Talk:Pantone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Color WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
 |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
for info: I think the history of the Pantone Inc Company must be review
this is the official biography of herbert from pantone site http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/lhbio.htm
--Penelope20k 17:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has had a complicated series of changes in the last day, including two reversions by me, caused because I hadn't looked at enough of the history.
Someone (81.226.171.157) changed "color" to "colour" throughout, which seems to violate Wikipedia policy of not doing unjustified changes between US and UK English. Someone else reverted it, and I reverted that...
The change seems to have been haphazard, because even the names of categories were changed. Notinasnaid 08:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pantone color names copyrighted?
How can a list of colors and values be copyright? The names trademarked, perhaps, but just lists of information can't be copyright in the US. (There was some case concerning a telephone directory where this was decided by the court.) Even the EU's Database Rights only last 15 years and pantone is older than that. - User:Bryce
- Bryce, just FYI: You can always easily sign your Wikiname and the current timestamp by including ~~~~ in your posting. (Three tildes will include just your username without a timestamp.)
- Atlant 23:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- My understanding is that Pantone (understandably) use every bit of intellectual property law they can to protect their stuff. Trademark, for example. If you were to make your own list with the same colours, but were to use the word Pantone anywhere in the list, you would be open to accusations of trademark violation. Since every name includes "Pantone" that prevents a direct duplication of the list, at least. Notinasnaid 11:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Can we back out of this "intellectual property" tar pit?
-
-
-
- Pantone's list of color numbers and values is the intellectual property of Pantone
-
-
-
- is a meaningless statement. I'll do some web searches to see if I can find some sense. Gronky 21:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think your change to mention only software patents is a step too far, and I intend to change it back. I don't see that the statement is meaningless though further clarification is welcome. At the very least, trademark law is also applicable and Pantone claim copyrights. Patents expire, after all, and trademarks do not. Notinasnaid 07:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of crucial information
Twice, the following information has been removed "Pantone's list of color numbers and values is the intellectual property of Pantone and free use of the list is not allowed. This is why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. (This protection is based on copyright and trademark law, not as is sometimes stated software patents)."
This information is extremely important to open source developers and others, and is supported in the article by a reference. I don't want to get into a revert war, but if User:taw insists on deleting without discussion I'm not sure how to proceed.
The statements (1) are verifiably made by Pantone and (2) have an impact, as per the reference. If there is a verifiable source which challenges this, this is very important both to developers and to Pantone and their shareholders (since their entire business model depends on protecting their intellectual property).
In the mean time I am restoring the text with the addition of "Pantone assert that". Notinasnaid 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with the first sentence, with "Pantone assert that" added, but this the next two sentences are problematic:
- This is why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. (This protection is based on copyright and trademark law, not as is sometimes stated software patents).
The "protection" doesn't seem to be based on anything legal, and in particular there doesn't seem to be anything in either the copyright or trademark law to support their claims.
Moreover, just because they claim to have some vague kind of "intellectual property" over the system does not affect the Open Source software in any way, unless one chooses to believe them. Don't present it as some kind of a legal fact. Taw 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm all for pedantry, but why not discuss it first. How about this: This is frequently held as a reason why Pantone colors cannot be supported in Open Source software such as GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and are not often found in low-cost software. It has been claimed that "it seems as if the company is being intentionally unclear" but it is acknowledged that "the simplest claim would be trademark misappropriation or dilution towards someone who produced a color palette marketed as compatible with Pantone's". Notinasnaid 10:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so have any claim that "compatible with X" dilutes a trademark ever succeeded, in any court anywhere ? We should keep it clear that their alleged "IP rights" are not of any traditionally recognized kind, as they can't have a copyright over the list, and merely saying one is compatible doesn't break anyone's trademarks (unless I'm missing something). Taw 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am quoting a source. I am not an IP lawyer. Are you saying that the source is too unreliable to quote? They seem to have done considerable research on the subject, and draw themselves on other sources. If you can find a counter-source of similar reliability that says this is all nonsense, of course we should quote that too. Or am I introducing systematic bias through overly selective quoting? What I am sure is that the threat of legal action, whether or not it has a legal basis, has a real effect, and this real effect and the reasons for it should be properly discussed, whatever one's personal views. Your comments, as they stand, look like original research. Notinasnaid 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, in the absence of replies, I am putting those two sentences back. Notinasnaid 09:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] herbert
How did Herbert found AND acquire the company? 218.102.218.126 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed a sentence
I removed this sentence: "This effectively creates a loophole that allows software such as GIMP to use the palette." This sounds speculative to me, unless Pantone have acknowledged it, some may disagree. If there is a reliable source which states "This effectively creates a loophole that allows software such as GIMP to use the palette." then we can and should quote the source, in context. But if this is personal interpretation, it has to stay out, sorry. (If it does go back in, it would also be good to understand how such a loophole could be exploited, I don't understand that.)Notinasnaid 08:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed text
I removed the following text: In various discussions on this subject[1][2], the concensus on the so-called 'intellectual property rights' asserted by Pantone Inc. only apply to a product claiming to be Pantone-compliant (or certified by Pantone), or when a product uses Pantone-trademarked name on a colour.
But on the other hand, this doesn't seem to add any information. What does this exclude? Only shipping an anonymous' palette with colors matching Pantone, so far as I can see. But http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/10/25/153221 says "So marketing your own full-blown replacement for Pantone Matching is out of the question, and shipping a palette of colors clearly mimicking the Pantone color swatches puts you at risk for a lawsuit." This doesn't seem to match the claimed consensus (indeed, not sure that an article that represents a consensus).
Both of these are valuable links, and could be added to the article (is there a way to link straight to the Pantone discussion?). What I am concerned about is that they are presented in a way which reveals a point of view ("so called" is not very neutral in tone, though such things can be fixed), and which doesn't seem to even reflect the article text.
Notinasnaid 08:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Update: it turns out that one of the links simply duplicated the link used to source the other quotes (and cited). I have added the other link to External Links. Notinasnaid 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
