ressler

    @Tony

    I have said it before and I will say it again, you are a coward.

    Nobody here told you to go, you just mangled what somebody else said to make an excuse to skulk away.

    The law, as posted above, exposes you guys in all your infamous glory for what you really are.

  243. Matti Ressler

    A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright
    owner –

    (c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any
    act infringing the copyright, or
    (d) in the course of a business
    (iii) exhibits in public, or
    (iv) distributes

  244. Gary Post author

    @Tony – no clue if you’ll see this – but thanks for providing answers to what questions you could. At least you did more than Rhea Anthony, who was only ever here to cause more problems than solutions.

    I would have liked this forum to be one where both sides could meet with amicable intentions, but that was never really going to be I suppose. C’est la vie.

  245. enigma1

    @Matti,
    Sorry, I do not see the relevance of your example to the current case. The bottom line of my earlier comment is, if the procedure to register a trademark remains weak, the same problem will happen again. Obviously a local database search coupled with good faith, aren’t enough to protect copyright holders in the short run at least.

    So if there is a doubt or for whatever reason they cannot reliably conclude to whom a trademark belongs to, they shouldn’t assign it at all. Either reject it or ask the applicant to provide additional information to prove the ownership of a product.

  246. TotallyFooked

    enigma1 that is wishful thinking.

    The procedure does not need to change because it stops the IPO taking responsibility for checking registered names before assigning them, it does not check unregistered names or claims to unregistered names unless someone comes along and informs them and lodges an objection.

    In fairness the IPO cannot be held responsible because if it were then it would be open to lawsuits. The current procedure is sufficient in that if no one voluntarily comes forward to lodge an objection they will assign the trademark to the applicant unless it is already an IPO registered trademark or one already registered elsewhere within Madrid Protocol guidelines.

    What happened here was very bad because someone registered a trademark at the IPO when they knew it was already an existing unregistered trademark for a decade and this is against IPO guidelines and instructions. This is where people who deliberately do what Vger seems to have done open themselves up for litigiation.

  247. Joop

    “What happened here was very bad because someone registered a trademark at the IPO when they knew it was already an existing unregistered trademark for a decade and this is against IPO guidelines and instructions.”

    I don’t think so, the IPO can never be aware of all unregistered common law trademarks, where should they start and when should they stop searching ?
    The IPO handeled within their guidelines.

    That’s why the law says that it is a criminal offence to register a trademark in bad faith.
    You are responsible for the registration and it’s consequences.

  248. Joop

    Talking about guidelines, the registration of the European tradmark by Hdpl should have been rejected on formal grounds right away because there is already a registered trademark. Disputed or not.

    Now there are two entries for oscommerce at the IPO, figure that out…..

  249. TotallyFooked

    joop

    When I wrote
    “What happened here was very bad because someone registered a trademark at the IPO when they knew it was already an existing unregistered trademark for a decade and this is against IPO guidelines and instructions.”

    I was talking about Vger. I believe the IPO is fine in what is does.

  250. enigma1

    @TotallyFooked you said:
    “The current procedure is sufficient in that if no one voluntarily comes forward to lodge an objection they will assign the trademark..”
    Yes so even if Harald is indirectly notified (and that is an if) others who perhaps provide osCommerce services won’t. They find out the hard way and this disrupts their businesses. They do not necessarily have the resources to begin legal procedures.

    @joop: you said:
    “Now there are two entries for oscommerce at the IPO..”
    Yes and so it looks like the IPO process is automated. There is no preliminary examination and no human being interferes with the process at least in the beginning.
    So after that the chase begins and it’s difficult to predict the outcome.

    @TotallyFooked you said:
    “That’s why the law says that it is a criminal offense to register a trademark in bad faith.
    You are responsible for the registration and it’s consequences.”
    Right but at the end is the victim who’s really responsible to do the chasing.

    By the time an issue like this is resolved, the crook can make a fortune. And so the 5K GBP fine for the offense is a joke when and if it’s enforced.

    So all I am saying is that a process like this suppose to protect the creator of a product but seems to have the opposite effect. It seems like that thus far at least.

  251. Joop

    @enigma

    You are turning it around.

    If he had registered the trademark a couple of years ago (most people say best 200 pounds i even spend) than all of this would not have happened.
    The attempt to register ‘oscommerce’ by ecommerce vultures would have failed because the IPO would have protected him.

    If Harald had opposed the registration in the early stage the registration by ecommerce vultures would have failed because the IPO woulf have protected him.

    If nobody opposes the registration and the mark is not already registered the IPO can do nothing else than register the mark in behave of the requester.

    So in Harald case it is now ‘crying over spilled milk’ so to say.

  252. Joop

    Look at it onother way

    Perhaps Harald neglected to register the name oscommerce on purpose and was waiting for a vulture to land on the name ‘oscommerce’ so he could drag them to court an sue them for every penny they are worth.

    At the same time giving the name ‘oscommerce’ life again and making everybody else clear that the mark is his and they better payup on his request if they want to use the name or he will see them in court

    In that case Harald used the IPO !

    Interesting view….. LOL

  253. Matti Ressler

    @Joop

    That is certainly what I would have done. To my mind, looking at the objection process, it would be the smart thing to do, since with that you wont even cover costs.

    However, rather than then negotiate through lawyers as Harald has done, I would go for the jugular and seek prosecution for software piracy, etc. etc.

  254. TotallyFooked

    @Matti

    Going for the jugular (meaning seek prosecution for software piracy, etc. etc) is exactly what I would do.

    I waondered why Harald did not put in a ‘legal’ objection so maybe his plan all along was to recover costs from the party that infringed his trademark?

  255. Joop

    Perhaps just outrage that they dare to try it.

    I also wouldn’t have objected in the opposition fase (200 pound wasted money) and waited for the (r) n their site.

  256. Matti Ressler

    @enigma1

    I don’t know why you keep talking about copyright and trademark as though they go hand in hand? It is not IPO’s task to delve at all into copyright when registering a mark. They do a search for existing registered marks and that’s it. The law expects an application to be made in good faith. It is not IPO that failed in its duty, but rather the applicant Ecommerce Ventures Ltd.

  257. i2Paq

    And…, it looks like the R is lost, together with the name osCommerce(project).

    End of a battle?

  258. Joop

    forums.oscommerce.com

    “This forum is moving to a new, more powerful, server at 28th Sept. 17:00 CEST. A downtime of 2 hours is expected.”

    Harald came in some money with this case 🙂 🙂

  259. TotallyFooked

    HAHA Vger and Co are totally fooked!!!!!!!

    All the time they new a settlement had to be sorted out or their company would go probably under and at least two ring?leaders from that project were here blaming Harald for the debacle.

    Shame on Vger and Co for falling so low that they forgot their ass from their elbow

  260. enigma1

    @matti you said, “I don’t know why you keep talking about copyright and trademark as though they go hand in hand?”

    Having the trademark in your possession you can affect copyrighted materials by forcing business to change names, claiming domains etc. You know what I mean. So a trademark application should not be an automated routine.

    Anyways looks like things beginning to change so that’s good.

  261. Matti Ressler

    Its not surprising to see a sudden and radical change, even before an agreement has been reached, considering they had Trading Standards officers knocking at their door in addition to Harald’s lawyers. 😉

  262. TotallyFooked

    Matti where do you get your information from? I would have loved the chance to have been there when TS officers went to Vger and Co 🙂

    HAHA!

  263. Joop

    “On August 14th at 5 pm UK time the name ‘osCommerce’ became the registered trademark of eCommerce Ventures Ltd (owners and operators of the new osCommerce Project). It is —– NOT DUE FOR RENEWAL UNTIL 2019.—–”

    Well, that was wishfull thinking 🙂 🙂

    Let’s see waht the IPO online says now.

  264. i2Paq

    Juich niet te vroeg!

    It looks like there is a hikup in the settlemend reading the .com topic.

  265. TotallyFooked

    How can this ‘Tony’ and the rst of the gang (Vger etc) ever shake off the oscommerce tag from their osquantum? So many people now associate Vger and Tony and ecommerce ventures ltd with what they perceive as theft of the oscommerce name they can never be trusted by old school users of oscommerce and once the same online mags that printed stories of Vger and the new oscommerceproject will print stories about them having to give the name back to Harald, tut tut.

    If their domains are now redirected to osquantum but their forums on the osquantum site as still about RC2 then it means osquantum is a fork 🙂

    They may turn around and say the litigation took its toll and they did not get round to completing osquantum so they will fork RC2 instead but the truth may take longer to come out, maybe longer than a new project called osquantum which was never going to be written a single line of oscommerce coding according to Vger.

    WTF? Humiliation and retreat for those who registered oscommerce as their own trademark and hip-hip hooray for Harald who has saved the day 🙂

  266. Matti Ressler

    This is truly mind boggling!

    Joop commented on the osCommerce forums: “Maybe she is trying to find the million pounds from under het mattress”.

    Vger has said: “As for being sued. I can afford the cost. See you in court.”

    So, it couldn’t be a money issue, surely? Perhaps she has decided to pull Bobby back into the fray to come and knock out everybody’s teeth instead?

    Or perhaps, just perhaps, they have decided that a public defender is in order?

    Regardless, despite changes on their website, Harald is still waiting for a signed agreement. That will need to come one way or the other. That Vger would find herself without legal representation at the penultimate moment is either an indication that they are about to pull another swifty, or they are well and truly fooked.

  267. Matti Ressler

    Oh yes… a swifty indeed, just posted on Vger’s website, they have decided to simply not negotiate any more and have sacked their lawyers. Well, that is their story and I am sure they will stick to it.

    As they say, “It will all come out in the wash” 😀

  268. i2Paq

    “The one outstanding matter is that of our trademark. Part of the offer not accepted by Mr Ponce de Leon was to transfer it to his name. In place of that agreement we have decided to release it back to the IPO. This process will be started within the next 10 working days.”.

    They just hand back the trademark and hope that this is the end of it(?)

  269. Matti Ressler

    Yes, it appears they are “destroying all the evidence” and hoping that will be the end of that matter. Needless to say, Beck Greener will know how to handle the situation, since without a signed agreement, anything that Ecommerce Ventures Ltd. do will not nullify claims that Harald has against them. The damage has still been done.

  270. TotallyFooked

    @Matti

    Yes they really are totally fooked 🙂

    @i2paq

    Vgers tactic seems that sacking their legal firm will allow them to avoid the 3 hour notice and start negotiations all over again. The ecommerce ventures lot have no shame! So now the name will be unregistered and they will face the hall of shame forever for what they did to the oscommerce name.

    I think Vger finally realised she bit off more than what she could chew 🙂 She finally took off the thick black sunglasses and saw the real issues here 🙂 Haha

    Pa Ra Ra Ra Raaaaaaaa “I’m Lovin It”. What are the chances McDees will sue me for saying that!

  271. Matti Ressler

    I would expect the only recourse now will be to take them all into court. If that will be the case, then certainly they need to be hit *hard* in every way possible. Mercy is out of the question. The choice will be a civil action or criminal proceedings. The latter serves justice, however compensation can be hard to get. The former, well that depends a lot on the finer points of law considering they are a limited company. Whether personal liability in a civil suit would come into play I am not sure (it should).

  272. Joop

    ‘Vgers tactic seems that sacking their legal firm’

    That is of course one side of the story there could be another side and that is Ip21 sacking ecommerce vultures as a client.
    I have seen that happen before when a client makes it impossible for the lawyers to reach a reasonable agreement with the other party.

    Picture it, Rhea running around in Ip21 offices shouting ‘it’s mine, it’s mine …. or at least it should be mine’ would you continue doing business with her ?

  273. Joop

    And there is the thirt and another plausable conclusion, it’s about the money and in particulare the legal fees for an already lost case.

    eVultures ltd. is a ‘penny company’ therefor there is no capital, so funding for ongoing procedures must come directly from the current directors cq. shareholders.
    At their so called last ‘board meeting’ it could have been decided by those directors that no additional funding would be done by them and that Rhea if she wants to continue has to finance it on her own.

    As a true vulture which purly prey of others she …. a well you can fill in the dots yourself.

  274. Joop

    Shame that this simple board (again a ban i think LOL) does not have a poll function.

    The question is ‘what would likely be the reason of the current actions by evultures ltd’.

    1) Sticking their head in the sand and playing innocence.
    2) Rejected as clients by their own lawers
    3) Just plain financial

    Please cast your votes now.

  275. Gary Post author

    Talk of criminal and civil action is wide of the mark, and rightly so. Let’s stop the witch-hunt here, and simply ask for a public apology from Rhea Anthony and eCommerce Ventures Ltd to the osCommerce Community, as well as a private apology to those directly threatened, such as Jan Wildeboer, Holbi, HPDL etc.

    I’ll be happy with that, as it puts the whole thing to bed and everyone can get on with doing what they need to do, be that working on their own forks, posting on the official osCommerce forum or simply going back to being an interested bystander.

  276. i2Paq

    I agree with Gary,

    “a public apology from Rhea Anthony and eCommerce Ventures Ltd to the osCommerce Community, as well as a private apology to those directly threatened, such as Jan Wildeboer, Holbi, HPDL etc.”

    So, Rhea, be a “man” and say sorry.

  277. Joop

    @Gary

    I am a little baffled by your last post.

    [quote Gary]
    “Don’t you realise the damage you have caused to the open source community? The whole ethos of Open-ness (is that a word?) is now at stake – and the repercussions of what your team is doing here will be felt for years. No creator of Open Source script is now safe from people like you and your team.”[end quote]

    So you think that giving the trademark back and stop using the name oscommerce is enough ????

    As you can read there is no agreement between Hdpl and eCommerce Ventures Ltd. so Harald has to pay the legal fees for defending his property from an attack himself, no compensation ??

    Do if we ‘forkers’ follow your current point of view, should start saving up now for lawyers fees in case Rhea thinks that one of our forks is worth stealing ??

    [quote Gary]
    “As you might have guessed I’m actually more interested in getting to know why MY website has been targetted than anything else.”
    [end quote]

    So did you maybe get an appology from Tony or Rhea, i do seem to miss your name in the list of people you say should receive an appology while that was where the majority of your post was about.

    I am sorry and i hope you never come under attack of people as ecommecre ventures ltd. but of course you do not own a fork or other software the could try to steal from your so why mind any further. You got wat you wanted in the first place

    By calling it a ‘witch hunt’ now is a bit of a slap in the face.

    As you suggested, i will take any further discussion to the original oscommerce forum.

  278. Gary Post author

    @Matti – no one has been hurt financially as this did not drag on long enough – other than HPDL. Hence if he wants to pursue for damages, that’s perfect. A ltd company gives a lot of protection in the UK. I’m not after damages, I simply want an apology.

    @Joop – I do not own a fork? Really? I own more software than you imagine, I’m not just an osCommerce developer – if you delve in recent history, you might see my name on all sorts of software…but that’s another story for another time. The damage is done, now it is time for damage limitation.

    I don’t know if the word “etc” is a word in your language – it means “and all the rest” or words like that. That includes me – of course I want an apology and a real explanation of why this blog was targetted. It’s all I’ve asked for all along.

    @all – surely now is the time to see that Ecommece Ventures Ltd have backed down and it is time for the whole fiasco to be put to bed.

  279. Xpajun

    I don’t see it as a case of backing down and it’s all over. Someone just backing down does not solve the problem, in fact it probably escalates it. The fact that Ecommece Ventures Ltd has backed down now does not mean that they or anyone else can’t try the exact same thing in the future either with osCommerce or some other unregistered trademark.

    Yes it would be nice to put it all to bed but without a proper and legally defined outcome all we are going to get in that bed is nightmares rather than pleasant dreams

  280. andytaylor

    Harald is applying for a European tradeMark, immediately that is complete then this could never happen again anyway? Ecommerce Ltd are handing their trademark back which allows him to complete his application (I may be wrong but i think his application would be denied if they still held onto it?). There arent any legal agreements but surely this is a pragmatic solution which solves most of the dispute. I think Harald may want his cash back spent on lawyers, but the other bunch are a penny share company so the most he could hope for is a lot less than he has probably spent.

    Harald does now seem to be active on the project again and some old faces have resurfaced to restart work on it. Now the trademark threat has been sorted, oscommerce is in a great position to move forward. Unpopular govermnents have used the tactic for ages of finding a common enemy to unite the masses….would seem oscommerce found itself a common enemy. Good job im not into conspiracy theories.

  281. Joop

    Well Gary, you got your wish (or knew something we didn’t know) LOL

    “We have today received an email from Beck Greener, Mr Ponce de Leon’s legal counsel, informing us that their client is satisfied with the actions we have taken to resolve this matter and that their client will not be pursuing this issue any further.

    Miss Rhea Anthony”

    Now it has ended and everbody goes their sepperate way.

    Wonder when we will hear from them again.

  282. TotallyFooked

    Vger wrote on her forum http://forums.osquantum.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=1556&view=findpost&p=10729
    “”We have today received an email from Beck Greener, Mr Ponce de Leon’s legal counsel, informing us that their client is satisfied with the actions we have taken to resolve this matter and that their client will not be pursuing this issue any further””

    Harald wrote oscommerce http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=343171&view=findpost&p=1443497
    “”The decision not to pursue this legal dispute further against eCommerce Ventures Ltd. is contingent on the prompt surrender of the UK trade mark registration. Rhea Anthony has stated that this will be done by 13th October.

    If this is not done by then, we will apply to the UK Registry to invalidate the registration and will seek its costs against eCommerce Ventures Ltd.

    As no agreed settlement was reached, we reserve the right to include the past infringements in any later claim that is brought against eCommerce Ventures Ltd. should their actions which have been the subject to our claims recommence””

    Now Vger is being economical with the truth 🙂
    Haha Pa Ra Ra Ra Raaaaaa I’m Lovin It
    Vger & company are getting what they deserve including making huge payments to their legal team!

  283. Gary Post author

    Rhea Anthony is still spinning a line – her words, though correct, do not tell the full story. And no sign of an apology to anyone.

  284. Joop

    ‘And no sign of an apology to anyone.’

    My assessment….don’t hold your breath.

  285. TotallyFooked

    My assessment is holding your breath will kill you if waiting for an apology from the company being called “the vultures” 🙂

    Shame on them for still spinning this story so many times that it makes Alastair Campbell’s sexed up document contributing to an illegal war on Iraq more damn believable!

  286. mario

    We won dint we? Just walk away, let them rot in their own nests…all the bitterness is gonner just give you ulcers.

  287. TotallyFooked

    Haha Mario yes we won and they lost!
    The bitterness is something they created so I am happy for them to rot in it as well! 🙂

  288. Java Roasters

    I am glad that the osCommerce forum has been updated and HPDL is finally getting around to doing these tasks that he has been sitting on. I am sure they could have been done a long time ago if he didn’t have to deal with Vger and the gang trying to “save” osCommerce. Vger really has put the production of osCommerce way behind and now that this fiasco seems to coming to an end I am glad that HPDL is now able to get back to working on the project. What a waste of a year IMO.

  289. TotallyFooked

    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-text/tmtsearch-default.aspx

    If you type in ‘oscommerce’ and press search you will see Harald has registered the name in 3 different classes including the one Vger registered it in on behalf of the company known to many as ecommerce vultures. Im glad this issue is finally on its way to being over and as mentioned at least Harald has pulled his finger out and will start working on the latest oscommerce version 🙂

  290. TotallyFooked

    Joop that article written by Kerry Wots-HerFace is an absolute disgrace. The way shes writing makes is so obvious her head is half way up the Vger tunnel where the sun dont shine 🙂

  291. Gary Post author

    This is a real email, from a real person;

    googled the net for a solution.
    This is how I found the forums (what was then called) oscommerceproject.org. Because I wasn’t aware of the issues that Rhea and that team were having with HPDL, I assumed that it was part of the real Oscommerce.com.
    That’s how it looked to me at least.

    Not that it means much per se, but it’s interesting to note that the aim of Rhea to use the osCommerce brand did, in fact, work.

  292. GL Customs

    As an insider at the osQuantum/New osCommerce Project, I feel it is time to add a bit of unknown information to this post. Firstly, my role at the said project was forum moderator, database schematics, programming documentation, and theme designer. I was originally contacted by Bobby shortly after the forked release of osCommerce went live as the “New osCommerce Project.” After continued talks with Bobby, and a vote of confidence from the rest of the team at that time, I joined the project. I do believe I came into the project about 3 weeks before the fiasco that led up to the trademark battle went into motion.

    As most of you have read in comments here, everything was always done as a democracy; the team would hold meetings and vote on each aspect that concerned the project. However, notice I said project. The trademark issue had nothing to do with the project being developed, and for that matter, the trademark was never expected to actually be approved, not even for a second. The trademark was filed by eCommerce Ventures Ltd with no real expectations of it becoming anything more than a notice of intent. If anything, it was originally done to get a rise out of HPDL. The forking of the 2.2MS2 code and use of the project name did not seem to ruffle him up, so this step surely would.

    Sure enough, that did the trick. Unfortunately, it went much further than it should have. No one expected that the ipo would have actually approved the trademark when it was already a recognized entity across the globe with clear ties to the Exchange Project. So what happened next is beyond anything that should have. No one knew exactly what to do with the trademark, but clearly there must have been some great feelings of power held in the moment. And with it going that far, the pot may as well have been stirred some more. “No point in letting a good pot of beans go to waste.” And to answer the burning question as to why this particular blog was attacked in the crossfire: I don’t know. I guess the beans just had to be stirred even more.

    Overall the whole ordeal was a waste of time, waste of resources, and waste of hate among many who believe in the ethos of open-source. I have seen some good come from it all though. This serves as a prime example, a warning so to speak, to any open-source project as to why they should cover their assets and trademark or otherwise incorporate their project. Had eCommerce Ventures Ltd instead been a large corporation with a budget dedicated to, and an agenda aimed at pursuing a trademark for profiteering, the outcome could have been devastating. Now at least it is known that this is something for an established project to pay attention to. Of course it is not ethical to strip a project of its recognition, but we do not exactly live in an ethical world.

    In the end the osQuantum project did suffer the consequences that go along with unethical behavior. Opposition pursued, development was slowed, interest was worn thin, and in time the project came to a halt. On the upside, and I’m not saying it is because of this –but I am insinuating it – osCommerce released a great new version in 2.3, though it still may not be the long anticipated V3, it is certainly rock solid and able to fulfill the needs of many an online retailer.

    G.L. Walker

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *