Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenPBX by Voicetronix


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete.  Majorly  ( Talk ) 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OpenPBX by Voicetronix

 * — (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:CORP BJ Talk 08:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 08:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete also per nom. Appears to be attempt to promote product over several other articles as well. Calltech 12:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete as nn. (changed my vote. ) Comment: Legal wrangles are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is to report knowledge,including common misconceptions. Even if some of these PBX companies will be banned from using this name, we will still have legal rigths to write "formerly knwon as..." or "erroneously known as...", whatever the judge will say. `'mikkanarxi 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know enough about the projects in question to venture an opinion about their degree of notability and whether they deserve to be kept or deleted, but I hope this is done solely on the basis of their merits and not influenced by legal threats. Of course, any use of names of the respective projects / products / organizations / companies should be well-sourced and based on actual usage in the real world (not neologisms made up on Wikipedia), but if one of these usages should happen to be a trademark violation, it is not Wikipedia that is violating the trademark; it's only reporting on it. *Dan T.* 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect this is complete nonsense. I am not affilliated with Voicetronix OpenPBX in any way and I have no interest in promoting it. I created the page because somebody who created the original OpenPBX page made a mistake to use a common law trademark of Voicetronix for an unrelated project called "OpenPBX.org". This mistake had to be corrected.

The name OpenPBX must not be used to refer to the OpenPBX.org project. If this practise spreads, then Voicetronix may start taking legal action and that would mean potential trouble (at least in Australia) for the open source community project "OpenPBX.org".

Of course you could simply delete the "OpenPBX" page and simply carry on with the new, properly titled "OpenPBX.org" page which I created as a legal replacement. However, since this is a site where any member of the public can create a new page, it is very likely that somebody will create another "OpenPBX" page again to describe "OpenPBX.org". The best way to prevent this is to have a page that lists the known uses of the name and links to the properly titled pages.

I created another page for Voicetronix' OpenPBX software because it is also an open source software package, so why would it not deserve equal treatment and this ensures goodwill from Voicetronix not to start complaining about the name conflict.

If the view of Wikipedia is that open source projects can only have an entry if they are not controlled by a single vendor, then you would also have to remove the Asterisk PBX page because Asterisk is an open source project controlled by a single vendor, Digium. You would also have to remove many other entries on open source projects, MySQL for example.

So, why is a page about OpenPBX by Voicetronix inappropriate advertising while a page about Asterisk by Digium is not?

Stswp 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stswp, please check the criteria established for adding an article about a company or product WP:CORP. Simply writing a one or two statement article with no significant citation does not meet WP guidelines.  Adding a link to your article compounds the problem because it appears promotional.  The article needs work or should be removed. Calltech 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance of legal trouble for OpenPBX.org

The article is neither about a company nor about a product. It is there to inform people about the possible confusion that may arise, in part due to Wikipedia's original wrong doing, that is improperly using a trademark in the title of one of its pages.

Note that we (OpenPBX.org) did not create this problem. Wikipedia did. If Wikipedia had not been using the name "OpenPBX" incorrectly in the title of one of its pages, this would not be an issue now. We didn't ask for this. We never use "OpenPBX" anywhere, we always use "OpenPBX.org". The least we can expect from Wikipedia is assistance in solving this problem and making sure the improper use of Voicetronix' AU trademark to describe or refer to OpenPBX.org does not happen again.

We have amicably resolved this very same issue amicably on the Voip-Info.org wiki site after talking to Voicetronix. There we have repurposed the "OpenPBX" entry to become a disambiguation page linking to an "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page and an "OpenPBX.org" page (and further linking to a third party using OpenPBX in the name of a software). This is a solution Voicetronix has agreed to and it therefore avoids any potential disputes which would be harmful to our project.

If you do not agree with the solution presented, a solution Voicetronix has agreed to, then please advise an alternative.

Simply deleting all references to Voicetronix' OpenPBX is not a solution because it would only introduce a level of indirection, thus still consitute the use of the name "OpenPBX" for refering to "OpenPBX.org".

If you were to delete the OpenPBX page altogether, then there is no guarantee that somebody will not create the page again and use it to describe or to refer to OpenPBX.org.

Whatever happens, this has to be resolved in such a way that

a) Voicetronix can agree to the remedy taken b) the same problem is unlikely to occur again in the future

If you mean to suggest that the solution I presented will be accepted under the condition that more information is added to the "OpenPBX by Voicetronix" page, I am happy to ask Voicetronix to edit the page following the Wikipedia guidelines for content. However, if I ask them to do so and the page is then deleted, that would only exacerbate the problem, so we will need to have a commitment that the page will not be deleted as long as it has balanced information about Voicetronix' OpenPBX software. Also, Wikipedia should allow a grace period. It is not always possible to have a refined detailed page right from the start. Most wikis entries evolve incrementally over time.

Please note that OpenPBX.org is a not-for-profit, vendor-independent, community driven open source project run solely by volunteers. We do not have a legal defense fund and it would be extremely unfair if we suffered harm because of Wikipedia's improper use of a trademark drawing unwelcome attention to a name conflict that could otherwise be managed. I expect Wikipedia to be helpful in such a way that our project suffers no harm.

thank you in advance for your assistance

Stswp 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OK, but so far you've said nothing that shows why this entry doesn't violate WP:CORP. If Voicetronix feels the need to take legal action against OpenPBX.org, then it should do so.  I don't see where that is Wikipedia's concern, though, since OpenPBX.org has their webpage under that URL.  Perhaps the better solution would be to add an entry to OpenPBX.org to clear up the ambiguity, if it can be cleared up without a lawsuit or an edit war.  At any rate, a solution which creates an entry which isn't in coherence with Wikipedia policy  doesn't seem to be a viable answer to me. (Sorry for not signing on first edit.) LaughingVulcan 18:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Voicetronix and rewrite about company Voicetronix the company seems decently notable, with 75,000 google hits and listed as finalist for a number of awards on their news page. I'd recommend moving this to Voicetronix and turning it into part of an article on the company. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional news story about the company: (requires subscription to view, but existence indicates notability)
 * Keep but rewrite as stub as some kind of disambiguation. There appears to be some sort of real-world legal or tradename dispute that Wikipedia should not be involved in, but a stub containing a sentence or two to avoid confusion would not be out of line. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OpenPBX already exists as a disambiguation page for the term. BJ Talk 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Calltech's later suggestion. All related articles should also be deleted. Doc  Tropics  20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is involved

Wikipedia got itself involved the moment it started violating Voicetronix AU trademark. Let me try to explain this again ...


 * Wikipedia maintained a page called "OpenPBX"
 * this page described the project which is actually called OpenPBX.org
 * this action by Wikipedia legally counts as "passing off"
 * OpenPBX.org did not create this page
 * therefore OpenPBX.org was at no time passing off as OpenPBX
 * instead, Wikipedia was passing off OpenPBX.org as OpenPBX, which is illegal

Thus, Wikipedia has been in conflict with the law and we ask that Wikipedia provide a remedy.

In such cases a proper remedy is universally considered to require two elements:

1) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must stop infringing

and

2) the infringing party (Wikipedia) must ensure that no future violation will occur

If the references to Voicetronix were to be removed, this would not let Wikipedia off the hook, because if the OpenPBX page still refers to OpenPBX.org, then Wikipedia would still be using the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", thus Wikipedia would still be passing off, Wikipedia would still be in violation of the law.

If the page OpenPBX was to be removed entirely, this would not constitute a remedy becaus there is no mechanism in place that will prevent a member of Wikipedia to make the same mistake again. In order to qualify as a remedy, Wikipedia would need to somehow lock the page title so that it is no longer possible to create a page with the title "OpenPBX" unless the party trying to create the page can show that they are legally entitled to do so.

Another (theoretical) remedy would be for Wikipedia to make sure that the OpenPBX page cannot be viewed in Australia.

Now, for those who still don't understand why Wikipedia is at fault here, let me try to give you an analogy:

You cannot sell Pepsi Cola in Coca Cola bottles in your pub. In that case, you (the pub manager/owner) are at fault. Pepsi Cola is not at fault. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are victims of your actions in such case. Both Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are entitled to remedy. In such a case you cannot simply stop and say "Oh, sorry" to remedy. The claimants are entitled to a remedy designed to make sure you will not do it again (for example, by firing the pub manager).

Stswp

Response to BJ stating "OpenPBX" already exists as a disambiguation page.

The page is now a disambiguation page, because I modified it this way. However, in order to satisfy as a remedy, this page must show the different uses equally. Therefore, if the Voicetronix part of the remedy were to be removed as proposed by Wikipedia members, then it would no longer be a remedy. It would become an infringement again.

Stswp 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia not above the law

A reminder for those Wikipedia members who seem to believe that Wikipedia rules somehow have higher priority than the law: You are mistaken. If you believe that proper legal remedy does not have to be provided because Wikipedia rules don't allow it: You are mistaken. Wikipedia is not above the law. If Wikipedia rules are such that they rule out proper remedy, then those rules are null and void because the law trumps Wikipedia rules. I suggest those Wikipedia members should treat the law with more respect. Thank you.

Stswp 08:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment First off, the OpenPBX trademark is not held in the U.S. where the English servers are hosted so Voicetronix has no legal recourse against the foundation. This doesn't really matter though, it is not Wikipedia editors jobs to deal with legal issues except for copyright infringement, if somebody has a legal issue they can contact Wikimedia Foundation who will take the needed action. Also I have no idea what laws you are talking about, it seems to be Australian laws but they don't apply here so I have no idea why this is an issue. BJ Talk 09:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, one possible remedy would be to stop any page titled "OpenPBX" (without .org) pretending to be about something other than Voicetronix' OpenPBX from being served to viewers in Australia. The location of the servers matters not as trade agreements and other treaties between countries universally acknowlegde each others property rights including trademarks.

In any event, it is both puzzling and disheartening and to see that Wikipedia editors don't seem to have any interest in solving a problem which could be so easily solved, and apparently no interest in serving the public by providing information in a way that avoids confusion about two similarly named entities.

Stswp 10:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem if the disambiguation page mentions both and the open source article stays at OpenPBX.org. There is no need to have an article on this. BJ Talk 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if the page called "OpenPBX" discriminates in favour of OpenPBX.org, then it becomes a de-facto vehicle to use the name "OpenPBX" for referring to "OpenPBX.org", which is what the problem was with the page as it was. The only change would be a level of indirection. Indirection doesn't solve the problem.

As for "the open source article" I am not sure why you are making that distinction. Yes, our project (OpenPBX.org) is purely open source, vendor-independent, vendor-neutral. However, Voicetronix' OpenPBX software is also purely open source (there is no commercial license option) although it is not vendor-independent and thus not vendor-neutral.

If open-sourceness is a criterion, then their (Voicetronix) software should not be disqualified. If vendor-independence is a criterion, then Digium's Asterisk software (for which there is a page) should not qualify either. In fact, Asterisk is not even as purely open source as Voicetronix' OpenPBX is, because Asterisk is dual licensed.

Whatever the criterion for being a commercial product might be, it doesn't seem to be applied equally to all.

Stswp 12:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both are commercial products, the policy I'm suggesting this page be removed under is WP:CORP. BJ Talk 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Compliant

If the criteria you refer to is "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.", then the entry is compliant.

Please, type "OpenPBX Voicetronix" into Google and click over a few of the many pages which are returned. You will find that there are many articles about their OpenPBX software, in many languages, by publications/websites which are not affiliated with Voicetronix, amongst them the number-one resource on VoiP+Telephony "Voip-Info.org", an unrelated but significant Japanese VoIP info site "Voip-Info.jp", Linux Magazine, mailing lists, forums, blogs etc etc.

Stswp 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal observations to the above by user:FT2

First off, I would say that if there are multiple uses and referands for the term 'OpenPBX', then disambiguation either in the article, or via a separate disambiguation page, seems very reasonable. Likewise if one form of OpenPBX is closely tied to a given company such as Voicetronix, and other uses of the term are not, then titling that article "OpenPBX (software by Voicetronix)" is no different than titling another article "Neo (Matrix character)" or "Little Shop of Horrors (1986 film)". So this issue should probably not have gotten this far.

However, there's a second side to it. People who claim legal issues where those legal issues are dubious, or simply act heavy handed, are inevitably going to not meet the best of receptions, and somewhere along the line that seems to have happened here too.

Wikipedia article titles are simply references, much like an index in a catalog. If "OpenPBX" is a reasonable term some people might look up openpbx.org under, then it has as much call to the article "OpenPBX" as a commercial product of the same name might have. There is unlikely to be any confusion because the articles do not attempt to claim that openpbx.org's work is the product by Voicetronix. That would be what passing off means. Passing off implies pretending that one thing is really something else, and there is no passing off here, nobody is being fooled or tricked by it. I'm sorry, but legally openPBX.org have as much right to be indexed under OpenPBX as any other user of that name. That an article is titled OpenPBX is not making a legal claim that they are the only people with an interest in the name OpenPBX.

As stated, any number of ordinary disambiguation remedies would solve this, as best I can tell. But that's my $0.02 worth on it. FT2 (Talk 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete an ill-advised attempt if there ever was one. Has anyone checked the edits to the other page? DGG 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion, much less evidence that the subject meets the proposed guideline Notability (software) or the established guideline Notability (companies and corporations). (Oh yeah, and take the legal discussion somewhere else; see No legal threats which is policy.)  GRBerry 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I like GRBerry's summation and agree with it. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recommend removal of all articles and links associated with OpenPBX
OpenPBX, OpenPBX.org and OpenPBX by Voicetronix should all be removed until several issues are resolved - i.e. potential trademark violations and establishment of unbiased, third party citation under WP:CORP.

Two organizations both providing PBX solutions using the same name (no matter what the technical differences) are open game for dispute and litigation.

So far we have only heard from one of the parties involved who is by definition non neutral. Rather than getting in the middle of any potential disputes among outside organizations and because none of these articles appear to be strong in the WP:CORP category, they all should be removed immediately until the above issues are resolved. Placing WP:Afd on the other two and linking the discussions here. Calltech 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

As stated before, there is no dispute between OpenPBX.org and Voicetronix, instead there is an amicable agreement to manage the situation in the way that was applied to the voip+telephony information site at www.voip-info.org, that is:


 * a disambiguation page under the title "OpenPBX", that page treating both uses of the name equally
 * one specific distinguishable page for each use with a description of the specific software/project
 * the disambiguation page then referencing the specific pages equally and without prejudice

A problem only arises because Wikipedia editors apparently want to discriminate against one project over the other. It is this discrimination that poses a problem.

Stswp 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am discriminating based on Wikipedia policies and I still fail to see how this poses any problem what so ever. BJ Talk 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The United States Patent & Trademark Office has said: "When a trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance." In other words, at least as far as U.S. trademark status is concerned, sticking ".org" at the end of a name doesn't change its nature or status compared to the unadorned version.  Personally, I can't stand sticking domain endings at the end of company, organization, and product names, and favor slicing them off wherever possible. *Dan T.* 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see removal being good advice, at least in that way. If they were non verifiable or non notable, then deletion would meet the relevant deletion policy criteria. But the comment here is "delete because the names are problematic". Thats not good grounds for deletion; its good grounds for careful disambiguation, without implying any preference to the "ownership" of the OpenPBX "title". FT2 (Talk 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you, FT2. The argument of trademark and service dispute and lack of WP:CORP, go hand in hand.  Good disambiguation, however, doesn't solve the problem when two products in the same industry have the same name.  Disambiguation only works when the same name is used for two or more uniquely different products or definitions - here OpenPBX refers to a PBX software solution that apparently two groups claim registration rights.  Frankly, it points out a weakness in the notability requirement with both organizations that neither would defend their apparent claims of trademark or service mark rights.  There have been no citations to support WP:CORP.  voip-info.org is listed in the both article's external links, but this is a self-publishing wiki that allows companies to write information about themselves and others can comment.  This certainly does not qualify for WP:RS or WP:NPOV.  My main point is that since there appears to be a conflicting use of names between two organizations, perhaps the bar should be raised when establishing WP:CORP. Calltech 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem really. If the title refers to two separate products (even if in the same field, same function and same title), then we can disambiguate the two, or have one combined article that says "there are two version"... and has a section on each. Either will work. By contrast, if there is one product, and multiple parties are claiming title to it, then again we have no difficulty. We have one article, and note the ownership and involvement dispute. FT2 (Talk 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, in case anyone still listens, as failing WP:SOFT, no sources for any substantial third-party coverage. Ignore the utterly confused legalese for now. We don't care about who owns which trademark, we just record who uses what term, which does not infringe on anything I am aware of under any law I am aware of. Sandstein 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)#

Delete The suggestion that Wikipedia is passing off is laughable. (Passing off is the act of presenting yourself in a manner deleberately likely to cause confusion between yourself and another's identity. Wikipedia is clearly not doing this even if it is wrong.) Just delete this nn company and ensure that the .org is correctly referenced. --Backface 18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.