[nephyrin]

Note that this isn't for github's copilot, but rather for running your own LLM engine locally. It's going to quickly get confused with the unofficial copilot-for-emacs plugin pretty quickly: https://github.com/zerolfx/copilot.el

[amake]

Yeah and there's already a well-known (at least I already knew about it and have been using it for a while) package started in 2022 called "copilot" for Emacs that is actually a client for GitHub Copilot: https://github.com/zerolfx/copilot.el

Given the lack of namespacing in Elisp (or, rather, the informal namespacing conventions by which these two packages collide) it's unfortunate that this package chose the same name.

[blackoil]

Yeah, MS lawyers won't be happy about it.

[jart]

If Microsoft is unhappy with 70 lines of LISP that I posted on their website, then I'm more than happy to change it. Ask them to reach out to [e-mail]

[nabla9]

Please, never react just because a lawyer sends a single email (especially when you have no profit motive and do open source).

You have time to react to serious issues, including after accidentally deleting the first few emails. Trademarks are different from patents. Pre-grant and/or post-grant opposition for a single generic word is a relatively easy way to kill it.

'copilot' https://uspto.report/Search/copilot `269 Results`

In related note, Microsoft once tried so hard to trademark "Bookself" (type code GS0091) https://uspto.report/TM/74567299 `Dead/Cancelled`

[weebull]

In that situation, you just move it.

[gkbrk]

With Perplexity copilot, Github copilot, MS Copilot and Office365 Copilot and all the other Copilots, it seems Copilot has become a generic term for AI assistant.

[KeplerBoy]

3 of the 4 products you mentioned belong to MSFT, it's not clear if this is a name Microsoft will try to take exclusively.

[lettergram]

Copilot is a generic term that’s been used for AI for years (before Microsoft).

In trademark law that’s not going to hold up unless combined with other terms - ie GitHub copilot (trademark), copilot (not trademark)

Even combining generics is probably only valid for a trademark under certain circumstances. For instance, “flight copilot” is likely generic because it’s existed for years across products. However, “sandwich copilot” is likely not generic because no one has asserted it yet and thus you can potentially trademark protect it.

Ultimately, the question is simple “does this product confuse customers, such that they believe it’s made by another organization? AND does it intentionally do so, for monetary gain?” If you can’t say yes to both and prove both, you’re probably fine.

I say all of this as the founder of https://ipcopilot.ai and have spoken with attorneys extensively AND our product is directly assisting IP attorneys. That said, I’m not an attorney, and this isn’t advice :)

[dkjaudyeqooe]

Did MS trademark the word Copilot? If not they can go take a flying leap at themselves.

[ReleaseCandidat]

They did apply, it hasn't been granted (yet).

https://trademarks.justia.com/981/61/microsoft-98161972.html

[lettergram]

Note: that’s not “copilot” it’s “Microsoft copilot”, which in trademark law is different

[rijoja]

Sad to see you being downvoted because MS lawyers are evil :(

[LanzVonL]

Just MS lawyers?

[rijoja]

No :)