IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Re: No more Bake-offs?

IPP Mail Archive: IPP> Re: No more Bake-offs?

IPP> Re: No more Bake-offs?

From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (dee3@torque.pothole.com)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 12:44:50 EST

  • Next message: Mike Bartman: "RE: IPP> No more Bake-offs?"

    Do we really use that term very prominently? I think these days it is
    only used informally and "interoperability testing" or the like is
    what our process documents refer to. Why are we worried about this if
    it hasn't been a problem?


    PS: I think Pillsbury's lawyers don't have a case anyway but its
    probably not worth going into the details of that as they could cause

    From: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    Message-ID: <918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE85045E1344@x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com
    To: IETF-IPP <ipp@pwg.org>
    Cc: pwg@pwg.org, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>,
                IETF App-WG-Chairs
    Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:02:02 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    >The Pillsbury company introduced the term Bake-Off in 1949 and has it as a
    >registered trademark. They also own the web site www.bakeoff.com
    >Their lawyers have apparently recently started attacking other groups and
    >organizations that use the word for very different purposes.
    >See news article from today in the New Jersey Star-Ledger at:
    > http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/page1/ledger/121f112.html
    >Any suggestions for another term that we can use in the future, or do you
    >want to take on a fight with the Doughboy?
    >Carl-Uno Manros
    >Manager, Print Services
    >Xerox Architecture Center - Xerox Corporation
    >701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
    >Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
    >Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 12:49:19 EST