|
.....
|
¶
The Monotype lawsuits and stacking up. Recall some of
the more memorable past cases and one new one:
- The 2005 lawsuit against Bitstream
because of Bitstream's tool TrueDoc. Monotype lost.
- The frivolous case against Carnegie-Mellon's Tom Murphy
for making avaialble a program, embed.c, that can
change the permissions bit in a truetype font. The case was
based on the DMCA, an act that is widely rejected
by academics. Monotype's case is being ridiculed by the majority
of the respondents on Slashdot.
- A threatening notice posted on alt.binaries.fonts on March 2, 2005 by
Sheila Gorman of Stack & Filpi (reproduced below).
¶
Many of the cases are handled by the Chicago-based firm Stack & Filpi:
Paul F. Stack
Member
Stack & Filpi,
Chartered
Suite 411, 140 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-5298
(Cook Co.)
Telephone: 312-782-0690
Facsimile: 312-782-0936
pstack7901@aol.com
|
|
The letter to alt.binaries.fonts
|
¶
Subject: Intellectual Property Enforcement, Please Read
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:51:25 GMT
From: Maureen Flood
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.fonts
My office represents The Monotype Corporation (TMC), International Typeface
Corporation (ITC), Monotype Imaging LTD(MTI) and Linotype. Our clients own
the copyrights in the computer programs that generate digital typeface
designs, commonly referred to as fonts, and the trademarks in the names
assigned to those fonts. Many of these copyrights are registered with the
United States Copyright Office and many of the trademarks are registered
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. As a representative
for TMC, ITC, Monotype Imaging and Linotype, I am authorized to act in
matters involving trademark and copyright infringements.
Upon initial review of this UseNet Newsgroup, alt.binaries.fonts, I have
discovered multiple infringements and free distribution of our client's
software.
I understand that the majority of this group's users are simply font
collectors and appreciate fine fonts. However, it is my job to enforce the
integrity of our client's trademarks and copyrights and, when possible, the
font designers who earn their living through the creation, sale and legal
distribution of their fonts.
I have been reviewing this UseNet group for some time. This group seems
generally responsible and respectable. Regardless, I must now ask for ask
for your cooperation and consideration. The ramifications for trademark
and copyright infringements is severe. The Digitial Millenium Copyright
Act allows for damages up to $5,000 per incident. It goes without saying
that we would prefer to focus on large scale software infringements, than
to individually pursue UseNet users. However, we can not ignore the abuse
and distribution of the software through this, and other, newsgroups.
Unfortunatly, the more flagrant the offenses become, the more seriously the
companies we represent, and the law firm I work for, takes these issues.
I ask that you please take this into consideration before posting fonts or
other software for which you do not own the trademarks and/or copyrights.
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sheila Gorman
Paralegal
Stack & Filpi Chartered
|
|
So what?
|
¶
Well, is it not ironic that Monotype, which stole Book Antiqua
from Hermann Zapf (it is identical to Palatino), and upset
(and ripped off) Zapf in the process, now tries to
hide behind the law as a good citizen?
Agfa and Monotype have been guilty of deceptive
advertising for five years now, and have links to their
pages on various dubious sites.
They have known about Book Antiqua for over a decade,
and many have asked them to remove that font.
All to no avail.
Why does Zapf not apply the DMCA rule
cited by Gorman: The Digitial Millenium Copyright
Act allows for damages up to $5,000 per incident?
Zapf should collect damages of $5,000 from Monotype
for every copy of Book Antiqua sold.
|
