perry@imsi.com wrote:

Were Eric to trademark "Cypherpunks" and use it in trade as the name of a mailing list, you could NOT create another one for the same reason you couldn't sell "Coke". The fact that Eric has no interest in doing this and doesn't claim to own the name does not change the situation.

I think it does change the situation. I'm not even sure if Eric _could_ trademark the name "cypherpunks". Isn't there a requirement that it not be "common usage" or something at the time your copyright it? Assuming Eric could trademark the list, but just chooses not to, then what's to stop _me_ from getting a trademark on the name "cypherpunks" when I start my own competing list? If I started a competing list, named it cypherpunks (or better-cypherpunks, or whatever), and trademarked the name "cypherpunks", would that mean that I owned the cypherpunks list? Or would Eric still own it? Or would nobody own it? Intellectural property is a tricky business, whether you are just looking at it from the legal perspective, or whether you are looking at it from an ethical or pragmatic perspective. And the issue of "ownership" of the cypherpunks list seems a particular tricky instance of intellectual property, from a legal, ethical, or pragmatic point of view. It really doesn't seem to me that Eric "owns" cypherpunks in the same way I own my car, or even in the same way that Coca-cola "owns" the coke trademark, and the formula used to make coke beverage. There are some fundamental differences in what's going on. Cypherpunks isn't so much a service being provided by Eric as it is a group undertaking by all of it's participants. If Eric were to suddenly decide to become a buddhist monk and not have anything to do with cypherpunks anymore, and if John Gilmore were suddenly to decide not to allow the cypherpunks list on his machine, the list wouldn't cease to exist. It wouldn't even be hurt much at all. It would just move to a different machine, and get a new list administrator.