There does need to be a mark. The question is how that legal status arises. Always by evidence. Some evidence is better than others. That’s why registration is always recommended because it shifts the burden. It also makes other damages attainable. Baring that, one has to prove their case with a registration. Use in commerce is the way to do that. A lot more to it, but those are the basics.
Set the intrinsics of Scrum aside for a moment. What makes believe in the lie? That’s the interesting question..;-)
An analogy, not a metaphor. Most “Wasabi” is fake. Given the outward facing parts of Scrum were co-opted from Professors Takeuchi and Nonaka by 1995.. anything labeled “Scrum” since then is indeed fake. As a matter of basic copyright and trademark law, no doubt about it.
No… based on the 1990 book Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions , “Scrum” was categorized/ catalogued as a process.. software, business, or otherwise. Point being, Trademarks in the US is first a matter of common law. Copyright is as well. Both, covered by statute. Setting all that aside.. rights were there. No registration requirement for that. As to who the proper rights holders were, whether the professors, Harvard University, Prentice-Hall Publishing, it doesn’t matter because neither Sutherland nor Schwaber are in that co-short. And.. I’m a lawyer…;-) And a former PST. …;-)
A whole host of people have made MILLIONS!! representing Scrum as something it isn’t. And so far.. folks are still pretty tethered to the lie.. And meanwhile, they bemoan the state of the tech sector as it pertains to Agile/Scrum..
A great metaphor, Maarten!
To shed some light on the most expensive vegetable, watch https://youtu.be/MS3WOUytP5w .
There does need to be a mark. The question is how that legal status arises. Always by evidence. Some evidence is better than others. That’s why registration is always recommended because it shifts the burden. It also makes other damages attainable. Baring that, one has to prove their case with a registration. Use in commerce is the way to do that. A lot more to it, but those are the basics.
Set the intrinsics of Scrum aside for a moment. What makes believe in the lie? That’s the interesting question..;-)
An analogy, not a metaphor. Most “Wasabi” is fake. Given the outward facing parts of Scrum were co-opted from Professors Takeuchi and Nonaka by 1995.. anything labeled “Scrum” since then is indeed fake. As a matter of basic copyright and trademark law, no doubt about it.
Where is the link to the trademark they filed?
The TM Schwaber filed in 2010, and then immediately withdrew? Or, something else?
I read your comment as a claim Takeuchi and Nonaka have a trademark.
No… based on the 1990 book Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions , “Scrum” was categorized/ catalogued as a process.. software, business, or otherwise. Point being, Trademarks in the US is first a matter of common law. Copyright is as well. Both, covered by statute. Setting all that aside.. rights were there. No registration requirement for that. As to who the proper rights holders were, whether the professors, Harvard University, Prentice-Hall Publishing, it doesn’t matter because neither Sutherland nor Schwaber are in that co-short. And.. I’m a lawyer…;-) And a former PST. …;-)
A whole host of people have made MILLIONS!! representing Scrum as something it isn’t. And so far.. folks are still pretty tethered to the lie.. And meanwhile, they bemoan the state of the tech sector as it pertains to Agile/Scrum..
I believe you, I'm no expert. I assumed to be trademarked there has to be a trademark.
Kind of like a theater of war… where the one with the power is getting led by the nose.. by….. its weaker, dependent.. “Allie”….
That’s an analogy BTW..;-)