Slashdot Mirror

http://www.usip.com/pdf/Article_Patents/BerneConvention.pdf

The Berne Convention Act of 1988 makes some basic changes in the copyright law to comply with the Berne
Convention. The mandatory requirement of a visible copyright notice is eliminated for works published after
March 1, 1989. As an incentive to provide a copyright notice, however, the courts will not give any weight the
claim of innocent infringement to defendants who have access to copies bearing the proper copyright notice
when awarding damages. The eliminated mandatory copyright notice causes published works to be placed in
three categories for intellectual property practitioners: 1) all works published after March 1, 1989 are excused
form copyright notice requirements; 2) the mandatory copyright notice is still in effect for works published after
January 1, 1978 but before March 1, 1989; and 3) the placement of the copyright notice for works published
before January 1, 1978, is still governed by the Copyright Act of 1909.

The problem is two fold - They chose the name Windows and licensed the "look and feel" GUI elements from Apple (see here and here...
"Apple first complained, but later agreed to license its GUI to Microsoft and to allow Microsoft to sublicense derivative works generated by Windows 1.0."
They can't change the name, if they do they lose the derivatives from the Windows name and have to re-license the elements from Apple.. so changing the name isn't exactly a profitable option

Mmmm... decisions decisions.

Do I trust a random slashdot poster or a law firm specialising in IP?

What if another law firm also involved in IP disagrees with the random slashdot poster?

an excerpt from here

A request for reexamination is commenced by filing a reexamination request along with a modest filing fee. In the request, the requestor cites the patents and other printed publications which purport to establish that the patented inven- tion is not new or unobvious as of the date of its invention. The Patent Office will then decide if the requestor has made out a prima facie case of invalidity. If so, the patent will be subjected to reexamination. Reexamination is between the patentee and the Patent Office. The requestor has no involvement after filing the request for reexamination.

if you have any interest at all on the workings of the us patent system, go here, read up.

The fee for "requesting an reexamination was 2520.00 in 1999.

Perhaps we should start a fund to have this patent reexamined?

Check here for info on contesting patents.

The pow-wow website is still up and dated 1997 so you can still download it and check the features.

The guts of the case: a guy made a "political statement" and did a "Mutant of Omaha" design, offering "Nuclear Holocaust Insurance" (it was the Cold War, kiddies, and Reagan was in the White House).

In addition, the creator parodied the MoO Indian head trademark and was selling these designs on T-shirts, caps and coffee mugs. The District Court for the District of Nebraska found in favour of MoO, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

If there is nothing for sale, First Amendment arguments have a much stronger considerations. Even pure political messages don't carry enough weight. But parody is not a guarantee of protection, despite a long tradition of it in American society.

woof.

You know, parody is a fair use defense for trademarks as well. You can't say for certain what the outcome of a trial in this particular case would be.

However, I can say with nearly 100% certainty what the outcome is of a cease and desist letter from a large, well-funded corp sent to some guy running a silly site: he will shut down and whatever point he was trying to make will be lost, regardless of the merits.

Granted, it's much more defensible if you *change* the logo, but on the other hand, *noncommercial* parody use is generally more protected since TRADE-marks are used for business purposes.

The point is, you can't just say he used the logo, therefore he's infringing the trademark, it's more subtle than that, just like most First Amendment cases.