That makes no sense to me, can you explain?
I am just worrying about what happened to bitcoin happening to dash, but I don't know the details enough to do more than just generally worry about it. I assume if there was a hostile takeover of the foundation they could do some bullshit like fork dash and prevent anyone else from using the trademark. I don't know how the foundation is governed though.
If the foundation really owns the trademark, they won't even have to fork DASH in order to prevent anyone else from using it. However, I think the shareholder concentration of the foundation is probably very high, so that will likely deter a (hostile) takeover. But you can never know for sure. Let's say they offer a huge premium, who knows what might happen.
I think worrying about the coin foundation that has bylaws and who's members are all Dash stakeholders having a trade mark, is a way smaller risk than not having the trade mark at all. Do you understand the risk of someone completely unrelated to the project owning the trademark? It is a way bigger risk.
Look for example at the cases of Monero or Lets Talk Bitcoin, they both have had real trademark issues with owners of other trademarks.
In the case of Monero the now closed down Uruguayan Bitcoin company Moneero https://twitter.com/moneerohq actually filed some claims. Fortunately that company closed down. Lets Talk Bitcoin recently got their Youtube channel closed on trademark related issues. Do you know who owned the Bitcoin trademark, at least at the time they filed for bankruptcy MtGox did. I am lazy to check who owns it now if it was already sold.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-mtgox-bitcoin-trademarks.htmlSo saying that Dash taking control of its own destiny and owning rights to the trademark is a bigger risk is disingenuous. Dash has substantially mitigated the risk of outside sources attacking on a trademark basis.
I was merely talking about a hypothetical situation and how it could play out. I, however, certainly agree with you that it's better to have Dash stakeholders holding the trade mark (because they obviously got incentives to hold it) than someone completely unrelated. The latter would also be easier to "takeover". I was going to add something to my initial post about incentives, but had to run.
Yes, I am aware of that and trademarks are generally a pain in the ass. Thus, in your case, having the trade mark is certainly beneficial.
Yes, I knew Karpales held it.
Also, my initial post wasn't really meant as criticism, just describing a hypothetical situation.
