Point of Clarification of Save Serotek Petition
Jeff makes some excellent points regarding the Save Serotek Petition which I would urge all of you to consider.
Comments (0)
HomerKit 2.1 released
Executable installer
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.exe
Zip archive
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.zip
HomerKit 2.1
Released May 23, 2007
Fixed The Select Chunk command, Control+Space, not extending the selection
with subsequent key presses. Fixed the Jump command, Control+J, going to
the line before the one specified.
Fixed common dialogs, such as Open File, Save File, or Browse for Folder,
sometimes not becoming the active window when used for the first time.
Restored the native functionality of Alt+RightArrow, Alt+LeftArrow, and
Control+Q in Internet Explorer (IE), as well as F4 in Microsoft
Outlook/Outlook Express (OL). Worked around a couple of key conflicts
between Homer bookmark commands and JAWS/IE placemarker commands: now use
Alt+Shift+K to set a temporary placemarker, and JAWSKey+Control+K to
select a placemarker. In JAWS Script Manager, assigned Alt+D to delete
the current script or function definition, and made it read the current
line afterward.
Fixed the message list window not being recognized in Outlook Express. In
OL, improved reliability of the Save or Append commands, Control+S or
Control+Shift+S. Like in IE, Control+S proposes a unique file name, using
a numeric suffix if needed. Control+Shift+S lets you append text on the
same topic.
Made the executable installer initialize the Perl component, thus avoiding
an initial delay during subsequent user tasks. More precisely, this
component is initialized the first time in a JAWS session that a
Homer-supported application window is activated, including a page in
Internet Explorer.
Homer scripts may be deleted in order to restore the functionality of
scripts by Freedom Scientific in the All Users script folder. a new batch
file, called DelAppScripts.bat, may assist with this procedure. It does
not remove the core Homer script library files (those matching Homer* and
Editor*), but effectively uninstalls the application script sets by
deleting their files. It may be run from the Homer subfolder of the user
script folder, either in Windows Explorer or at a command prompt.
Corrected hot key summaries for IE and OL — presented with JAWSKey+H in
the virtual viewer or Alt+Shift+H in a text editor. Added a description
of JAWS Script Exchange (JSX) to the Miscellaneous Tools section of the
documentation for the Homer script library (HomerLib.htm).
Jamal
_____________________________________________________________
To leave this list, send a blank message to
Jawsscripts-unsubscribe@blindprogramming.com.
For information about this list, visit
http://blindprogramming.com/mailman/listinfo/jawsscripts_blindprogramming.com
For problems with the list, email Jawsscripts-owner@blindprogramming.com.
For JAWS documentation including the scripting manuals, visit
http://www.freedomsci.com/fs_support/doc_screenreaders.asp.
Other scripting resources:
JAWS Scripting lectures:
http://www.saomaicenter.info/OnlineCourse/JawsScript/LecturesVictor.zip
Audio tutorial on Jaws scripting conducted by Jim Snowbarger and
broadcasted on ACBRadio:
http://www.saomaicenter.info/OnlineCourse/JawsScript/JScriptAudioJimSnowbarger.zip
Web site address: http://www.BlindProgramming.com
Other blindness lists:
Jonathan Mosen’s Thoughts on Freedom Scientific V Serotek
Last week, Freedom Scientific, Inc. filed suit against Serotek Corporation
for trademark infringement with respect to the FreedomBox range of products.
Since then, the matter has been discussed at length on some
blindness-related blogs and e-mail lists. I'd like by way of this message to
clarify what I view as some of the objectives of the suit. I am a Vice
President at Freedom Scientific, and am extremely proud to work there.
However writing this message is my own initiative as a former technology
journalist. My aim in doing this is that people at least get a chance to
consider facts over rhetoric.
Firstly, let me talk a little about trademark law. A trademark's purpose is
to exclusively identify a source and origin of products. Importantly, a
trademark only applies to a certain range of goods or services. One of the
questions I have seen on e-mail lists is, "how can Freedom Scientific claim
to own the word Freedom." By taking this action, Freedom Scientific is not
seeking to do this. Rather, Freedom Scientific is simply enforcing the
Freedom Scientific trademark, which it owns for certain goods. Freedom
Scientific has invested to establish its trademarks and is only seeking to
enforce these valuable rights. Freedom Scientific has the legal right, and
the obligation to its customers and shareholders, to protect the use of its
trademark in the context of assistive technology. The concept of using
common words in trademarks is common – for example the use of the word Apple
to describe a computer company. As is well known through recent news
stories, Apple is quite entitled to own this name in the context of computer
hardware and software products. It does not, of course, mean that Apple has
any rights to the name when you eat a piece of fruit. Trademarks can
co-exist where there is no similarity between the businesses. For example,
Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets are trademarks, but there is no issue there
because the businesses' purposes are totally different and there is no room
for confusion. Freedom Scientific is confident that its trademark rights
will be upheld. The broadening of scope of the FreedomBox products to
include products like FreedomBox System Access (FBSA) offering access to
mainstream applications only exacerbates the infringement. Trademarks are
not some abstract thing. They are a company's reputation. They are legal
property, and you can't simply take someone's property without their
consent.
Secondly, I'd like to turn to the question, "why now." All sorts of bizarre
speculation have been put forward as to the timing of this suit. Freedom
Scientific made Serotek well aware of its position on this matter, but
unfortunately Serotek was unwilling to negotiate a settlement to this
matter. No one likes having to go to court, but if you genuinely believe
your property rights are being trampled upon, in the end there is no choice
but to do so if you are unable to get a resolution any other way.
Thirdly, it has been said that Freedom Scientific is giving the blind
community no credit by taking this action, and that everyone knows the
difference between the two product lines. Rest assured, this is most
certainly not the case. I can tell you that Freedom Scientific has been
contacted by Serotek customers seeking technical support, or even wanting to
buy a Serotek product. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion.
Fourthly, a petition has been established by the hosts of ACB Radio's Main
Menu, calling itself the Save Serotek petition. The grossly misleading name
of this petition implies that somehow Freedom Scientific's objective is to
put Serotek out of business. As a result of the sensationalist name, many
commenters to the Petition have made comments to this effect. All Freedom
Scientific is seeking to do is protect its property and to seek appropriate
compensation for the unlawful use of it.
The objective here is not to put Serotek out of business. 2007 has already
seen great innovation from Freedom Scientific and there's plenty more to
come. Honest competition inspires excellence and is good news for the
customer. But I stress the word "honest." Yes, many people in assistive
technology are motivated by a strong sense of purpose and commitment to
making a difference. But these companies are still commercial entities, who
have every right to use the legal system to protect their property if they
think they need to, just as you have a right to use the legal system if
someone breaks into your house and takes something belonging to you.
In closing, I hope that those genuinely interested in the facts of this
matter will take the time to read up on trademark case law, but most
importantly, will let the judicial process take its course. It occurs to me
that if Freedom Scientific has got it as wrong as a few people claim, then
what do they have to fear? A jury will dismiss the case. I doubt that will
happen though. If the law has been broken as I believe it has, then Freedom
Scientific is quite entitled to redress.
My hope is that sanity prevails and that Serotek has both the courage and
the decency to brand its products in a fashion that wasn't already being
used in this industry. I think they would gain a lot of respect from the
blind community for acting honourably. Fair competition is not too much to
ask for, and it most certainly is worth fighting for.
Those interested in the subject of trademarks may like to take a look at the
Wikipedia entry on the subject, found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark.
Jonathan Mosen
Innovate Don’t Litigate!
Blind Confidential (Weblog)
Friday, May 18, 2007
Innovate Don't Litigate!
By Chris Hofstader
Critics of my writing in Blind Confidential and elsewhere and various public
statements I've made over the years often complain that I treat Microsoft
too softly. Often, these people fall into those with religious obsessions
with either Apple Computer or the GNU/Linux platform and represent the views
of people who hate Microsoft no matter what the Redmond giant says or does.
This week, however, I find myself in a position in which I need to speak out
against MS, a company I do believe has led the pack in their commitment to
accessibility, over recent reports in Fortune magazine and, last night, on
NPR about threats of using patents against users of the GNU/Linux family of
operating environments.
In the Fortune article, repeated on NPR last night, Microsoft claimed that
various distributions of the GNU/Linux OS violated something on the order of
235 patents held by Microsoft. Of course, Windows probably does not violate
any patents held by developers of GNU/Linux software because these
developers oppose software patents and haven't filed for any. In a
traditional intellectual property battle between corporate giants, each
company will show up with its portfolio of patents, assert which ones they
feel the other company violates and they will trade licenses and a bit of
cash if one has more than the other.
When a huge corporation takes on a small player, the little guy probably
doesn't have a lot of patents with which to defend itself and the bully
effect can force a small innovative company into bankruptcy just trying to
defend itself against legal action – frivolous or not. In the inverse
situation, when a small but highly innovative company tries to protect its
intellectual property against an industry leader, the large player can often
keep the case in court long enough to force the smaller player to fold its
hand due to outrageous legal bills.
In the big company versus small company battles, the big company might use
patents and other intellectual property laws to "drop boulders in the path
of the smaller company's road map" in order not to actually protect the
innovation of the big company but, rather, to minimize competition from
smaller, more nimble organizations who may actually offer more interesting
products.
Microsoft can sue GNU/Linux developers for violating their patents;
Microsoft can also sue users of GNU/Linux systems as, under US IP law, using
a product that violates a patent is an actionable behavior. Thus, Microsoft
can sue companies who have switched to GNU/Linux systems in order to slow
down the spread of the free alternative to Windows.
Benjamin Franklin, founder of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
certainly rolls over in his grave when he hears that patents and trademarks
are being used not to "promote invention" but, rather, to block innovative
competitors. Microsoft should promise not to prosecute its pile of patents
against free software developed mostly by volunteers who do not file patents
which could probably cause question on many aspects of software in the
Microsoft catalogue. At the same time, people who agree that such use of
patents and trademarks should look at patents held by Microsoft and try to
find published prior art to challenge the patents if MS does, indeed, choose
to litigate rather than innovate.
Afterward
Blind Access Journal and Desert Skies (links above) both reported on a new
IP lawsuit filed by Freedom Scientific against Serotek, makers of System
Access, RIM, RAM and the Freedom Box line of products. I haven't read the
complaint and, as this case regards trademark, a topic I've never really
spent much time thinking about, I probably can't provide much intelligent
commentary on the case. We'll see what happens as it unfolds and I expect
that Shandro, Bishop and others will probably follow the story as it
progresses.
New Petition Asks Freedom Scientific to Cease Lawsuit Against Serotek
In concert with Jeff Bishop of the Desert Skies blog, we at Blind Access Journal ask all of you to sign the new Save Serotek Petition asking Freedom Scientific to cease its trademark infringement lawsuit against Serotek Corporation.
Objectivity versus Opinion, or the Difference Between Journalism and Evangelism
When I was in high school, I had a teacher’s aid named Gloria. Gloria came to the United States a long time ago from Burma. She’s a Karen, a member of an ethnic group that has been fighting for independence for more than 58 years. The Karen are officially represented by an organization known as the Karen National Union. Unfortunately, according to the news reported on the Karen’s web site, it would seem their struggle is not currently meeting with much success.
So, by now, I’m sure you are all asking yourselves, “why in the world is Darrell prattling on about some obscure ethnic struggle for independence”? Don’t worry. I’m just setting up the stage for the rest of the discussion. It will become more relevant in very short order.
The Karens are not impartial when it comes to their independence. They believe it should be granted, that it is their right to fight for it, and some are willing to give their very lives for the cause. Others believe it is better to cooperate with existing governments in the region. They are branded by the independence fighters as traitors who have sold out their people. One part of the Karen National Union’s operations involves their web site, where news relating to their struggle is distributed for all to read. When you visit their web site, it quickly becomes obvious that they have a clear agenda. There are no statements of balance or impartiality.
The Blind Access Journal is a similar web site, though the struggle is obviously quite different. In our case, the struggle is for the blind community to be granted equal accessibility, alternative transportation options and all opportunities otherwise granted the sighted on the basis of their being physically able to see. Similar to the Karens, we also have an agenda. Though not stated as a political platform or similar document, any reasonable reader could be expected to understand that the Blind Access Journal, and, thus, its publisher, Darrell Shandrow, is an advocate or evangelist for accessibility. This means, by nature, that I am not objective. I am not going to act as though discrimination, inaccessibility or lapses of accountability in the products and services provided to us are at all acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. I am not only going to report such issues, but also work strenuously to have them rectified in a manner that benefits the blind community. My very close friend and colleague, Jeff Bishop, states the differences between opinion and balanced journalism quite clearly with respect to blogging about issues in the blindness assistive technology field.
As part of my evangelism, the most recent assistive technology issue about which I have been writing is the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Freedom Scientific against Serotek. It should be quite clear to everyone that I have strong feelings concerning what was done and the potential ramifications not only for a small player in the field, but for the entire blind community. Being the undisputed leader in the market, Freedom Scientific has the ability to significantly benefit or severely harm the ability of all blind and visually impaired people to use technology as a vehicle to equally participate in society. By taking this action, I unequivocally believe that Freedom Scientific may set into motion a series of events that could result in the loss of innovative new technologies we need to develop and grow in the blind community right now. The company holds sway over the entire blind community, be it individuals, organizations or dealers of assistive technology products. This is unavoidable, given Freedom Scientific’s overwhelming market share. Unfortunately, when that influence is put to negative ends, the results can be absolutely disastrous not only for companies, but also for real people and their families. For example, the RAM and RIM products now offered by Serotek represent a huge potential to push open many doors to employment previously closed by the need for remote access to computers owned by sighted people. If Freedom Scientific does end up litterally suing Serotek out of business, the results could mean real consequences for real people in the blind community up to and including the inability to acquire new jobs or even the loss of existing employment!
Earlier today I asked someone, who must currently remaine nameless, a simple question about the reasons for the Freedom Scientific versus Serotek lawsuit. The resulting conversation involved their expressing concerns about the quality of my “journalism” and the possibility of that person contacting people who might decide to curtail my participation in certain activities I currently enjoy and which, I hope, benefit the blind community. It is for this reason that I must make one thing extremely clear: I am NOT a balanced, impartial “journalist”. I am, instead, an accessibility ADVOCATE or EVANGELIST who is promoting equal participation on the part of the blind and visually impaired in the world around us. Though I have not and never will intentionally mislead anyone, I do not feel obligated nor possess the necessary resources to fully research everything I write on this blog. I am also not required to present everything in a “balanced” or “objective” manner. For that matter, even the paid “journalists” don’t always get this right, and that is their job. Just read and compare mainstream media sources like the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard, or watch CNN and Fox News for an hour each to understand my point. This is not the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel!
I hope this post has helped all of you clearly understand the fact that I am not a professional “journalist”, I am not always going to be objective and that I do most certainly have an agenda to look out for all of you, my brothers and sisters in the blind community! Your e-mails and comments are quite welcome and encouraged!
Today’s KDD: Jaws Attacks; Take the Byte out of Crime
Thanks to Karen for this wonderfully creative, poetic contribution.
On Thursday May 17, we received some disturbing News,
Freedom Scientific, they did choose,
To Sue Serotek, they want to devour,
Found out this at a late hour,
This made me angry, yes indeed,
If you have not already, do read,
The lawsuit that was filed, and the accusations made, more to this than
meets the eye,
Not sure why?
Suing for Trademark infringement,
Much time and resources spent,
One can only speculate and hypothesize,
That they feel threatened by a company of smaller size,
Whom is making tremendous progress in the field of blindness,
And Freedom Scientific, this, they could not digest ,
Could not stand the heat,
Worried , they can not stand on their own two feet,
So, Brutaly attacked their competition pushing them under,
Rather, then learn from their own mistakes and blunders,
Makes one wonder,
What their reasons are for filing this Suit?,
For giving Serotek the boot?
Why, does FS Byte?
This is not right,
Why are they drawing blood?
Slinging them through the mudd?
Eleminating them as a valuable player , wanting them to sink,
Not sure why, what do you think?
What is your take on this story ?, I was shocked,
The blind Community, this should rock,
Hits Matt and Mike to the core,
After being bitten by Jaws, they struggle to swim to shore,
Serotek,is missing a paddle,
Now, they are fighting a battle,
Swimming upstream,
Together, will stay the team,
And continue to give Freedom for all
Through Freedom Box and Ram and Rim,
Things, now, look grim,
However, with these products as well as System Access, as a third
screenreader tool,
They will continue to stay in the school ,
And despite, taking a dive,
Back On the surface , they will arrive,
And hang in there, with GW Micro, , the Guys Aaron and Doug,
They wil not pull the plug,
Hang in there, do have hope,
Some of us in the community, will throw you a rope,
Do not want to see you sink, capsize,
Yet, to continue to develop products along with Window eyes,
Hope the sharks die,
Fail does, Jaws for Windows ,
Freedom Scientific, stay on your Toes,
You may not be as stable,
Not as able,
Watch out, Broken my be your fin,
This, you may not win,
And though, you play with the Whales,
The other fish,may not bail,
And, all of us, in the community ,need to read our mail,
read blogs and listen to podcasts,
Freedom Scientific, you may be a thing of the past,
And, though, Serotek right now, you may not be in the leed,
FS, bate, we are not going to feed,
To enable you to stay strong,
What, your doing is very wrong.
Nothing wrong with healthy competition, Yet, another,just don't sue,
Hoping your opponent will toss in the towel, and say, they are
through,
Assuming, they will have enough?
They are tough,
And will give you a runfor your money,
What, your doing it is not at all funny!
Those of us,whom are blind, need to be united and work together,
Help Serotek through this stormy weather,
Ahead, there will be rough seas,
Look out, they could bring you to your knees,
There will be strong wind, rain and Thunder,
You could go under,
You never know,
How this lawsuit will go
You could regret, the Lawsuit you did file,
Some of us will go the extra mile,
On your feet, you may not land,
I know, what I say, holds no wait, does not mean a thing,
And noone may care,
this KDD I do bring,
Yet my view on this, wanted it to be known.
My thoughts I do share,
Concerned about the state of Affairs,
In this industry ,
All who cannot see,
Do all that you can,
If you are a Fan,
And Believe in Serotek,
Don't allow them to stick out their necks,
See what you can do,
To assist them through,
Support we do need to send,
A hand, lend,
Get the word out, maybe Flyers?
They are under the wire,
Serotek will be fine,
And, we do need to take the byte out of crime,
Your help we do need,
Go reed,
Get more information, at Blind access journal and the Desert Skies,
They show the size of this issue, so, go to their site,
Both shine the light,
They forward a link, it, they did save,
After reading the Lawsuit, rant and Rave,
Let's do what we can, what do you say?
Let the smaller fish play.
Freedom Scientific V. Serotek Case Not Just About a Trademark
We have received a comment from a reader stating essentially that we shouldn’t make a big deal about this case, as Freedom Scientific is only asking that Serotek stop using the word FreedomBox as a product name. Unfortunately, this assertion just does not match with the facts of the complaint as spelled out in paragraphs 17, 22 and 27.
Ceasing use of “FreedomBox” is just one aspect of this lawsuit. Freedom Scientific is also suing for damages. That’s right, my friends. They’re suing Serotek for money! Let’s review the relevant paragraphs:
17. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
(a) That this Court grant a permanent injunction pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1116, enjoining and restraining the Defendant
and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs
mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
(b) That this Court, pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1118, order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles,
and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means
of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
(c) That this Court award the Plaintiff treble the amount of actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
(e) That this is an exceptional case and that the Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
(f) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
(a) That this Court grant a permanent injunction pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1116, enjoining and restraining the Defendant
and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs
mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
(b) That this Court, pursuant to the powers granted it under 15 U.S.C. Section 1118, order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles,
and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means
of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
(c) That this Court award the Plaintiff treble the amount of actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff;
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
(e) That this is an exceptional case and that the Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
(f) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
22. The infringing acts of Defendant, as heretofore alleged, have been without the consent of Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using
the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
(b) That this Court order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the
Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
(c) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
(d) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
27. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from (1) directly or indirectly
using the word “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion and (2) continuing any
and all acts of unfair competition as herein alleged;
(b) That the Defendant be required to account to the Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of its goods and for all damages
sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of said acts of unfair competition complained of herein;
(c) That this Court award punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendant’s fraud and palming
off;
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff; and
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from directly or indirectly using
the name “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or to deceive;
(b) That this Court order that all labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and advertisements and other materials in the possession of the
Defendant bearing the mark “Freedom Box” and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same, shall be delivered up and destroyed;
(c) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff;
(d) That Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
27. The Defendant threatens to continue to do the actions complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to the Plaintiffs
irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which could afford the Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing
acts, and a multiplicity of judicial proceedings would be required. The Plaintiffs remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries threatened.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays:
(a) That this Court grant an injunction enjoining and restraining the Defendant and its agents, servants, and employees from (1) directly or indirectly
using the word “Freedom Box” or any other mark, word, or name similar to the Plaintiffs mark which is likely to cause confusion and (2) continuing any
and all acts of unfair competition as herein alleged;
(b) That the Defendant be required to account to the Plaintiff for any and all profits derived by the Defendant from the sale of its goods and for all damages
sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of said acts of unfair competition complained of herein;
(c) That this Court award punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff by reason of the Defendant’s fraud and palming
off;
(d) That the costs of this action be awarded to the Plaintiff; and
(e) That this Court grant such other and further relief as it shall deem just.
There are some rather disturbing elements of this complaint. First, Freedom Scientific is asking for unspecified damages resulting from the supposed trademark infringement. In this context, the word “treble” is defined as “a claim for treble (or triple) damages”! That’s right, my friends! Freedom Scientific wants the court to determine the amount of damages they suffered, then triple that figure! Read this again; that’s triple! Second, Freedom Scientific claims that this case is “exceptional” enough to also justify forcing Serotek to pay their legal fees! Third, Freedom Scientific wants to put Serotek through all the costs involved with totally remarketing and renaming their “FreedomBox” product when the trademark infringement claim seems rather dubious at best.
So, given these and probably many other factors I may have overlooked, should we be concerned about this case as a blind community? You bet! We should always be very worried when the largest player in the blindness technology market chooses to sue its competition out of business rather than to compete fairly, create the products we need to insure continued access to technology, innovate and properly support their existing product lines!
Mike, Matt and all the hard working folks at Serotek have been innovating, going boldly where no other assistive technology company has gone before. Their Remote Incident Manager product promises to absolutely revolutionize current and new employment opportunities for blind people all over the world, and System Access is getting better and better all the time! If this lawsuit puts them out of business, this technology could be lost and not rediscovered for a very long time. In the First Century A.D., everyone forgot that the Earth is round with the loss of scientific curiosity and discovery that resulted from the destruction of the Roman Empire and the insuing Dark Ages. Do we really want to allow Freedom Scientific to do the same thing to the blindness assistive technology industry and to us as a community now?
HomerKit 2.0 for JAWS users and script developers
Executable installer
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.exe
Zip archive
http://www.EmpowermentZone.com/kitsetup.zip
HomerKit 2.0
Released May 18, 2007
HomerKit is (1) a set of tools to help build JAWS scripts and (2) the
application of those tools in script sets for several programs. The
unifying intent of these script sets is a powerful, consistent keyboard
interface for tasks related to editing, navigating, and managing
documents. Currently, programs with this scripted interface are JAWS
Script Manager, NoteTab, WordPad, Notepad, Internet
Explorer, Microsoft Outlook, and Outlook Express.
The word "Homer" reflects multiple associations: an odyssey by a blind
person, a home row-oriented keyboard interface, and a home base for
various tasks. If you regularly use any of the programs mentioned, then
the standardization and enhancements of the script sets provided may be of
benefit. Any parts of the Homer script library or related tools may also
be used in developing your own script sets. JAWS versions 6.2 and above
are supported.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the Homer tools and script sets:
the tools have been developed to create the script enabled features, and
the script sets serve as real world examples of the tools in use. Since
HomerKit is a free, open source project, JAWS script developers are
encouraged to contribute improvements that benefit the blind community.
This 2.0 version of HomerKit incorporates many fixes and enhancements
since the original release. The Homer editor guide explains the
convenient, powerful interface that is consistently available in a text
editor, word processor, web browser, and email program. Each application
also includes special features enabled by particular scripts for that
context. Hot key summaries are readily available, as is an alternate menu
by which you can pick a script to execute.
Comments from various testers, and ideas from the JAWS scripting list of
BlindProgramming.com, have aided the development of Homer. I hope it
benefits many users.
Jamal
Text Copy of Freedom Scientific V. Serotek Trademark Infringement Complaint
Thanks to a reliable source, we are able to make available a plain text copy of Freedom Scientific’s complaint against Serotek. The information was made available in an image-based PDF, so it was necessary to convert it using Kurzweil K1000 and reformat the result.