Wasmer and Trademarks(wasmer.io)
wasmer.io
Wasmer and Trademarks
https://wasmer.io/posts/wasmer-and-trademarks
79 comments
Yep. The post makes it sound like they abandoned the application because of the goodness of their hearts, but really it was obviously going to be rejected because they had no response to the straightforward questions by the USPTO.
It wasn't going to be rejected. It was rejected for solid reasons and they decided not to waste time appealing.
Those are two different applications for two different marks. The article linked Webassembly while you linked WASM.
Isn't it interesting how much the PR post (calling it an 'article' is a misnomer) downplays Wasmer's efforts to trademark "wasm"? It's almost like the effort to trademark "wasm" belies the bad faith intentions of Wasmer amd they want to avoid drawing attention to it.
The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.
The whole "it's not our fault, blame our lawyers" combined with "we decided to wait on issuing a non-apology until we thought the conversation would be productive for us" really doesn't make Wasmer look good.
We didn't pretend to put fault on anyone, just portray the situation as it happened.
I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
I think is worth to make one thing clear: as CEO the fault is and ultimately will be always mine. Not the lawyers, not anyone else.
The closest you come to accepting personal resposibility in that post is:
> I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted.
Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere.
You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark.
Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like
> The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark.
The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information".
In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings.
When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.
> I wrongly assumed the foundation and trademark process had halted.
Even this looks like trying to shift the blame elsewhere.
You don't appoligize for starting the trademarking process or even try to justify why you thought that "wasm" was an appropriate thing to try to trademark.
Instead you downplay it while making misleading statements like
> The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was requesting more information to pursue the WebAssembly trademark.
The USPTO was not "requesting more information", they denied your application while giving you room to appeal with additional information. What you are doing is like trying to claim that a judge who informs you of your right to appeal is "requesting you provide more information".
In addition, the USPTO record shows that your attorneys withdrew from the trademark case several weeks prior to the DM screenshot you posted where you claim ignorance. As part of that withdrawal, your lawyer attested, under penalty of law, that you had been notified about the current state of those filings.
When your verifiable statements have such a loose relationship with truth, it really casts doubts on your unverifiable statements about your intentions. When you have your employees jump in to try to praise you "transparency", it is easy to jump to the assumption that this goes beyong self-serving distortion into willful deceit.
Here is the rejection for WebAssembly: https://uspto.report/TM/88703780/OOA20200227112217/
The link provided is a non-final action (Feb 26, 2020) that can be rebated with further evidence, as stated by both the description of the reply (NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN) and the text:
> Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below
As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark.
Hope this makes things more clear!
> Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below
As mentioned in the article, Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence and arguments in support of registration, but instead we left the process to expire, leading to the ABANDONMENT of the trademark.
Hope this makes things more clear!
> Wasmer could have still tried to submit further evidence
“Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
“Tried” is the operative word here though, no? What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing?
> What possible evidence could convince the USPTO to let a company trademark a name already in use for the same thing by a company that is not its original creator?
Not sure, as we didn't tried to pursue further. Perhaps there was a way to get the trademark, or perhaps there wasn't (no idea, really... and I guess we will never know! although a negative answer is the most probable one).
But there are other examples such as Javascript owned by Oracle, where they didn't create the technology but they owned the trademark, so it's definitely possible [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
Not sure, as we didn't tried to pursue further. Perhaps there was a way to get the trademark, or perhaps there wasn't (no idea, really... and I guess we will never know! although a negative answer is the most probable one).
But there are other examples such as Javascript owned by Oracle, where they didn't create the technology but they owned the trademark, so it's definitely possible [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344049
Do you see how comparing your company to Oracle is not the most flattering?
Oracle owns the Javascript trademark because it was originally owned by Sun, who trademarked it under an agreement with Netscape who are the original authors of Javascript. Oracle at least has legal claim to the trademark.
There obviously is not a way to get trademarks on WASM or Webassembly.
If you admit the trademarks were applied for in error, why continue pretending there was a chance they would be granted?
Oracle owns the Javascript trademark because it was originally owned by Sun, who trademarked it under an agreement with Netscape who are the original authors of Javascript. Oracle at least has legal claim to the trademark.
There obviously is not a way to get trademarks on WASM or Webassembly.
If you admit the trademarks were applied for in error, why continue pretending there was a chance they would be granted?
[deleted]
Just trying to prove a point! I kind of enjoy discussing this things openly.
Look I really don't want to be a hater, but please look at the way your words are perceived publicly. This doesn't read as open comments about trademark law, it reads as defensive and oppositional.
This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the terms WASM or Webassembly".
Wasmer only has controversy because basic PR like this statement has been mishandled over and over again. You need to come off as good-faith actors participating in the WASM ecosystem. Defensiveness when you have obviously done the wrong thing, arguing with commenters under what is supposed to be an apology, employees posting supportive comments of their employer on said apology without disclosure... surely it is obvious how these actions are bad PR?
I know this reads really negatively but please understand that it's intended as sincere feedback. It's really important that Wasmer can reform it's image problem. There isn't any reason you guys should be perceived so negatively, if you can stop screwing up PR at every opportunity.
This wasn't a huge PR challenge, all the statement needed to say was "Sorry, some lawyers we contracted applied for the trademarks in error, we have not progressed the applications and aren't claiming any ownership of the terms WASM or Webassembly".
Wasmer only has controversy because basic PR like this statement has been mishandled over and over again. You need to come off as good-faith actors participating in the WASM ecosystem. Defensiveness when you have obviously done the wrong thing, arguing with commenters under what is supposed to be an apology, employees posting supportive comments of their employer on said apology without disclosure... surely it is obvious how these actions are bad PR?
I know this reads really negatively but please understand that it's intended as sincere feedback. It's really important that Wasmer can reform it's image problem. There isn't any reason you guys should be perceived so negatively, if you can stop screwing up PR at every opportunity.
I appreciate your comment, I really do.
I can understand how my comments could feel defensive. It's a personality trait that I like to discuss things to satiety, and that probably doesn't help! But it's always done with the willingness to learn and grow.
I hope my appetite for discussion doesn't make our apology to the community any less valid.
We made a mistake and we own it no matter what.
I can understand how my comments could feel defensive. It's a personality trait that I like to discuss things to satiety, and that probably doesn't help! But it's always done with the willingness to learn and grow.
I hope my appetite for discussion doesn't make our apology to the community any less valid.
We made a mistake and we own it no matter what.
I'm curious as to what apology you are referring to.
> no idea, really... and I guess we will never know
Really? It appears to be blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
Really? It appears to be blatantly obvious to everyone but you.
It's hard to escape the feeling that Wasmer is trying to hijack Webassembly for their own commercial advantage.
Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime.
It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language.
If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders.
You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.
Bytecode alliance is a non profit organisation whose members involve some of the tech giants involved in promoting WASM development. Bytecode alliance have developed their own open runtime.
It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer, or why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation". Their recent efforts with the closed source Webassembly Package Manager reek of trying to copy the npm business model: take commercial advantage of a non-commercial programming language.
If Wasmer want to be trusted they need to stop acting like they are official stewards of Webassembly. Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders.
You can even see (unattributed) supportive comments from Wasmer employees in this comments section. It just feels off.
“Focus more on building good WASM products than on pretending to be leaders”
Yup. WebAssembly is not a landgrab its an opportunity to build very cool things that embody the principles of the web. Use imagination. Build product. A package manager and a runtime is hardly inspiring.
Yup. WebAssembly is not a landgrab its an opportunity to build very cool things that embody the principles of the web. Use imagination. Build product. A package manager and a runtime is hardly inspiring.
> It's not obvious why we need a seperate WASM runtime developed by Wasmer,
Not defending anything but competition is generally accepted to be a good thing.
Not defending anything but competition is generally accepted to be a good thing.
> why they would be good stewards for a "Webassembly foundation"
But they registered a domain name on an obscure TLD before anyone else thought of it! /s
But they registered a domain name on an obscure TLD before anyone else thought of it! /s
The fact Wasmer even attempted to do this, the PR spin to try cover their motivations and the deceitful astro turfing in this thread by Wasmer employees is enough for me to distrust & discount the entire company and its products entirely.
Yup. product is dead to me now.
100% this.
> Wasmer, by necessity, design, and passion lives and breathes Wasm and open source.
> As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly...
> Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of open source and WebAssembly in particular.
Wasmer recently recently released a closed source wasm package manager. Something doesn't seem right. Anyone feel something is off here?
> As is dictated by our commitment to open source and the precedent of social alignment set by WebAssembly...
> Although all these events still do not portray Wasmer in the best light, I hope they can at least assuage the understandable concerns of our community that we had acted in a way so fundamentally contrary to the values of open source and WebAssembly in particular.
Wasmer recently recently released a closed source wasm package manager. Something doesn't seem right. Anyone feel something is off here?
There is nothing[0] suspicious[1] about[2] Wasmer.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28772863
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/o1838v/the_web...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904829
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28772863
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/o1838v/the_web...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24904829
> But you need to know that Wasmer and its sibling projects will stay free forever. We are open source lovers, all of us, and we have a strong background on working on open source projects before joining Wasmer too.
That's great. I'm sure the closed source paid 10x faster editions of the graphene Python GraphQL server written by Syrus "CEO of Graphene" and CEO of wasmer will be open sourced in this spirit.
https://github.com/graphql-python/graphene/issues/268#issuec...
http://graphql-quiver.com/
That's great. I'm sure the closed source paid 10x faster editions of the graphene Python GraphQL server written by Syrus "CEO of Graphene" and CEO of wasmer will be open sourced in this spirit.
https://github.com/graphql-python/graphene/issues/268#issuec...
http://graphql-quiver.com/
Bummer. What an unfortunate comment.
Many people in the Python GraphQL ecosystem are very aware of how much I pushed that ecosystem forward (in fact, I created it!) and actually cheered for the success of Quiver [1]. Probably downloads will speak louder than any words: Graphene has 1/5th of the downloads of Django (~1.2 million per month [2]), all on the spirit of an open community that is governed by many more people than myself.
If you want an open alternative to Quiver, you can start by investing your time creating it. But you are not entitled on other people's time doing it for you for free. As people say in the US: "Put your money (or time) where your mouth is".
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17568848
[2] https://pypistats.org/packages/graphene
Many people in the Python GraphQL ecosystem are very aware of how much I pushed that ecosystem forward (in fact, I created it!) and actually cheered for the success of Quiver [1]. Probably downloads will speak louder than any words: Graphene has 1/5th of the downloads of Django (~1.2 million per month [2]), all on the spirit of an open community that is governed by many more people than myself.
If you want an open alternative to Quiver, you can start by investing your time creating it. But you are not entitled on other people's time doing it for you for free. As people say in the US: "Put your money (or time) where your mouth is".
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17568848
[2] https://pypistats.org/packages/graphene
I have no problems paying for good services. Is quiver still available and supported? When I checked the demo website a few weeks ago it seemed a bit abandoned. [0] We seem to be doing well enough by disabling middleware promise wrapping via middleware manager [1]. Our median graphQL API response times got 2x faster with that config change. However, IIRC we are still seeing around 150 promises in one GraphQL request when I'd like to see around 1. I am interested in quiver for that reason.
Anyway, the problem isn't about charging for your work. It's about having a track record of charging for closed source additions to your own open source software platform meanwhile saying wasmer and sibling projects will be free forever as if that's how it's always been with everything else.
[0]: https://graphql-quiver.com/benchmarks/
[1]: https://github.com/graphql-python/graphql-core-legacy/blob/m...
Anyway, the problem isn't about charging for your work. It's about having a track record of charging for closed source additions to your own open source software platform meanwhile saying wasmer and sibling projects will be free forever as if that's how it's always been with everything else.
[0]: https://graphql-quiver.com/benchmarks/
[1]: https://github.com/graphql-python/graphql-core-legacy/blob/m...
> It's about having a track record of charging for closed source additions to your own open source software platform
This is completely false. In fact, it has been rather the opposite. Thanks to Quiver I did improved a lot of things on the open-source GraphQL-core that benefited the whole community.
Quiver was built as a completely new product, and to be crystal clear: it never took any open-source bits out of Graphene or GraphQL-core. Basically, anything that was open-source did continue being open-source. That's as true for Graphene as it is for Wasmer.
I'm genuinely curious. On which ground you based your allegations?
This is completely false. In fact, it has been rather the opposite. Thanks to Quiver I did improved a lot of things on the open-source GraphQL-core that benefited the whole community.
Quiver was built as a completely new product, and to be crystal clear: it never took any open-source bits out of Graphene or GraphQL-core. Basically, anything that was open-source did continue being open-source. That's as true for Graphene as it is for Wasmer.
I'm genuinely curious. On which ground you based your allegations?
I don't think having closed source projects contradicts that statement. You're allowed to love open source and make some open source things while still keeping other things closed source.
I don't think it's too reasonable to expect that every open-source-friendly company never releases a closed source project. Or at least I don't find it weird that an open-source-friendly company might have one closed source project. Their core project, wasmer, is open-source after all.
The WAPM backend is closed-source for now.
However, the API layer based on GraphQL and the CLI are completely open for anyone to use: https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli
If anyone wants to replicate the WebAssembly Package Manager locally please send me an email to [email protected] so we can start a discussion around a potential open-source path for it :)
EDIT: removed "for security reasons among other things" as it might imply WAPM is not secure, and that's definitely not the case
However, the API layer based on GraphQL and the CLI are completely open for anyone to use: https://registry.wapm.io/graphql https://github.com/wasmerio/wapm-cli
If anyone wants to replicate the WebAssembly Package Manager locally please send me an email to [email protected] so we can start a discussion around a potential open-source path for it :)
EDIT: removed "for security reasons among other things" as it might imply WAPM is not secure, and that's definitely not the case
Closed source for security reasons?
Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
Do you mean it would not be secure if people were able to see the source?
Open-source code is obviously easier to exploit than closed source one.
But that doesn't imply necessarily the existence of security bugs.
For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!).
As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and thorough review of the codebase before open-sourcing.
For example, we might be using a dependency that is vulnerable to exploits or have an exploit in our own code that opens a security breach (hopefully not!).
As an open-source maintainer I like to open projects for which the code-quality is high, and this implies doing a deep and thorough review of the codebase before open-sourcing.
Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is. Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.
This is often repeated but it’s just obviously not true. It’s much easier to figure out how to exploit a server if I have its source. If I don’t, I have to throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hope something sticks.
If I’m in the situation where I have a binary of a server without the source, I have to pay the cost of using ghidra or IDA for a few hours or days (or weeks) to figure out how the software is structured before I can come up with an exploit. If I’m dealing with an open source target that’s a cost I don’t have to pay.
If I’m in the situation where I have a binary of a server without the source, I have to pay the cost of using ghidra or IDA for a few hours or days (or weeks) to figure out how the software is structured before I can come up with an exploit. If I’m dealing with an open source target that’s a cost I don’t have to pay.
> Open-source code is not in fact easier to exploit than closed-source code is
Not sure if I agree with this. Obscure systems are usually harder to hack as they require an extra effort on discoverability that open systems don't have.
Easier to exploit != more exploitable. One is about the threshold to discover an exploit, the other is about the total exploitable bugs.
In my view, the "hackability level" is the same for both open and closed-source projects. Making something close it doesn't make it less hackeable, it just makes the threshold to discover bugs higher.
Also, one may argue that with open-source projects you may be able to fix more bugs since those are in the open and more people can report them (thus, more secure). I think it really depends on the contribution level and where the codebase is at to see if security might be a concern or not.
> Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.
But I mostly agree with this ;)
Not sure if I agree with this. Obscure systems are usually harder to hack as they require an extra effort on discoverability that open systems don't have.
Easier to exploit != more exploitable. One is about the threshold to discover an exploit, the other is about the total exploitable bugs.
In my view, the "hackability level" is the same for both open and closed-source projects. Making something close it doesn't make it less hackeable, it just makes the threshold to discover bugs higher.
Also, one may argue that with open-source projects you may be able to fix more bugs since those are in the open and more people can report them (thus, more secure). I think it really depends on the contribution level and where the codebase is at to see if security might be a concern or not.
> Security and openness are mostly orthogonal.
But I mostly agree with this ;)
Most people would say that reducing the threshold to discover security bugs is a good thing.
Security through obscurity is not security. The source WAS open, any bugs in it then are still discoverable. Opening source can actually make things more secure, the whole "many eyes" thing.
The interesting thing in this argument is that the first person is positing axiomatically that closed source is more secure, the second person is positing that open/closed largely doesn’t matter and finally your position axiomatically is that open is more secured.
We’ve known since the 70s that you (provably) can’t trust source code. We know experientially that it’s easier to diagnose code than programs. We also know experientially that the teams involved have a dramatic effect on the security of the outcomes.
How will we ever decide which of our three contestants will win?
We’ve known since the 70s that you (provably) can’t trust source code. We know experientially that it’s easier to diagnose code than programs. We also know experientially that the teams involved have a dramatic effect on the security of the outcomes.
How will we ever decide which of our three contestants will win?
Not quite. tptacek says "Most people would say that reducing the threshold to discover security bugs is a good thing." I think that restating what tptacek said earlier, "mostly orthoganal", to "largely doesn't matter", loses some of the meaning.
One way of seeing it is that it's mostly orthaganal at a level of all software out there, but that for those who make a serious effort to be secure, there is a lot of benefit to being open source.
There's Linus's Law, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". I think if the maintainers of Linux didn't meaningfully address security concerns, it would just mean they were doing a bit better at whack-a-mole. You see this in popular open source projects like WordPress.
So I think that's why a reader might think tptacek's two comments don't jibe with each other. If you are given a choice between an open source and a closed source application, you wouldn't just assume one is more secure than another. However, if you were starting off to make a secure system, it would be a good idea to make it open source.
One way of seeing it is that it's mostly orthaganal at a level of all software out there, but that for those who make a serious effort to be secure, there is a lot of benefit to being open source.
There's Linus's Law, "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". I think if the maintainers of Linux didn't meaningfully address security concerns, it would just mean they were doing a bit better at whack-a-mole. You see this in popular open source projects like WordPress.
So I think that's why a reader might think tptacek's two comments don't jibe with each other. If you are given a choice between an open source and a closed source application, you wouldn't just assume one is more secure than another. However, if you were starting off to make a secure system, it would be a good idea to make it open source.
Heartbleed proved that the “many eyes” theory doesn’t always work in practice. It was in the codebase for years and no one noticed.
> Heartbleed proved that the “many eyes” theory doesn’t always work in practice. It was in the codebase for years and no one noticed.
It proved that FOSS isn't infallible, which I hope isn't that great a shock. To argue that it weakens the general argument, you would need to present a similar TLS library which avoided exploits by being closed source.
It proved that FOSS isn't infallible, which I hope isn't that great a shock. To argue that it weakens the general argument, you would need to present a similar TLS library which avoided exploits by being closed source.
The person you're responding to could simply provide every closed source TLS library as an example, because Heartbleed (a memory leak caused by implementing a TLS feature nobody was using) was exclusive to OpenSSL.
That's absurd; we're comparing the rate of exploits, not whether the same exact exploit exists. By that logic, I can say that OpenSSL is perfect because it doesn't have (quick search) https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/SecurityBu...
There was also the Apple “goto fail” bug in their open source TLS code[0], which was so shockingly obvious that it would have been found by compiler warnings, yet it was not.
I myself have on occasion found high priority bugs (not security issues) in open source projects with many eyeballs, simply by turning on additional compiler warnings. The fruit out there hangs very low.
Openness counts for nothing if nobody is reading the code. Open is better than being closed source but the difference is marginal. The real difference is made by having the code reviewed by security professionals, and by how the project is maintained/lead, and those are orthogonal to open/closed source.
[0] https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
I myself have on occasion found high priority bugs (not security issues) in open source projects with many eyeballs, simply by turning on additional compiler warnings. The fruit out there hangs very low.
Openness counts for nothing if nobody is reading the code. Open is better than being closed source but the difference is marginal. The real difference is made by having the code reviewed by security professionals, and by how the project is maintained/lead, and those are orthogonal to open/closed source.
[0] https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html
> Wasmer recently recently released a closed source wasm package manager. Something doesn't seem right. Anyone feel something is off here?
I have to agree. Are there any open source package managers similar to cargo?
I have to agree. Are there any open source package managers similar to cargo?
It’s probably worth mentioning that in the text exchange when asked about the applications for “webassembly” and “wasm”, the response text included the following:
“…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.”
However, that is not true.
Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned.
With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?
“…I’m aware we registered the Wasmer trademark, so it might be related.”
However, that is not true.
Wasmer was not registered, just like “Wasm” and “Webassembly” the USPTO issued an Office Action for the “Wasmer” TM application, just like the other two applications the attorney withdrew, Wasmer failed to respond to the Office Action, and the application was abandoned.
With the exact same failure to respond to a USPTO Office Action for their own business name, I’m wondering did the CEO also intentionally fail to respond to the USPTO Office Action for Wasmer and if so why?
You intentionally filed for a trademark for "Webassembly" and "WASM". You did not file for a trademark for "Webassembly Foundation".
For anyone curious about Bytecode Alliance: https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer/issues/956
> Unless the BA members have future-reading abilities (which perhaps they have, who knows!), that narrative is hard to hold @showyourfaces.
I think it was similar but far more mundane. I think they got bad vibes from Wasmer.
I think it was similar but far more mundane. I think they got bad vibes from Wasmer.
This seems very sketchy and the CEO’s responses are more defensive than reflective and remorseful.
I was initially considering using wasmer for a project but will go with wasmtime (still open to suggestions though!)
I was initially considering using wasmer for a project but will go with wasmtime (still open to suggestions though!)
I'm not too familiar with the state of wasm runtimes so this Frank Denis post/benchmark [0] was pretty helpful.
tldr:
> Are you looking for the best possible performance to build a “serverless” infrastructure? WAVM may be better a choice, combined with “snapshots” of the linear memory made after initialization, as done in the excellent FAASM.
> For untrusted applications, and if you are into Rust, you may want to consider lucet and its unique ability to stop/resume/reschedule execution.
> Are you looking for a one-runtime-to-rule-them-all thing for multiple components of your application, written in a variety of programming languages? wasmer will probably be the easiest to integrate.
> Are you looking for a way to test the latest WebAssembly proposals? Check out wasmtime. Ditto if you need to run WebAssembly modules from Zig. wasmtime is fast, even on ARM CPUs, although I wish I could test on one of these fancy new Apple M1 machines.
> Finally, if you need something simple, lightweight, that works everywhere, wasm3 is your friend.
[0] https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/
tldr:
> Are you looking for the best possible performance to build a “serverless” infrastructure? WAVM may be better a choice, combined with “snapshots” of the linear memory made after initialization, as done in the excellent FAASM.
> For untrusted applications, and if you are into Rust, you may want to consider lucet and its unique ability to stop/resume/reschedule execution.
> Are you looking for a one-runtime-to-rule-them-all thing for multiple components of your application, written in a variety of programming languages? wasmer will probably be the easiest to integrate.
> Are you looking for a way to test the latest WebAssembly proposals? Check out wasmtime. Ditto if you need to run WebAssembly modules from Zig. wasmtime is fast, even on ARM CPUs, although I wish I could test on one of these fancy new Apple M1 machines.
> Finally, if you need something simple, lightweight, that works everywhere, wasm3 is your friend.
[0] https://00f.net/2021/02/22/webassembly-runtimes-benchmarks/
Anyone know why they were rejected from Bytecode Alliance?
I believe it all started when Wasmer's founder allegedly sexually harassed a member of the Bytecode Alliance. From the outside it seems any collaboration was doomed from the start, and the trademark applications and internal conflicts didn't help Wasmer one bit.
I don't like Wasmer one bit, seems like an aggressive startup with a shady business model that is ultimately bad for the WASM ecosystem.
It's possible what you say is true, but, how could anyone judge the validity of such an allegation from a throwaway account without more info?
It's possible what you say is true, but, how could anyone judge the validity of such an allegation from a throwaway account without more info?
It's entirely possible that it's true. That the throwaway account was to provide information the main account owner couldn't provide because it was confidential. Alternatively, it could be totally made up.
It's impossible to know. I do know someone elsewhere on HN[1] claimed to (a) work at wasmer and (b) that the decision was based on personal reasons. On a very low rated post. But that's also unverified, and could just mean that they think the founder is an ass.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24900186
It's impossible to know. I do know someone elsewhere on HN[1] claimed to (a) work at wasmer and (b) that the decision was based on personal reasons. On a very low rated post. But that's also unverified, and could just mean that they think the founder is an ass.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24900186
I realize it's not ideal, but whether inappropriate behavior took place or not is irrelevant to Wasmer's relationship to the Alliance. For all we know, it could be a misunderstanding due to different cultures (which is what the founder claimed).
What is relevant, though, is that a member of the Alliance made public claims of inappropriate behavior by Wasmer's founder and, nearly a year later, boosted them to justify why they weren't personally collaborating. I'm not going to link this for the benefit of the victim, but in fairness they did publish this online, and you can still find it if you're really interested.
And once you take this background into context, some of the issues Wasmer faces just seem to click. Consider the late-cofounder post-mortem you linked in a different thread:
> Another point: Syrus Akbary also has made many public errors that have created hostility against the company.
Could it be about different issues? Well, certainly, but that one issue was steaming for a year within the Alliance, so...
What is relevant, though, is that a member of the Alliance made public claims of inappropriate behavior by Wasmer's founder and, nearly a year later, boosted them to justify why they weren't personally collaborating. I'm not going to link this for the benefit of the victim, but in fairness they did publish this online, and you can still find it if you're really interested.
And once you take this background into context, some of the issues Wasmer faces just seem to click. Consider the late-cofounder post-mortem you linked in a different thread:
> Another point: Syrus Akbary also has made many public errors that have created hostility against the company.
Could it be about different issues? Well, certainly, but that one issue was steaming for a year within the Alliance, so...
Let me put a hard stop here.
Sexual harassment issues are a serious matter. They are not discussed online as a throwaway weapon. They are denounced to the relevant authorities so they can be punished by law. I will always defend anyone doing that even if the claim goes against my person or anyone I love.
If you have chatted with anyone that has really suffered from it, you would know how important is to treat this things properly and not as a weapon to attack a company we don't like.
Sexual harassment issues are a serious matter. They are not discussed online as a throwaway weapon. They are denounced to the relevant authorities so they can be punished by law. I will always defend anyone doing that even if the claim goes against my person or anyone I love.
If you have chatted with anyone that has really suffered from it, you would know how important is to treat this things properly and not as a weapon to attack a company we don't like.
I didn't state either way, I just reported claims that anyone can verify online.
Are you implying this didn't affect Wasmer's rejection from the Alliance?
Are you implying this didn't affect Wasmer's rejection from the Alliance?
> I didn't state either way, I just reported the claims that anyone can verify online.
I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it.
> Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason?
You shall ask them instead of me.
I hope you can understand how making unsupported claims of this caliber can be very damaging specially if done without any verification whatsoever. You didn't stated it but you did implied it.
> Are you implying Wasmer was rejected from the Alliance for a different reason?
You shall ask them instead of me.
> The rejection from the Bytecode Alliance was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct—both the individual CoC and the organizational CoC.
>
> We made both of these points explicit in the rejection email. In that email, we also said that if Wasmer established a track record of positive engagement, we would re-evaluate.
From a BA member[0]. If I was you, I'd start reading some interpersonal communication books ASAP and really take some time to reflect deeply on what is happening here. It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future (your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what, the Bytecode Alliance rejecting you, people alleging harassment, etc.) and you're having a hard time understanding what they are doing and why.
[0] https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-71...
>
> We made both of these points explicit in the rejection email. In that email, we also said that if Wasmer established a track record of positive engagement, we would re-evaluate.
From a BA member[0]. If I was you, I'd start reading some interpersonal communication books ASAP and really take some time to reflect deeply on what is happening here. It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future (your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what, the Bytecode Alliance rejecting you, people alleging harassment, etc.) and you're having a hard time understanding what they are doing and why.
[0] https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/issues/3#issuecomment-71...
And the response each time seems to be along the lines of "We're sorry... but also we didn't do anything wrong and it was just a misunderstanding... and also people are being mean to us". I can't see this company ever growing past the controversy that hangs over it, because it keeps fueling it with extreme defensiveness and half-apologies.
> was based on a history of behavior that isn’t compatible with the BA codes of conduct
I hope we can share the opinion that making this statement without actually pin-pointing into what's the exact behavior that is not compatible with the CoC makes the whole point plain. If provided, one can reflect upon that. Otherwise is just plain words that don't help in any way towards reflection or self-growth.
> your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what
That's my fault, as stated in the article and other comments here. Sometimes we try to chew more than we can swallow, and fuckups happen. If you been in a startup you probably know what I'm talking about.
> people alleging harassment
This one is the one that I think we have to be most cautious about, specially because anyone can "allege" anything. Tomorrow I can read in Twitter that someone likes to kill cats and I can say that "Allegedly X is a cat killer", but that doesn't make it any more true (and to be honest, it will be irresponsible for me sharing that without proof, even if I frame it as an allegation). It's on each of us the responsibility to seriously treat those claims by putting them in the hands of the authorities so any bad behavior is penalized with the law.
> It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future
Fortunately enough, the business thrives when we make a product that people like and use. And for me personally, I'm learning a lot and going through a lot of experiences that are for sure enriching. Thus, each day I'm (hopefully) becoming a better version of myself (or at least I try to!). Hope you do too!
I hope we can share the opinion that making this statement without actually pin-pointing into what's the exact behavior that is not compatible with the CoC makes the whole point plain. If provided, one can reflect upon that. Otherwise is just plain words that don't help in any way towards reflection or self-growth.
> your lawyers trademarking things without you understanding what
That's my fault, as stated in the article and other comments here. Sometimes we try to chew more than we can swallow, and fuckups happen. If you been in a startup you probably know what I'm talking about.
> people alleging harassment
This one is the one that I think we have to be most cautious about, specially because anyone can "allege" anything. Tomorrow I can read in Twitter that someone likes to kill cats and I can say that "Allegedly X is a cat killer", but that doesn't make it any more true (and to be honest, it will be irresponsible for me sharing that without proof, even if I frame it as an allegation). It's on each of us the responsibility to seriously treat those claims by putting them in the hands of the authorities so any bad behavior is penalized with the law.
> It seems like a lot of people around you are making decisions that gravely impact your business and personal future
Fortunately enough, the business thrives when we make a product that people like and use. And for me personally, I'm learning a lot and going through a lot of experiences that are for sure enriching. Thus, each day I'm (hopefully) becoming a better version of myself (or at least I try to!). Hope you do too!
Syrus Akbary here (founder of Wasmer).
This allegation is absolutely false
This allegation is absolutely false
If you're going to keep saying that, at least spell it out. Did you mean:
1. No, no one at the Bytecode Alliance ever accused me of inappropriate behavior.
2. Someone at the Bytecode Alliance accused me of inappropriate behavior, but that was a false allegation.
Spell it out, because regardless of which, this definitely played a part in why Wasmer is not a part of the Alliance, and that is what people were wondering about.
I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it. Their answers are roundabout ways of never confirming it because they claim they were accused unfairly, and that's fine, if irrelevant to what ended up happening to the Wasmer-BA relationship.
1. No, no one at the Bytecode Alliance ever accused me of inappropriate behavior.
2. Someone at the Bytecode Alliance accused me of inappropriate behavior, but that was a false allegation.
Spell it out, because regardless of which, this definitely played a part in why Wasmer is not a part of the Alliance, and that is what people were wondering about.
I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it. Their answers are roundabout ways of never confirming it because they claim they were accused unfairly, and that's fine, if irrelevant to what ended up happening to the Wasmer-BA relationship.
Your throwaway account alleged something absolutely false without any proof (sexual harassment). Now the argument has shifted onto an accusation of inappropriate behavior (which actually doesn't even mean that there has been one). This are two very different things. Period.
> I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it
Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely false.
If you have proof of that please share the information. I think any future readers will like reading about it
But for the sake of discussion, let's play devils advocate. Even if such an accusation would exist (which in this case, it doesn't), it would not imply it's truthfulness. That's why it's super important to always put this matters into the hand of authorities so any bad behaviors (either sexual harassment or false accusations) are addressed with the full weight of the law.
> I'll do it from my end: yes, they were accused of it
Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely false.
If you have proof of that please share the information. I think any future readers will like reading about it
But for the sake of discussion, let's play devils advocate. Even if such an accusation would exist (which in this case, it doesn't), it would not imply it's truthfulness. That's why it's super important to always put this matters into the hand of authorities so any bad behaviors (either sexual harassment or false accusations) are addressed with the full weight of the law.
> Accused of sexual harassment by a member of the BA alliance? Never. This is absolutely false.
Are you joking me? Inappropriate physical behavior IS sexual harassment. You're trying to twist words to deny something happened.
At this point I lost complete faith in you and now assume your claims that it was a misunderstanding an outright fabrication. I'm ashamed I ever rooted for Wasmer and hoped this was indeed culture clash.
At no point in this conversation was the truthfulness or the legality of whatever happened in question: the question was "why was wasmer rejected from the bytecode alliance," and a "false" allegation that you "touched someone in a prolonged and overly-familiar way that caused them discomfort according to them but wasn't sexual harassment according to you" is the answer.
In fact, you're saying this never happened and that false accusations need to be addressed with the full weight of the law? I'll see you in court I guess?
Are you joking me? Inappropriate physical behavior IS sexual harassment. You're trying to twist words to deny something happened.
At this point I lost complete faith in you and now assume your claims that it was a misunderstanding an outright fabrication. I'm ashamed I ever rooted for Wasmer and hoped this was indeed culture clash.
At no point in this conversation was the truthfulness or the legality of whatever happened in question: the question was "why was wasmer rejected from the bytecode alliance," and a "false" allegation that you "touched someone in a prolonged and overly-familiar way that caused them discomfort according to them but wasn't sexual harassment according to you" is the answer.
In fact, you're saying this never happened and that false accusations need to be addressed with the full weight of the law? I'll see you in court I guess?
I'm sorry, but your narrative is beyond twisted.
Greeting someone with two kisses (a typical way of greeting in Spain) in a public conference in front of many other people is not sexual harassment. In fact, I already suspect you know that since you also commented "For all we know, it could be a misunderstanding due to different cultures" in this same thread. In any case, if you really consider that sexual harassment I'd welcome you to report it to the authorities and see what they have to say about it.
For any future readers, this is what this throwaway account is falsely reporting as sexual harassment: https://twitter.com/syrusakbary/status/1202362342555545600
> In fact, report me to the authorities
Sure thing, I'd love to. Would you be so kind to share your real information so I can do so?
Greeting someone with two kisses (a typical way of greeting in Spain) in a public conference in front of many other people is not sexual harassment. In fact, I already suspect you know that since you also commented "For all we know, it could be a misunderstanding due to different cultures" in this same thread. In any case, if you really consider that sexual harassment I'd welcome you to report it to the authorities and see what they have to say about it.
For any future readers, this is what this throwaway account is falsely reporting as sexual harassment: https://twitter.com/syrusakbary/status/1202362342555545600
> In fact, report me to the authorities
Sure thing, I'd love to. Would you be so kind to share your real information so I can do so?
wiqar(1)
Amazing levels of transparency in this statement, which feels like a breath of fresh air to read in terms of clarity and openness. Will have to check out Wasmer :)
These obviously-ingenuine replies only add to the continuing distrust of Wasmer, by the way.
The actual rejection: https://uspto.report/TM/88703784/OOA20200227112123#2
> The attached evidence from Webassembly and Wikipedia shows that WASM is a programming language. Here, applicant provides various software, which presumably involves the use of the aforementioned programming language.
> In total, the above evidence results in the determination that in relation to the goods and/or services applicant provides, the context therefor, and to someone who knows what the goods and/or services are, WASM conveys an immediate idea about a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods and/or services, namely, that they consist of software involving the programming language WASM. Accordingly, the proposed mark, WASM is merely descriptive and registration is properly refused on the Principal Register under Section 2(e)(1).
> Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. If applicant responds to the refusal, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.