Letters to Ed,
Mr Bennett's comments, featured in "Technology One takes issue with SAP" (ARN, July 3, p30) that [Technology One] is claiming ownership of anything that ends in "one" is a significant distortion of our action. He has attempted to trivialise what is a serious branding issue by calling it "a publicity stunt".
The letter from our solicitors to SAP emphasised our point about the brand name of Business One being too similar to our product name, Finance One, given the fact that they are similar products competing in the exact same market.
We distributed a media release because as a public company that takes its disclosure responsibilities very seriously, we had to let the market know that we were defending our brand name.
For Mr Bennett to try and distort the facts in this way implies that he is purposefully trying to trivialise a branding issue that affects his organisation as well as ours.
Also, I am sure that SAP's approach would have been no different to ours in protecting their brand name -- it would have been forceful and legally based, and not a quiet chat over a cup of coffee as Mr Bennett suggests.
I would like to repeat that it is not the "one" that is being disputed, but the entire name of Business One. It should be remembered that Finance One has been supplied in this market for over 10 years and has maintained a very good reputation. I have to assume from Mr Bennett's reaction that he is trying to trade on the back of this.
Adrian Di Marco.
CEO of Technology One.