OCLC suit

Trademark is an important mechanism to control quality, and I can understand OCLC's desire to have attribution and control quality. I do not have any information regarding OCLC's other "policing" mechanisms, and if there is widespread unlicensed use of the mark, they probably have problems in their future. Although I wonder myself at the amount of confusion that one would have with staying in a hotel room using Dewey numbers (or just Dewey numbered books in the room) and the actual classification system, I support OCLC's attempts to seek attribution and perhaps a license for the hotel's use of the system. Loss of the ability to control could be damaging for the Dewey system. In the end, what is wrong with requiring a little attribution? OCLC's choice is interesting. I wonder if people feel "better" about libraries and how to find things (e.g. the DDC mark is actually improved because of the hotel's use) or if they even pay attention to the Dewey system after staying at the hotel. However, if OCLC cannot control these aspects of their work, they will not be able to meet their mission in the end. IP is not necessarily about money -- it's about acknowledging and controlling relationship and quality. IP has been used in many "bad" ways, but this doesn't strike me as inherently troubling.

Dana

Dana Bostrom, MLIS, MA
Office of Software & Copyright Ventures
Intellectual Property & Technology Transfer University of Washington
Ph. 206.616.3451 FAX. 206.616.3322
depts.washington.edu/ventures

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:10:12 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1482930[_at_]cni.org>
From: "Malla Pollack" <mpollack[_at_]law.uoregon.edu> References: <list-1460027[_at_]cni.org> <list-1478365[_at_]cni.org> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: OCLC Suit Against the Library Hotel

As JD/MLS (Masters in Library Science) and a public domain activist, I was appalled at OCLC seemingly overlooking its basic mission -- to advance the spread of information by supporting interlibrary loan programs -- and bringing a law suit which argues for an "intellectual property" doctrine which increases transaction costs for sharing information. I called both the Hotel (no one has called back) and OCLC's attorney (who said someone for OCLC would call me back, but no one has done so).

    Maybe someone from OCLC monitors this listserv and will respond. If not, does anyone know of a contact person at OCLC?

Malla Pollack
Visiting, Univ. of Oregon, Law
541-346-1599
mpollack[_at_]law.uoregon.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Pietro Riolo" <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:27 AM Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: OCLC Suit Against the Library Hotel

>
> This post contains both discussion and my personal rants on OCLC
> and libraries. I insert 20 blank lines between them so that
> people who don't want to listen to my rants will know where to
> stop.
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.org
> <editor[_at_]info-commons.org> wrote:
> >
> > I realize that the OCLC suit against the Library Hotel is a trademark
suit
> > (not a copyright suit). However, I bring it up as a topic for
discussion
> > here because it seems to me that the way the suit is presented may tend
to
> > attempt to use trademark to compensate for some of the limitations of
> > copyright.
>
> That is not the first time. _Dastar v. Fox_ showed that Fox
> attempted to create perpetual copyright through trademark.
>
>
> > In bringing the trademark action, OCLC says that the Library Hotel has
> > infringed its trademarks in "Dewey Decimal Classification," "Dewey," and
> > "DDC" as they apply to its library classification system. But further,
they
> > say that the use by the hotel of "elements of the Dewey Decimal
> > Classification System in its hotel concept, marketing and promotion"
are, by
> > extension, trademark violations.
> >
> > So it appears that the trademark issue is being expanded beyond the
> > registered trademarks to include the classification system itself.
> > Admittedly, it is a tough line to draw: where does the name of the
system
> > end and the system itself begin? But it is an important line to draw if
it
> > means addressing the issue of what IP law overall can actually protect.
>
> Trademark is very sensitive to context. My favorite example is
> the word "apple". By itself, it is not a trademark. However, if
> I write "apple" on a generic PC, it can be considered as a trademark
> violation if I don't have permission from Apple, Inc.
>
> If I am using a public domain classification system but don't
> call it as "Dewey Decimal Classification", I will not violate
> the trademark holder's rights. That is what the sellers of
> defective products do. For example, a manufacturer makes
> tapes for 3M. If a batch of tapes is found to have high
> rate of defective products, that batch is sold to secondary
> market (instead of trashing it) with the understanding that
> the trademark of 3M will not appear on that batch. Another
> example is that a manufacturer makes same products for different
> companies such as tire or clothes. Even though these companies
> use same product, they are not allowed to use others' trademarks
> on their own product.
>
> Trademark does not prevent people from using the public domain
> classification system. It is just that they cannot call it as
> "Dewey Decimal Classification". No automakers can prevent me
> from building a car using their parts but they can prevent me
> from using their trademarks on my homemade car.
>
>
> > Here's why this is so important to me. My understanding from library
> > sources is that, contrary to the AP reports on this story, OCLC does not
> > license use of the Dewey system and does not receive payments from every
> > library that uses the system. Rather, it licenses access to its updates
of
> > the system and its online database (which simplifies the process of
> > cataloging books). And many smaller libraries apply the Dewey system
> > without "license."
>
> The complaint shows that OCLC actually license the use of the DDC
> Summaries, which include the system, to libraries.
>
>
> > If the court were to accept the argument that the application of the
Dewey
> > system itself (and not just the Dewey name) in the hotel is a trademark
> > violation, then OCLC would be in a position to claim the same thing
about
> > every podunk public library across the nation that uses the Dewey system
> > even though it does not pay the OCLC fee. OCLC would be in a position
to
> > extort fees from libraries that are already suffering economic stress
and
> > are ill-prepared to fork over $500 and more annually.
>
> That is a possible situation. But, I really doubt that OCLC
> can claim trademark in the name "Dewey Decimal Classification".
> According to _Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary_,
> that name started in 1924, that is 39 years before trademark
> registration, and it did not even mention it as a trademark.
> So does _The Random House College Dictionary_.
>
> Moreover, the name has been used by many people who do not know
> that it is a trademark (I am one of them). I think that this
> is an example of genericide.
>
>
> > If I'm right, this could suggest significant implications for IP law
> > overall. Whether I am right or wrong (and believe me, I know I could be
way
> > off base here), I would appreciate anything the list might do to clarify
the
> > issue for me.
>
> I can only hope that 299 Madison Avenue, L.L.C. (The Library Hotel)
> secures a good lawyer who is expert in three areas: trademark
> (to question OCLC's trademark claim in the name), copyright
> (to show that the classification system used by the hotel
> is mostly in the public domain), and First Amendment (preventing
> hotel from saying that its classification system is based on
> the Dewey Decimal Classification restricts the freedom of
> speech).
>
> My personal rants follow 20 blank lines.
>
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> 10
> 11
> 12
> 13
> 14
> 15
> 16
> 17
> 18
> 19
> 20
>
> Personally, what OCLC is doing borders on censorship and
> coercion. The libraries should not let OCLC have the way.
>
> However, what is equally disturbing is that the libraries
> are allowing OCLC have the way. Why do the libraries allow
> OCLC claim copyright in some portions of the classification
> system? Why don't they learn lesson from West that attempted
> to claim copyright in the citation system as used in court
> decisions? If your blog at
> http://www.info-commons.org/blog/archives/000051.html
> is claimed to be true, then the libraries fail their
> responsibility to the public domain.
>
> The libraries should immediately stop using OCLC's copyrighted
> portions of the classification system and set up a separate
> organization that will maintain the public domain classification
> system and that will keep it in the public domain at all the
> times. Else, the libraries will be strangled by OCLC's
> legal tentacles and in the long term, libraries will be
> bound to OCLC's regime.
>
>
> Joseph Pietro Riolo
> <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
> http://www.boycottcopyright.com
>
> Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923
> in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright
> owners' prisons: 5,574
>
> Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
> post in the public domain.
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 01 2003 - 20:15:10 GMT