Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft asked for permission to appeal in the middle of the case, before a trial even took place. The court of appeals refused to hear the appeal at this time. In essence, the appeals court put it off until later.

What this means is that there can be a trial, that the trial will consider only pre-1985 evidence on genericness, and that Microsoft can appeal the result afterwards. This case is far from over.

• Windows was definitly not a generic term in 1985. Heck. DOS was closer to being a generic name than Windows. Back then, Windows wasn't even popular enough to be known to most end-users. Despite Lindows' claim that "strong evidence establishing the generic use of the terms "windows" and "windowing" during the time Microsoft first began using them in 1983 and 1984" I was quite heavily into all 3 major OS's at the time (DOS, Mac, Commodore/Amiga) and Windows absolutely was not used nearly enough to be a generic term. Societally, it was just some vague concept of an idiot-friendly OS, and those it would affect most were not real keen on the transition from DOS.
• Lindows' OS looks an awful lot like Windows
• Lindows, phonetically, sounds a lot like Windows.
• Their claim that "Microsoft, from 1990 to 1994, continued to use the term "windowing environments' to poll consumers..." also holds very little water, as I answered these polls. They said WINDOWS environment. Not Windowing. Additionally, I don't see how referring to their particular brand of platform makes it a generic term. If you were a restaurant owner for McDonald's, and you asked your customers how well they enjoyed the overall McDonald's environment, or McDonald's experience, this would not make it a generic term. It simply means you are clarifying your brand for an otherwise stupid customer.
  If you poke the bear (read: Microsoft) then expect it to suddenly get very interested in poking you back. Linux had their own thing going, and MS, while not happy about not being the only O/S, has not, to my knowledge, made a Lynux-type product. (correct me if I'm wrong). Lindows should have expected this reaction for piggybacking off MS's success.

• From what I have been lead to understand, (note the disclaimer so I'm not sued) Microsoft stole their OS idea from Apple, whom I believe, stole it from Xerox. They should just accept that there is nothing original in literature or programming anymore, and it's time to allow someone else to steal the torch.
• Lindows is the name of the COMPANY, not the O/S. Linspire is the name of the O/S, and bears no resemblence to Windows. Nor does Lindows bear any resemblence to the word Microsoft.
• Even if Lindows is exonerated from all charges, Microsoft will simply buy them out if neccesary, just to make the point that they should not have poked the bear.

OK, so the fans of the various distros are all comparing how big the penises of their favorites are. It's a fun exercise, but not what the guy asked about. I'd suggest that someone new to Linux look at: Mandrake, Xandros, Lycoris, SUSE, or Linspire. Each of these has a company behind it that's placing a high priority on making their distro accessible to new users, and that sounds like your top priority as well.

In conclusion, once more I would like to thank the community of user and developers of KDE for using my work and for supporting me. You have no idea how much this has been important for me. I also thank all Linux distros that are using Crystal in their projects. I really feel honored. Special thanks to Lindows team, you have been awesome!

Doesn't he know about the MS lawsuit? It's now Lin---- right? Oh, no, wait, it's Linspire now.

Can't blame him for not keeping up, I guess? :)

Another analyst added, "they pay 5 guys to sit around and post blog entries to the internet. They don't even write their own content; they just cut and paste what other people send them. They don't even correct glaring spelling errors or correct obvious factual inconsistencies".

Furthermore, industry pundits have also revealed the truth around the questionable business practices being exposed by the lack of demand for LNUX stock. It appears that Linux's own community has begun to change their collective viewpoint.

"If linux is so great", said one, "why did they change their name from VA Linux"?

Another analyst added, "they pay 5 guys to sit around and post blog entries to the internet. They don't even write their own content; they just cut and paste what other people send them. They don't even correct glaring spelling errors or correct obvious factual inconsistencies".

Furthermore, industry pundits have also revealed the truth around the questionable business practices being exposed by the lack of demand for LNUX stock. It appears that Linux's own community has begun to change their collective viewpoint.

"If linux is so great", said one, "why did they change their name from VA Linux"?

Compare this to Compare this

What do you mean? Of course there's absolutely no precedent for that kind of claim ;)

Apparently Lindows, now known as Linspire, shared code and lent Xandros money to develop their own Linux much like Lindows.

PC OnRamp AKA EPC sells Xandros for $40USD on an install CD.

i happened to come across these fantastic spyware removal sites. if you download their software you are guaranteed 100 per cent no more spyware
Debian
Mandrake
Linspire
Fedora
Mepis
Xandros
Suse
Slackware
Gentoo

I know there is a general dislike for Linspire on Slashdot, but I must say that if I had to give a total noob a linux distro, it would be Linspire.

Why?

* The installer (although very limited in versatility) is incredibly simple.

* There are nice tutorials to guide a user around the system upon the first bootup. This is something that is very often ignored (correct me if I'm wrong). Most distros, even the noob ones, just plunk you onto the desktop after an install. How is a noob going to know what to do or what is available for them? Linspire has some very nice audio/visual tutorials explaining the ins and outs of the system and what might be useful for the user.

* CNR - Click and Run is the bane of hardcore linux geeks everywhere, but it is actually quite a nice system, and your $5 a month gets you some great features. Not only do you get access to the standard open source software packages (without fear of compatibility issues), you get discounts on several commerical products as well. Plus, you can set up "aisles", making any reinstalls a breeze. CNR gives even the nooobiest of noobs an easy way to take advantage of the benefits of great pacakage management, without the fear of breaking anything.

And if you don't want to pay for CNR, you just need to uncomment a couple lines in /etc/apt/sources.list, and get your apt-get on.

If you run linspire you can buy a fully licensed dvd player...

Man, that would have been a great argument. It would have really made Valenti look like a fool ... if he was right, that is...

I think everyone can acknowledge right now that we'd be better off without them, right?

Absolutely not. They sponsor many websites and open source projects.

If you want to throw away the things that they've contributed to the Linux kernel, WINE, KDE, Mozilla, etc, then fine, but don't presume to speak for the rest of us.

I bet SCO must be kicking themselves for not going after Linspire instead of.. well, just about everyone else.
SCO would have had a field day considering Linspires shameless rip-offs (first "Lindows", then Apple's software _and_ web-site, and now this).
Had they gone after Linspire, there might actually have been people believing their ludicrous claims considering Linspires track-record..
Just compare: this with this

I also see what I recognize as a stock Associated Press photo of Bill Gates, and I wouldn't be surprised if the other photos were borrowed without credit (or payment) as well.

Perhaps in some countries, perhaps not in others. Ginux might even infringe in some. Ginspire anyone?

Okay if I compare the Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix versions of All along the Watchtower, yes you get two different sounding songs. However, the analogy isn't about the songs. Your analogy was comparing the act of covering a song to creating an application that works similarily to another one.

I disagree with your suggestion that there is more innovation involved in Hendrix's reworking of Dylan's track than the build of LPhoto for various reasons. Innovation, possibly in the design interface, is not apparent. Though there are differences in the interface, the similarities are easier to see than the differences. However we can't see the code. I don't think reworking is a good approximation of what Linspire have done, they don't have access to the Apple source, so they can't 'rework' it, the only thing they can do is copy the 'look and feel'. Even should they want to copy iPhoto's exactly, they'd have to start from scratch. Since iPhoto and LPhoto really don't do much, I don't really think there is too much room for variation anyway.

With regards to Bob Dylans 'All along the Watchtower', the look and feel is the music. The 'sourcecode' is the sheet music, which would be easily available and many (good) musicians can wing it and produce a good version of a seemingly bad song (just my opinion on those).

Programming isn't the same as writing music and even creating an exact replica of iPhoto from scratch, with no source, wouldn't be as easy as creating a cover of an existing song. Some things may be done in a better/faster or even worse way. I suppose we shouldn't just judge books by their covers.

Anyway, take a look. Here's iPhoto

LPhoto

I should really have put them with the titles the other way around just to be confusing :)

Is everything from this company a direct rip-off of an Apple product?

Take a look at the Lindows/Linspire homepage:

http://www.linspire.com/

How creative!

I could not agree more. Click my sig and find out what their president did in a fit of rage. If you don't agree with them, they send their hordes of mindless zombies after you, attacking with faulty logic. Calling them carnies and get-rich-quick schemers is putting it nicely. These people are the slimiest weasels on the planet. They actually claimed HERE "Dutch Citizens Denied the Choice of Desktop Linux." This is an outright, blatant LIE. EVERY single other company can sell Linux in Holland, just not Lindows, because the name is OBVIOUSLY infringing.

On top of that, they claim they're getting sued by Microsoft and that it's costing them a fortune, when in reality, the lawsuits are being funded by INSURANCE! They paid ONCE and get the rest of the legal for FREE!

Preying on the ignorant, the weak, the uneducated. And all in the name of Linux. It's time for Linux users to revolt and attack. Robertson relies on the fact that Linux users tend to support one another because if it's Linux then it must be good in SOME fashion. Well, not when they just outright lie!

These guys damage the Linux name. I agree with parent. Let's show up at the Desktop Linux Summit (a Lindows front) with pitchforks - and show this guy a good old-fashioned lynching!

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the other Lin[dows|spire] news. They are apparently one step closer to a public stock offering after filing some paperwork with the SEC.

Nearly every piece of software I use looks like that. Really. There is a massive tidal wave of uncalled-for overreaction by the Mac zealots here -- all of which are rapidly being moderated up to +5, Insightful in what is fast becoming yet another infomercial for Apple on a "supposed" open-source site. I would have thought that there would be less reactionary name-calling and product-promoting, and more balanced thinking and unbiased discussion, but of course I was wrong.

What happened to "standing on the shoulders of giants?" Does Ferrari attack BMW for "stealing" their idea of having nice rounded edges, or putting their engine in the same place, or having the dashboards designed very similarly? No, because that would be moronic. Certain aesthetic designs are just naturally good. Efficient. Nice. Natural. Self-evident. And they SHOULD be copied. That's how we progress. We take the good from other designs, add more good to it, and that forces others to improve on our designs in order to compete. Not that I'm saying the Linspire apps are any good or not, I haven't used them, and I refuse to use their stuff on ethical grounds, but what's even more disgusting than Linspire still being allowed to live is the absolute selfish egotistical zealotry of the mac faithful who actually are so deluded to compare Apple's apps with these rookie Linspire apps and demand a boycott based on some bizarre notion of "cool design theft".

Look at screenshots of iTunes, iPhoto, then these Linspire apps side by side. Do you REALLY think these apps look the same? Be honest. The Linspire apps have SOME SHARED BASIC CHARACTERISTICS -- AS SHOULD ALL APPS WHICH DO THE SAME THING, but are different in other ways as well. Should Apple get in trouble for stealing their GarageBand Interface from the other music creation apps out there, such as ACID? (very old version screenshot) NO! Software is a TOOL, and every tool that is intended to do the same thing MUST share characteristics if it is to be useful.

Think about it in simpler, more universal terms: Do you think if Apple invented a tool such as the fork they'd expect everyone else to eat with their hands forever because they were the first ones to pick up a piece of wood and put food on it? No. If someone else tries to make a fork with tines, should Apple be able to prevent them from doing this, thus ensuring a monopoly? No. Society is about working TOGETHER to a degree, building off other's work; it's part of competition. Competition cannot happen if one group can demand that other groups stop advancement because their forks are too similar, WHEN THAT DESIGN IS SELF-APPARENT. And Apple WASN'T the first ones to have designs like this. They took the originals and improved on it (see my GarageBand example above). But they shouldn't be restricted from using tracks for a music sequencer just because the other guys did it first. You can't claim ownership of things at that low of a level.

How about this? It's an ancient Windows program. It seems to have all the same features that make a photo program useful, but it's laid out in reverse (less logical order for Western society, where we tend to read from left to right).

Left side = main category, right side = subcategory, etc. Other MP3 software looks like that, the Agent Newsreader I use every day is even MORE similar, popular

Nearly every piece of software I use looks like that. Really. There is a massive tidal wave of uncalled-for overreaction by the Mac zealots here -- all of which are rapidly being moderated up to +5, Insightful in what is fast becoming yet another infomercial for Apple on a "supposed" open-source site. I would have thought that there would be less reactionary name-calling and product-promoting, and more balanced thinking and unbiased discussion, but of course I was wrong.

What happened to "standing on the shoulders of giants?" Does Ferrari attack BMW for "stealing" their idea of having nice rounded edges, or putting their engine in the same place, or having the dashboards designed very similarly? No, because that would be moronic. Certain aesthetic designs are just naturally good. Efficient. Nice. Natural. Self-evident. And they SHOULD be copied. That's how we progress. We take the good from other designs, add more good to it, and that forces others to improve on our designs in order to compete. Not that I'm saying the Linspire apps are any good or not, I haven't used them, and I refuse to use their stuff on ethical grounds, but what's even more disgusting than Linspire still being allowed to live is the absolute selfish egotistical zealotry of the mac faithful who actually are so deluded to compare Apple's apps with these rookie Linspire apps and demand a boycott based on some bizarre notion of "cool design theft".

Look at screenshots of iTunes, iPhoto, then these Linspire apps side by side. Do you REALLY think these apps look the same? Be honest. The Linspire apps have SOME SHARED BASIC CHARACTERISTICS -- AS SHOULD ALL APPS WHICH DO THE SAME THING, but are different in other ways as well. Should Apple get in trouble for stealing their GarageBand Interface from the other music creation apps out there, such as ACID? (very old version screenshot) NO! Software is a TOOL, and every tool that is intended to do the same thing MUST share characteristics if it is to be useful.

Think about it in simpler, more universal terms: Do you think if Apple invented a tool such as the fork they'd expect everyone else to eat with their hands forever because they were the first ones to pick up a piece of wood and put food on it? No. If someone else tries to make a fork with tines, should Apple be able to prevent them from doing this, thus ensuring a monopoly? No. Society is about working TOGETHER to a degree, building off other's work; it's part of competition. Competition cannot happen if one group can demand that other groups stop advancement because their forks are too similar, WHEN THAT DESIGN IS SELF-APPARENT. And Apple WASN'T the first ones to have designs like this. They took the originals and improved on it (see my GarageBand example above). But they shouldn't be restricted from using tracks for a music sequencer just because the other guys did it first. You can't claim ownership of things at that low of a level.

How about this? It's an ancient Windows program. It seems to have all the same features that make a photo program useful, but it's laid out in reverse (less logical order for Western society, where we tend to read from left to right).

Left side = main category, right side = subcategory, etc. Other MP3 software looks like that, the Agent Newsreader I use every day is even MORE similar, popular

I'd say the layout of Lsongs and iTunes is remarkably similar, though that doesn't bother me -- it's a good layout, and some of the PC jukebox software was moving towards a similar look.

• Lsongs icon
• iTunes icon
• (crossed with the speaker from the Audion icon? You decide!)

They really don't try to hide it. The linspire site looks a lot like the apple site.

Had a look at their website and clicked on "SCO information" to see what their position on the whole SCO thing was. Suprisingly it looks like they've been "in talks" with SCO and even drawn up a contract. Are they paying SCO licenses? Come on Robertson, I know you're trying to do what's best for your business and all that, but SCO? Not cool.

..at the bottom of this page:

Copyright © 2004 Lindows.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Lindows.com is not endorsed by or affiliated with Microsoft Corporation in any way - in fact, we don't even really like them because they are suing us.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

check out all the $Lin_OS and $lin_com vars in the faq...

http://help.linspire.com/cgi-bin/lindows.cfg/php/e nduser/std_alp.php

The logo and domain name seem to be the only changes at Linspire.com, everything else still says Lindows. Can you say plausible deniability?

That left the way open for Microsoft to chase the company all over the world's courts and effectively knock it out of business with huge legal costs.

This sheds some light on the real reason that they changed their name. I doubt there's a single company that could handle being dragged through the world's courts by Microsoft, let alone a small one like them.

This led to the daft situation where Lindows renamed itself Lin---s, complete with new website. Microsoft, unbowed, then incredibly claimed that Lin---s was its trademark as well.

This one just makes me say wow... Microsoft actually thingks they can claim the rights to "Lin---s"? Talk about power hungry.

Also, if they have changed their name and everything, then why does www.linspire.com have "LindowsOS" plastered all over the place? I guess it will take them a while to implement the actual name change.