Evidently the company realized they were fighting a losing battle, particularly after the CEO's disastrous response:
https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anyth...
https://forums.comodo.com/general-discussion-off-topic-anyth...
Um, it doesn't really say anything about most CEOs, does it?
Actually, I think it shows how this guy is different from others, because he seems more nutty than most people.
>grammer
>fund
This is intentional right?
That being said, it sounds like the cause of the omissions of just the words of the first-person constructions this post uses is more likely to be rooted in English being Melih's second language.
See the weird omission of reference to self? Here's something I didn't originally intend to share... The reason I notice this is because I used to type emails like that. I don't know why I used to do that, but I eventually stopped doing it consciously because I thought it sounded weird, and years later noticed it in the situation I mentioned earlier. I find it annoying these days to read people doing it. I totally get what you're saying about ESL, but I'm referring to it happening outside of non-native English speakers. I'm interested in your initial suggestion, though. Thanks!
[0] https://entrepreneurs.maqtoob.com/my-cofounder-said-i-love-w...
"Success four flights thursday morning all against twenty one mile wind started from Level with engine power alone average speed through air thirty one miles longest 57 seconds inform Press home Christmas"
I sometimes omit first-person pronouns and some other words when writing text messages, because I find it considerably more difficult to type there. The charitable interpretation I would give is that, if someone writes emails like this, either they're writing on an inconvenient mobile platform now, or they're used to writing on such a platform and write that way even with a proper keyboard.
I'm guessing, in this case, that this is just an ESL thing.
To me this sounds quite similar to the ownership of the rectangle with rounded corners (I am actually not sure whose side I'm on in either dispute).
It's even sillier than that. Comodo has long offered a 90 day free trial cert. You have to pay to renew.
Let's Encrypt gives a 90 day free cert that's freely renewable as many times as you want along with an API to renew it. These aren't the same business models at all.
What I don't get is why the CEO of Comodo, all the people on the thread all seem to assume Let's Encrypt has a business model, and that they are a competitor. The Comodo CEO seemed to keep coming back to that point, taking all of this personally. There is no business model to steal from Comodo because Let's Encrypt is not a business. And people kept responding and upholding that assumption?
Can someone give me a sanity check here on my logic? Am I the only person who sees this?
[1] https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/what-is-the-business-mod...
I think Comodo was crazy here, but I can totally understand why they see Let's Encrypt as a threat.
Also, by your argument, why would any CA allow the ISRG to use their certificates to sign free certificates? In the article I linked, there was a good argument made that creating a free SSL cert creates or enhances the market for more expensive certificates. There's a path open.
Nonprofits need business models too.
If by "business model" you mean, "how do we keep the lights going", that's fair. However, that's not the primary mission of Let's Encrypt.
That was roughly my read. While "business" is frequently used as a synonym for "for profit company", that's not the only definition. Someone saying "that's none of your business" is unlikely to be talking about S corps.
> However, that's not the primary mission of Let's Encrypt.
It's the means by which they accomplish their primary mission. Can't encrypt the world if you can't keep your servers on.
The point Comodo guy is trying to make is they invented/own the 90-day certificate, or specifically the magic number 90. If they actually do he has the moral right to be upset (but of course that doesn't mean trademark law or common sense stop being applicable to the words "Let's encrypt")
Seriously? Even the US patent office would balk at an application to patent 90-day trials or 90-day certificates. Also, Let's Encrypt isn't doing trials, so patenting the first wouldn't even make sense.
Most CEO's hide behind the PR department, or speak only one-way, without replies.
As they should when they're so divorced from reality that they provide the justifications that this guy has. Open dialog is nice, but it doesn't mean much when the underlying message is that of hostility.
If this is any reflection on his mental state and processes Comodo is dead.
He actually tries to justify (or deflect) stealing the Let's Encrypt trademark by claiming LE stole the concept of a 90-day cycle. Ridiculous.
You can patent business methods, but saying a 90-day cycle is an "inventive concept" would likely cause a competent attorney to take you to one side and quietly convince you to not point that fifty-caliber BMG at your leg.
Comodo might or might have innovated a 90-day free trial. But let's say for a moment that Comodo did invent the 90-day free SSL trial. The intent is for the promotional purpose of purchasing paid products. LE has no paid tiers, and the primary motivation is to help the internet get encrypted, not to sell certificates. What's ridiculous isn't the idea that a 90-day cycle got "stolen", but that the Comodo CEO persistently thought of ISRG as a business competitor when they are not even in business. (No one is fighting you, dude).
What I don't get is why so many people kept playing into that erroneous assumption of his instead of calling him on it.
Either someone who doesn't know the law trying to look smart, or someone who does know the law trying to bullshit their way into being able to own more than the union of copyright law, patent law, and trademark law actually allow them to own. Believe it or not, the law doesn't recognize "It's mine because I scream loudly enough" as a valid concept.
Looks like it works. :D
-- Paul Christoforo, while being crushed by the internet hate machine.
I can't even imagine what he was thinking when he was saying this. Well, I can imagine dissonance, but not on the level from where this comes. It's literally insane, given it's business, and software business at that.