Slashdot Mirror
Update on Uruguay "Linux" Trademark Situation
Recently, we carried a story about the attempt by a pair of Linux resellers in Uruguayan to trademark "Linux". This article seems to have generated a lot of attention towards the two gentlemen, who have since posted an Open Letter with their response. It seems that the UYLUG and the two men in question are having a disagreement of ownership, and use of the trademark. At this time, the situation is one that the Uruguyan Trademark office will need to decide who will receive the trademark.
Shouldn't we form some sort of movement that goes around and registers trademarks for Linux to Linus in every country in the world?
Failure isn't falling. Failure is staying down.
BTW, I loved the M&M breeding story.
Okay, from what I can gather, this company trademarked Linux *defensively*, and they further accuse some of the directors on UYLUG's board of acting in a manner inconsistent with being a true user group. If this is the case, it seems to me that they should promise to transfer the trademark to a certain Torvalds of recent fame. This would guarantee that anyone is able to use it, including this company AND the user group, as well as others.
kemokid
On the one hand, if what the Uruquayan Linux group is saying is true, it ends up looking like the two men in question are essentially trying to corner and control the Linux distribution market in that country.
The response seems to be that the UY LUG has leading members who are intent on doing the same thing (and have filed for the trademark in more than one class themselves) that are the type of people who would do the same thing, given the chance.
On the surface, I think we would all tend to favor the users group, but having dealt with monopolistic UG's in the past, my personal opinion is to reserve judgement (and flames) until we have more information.
I have emailed, (and suggest /. readers do likewise) the LinuxTech (Uruquay) site mgmt. with a simple English request that the folks who have made the application publicly discuss what they will do with it, and let the UG respond before we all come down in harsh judgment on one side or the other.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The letter is pretty interesting, if you can read around the Babelfished munging of some of the translation on the English side. Here's my summary of the important paragraphs:
:-)
This letter is published as a responce because the company felt the users' group misrepresented them a bit, and (purposely or not) didn't reveal some key pieces of information.
They asked themselves (when they formed their business) what would happen if someone came along and registered "Linux" with the local trademark office. This is because they are not sure what would happen if they went into business with their products, and someone came along and registered the name. Think of that pathetic fellow who tried to blackmail RedHat, et all, through trademarking Linux in the US.
They couldn't think of a good solution to their problem. However, they were aware that the board of a local users' group had members which tended ot look out for their own person interests over the integrity of the group. They were afraid that the LUG might go and secure rights as a lever to control Linux trade in the country.
They decided that they must act in defence of their own work, and trademark it before they did (kinda like the US vs Soviet nuclear arms race -- premptive strike tactics). They releaise that this might be misinterpreted by some as a hostile act.
In hindsight, they think that they were right to do it because they did discover a pending trademark application for the "Linux" name in several areas (Classes 9 (computers, hardware, etc), 35 (publicity) and 42 (various, including computer services))
At the time the LUG did not know about the company's registration, and so could their motives are suspect -- especially considering the blanket coverage they picked. The LUG became aware of the company registration, and tried to cut a deal with the company. Once the company said they wouldn't negociate with them (because the LUG wanted to retain the rights in all mentioned areas), they publicised the situation on the Internet.
The next industrial bulliten will show the company's information about the ULUG's "behind the scenes" manipulation to be true.
Their lawyers will respond by defending their claim.
-- End summary --
I know from dealing with people involved in hobbyist groups (Fidonet) that sometimes the hobbists will abuse their power. I think that both sides have valid concerns. Clearly what the situation needs is a trustable, acceptable third party.. I'm thinking Linus Torvalds, for obvious reasons
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You can trademark common words for specificly enumerated types of applications: like the prototypical Apple computers and Apple records. The problem with trademarking common words is that they're harder to defend than invented words, and they're harder to acquire if they've previously been applied in a field. Witness Microsoft's trademark of "Plug N Play", rather than "Plug and Play", since "plug and play" as a phrase has been used regarding computers for quite some time. And btw, the one-click shopping issue concerns patents rather than trademarks (which are both distinguished from copyrights).
If you want to repeal a stupid trademark, then just get a bunch of your friends together and start misusing the trademark -- if it is not properly defended and if it becomes part of people's normal vocabulary (and if there is no alternative word to choose) then it ceases to be a trademark -- just look at the proliferation of the word "spam" as applied to junk mail or news postings.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes