Slashdot Mirror
Linux Trademark Domain Crackdown
CgiJobs writes "SeriousDomains.com was going to try and auction off a bunch of Linux domain names. Looks like Linus Torvald's lawyers scared them off, though. I saw the domains before they yanked them and they weren't much to get excited about. Most were quite long. " So - is this a good thing? Or a bad thing?
No... everyone on here is completely and totally ignorant of trademark laws, its best to disregard most of them and read the laws yourself, because Linus has absolutely 0 backing for enforcing his trademark on domain names. There is 1 single and ONLY ONE case in which Linus has any legal right whatsoever - operating systems. I can't make an OS and call it Linux. That's it. He doesn't hold a trademark on Linux for any other product at all.
E.
"Fair enough. "
Fair? Maybe. Legal? Not a chance. Linus' trademark extends only to operating system software.
"I really hope that all those other sites have done as this site claims, or else there is the question of selectivity. As in "Anyone can create a Linux distribution, and call it xyz Linux or whatever, but should you wish to market it, you need Linus' approval?" "
Wow, this is a really good point. Linus would actually have a legal leg to stand on in THIS case (and no other). His trademark extends to operating systems, and that would include distributions since they are nothing but operating systems at their heart and I doubt any court would rule they were derivative works...
E.
Well, linuxsucks.com is fine. So is every single domain name the squatters took over. Linus has no legal authority to enforce his trademark unless someone tries to create a new OS and call it Linux. Period. Read his trademark at the trademark office's website. It extends to operating systems. Nothing else. Not domain names, not T-shirts, not condoms, nothing else.
Oh, and someone has a trademark on "Linux" for laundry detergent. And since Linus has never sold laundry detergent named that, he can't get it back.
E.
$==corrupt $$$$== more corrupt
Rollerblades is a trademark, but was very close to becoming a generic term for the description of inline skates.
Still is very close, and with a bit of effort we can push it over the edge. Anyone fancy going rollerblading on their rollerblades this weekend? Rollerblading for Dummies, anyone?
"Since trademark law requires that Linux defend his trademark, I've often worried that Linus wasn't vigilant enough in guarding his trademark. The last thing anyone wants is for Microsoft to come along and slap "Win Linux" on the side of a box and say that "Our definition of Linux is different than many people's definition of Linux." "
Interesting point here. First off, Linus hasn't done this before because he can't. He has no legal authority to the name "Linux" beyond using it as the name of an operating system. If MS came out with "WinLinux" (isn't there a product called this that lets you run Linux under Windows or something already?) and it was an operating system, it would violate the trademark. If they called the next version of Office2k "Linux PowerWorks", Linus would have no legal standing to dispute it.
And he has no legal backing to dispute these domains, his lawyers are pulling strongarm tactics to scare away the squatters. THIS is what we should be debating, everyone acts like "Well, its legal, should he do it?" when it should be "Well, he has no legal backing and might be breaking laws by making spurious threats (and if he calls them squatters, possibly libel or slandering), should his lawyers do THIS?"
E.
You don't... go ahead and use/continue to use it. Linus has no legal ability to enforce this trademark unless it is used as the name of an operating system. Go back to the USPTO website and read the trademark filing.
E.
Mr. T can do exactly *nothing* about it.
What a joke. All I read in these postings ad nauseum is how lawyers are evil, bottom-dwelling filth. But now that Linus uses lawyers, they are OK now?
And why is it OK for Linus to "protect" his intellectual property when nobody else is?
Logic proves: most
Good lord, what happened to your spelling? If we were as rabid as all that I would blame Outlook ;)
But until this happens, people will continue to squabble over domain names, like 100 rats in a cage with 3 pieces of food.
He has to own it, otherwise [competitor name] can just come along and buy linux*.com, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Since he owns a trademark, he's required to try to fight cybersquatters etc in order to keep ownership of it - hence this move.
If you say that he's greedy, well, come on! He wrote the kernel and lets anyone use it. How greedy (!)
That is absolutely delicious. I never knew Linus' wife looked like that.
Check this link out. Wired has scooped everyone including slashdot.
Click Me!
Check this link out. Wired has scooped everyone including slashdot. Click Me!
Linus has sold out the free software socialist movement. Our movement is based on the principles of freedom and beating up rich guys. And now that Linus is rich he goes anti-freedom. Obviously we need to beat him up!!!
Linux trademark is registered to Linus Torvalds for the following goods and services:
h -man.html
computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1994.08.02; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1994.08.02
Microsoft trademark is registered to Microsoft Corporation for the following goods and services:
computer programs for use in automobiles, namely, computer programs for monitoring automobile performance, for mapping and navigation, for electronic mail and wireless communication, for maintaining personal directories, contact lists, address and telephone number lists; operating system programs and utilities; computer programs for use in the development of other programs for use in automobile computers; and computer programs for providing entertainment, traffic information, news and other information; computer programs for wallet-sized personal computers, namely, personal information manager programs with calendars, contact information files and to do lists; note taking programs; programs for facilitating voice, text and pen input; electronic mail program; access programs for global communication networks; programs for wireless communications; operating system programs and utilities; computer programs for use in developing other programs for use on wallet-sized personal computers; computer programs for use with phones and pagers; computer programs for accessing global communication networks and displaying content therefrom; computer programs for electronic pagers and electronic pager modules, namely, operating system programs and utilities; computer programs for providing paging and wireless communication functions; computer programs for use with hand-held computers, namely, operating system and utility programs; a full line of business application programs for use with hand-held computers; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1980.06.00; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1981.12.00
telecommunication services, namely, the receipt and delivery of messages, documents, images and other data by electronic transmission; electronic mail services; providing bulletin board services and chat services by means of global communication networks; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.03.07; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.03.07
providing information concerning travel and travel-related subjects over computer networks and global communication networks; providing information concerning motor vehicles over computer networks and global communication networks; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.03.07; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.03.07
providing information in the fields of business and commerce over computer networks and global communications networks; retail services in the nature of an on-line shopping service; retail services in the nature of an on-line music store; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.03.07; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.03.07
providing information in the fields of entertainment, music, movies, and sports over computer networks and global communication networks; entertainment in the nature of interactive games played over a global communications network; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.03.07; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.03.07
providing information in the fields of investment and finance over computer networks and global communication networks; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1995.03.07; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1995.03.07
computers and component parts therefor; computer peripherals; computer keyboards; computer video control devices, namely, computer mice, trackballs, joysticks and gamepads; a full line of computer software for business, home, education, and developer use, including computer games and multimedia encyclopedias and reference products stored on electronic media; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1975.11.12; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1975.11.12
telecommunications services, namely the receipt and delivery of messages, documents and other data by electronic transmission; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1987.03.24; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1987.03.24
----------
This list goes on spread over a dozen or so more trademarks. In other words, Microsoft has legal rights to enforce their trademarks a LOT, but doesn't that often. Linus has NO RIGHT to enforce his trademark in even this small way and is yet trying. Who's side are you on again? Who's the bully?
E.
Inform yourself:http://trademarks.uspto.gov/access/searc
Click ME!!!
A couple of things: First, Linus isn't asking for the "nominal fee", he doesn't own the domain names. SeriousDomains does. Linus just won't release the trademark for use if the names are auctioned. SeriousDomains still gets to sell them at a "nominal fee."
What really needs to be done to eliminate domain name squating is get a legal precedent ruling that domain names are in the public domain and therefore, not saleable. Furthermore, any domain name not in active use needs to be returned to the public domain.
In any case, here is the press release with some of the names:
press release
Which law firm do you contact to see if your linux* domain name is OK?
The USPTO online only shows the lawyer's name, not the firm...
Kewl move
Replace suing with owning in that first sentence.
I guess its ok then that linux.com was sold
for a million something and bought by VA. Nah
no greed there. That Linus and the slashdorks
they are so objective.
hmm?
This is disgusting. She isn't even PETRIFIED!
why do you think it's so hard to find any decent domains?
Couldn't the license be revoked if every single contributor to the linux code decided so?
-Chris
Well, nothing gives him the right at all. What his lawyers have done is not in accordance with law and if he chose to proceed he would be laughed out of court...
E.
True, but I still make xerox copies on my Sharp!
Was anybody else disturbed by the presence of the (R)eserved symbol next to the word "Linux" on that page?
Please tell me that it doesn't get worse.
This sounds like a UDP but might be illegal.... it might be considered interfering with InterNIC (and whoever else sells domain names)...
E.
Don't worry about any of this, go ahead and buy linuxbabes.com and make it a Linux site, a parody, or a porn site, Linus cannot touch you unless you make an OS and call it Linux, that's the only thing his trademark covers. His lawyers are just acting very unethically in this case because Linus doesn't like squatters.
E.
Free speech was created to protect the forms of speech that the MAJORITY find offensive and wrong.
You see, "Linux" is trademarked by Linus Torvalds for the purpose of naming computer operating systems. Nothing else. So, you can make a linuxlover.com or whatever you wish and he can't touch you. And since there are so many Linuxsomething.com sites, he can't extend his trademark to cover domain names.
E.
Nope, but they like government in general are a necessary evil that needs to be indulged in occasionally. Such indulgences should be as minimal as necessary.
Did we lose... win... what happened?????
Linus has just sunk to the level of Microsoft. Open Source, open domains; free software, free speech.
Your MS-Reality filters are interfering again. Noone is 'happy' about this situation. Some of us are downright paranoid about it while others merely see it as a 'necessary evil'. At most, some of us see domain-scalpers as worse than corporate bullying.
This is not Linus harrassing someone's granddaughter or a site with a long history on the net.
I find this story really funny and ironic, when you think about it. Just a few month ago, Linux was not a registered trademark. Nobody owned it and nearly nobody thought it should or could be registered... nobody except this moron over the East Coast (anyone remember his name ?) and his bogus application to the PTO.
If this guy hadn't tried to extort the Linux community, Linus Torvalds would not have this registered trademark to wave under the nose of domain speculators with support of the anti cyber squatting law.
Greed kills greed.
I like the "nominal fee" that Linus is charging. I guess the Transmeta IPO isn't going to be enough.
It doesn't make sense for Linus to own all Linux-related names. Many companies selling software and support for Linux have "Linux" as part of their name, and that's a good thing because users can find these companies easily. Perhaps what is happening here is that Linus didn't like the idea of 250 of them being auctioned all at once..
btw, as mentioned in 's original post, seriousdomains.com tends to sell long domain names -- so there wouldn't be any confusion as to whether they were official linux sites (linux.org and linux.com aren't either, are they?)
I remember back during the OJ Simpson case, someone bought a site like www.ojsimpson.com and just put a counter there. He got MILLIONS of hits with 0 content. It was not registered on a search engine and I doubt heavily that it was linked from anywhere at all, it being nothing but a blank page with a counter and all.
I think some companies saw this and they understand that having a good URL does make a difference.
E.
Did he mention to you that his lawyers are impotent against enforcing his trademark in any case which does not involve someone calling another operating system "Linux"? He probably should have, being as that is the case.
E.
So did Linus lie/withhold info from you, or was he misinformed by his lawyers?
Am I a hypocrite?
No. You're an idiot. Linus is not personal priends with the owners of valinux.xom, linuxhq.com, linux-hw.com, etc.
I am Blerim a scaled smargle and mortal enemy of frep. I have come on this forum to tell him that I challenge him to a duel. Whichever one of us comes out victorious shall be the ruler of smargleland.
These seriousdomains.com people, are, IMHO, filth. They are clearly simply trying to make a buck by hoarding and reselling domains.
Wait, what's the difference?
I'm all for this.
As "Open Source" is TM'ed too, couldn't esr/perens theoretically
stop the (mis)use of OpenSourceProgramm???.org names?
According to trademark law, only exact phrases can be trademarked. Linux is trademarked. WesellLinux or We Sell Linux is not. It is completely legal to use either of those in a business. Someone trademarked "Year 2000" in the 1980's. It is not illegal to make a hat that says "I survived the year 2000", only illegal to sell one that says "Year 2000". Anything else is considred a derivative work and is completely legal. Linus and his lawyers may have opened themselves up to lawsuits for harassment if the people trying to buy these domains find this out.
BTW, you can go to the US Patent and Trademark Office and check this out. Search for "linux" in their trademark DB while you're at it. TONS of things with the word Linux in their title are trademarked.
E.
whoops :-P
That is pretty kewl
Why do companies sell products they never use? Your such a dumbass.
"Linus has the ability to selectively choose who and who does not get the ability to use the term "Linux" (TM) in trademarked names of companies, products, titles, etc. "
You are very incorrect. Read up on trademark law. Linus can only stop people from using Linux as the name of an operating system. If I was to make Linux T-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, lunchboxes, and more, it is totally legal for me to do so? Why? Well, let's look at the "goods and services" part of the trademark Linus now owns:
computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation; DATE OF FIRST USE: 1994.08.02; DATE OF FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1994.08.02
That is the ***ONLY*** thing that Linus' trademark covers. If you go to the trademark office's main page and search for Linux, there are tons of Linux trademarks, including a trademark of the word "Linux" alone for use in producing laundry detergent. This was posted on Slashdot awhile ago.
E.
Too bad the nomination phase for that beanies stuff is over, otherwise we'd have another "Big Dumb Domain Bully" candidate.
I don't support trademark enforcement on domain names. If this was Microsoft making people stop the selling, all the slashdot crowd would be up in arms.
I'm still looking to see how this is different from other things we've seen on
It doesn't matter who's doing the wrong thing... it's still the wrong thing, and it makes me kinda angry to see all of you people cheering what you would be jeering if it were from anyone else.
~Chris
>If you do not CONTINUOUSLY act to protect your trademark, it has the
>potential of becoming generic. Just ask Xerox or Kimberly Clark
>(makers of Kleenex). Linus was silent when Linux.{com|org|net} came
>online. Also too, when valinux.com, linuxhq.com, linux-hw.com,
>corellinux.com, etc. Did Linux act to protect his trademark? No. Looks
>like it was abandoned to me. Linux cannot jump up many years later and
Hey loser how do you know that Linus *DIDN'T* give them permission to use the Linux name? It's widely know in the linux community that Linus owns the trademark/protection rights to the term Linux. Why don't you and yourfriends do yourselves a favor and stick to scaming the Windows crowd.......
Taco wouldn't have asked the question at the end. Instead he would go on a rant about how it's OK for Linus to do this because...uh..he's a god or some other dumbass idea.
A site for the needs of REAL NERDS!!!
This sucks. Linux is a waste of time. Kill whitey. clickhere.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
***LINUX****
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHH...
***TOTALLY DIFFERENT***
BLAH BLAH BLAH
MICROSOFT BAD...
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZING!!!!!!!!
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
In what context is the regex /.*linux.*\.((com)|(org))/i OK?
A quick whois on some obvious .com entries returned hits on the following: linuxlover, linuxlovers, linuxfreak, linuxfreaks, linuxfan, linuxfans, linuxnut, linuxuser, linuxdriver, linuxman, linuxgrrl, linuxguy, linuxgal, linuxgroup, linuxserver, linuxwoman, linuxluser, linuxuniverse, linuxgang, linuxtree, linuxroot, linuxamerica, linuxadmin, etc.
Then I realized that I was doing it the hard way instead of searching for "www.linux*.com" at Netcraft which returned over 1500 entries (and that's only .coms starting with "linux").
begin ramble mode...
I'm gratified that most of the sites I checked are running Linux but one wonders about linux-diploma.com, linux-masters.com and linuxadvisor.com (Solaris) or linux-fan.com and linuxace.com (FreeBSD). At least I haven't found any running M$ yet.
WARNING: Seeing a list of hundreds of Linux sites can be hazardous to your productivity.
yes but domain names and land/property is different: the key word being names.
domain _names_ are easily associated with a trademark or cpyright or whatever and there fore should not be bought and sold according to the same rules.
Mr. T?! "Hey sucka! I pity da fool who tries to steal my name!"
It's hard for me to see how speculators in tickets and domain names alleviate a shortage. To me, it appears that they create the shortage in the first place, and then magnanimously offer to resell them at a much higher price to alleviate the shortage. That strikes me as an excellent example of extortion.
Why is an auction any more efficient than a lottery? It's nicer for the person selling the good, but if that person doesn't want to capture the most value from it, why should someone else who has no interest in using the good jump in?
In fact, I'd have no problem with Linus approving use of word "Linux" within a trademar/company name/title. AFAIK, you can't call a product "Unix" without whoever-holds-the-TM approval, why Linux is worse? And if your distribution is good, you'd probably get the permission. And if it's bad, you won't.
Or if you are too proud, you can just call it FooBar (without "Linux"), and write "we are distribution of Linux(TM)" in a small letters below. That'd be worse, but still OK - Debian/Caldera/Mandrake are all known now by the first name, and are seldom referred to as "Debian Linux" or "Mandrake Linux" - because they have their own name, and everybody knows what they are.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Exactly. Just like the owner of any other trademark. Pick your favourite evil, dude! It's either open slather to abuse, squat over and otherwise sully the good name of Linux, or have Linus say Yea or Nay. Is it just the fact that the lawyers have been involved that concerns you? I believe he's just fighting the battle with appropriate weapons.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
If you do not CONTINUOUSLY act to protect your trademark, it has the potential of becoming generic. Just ask Xerox or Kimberly Clark (makers of Kleenex).
And having your brand name so ingrained in public awareness as to become generic is bad? Isn't that the whole point advertising?
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
There are lots of domains with Linux in them too. I think Microsoft would be justified to stop things if somebody tried to sell "windows95.com", or used it to point at some page that has nothing to do with MicroSoft or Windows or attacked them, or perhaps provided false information that misled consumers.
If somebody does "window95sux.com" and uses it to attack MicroSoft, I don't think MicroSoft can do anything about that, since it is obvious from the URL that it is not an official site. Same thing goes for "linuxsucks.com".
Can anyone provide us with a list of the offending domain names? I imagine they were usual squatter fodder like sooperdooperlinuxopensource.com or something similarly unsightly, but you never know..
-mike kania
I think Microsoft would be justified to stop things if somebody tried to sell "windows95.com", or used it to point at some page that has nothing to do with MicroSoft or Windows or attacked them, or perhaps provided false information that misled consumers.
Selling a domain to someone else is not prohibited because the domain has a trademark in it. The owner of windows95.com sold it to CNET at some point, in fact. Recently, the owner of windows2000.com sold it to Microsoft in exchange for money and the rights to bob.com.
The main issue here is what you publish on a domain that you own. That's where a trademark holder can step in and say your domain infringes on his rights by creating confusion in the marketplace. That's what a trademark is all about -- owning and protecting a brand that distinguishes your goods from other peoples' goods. If I own a Linux domain and publish nothing on it, how am I creating confusion with Linux consumers by selling that domain to someone else?
The only other issue worth considering is the new set of cybersquatting laws. Someone who owns a domain with "Linux" in it and contacts Torvalds with an offer to sell it could be running afoul of those new laws. That, however, is the problem of the person buying from SeriousDomains, not the seller. Caveat emptor.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Does that mean I am not permitted to register the domain of nakedlinux.com or linuxbabes.net or linux-in-school.edu or linuxpanties.org or this-is-not-linux.int?
Is the word "Linux" now so special it has surpassed brandnames like "Coca-cola" or "Kodak"?
Where is the "Freedom" as in "FREEDOM" in all of this?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You wrote:
"I'd be looking for www.linuxprogrammer.com first."
Guess what? www.linuxprogrammer.org exists, and it IS for sale !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is probably an unfortunate but necessary step. I'm curious to know what the nominal fee is.
--- begin quote --
-- end quote --microsfot.com is still up and still redirects to linux.org... funniest damned thing i've seen yet. i am way surprised we haven't seen it in a quickie or something (maybe we have and i missed it). personally picked up the link on iscabbs.
-
--bc
-----------------------------------------
the amazing bc
latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
I think it is worth noting that when you trademark something, your trademark only applies to whatever type of business you do. For example, it is perfectly legal for a company named "RedHat" that sells hats. I'm sure there are tons in fact. It is NOT, however, okay to have a company called say RedHatt that sells a Linux distribution.
It is not illegal to have a site like "aboutredhat.com" *provided* you are not providing competition or consumer confusion via the use of the trademark. So, you really dont need Linus's approval to use coollinuxsite.com or whatever domains they may have been trying to sell. You just need to follow a specific set of guidelines.
On the other hand though, it is illegal to sell or exploit something trademarked for the purpose of direct material gain. In other words, making money off the word "Linux." Linus is right in doing this to protect the name of Linux. It's good for Linux, it's good for the trademark issue in general. But that doesn't mean that Linus is cutting on on people's rights. He's just being his normal fatherly protective self.
From what I see. You can register any *linux*.TLD as long you aren't actually trying to dilute the trademark.
Ie. Linux.com Linux related web-site. OK.
Linuxlover.com Porno site. Not OK
From Linus' standpoint he is merely defending his trademark.
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
I'd definately put this in my "bad thing" category. Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. What would the /. crowd be saying if it was a different company, say, Microsoft, Etoys or Amazon threatening anyone who uses the names "amazon", "etoy", or "microsoft" or any variation of them in their names? (Just search the archives for "Etoy" if you can't answer that)
Don't get me wrong here, domain squatters are a bunch of lowlife scum who should be lined up and shot.. but threatening lawsuits for using the name of a supposedly free operating system isn't the free thing to do. And yelling and screaming about how stupid intellectual property laws are and then praising them when they suit you is hypocracy in it's finest form.
To make a short story shorter: Domain squatters suck. IP laws suck. Domain squatters just suck less.
--
Reject
--
Reject
reject@metaphorcity dot com
Linus didn't stop someone who was trying to register a Linux domain; he stopped someone who was trying to sell Linux domains at the highest price (by auction).
Selling domain names is a business that Linus doesn't want to see mixed with the word Linux, and I fully agree with him.
lawyers are evil, bottom-dwelling filth.
Exactly, but remember that open source can fix almost anything.
We need to open source the lawyers!
It's a simple process really, first you need to reverse engineer them to find out how the internals work. This can be done with an axe or chainsaw. Then you need to redistribute the parts -- for packaging I recommend a shallow grave.
CAUTION: This may not be legal, consult a lawyer first.
--Shoeboy
And they've got linuxwarez.org too!
That domain (used to) belong to the #linuxwarez bunch, and had a nice little site, with some IRC news and (non-warez) downloads. But this-- this is disgusting.
And to add insult to injury, they have a topless lady right on the fscking front page!! Ghods, a domain desecrated. Whatever happened to #linuxwarez, anyway?
iSKUNK!
For those of yall you can't possibly bear to RTFA the three domains in question where
OpenSourceProgrammer.com
OpenSourceProgrammers.com and
OpenSourceProgramming.com
Linus owns the trademark on OpenSource.. not on Linux, you are required by law to defend a trademark or else loose it. I'm sure he would be happy letting someone who fit the definition of this word, use it, but that was the whole point of him trademarking it, in order to protect the word so it wouldn't be used improperly.
Despite domain names regularly going for several million, such as business.com, what level of trafic does such a domain name actually generate.
An easy to remember domain name is obviously preferable but since most visitors to a site probably come through a link they may not even see the domain name you are using.
Why on earth have domain names managed to attract such large funds, if your not interested in e-commerce many pages at http://www.foo.com/~users/pages/page.html can actually contain the most relevent information about what you are looking for, content is always more important that a domain name. I mean people know how to use bookmarks.
[Sorry if this is rambling, but I just got back from DJ SS in Durham, UK]
...egistered.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Win or lose, your lawyers usually win, unfortunately.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
My sense of the Slashdot community would be that the two concepts here are like Bill Gates -vs- Steve Case (anyone else here read User Friendly ;)
Domain name squatters buying up Linux containing names just to auction them off are scum and it goes against the real spirit of the internet by taking away the right of average users to put up content they feel has value. Instead, only users with sufficient funds can do so. This is an inherently unfair protocol (in the sense where first come, first serve is fair and you can't hold the token indefinitely and not do anything with it because it will time out... use and release and if you can't use it, fsck'ing release it!)
At the same time, the corporatization of the internet is fully embodied in the idea of lawyers telling you that they own a word so you can't put up a site using that word without asking. The Linux OS is GPL'd for a reason! The community backlash should prevent misuse, and even a politely worded request from a lawyer serves only to stifle the creativity and community that the internet was designed to be the perfect medium for those things to flourish in.
True, there's no rule against buying a domain just to try to profit from it later...
And I'm sure that trademark protection has its place...
But its sad to see situations like this occur, and it's clear that this will more and more be the rule and not the exception as the internet is saturated and scarcity causes supply and demand to take over...
- StaticLimit
> That said, what exactly is so bad about domain
> speculators? It seems to me that they provide a
> useful service, just like ticket scalpers. And
> just to be clear, I'm not talking about the
> scammers who used to register and re-register
> domains without ever paying for them.
I think I understand your sentiment here but I have to disagree. Speculation (or, in this context, scalping) may or may not "help to efficiently distribute underpriced goods", but it strikes me as a foul practice, as it artificially reduces supply for the general public, and forces a cost on the producer of the good (in the form of disgruntlement at and dissatisfaction with the producer by the consumer for a practice the producer isn't even involved with!) Let me give an example:
- When The Phantom Menace was released, many thousands of us stood in line for hours/days/eons to obtain tickets. Those who got up earliest tended to get the tickets, the point being that the seller of the product (the movie theater) established their price, and sold tickets first-come/first-served until they were gone. This is a situation where every person in the public has an initially equal footing, and is treated equally by the movie theater (see: my money is green, sell me the ticket).
Now enter the scalper. This guy smells a profit from forty paces, and knows exactly when to get to that theater in order to snag up as many tickets as possible (see: O'Dark Early three weeks before they go on sale) So, his money being as green as the rest of ours, he proceeds to buy 10/20/however many tickets the theater limits him to in order to discourage this practice in the first place. What he's doing here, I'm sure, is perfectly capitalistic (read: sacred in the eyes of some here), but what strikes me is that (again) the little guy loses an opportunity, sacrificed to the altar of profit.
In theory, I'm sure many of us here would say "shut the f**k up, the scalper has the right to do what he wants with his money." Well, I can hardly argue with that. But in practice, given that all of our respective monies are, in fact, as green as the others', imagine being that last guy in line, told "sorry, no more tickets" You've been in line for hours, nay millenia, only to be turned away at the gates, when suddenly you hear "OK, who wants tickets, I got tickets, only (insert some exponentially-larger-than-theater's-price here)" Now, your green ISN'T as green as everyone else's, it just turned a few shades pink (this whole scene is simply the world on a much tinier scale, neh?). Ultimately, the only winner in this scenario is the scalper, who walks away with at least what he bought the tickets with (meaning he loses nothing), while those who stood in line have been shafted (kicked out of the priority scheduler), and the theater blasted for not having "better anti-scalping procedures in place".
To attack from a different angle, I used to collect Star Wars figures (another heinous hobby in itself... don't get me started), and I used to run down to Toys 'R' Us like every other mofo in town to try to get the toys I wanted. Without fail, some f**king scalper had gotten there earlier/been tipped off by his cronies on the inside/materialized from thin air and bought up all 12 cases (yes, CASES) of figures that comprised that week's shipment. Again, artificially reducing the supply for his own profit, shafting the rest of us. Now imagine it's Christmas, and you'd like to purchase one of the greater-than-100000 figures Satan...err.. I mean Kenner produced. You traipse down to the store, and LO AND BEHOLD, no figures on the shelf. Oh wait, there's another shelf... NO, EVERY FIGURE IS UGLY PRINCESS LEIA! (composes himself). Truly, a frustrating situation.
There's obviously no law against scalping, and I hope there never is (I'd like not to walk down that legal road). However, I still believe it is a shitty practice. Moderate me as you will, and sorry about the long post!
Thanks,
NULLphoenix
Come on, this can't be real. A "benevolent despot" is what Microsoft was called by Judge Jackson. It's a concept that doesn't mix well with the idea of Open Source. I can understand people defending Linus for what he's done, but this is going too far.
Trademarks have to be enforced in order for the owner to keep them. If Linus doesn't go after those trying to take Linux from him, he loses the name.
This happened to Thermos. They didn't go after anyone using their name for years. Then, when they finally did, they were told that they had no right to keep the name. So, Thermos can now be used by anyone with no repercussions.
I have a real problem with a bunch of folks who started to jump on the bandwagon, trying to snap up domain names before anyone else, without a clue about Linux other than they saw $$$ in it. I personally think that if you aren't running an Open Source project or haven't been involved in Linux since the beginning or haven't made a significant contribution to the OS (like writing a journaling file system, hint, hint!) then you shouldn't be allowed to own a domain name with "linux" in it.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Specifically:
> Is it possible for him to keep them from using
>"Linux" in their company name (and thus stop their
>quasi-bunk IPO)?
Yes.
>...is it proper for him to do so?
Perhaps. This is certainly his right, as trademark holder, but I'm sure he fully realizes that this power should be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary, in the best interest of Linux as a whole.
I found myself longing for Linus et al to do something about LinuxOne back when I first heard about their scam... either revoking their GPL license (which I think I've heard could be done) or insist they not use the term "Linux". But it didn't take me too long to realize that it sure wouldn't be a good thing for every Linux project to first have to get approval from Linus himself. That may sound extreme, but exactly where would the line be drawn? This is most likely why Linus has done absolutely nothing. I'm sure he's concerned about the situation, though.
RP
"It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
You're a lawyer. You went to Harvard. You know what you're talking about.
I bow to superior knowledge.
This is from the USPTO.gov website.
Here is the trademark info.
Word Mark LINUX
Owner Name (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr.
Owner Address 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113 INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
Owner Name (LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS
Looks like VALinux owns it.
I called Linus and you can get an overview of what he said by reading the comment I posted "Conversation with Linus"
Here is the trademark info.
Word Mark LINUX
Owner Name (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr.
Owner Address 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113 INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES
Owner Name (LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS
Looks to me like VALinux owns the trademark. That is probably why you contact John Hall with any immediate questions.
As far as being impotent against non-OS uses of the Linux word, that is a really fine line as any lawyer will tell you. Most people could'nt afford the litigation anyway. You may be able to get away with a parody website bit ince you try to use another company's reputation to sell your product its another matter entirely. If they registered it as a certification mark it would make litigation much easier. But it is also true to say that a trademark doesn't have to be registered to be considered litigable. Actual first use of the mark is most important. Linus has the defacto rights to Linux as a certification mark. Heck, for years he has been the sentry on what goes into the kernel. I tried not to take too much of his time since it was dinner time.
No your missing the point. Anytime you are trying to rule over others, you are loosing your benevolence in somebody's eyes. You happen to think that people should get to do whatever they want "unless they are hurting other people" but not everyone agrees with that and might find you a terrible despot once in power. In fairness "hurting other people" is very vague as well. Is hitting somebody hurting people? Stealing stuff? Sleeping with somebody's wife? Pirate copying Windows 98?
It's not like Bill Gates is out there killing people or something, he just wants to put a computer in every house in every desk or whatever, which isn't very evil as far as visions go. He believes he has the right to act out of protection when Microsoft is threatened because the bigger and more dominant Microsoft becomes, the better the world will be.
Missing the point is thinking that there is, or could ever be, such a thing as a benevolent despot.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Nope, don't think so. There are many forms of being that are much worse than domain speculators and there is nothing wrong with domain speculators anyway. Whomever gets to the domain first should have it and I do not care if anybody agrees with me.
BTW, I do not engage in that activity.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
It will not be bad if EVERY domain name using "Linux" in it got the same nastygram from the lawyers.
Now, if this is selective then that becomes hypocracy.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
hear! hear!
finally, a slashdotter with common sense
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Microsoft traded bob.com for windows2000.com. Here's an earlier background story.
I think LinuxOne's massive IPO proves that the industry is already fanatic over anything with Linux on the name. But it's a good point anyways, especially with the squatting.
/. effect against any squatters on linux-related domains? =oD
Has anyone considered using the
Linus was heard to say "I pity those SeriousDomain suckas."
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I don't believe that is correct. I thought OSI or some other org tried to trademark OpenSource, and the request was denied. Linus does own the Linux trademark. As for those domains you listed, those are for sale.
ah, I don't know, "girlswhouselinuxwillbemynudestatues.com" is kinda catchy...
only a question
I read the page again several times after seeing your post. It could possibly be construed as negative towards Linus, but you have to have a really thin skin to read it that way.
Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking to filter what the eyes see and what the ears hear
Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking to filter what the eyes see and what the ears hear
--BuSa
It's probably a good thing
I agree this enforcement action is probably a good thing. This company sounds like a bunch of low life, domain-squatting, Linux-IPO-craze-cashing-in-on, scum.
Linus's lawyers got them to cease and desist; nevertheless, I'd be more inclined to look for
OpenSourceProgrammers.org
OpenSourceProgramming.org
first!
I woudn't. Put yourself in the position of Joe Clueless-Manager looking for Linux programmers. I'd be looking for www.linuxprogrammer.com first. "Open Source" has not reached buzzword status, "Linux" (R) has.
Personally I applaud Linus for enforcing his trademark. It's a tribute to him as a computer scientist that something he created has reached status where people want to make money off just its name.
*Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds
PS: Did anybody else get the "LINUX" vanity license plate cover Compaq was giving out with the Testdrive program? Mine came in the other week, and I was impressed by the fact they included the "Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds" statement on the bottom. Nice touch!
hmmm... this is the most obvious hoax I've seen in a while.. who want to bet this story will disappear in an hour?
Well, when someone's lawyer has to "ask" you to do something, there is the implied threat of a lawsuit.
I personally think that this is the right move. I imagine Linus wants the *linux* domain names used by the community, not a bunch of domain-name-squatting pigs.
When people grab *linux* domain names without a legitimate site, they harm the community by making it harder for someone to start a site. When they do this, it is time to play hardball and unleash the lawsuit-wielding lawyers. We have to play rough -- they do.
-V
Hosting for Creators: http://rpg-works.net
But think about the whole eToy[s] thing... would that not also just be defending a trademark? It seems to me that when some other company does this, we (and by that I include me; I am guilty of this too) get very angry. Yet when Linus does this, we celebrate. Is this right?
However, there is one difference I can see. The eToy[s] was about a domain name that was already in use, and had been for a while. This, on the other hand, is ones that were about to be sold.
Still, it does seem a bit wrong...
-----
"But really, I think life is just a game of Mao Nomic." -Purplebob
This bring up another point: If there are so many other Linux trademarks, what gives Linus the sole right to select which ones are worthy of the Linux name? I do like Linus for his OS, but he does seem to be turning a bit evil now ;)
-----
"But really, I think life is just a game of Mao Nomic." -Purplebob
I wonder what was the content of this communication - threat of suit or friendly persuasion?
dude, you are on crack. if you read the page, those three domain names are what's left after the linux names were removed. it states:
"The auction for the pick of 250 corporate consulting type Linux® domain names has been discontinued at the request of attorneys for Linus
Torvalds, trademark owner of Linux®."
linus owns the trademark on Linux not on opensource.
WeeMadArthur
These sites have got to be freaking right now. It's absurd to contemplate that any site using "linux" in it is infringing on a trademark. After all Linux(tm) should only apply to operating systems, not websites. Has Linus used "linux" as part of a domain name? Otherwise, fair use!
...on who was going to buy them. I would hate to see, oh, say, MS buy up a bunch of them, but does it really matter who sells domain names?
/dev/null
Doesn't really seem like that big of a deal, if you ask me.
all flames promptly routed to
Mike
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
The Etoys thing was different than the issue with squaters. Most people like myself think of squaters as thieves (I like to think of domain names as still being free, just with a processing fee). These domains names shouldn't be owned and therefore shouldn't be auctioned etc.
Etoys was especially ofensive because the site they killed had been around longer then etoys.
this is a tricky area. in US law, free speech is protected, yes, but trademarks are protected in the same way that people are from libel and slander. you can make jokes and satires, but you cannot set up a "Coke Sucks" website whose purpose is to ruin the "good" name of Coca-Cola. You especially can't do it commercially, i.e. if you are a competitor because commercial speech is not protected speech.
In other countries the situation is different. Many free countries have very different limits on the extent of free speech in this regard: Germany bans both Nazi propaganda and all sorts of comparative advertising: it seems they prefer a more centrist course.
It looks like fairly standard trademark stuff to me. Linus has the trademark on the name Linux, and in order to retain it legally he has to take certain steps to protect it. That means formally licensing any use of the Linux name for use in describing something associated with Linux the OS kernel, even if the there is no licensing fee.
Yes, and it looks like Linus has never done the above thing. Where are the formal licensing agreements for everything else with Linux in it's name on the 'net? You can't say you're acting to "protect a trademark" and then take a cavalier attitude, picking on some users of the name and allowing others free rein.
If Xerox didn't attack each and every non-fair-use abuser of their trademark, the whole ball of yarn unravels and they loose their exclusive right to the mark.
So where is the paperwork from Linus that shows that the hundreds of URLs with the word Linux in them has been formally approved? To say nothing of all the companies with the word Linux in their name, their logo, etc.
I'm with Eric on this one. Right now, we only have it as hearsay that Linus has done anything with regard to these folks - and the hearsay is from them. Heck, I could shut off a couple pages on one of my websites and say that I'd done it because Linus, Microsoft, or the Pope (or their lawyers) had asked me to.
:)
I do wish Linus would post here and put all this uncertainty to rest.
Torvalds is the last person I'd think to use strong-arm "corporate" tactics to protect his trademark. I'd like to know exactly what his - or his lawyer's - beef with the auctioning was. Doesn't this kind of thing go on all the time? Was the problem that it was a Linux-specific auction? Torvalds can't tell the company to give the name "back to the community" - they're already paid for. Please, enlighten me.
--
I like to watch.
and that those legitimate Linux consultancies or
programming shops that are interested in any of our domain names that incorporate
Linux® must approach Mr. Torvalds et al to make sure that the domain name is worthy to
be granted a license, with a customary "nominal fee."
Domain squatters bite. I would never ever ever buy a domain from a squatter, even if it was like www.com for $100, they could sit on it and rot.
The funny thing is.. its so darned easy to get around these scumbags. like the ones they have listed.. opensourceprogrammer.com just change it to open-source-programmer.com and poof.. you have your domain. They can't register everything.
Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
No, Its GNU/Linux (R).
(Yes, this is a joke.)
alright, listen up.
etoy was not cybersquatting. they were not
cynically trying to cash in on etoys.com.
etoys was being a bully, to an art site no
less. as if the chance that someone might
forget the letter "s" in there means that
"etoy" is immediately and retroactively
the property of Disney and Friends.
now, these domain-selling wh0res are a
dime-a-dozen. snapping up domain names en masse
and then reselling/auctioning. this is the same
mindset that has turned the net into a commercial
wasteland, and has made idiotic marketing-wet-
dream concepts like "virtual real estate" a
profitable reality.
apparently you lot of right-libertarian scum
(an even more unfortunate dark side of slashdot
than the hypocritical zealots) are more than
happy to flag wave for anybody who serves the
same pragmatic god as you - money. You'd probably
call these domain-reselling bottom-feeders
Entreprenuers, Industrious, etc.
I would tend to agree with the person who said
that we can rely on Linus to be a 'benevolent
despot'. In a very real sense, I think we CAN
trust him to be of a higher class than myopic
freemarket whores like you lot, and bureaucratic
machines like Etoys.com.
one of you said he's sick of the "so-called
intellectuals" being such "hypocrits". there
is no hypocrisy in supporting Linus on this
one.
you guys are thinking in black-and-white. you
call it "hypocrisy" only cause you're looking
to find a way to preach you own dogma in every
./ post - just like the people you criticize.
had you bothered to consider the CONTEXT, and
the very significant differences between the
situations you are trying to claim to be
identical, then you wouldn't have had anything
to whine about would you?
ah but those are all just details. and a preacher
has no use for details. and neither does a
right-libbie, or he'd "check his premises".
jd
I get a sort of queasy feeling about it - there wasn't much to be gained by blocking them, and we might have gotten some bad repute as a result.
It looks like fairly standard trademark stuff to me. Linus has the trademark on the name Linux, and in order to retain it legally he has to take certain steps to protect it. That means formally licensing any use of the Linux name for use in describing something associated with Linux the OS kernel, even if the there is no licensing fee. If Linus fails to challenge people who use his trademarked name without a license, he will lose the trademark.
You could even argue that Linus is protecting people by insisting that the names not be randomly auctioned. Someone might very well try to buy a name, only to find out that Linus won't grant them a license to use the name. At that point they'll be out the money they spent, and they might even lose the name without compensation in a cybersquatter case to a later firm that does get the license. In any case, it doesn't look as though Linus is objecting to the concept of cybersquatting on the names (or of the company making money by selling them) but just to the idea of selling them willy-nilly.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Probably not, but it's funny to think about.
p.s. would be next to each other if it wasn't for q.r.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
True to a certian extent, but If, say, www.squatters.com was selling domain names for more then the 'standard' fee, they would be pretty easy to catch. Even in todays crazy internet frenzy, there arn't alot of people standing on street corners going "pssst, wanna by domain.com? cheap."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
All domains cost $35.00 a year. You can give them away, but you can never sell one for more then you paid for it.
I think that would pretty much put an end to squatters.
on the other hand, I own the frysucks.com domain. I can honestly say I have no intention of selling it, but if someone suddenly offered me a zillion dollars for it, I think I'd take it, I owe my family at least that.
Since andover went public, doesn't that mean they sold slashdot.org? sure, maybe just small pieces to alot of people i.e. shares., but sold it none the less.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I cannot even imagine all that we read about this corporate naming. How is it that I cannot have any domain not currently taken. If we all have the same rights and abilities to get the names what is the problem. How can courts or lawyers possibly punish people for creativity. If a domain name is available well it is available. This is punishing individuals and companies that belived in the power of the internet at the beginning. Just because you own Johns Plumbing does not give you some right to JohnsPlumbing.com. Yet the government will mess all this up. 1st come should be 1st served.
People or Companys that register a heap of domain names that they themselves have no use for but simply hope to sell them for profit are no different to ticket scalpers. They kinda remind me of those greedy little kids at kindy who would snactch up all the cookies and then scream blue bloody murder when told to put them back.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
How does the registration process for .com work anyway? for .com.au, the registry is maintained by Internet Names Australia, whose rules of cinduct indicate that they will allow registration of a given domain name on a first come, first serve basis, provided the applicant meets their requirements for claim to the domain. If .com is done on the same first come, fisrt served basis, then surely this move is a bullying tactic used by ppl with lawyers to frighten ppl without lawyers away from their rightto a domain name of their choice.
VoodooBïrd
i think the point is that not everbody thinx of Kimberly Clark when they say the word Kleenex, and even though some ppl still call a photocopier a "Xerox" machine, few ppl consider that they owe the Sharp AR5132 in their office to Xerox. Its a bit like the rollerblades debate. Rollerblades is a trademark, but was very close to becoming a generic term for the description of inline skates.
VoodooBïrd
Many companies sell products that they do not use. The job of the company in these cases is to sell the product to other people, not consume it themselves. please use intelligent debate rather than flame, as flame just attracts negative attention.
VoodooBïrd
What's Linux's Rasion d'etre if not to be free (speech, not beer)?
is www.linuxsucks.com next?
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
clearly,
however I've never seen the Registered Trademark used like this before.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Linux (R) now then?
I hope not.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
How many comments have been made, and how many have even asked what Linus's position on this is? Is it possible that SeriousDomains might not be presenting things *exactly* the way they happened? FYI, if you are sure that SeriousDomains.com know exactly what they are talking about, take a look at this LinuxToday story, which has their origional press release mirrored. Note the spellings.
So where do I license Linux(TM) for my soon-to-be website, eh? I'm game. It'll make it easier to do an IPO if I know Linus won't sue me :-)
This would suggest Linus hunt down all the *linux* domain holders and shake them down for small change or lose the TM. Anyone more lawyerly than me know for sure? (And interesting that everybody and his monkey licenses copyrighted software w/o mutual consideration. Either copyright law differs here, or I'm totally wrong here, or both.)
I don't know about everyone else, but it pisses me off when I go to buy concert tickets and some scalper has bought them all up. So if I want to see the show, I have to pay two- or three-times the price just because he got there before I did. And he never had any intent to *see* the show.
The same way with squatting. Once the internet became the *thing* whole hordes of these miscreants were reserving everything from diarhea.com to bigtits.com, just waiting for someone who acutally *needs* the domain to come along and need it. Many friends of mine have had to pay BIG $$ to get the most mundane domain from someone who never had any intent on ever using the domain.
The problem is big and a solution is unsure. My domain, for example, has been sitting unused for about the past four months waiting for an opportunity for me to upload content. But my intent is there. If someone *really* wants to buy my domain, they could have it for the internic fee.
As for Linus wanting to protect his name, I'm all for it. He has a genuine interest in seeing that all *commercial* uses of his name and trademarks are legitimate. This cannot apply to parodies, since even copyrighted material may be parodied under fair use (in good taste, of course.) I think that if anyone were able to go and actually reserve a domain with linux in it (that is, if the squatters haven't reserved all possible purmutations by now) then Linus wouldn't have a problem unless the site were somehow harmful to Linux and its perpetuation.
My $.02.
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. At least the lawyers for the registry corp. gave that impression. If Linus doesn't defend his TM, he'd lose it, and defending his TM against a blatant money-grub is as good a time as any to flex that muscle. I suppose that if he didn't challenge a site, the approval would be implicit...
If this was microsoft, you would be all over it. Since it is your own cause, you like it.
Do you people understand what hypocrysy is.
Cybersquatting, and intelectual property rights, and whatever else you want to throw on this fire is either all good, or all bad. And even if there is a gr(e/a)y area, it probably wouldn't look as bad if you defined that area as something other than your point of view.
This has to be the largest selection of closed minded oafs I have ever heard call themselves educated.
Or cars? It's called the free market. And before you jump up and say that "but you don't own domains like land and cars!", what about renting apartments in prime locations with good views, etc., and then subletting them at inflated prices? I don't own the apartments either, yet this is legal to do where I live. And if this is legal with lots of history and precedent to back it up, why should domain names be any different?
The site no longer exists, and (warning!) will suck your web browser to a site entitled "Forbidden Hardcore Porn!" which presumably intends to grab credit card numbers like crazy...
There also was, quite some time ago, someone that suggested visiting http://www.linuxchick.com, which is a "front page of every conceivable keyword tag."
In short, there are examples of this sort of thing. The linuxchick.com domain may in particular be a decent target for "lawsuit."
In contrast, www.linuxgirl.com seems not at all inappropriate.
And Verio appears to own the domain www.linuxgirls.com.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The only reason to shiver is if you trust sleazoid domain name squatters more than you trust Linus Torvalds, or if you have fantasies of making big bucks by registering a domain name and reselling it (sorry, the good names are all gone now).
As the trademark holder, Linus is perfectly well allowed to leave legitimate and useful Linux sites alone, and only harrass those sites who, say, use a Linux name to attract viewers for something that has nothing to do with Linux (e.g. to get click-through fees from porn sites).
FINALLY someone with some sense posts in this article.
The whole of the comments makes me think of that one guys sig, "Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot."
If the Linux "community" continues to act in sch irrational and hippocratic ways, fewer and fewer people are going to take the Linux/Open Source movement seriously and come to the conclusion that they are all high-school geeks who want everything handed to them for free.
I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot.
That's an interesting viewpoint, one that I'd never considered, but which seems accurate. However, benevolent despots who are so convinced of their benevolence that they try to conquer the world (hoping to bring all peoples to the light of their gentle rulership) are missing the point. A benevolent despot leaves people alone unless they are hurting other people. A sicko-freaked-out-sadistic benevolent despot messes with peoples' lives for their own good.
It's probably a good thing Linus's lawyers got them to cease and desist; nevertheless, I'd be more inclined to look for
OpenSourceProgrammers.org
OpenSourceProgramming.org
first!
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Well.. IANAL, of course.. but here goes.
This might sound wordy.. but....
One of the purposes of trademark is to prevent one company from using anothers trade-marked name to make money OFF THE WORK OF THE MARK HOLDER.
To demonstrate... If someone opened 'Disney tattoos', it might be possible that a great many customers would go there mainly because they thought the artist was IN THE EMPLOY OF Disney corporation. In this case, the tattoo parlour would be unfairly using the Disney name. Remember, it's not about whether or not Disney ever plans to get into the tattoo business, but it's about perceptions of the customer.
In the case of these domain extortionists (speculators, whatever you want to call the sleazeballs), the sole reason they were going to make money off the so-called 'product' they were selling (linux domains) was because of the linux mark and what it represents.
Moreover, I think the main focus is that Linus did not *stop* them from using it, he simply had his lawyers write them a latter explaining things. THey CHOSE to stop it. And it would be best to remember that there is a big difference (even when the tables are turned) between the lawyer sending a letter, and actual court decisions.
Except of course that the domain squatters already have the domains. So, all Linus did was removing the possibility of the guy in the basement buying the domain he wants in an auction. Don't even think that seriousdomains.com will just give back the 250 domains to NSI.
I wonder if people would react the same if it would have been Microsoft that threatened legal action against a squatter trying to auction off domains.
-- Abigail
Since trademark law requires that Linux defend his trademark, I've often worried that Linus wasn't vigilant enough in guarding his trademark. The last thing anyone wants is for Microsoft to come along and slap "Win Linux" on the side of a box and say that "Our definition of Linux is different than many people's definition of Linux."
Truly it would be best for Linus to do exactly what it seems he's done. Setup a registry that requires a nominal (say $1?) fee to grant an unlimited "license" to use the Linux trademark. The nominal fee is probably required in order to make everything legal. In the same vein, they have to police the use of the word Linux by unregistered and frivolous users.
Ideally, I would like to see this "registry" run by an organization like Linux International, which could be more easily pressured to change their practices if the users think they are being inappropriate in their judgements about who should be granted a license (and their current leader, Maddog, is one of the fairest players I've ever encountered).
But hey, if Linus thinks he's can do just a good a job at monitoring this, well, it is his trademark.
I hereby find myself guilty of the heinous crime of assumption and sentence myself to ten thwacks of the clue stick. :)
Judging by the other domain names listed (OpenSourceProgram(s|ers|ing).com) it's obvious what their Linux domains would have covered, but these guys are squatters, you actually (generally) would have had a difficult time proving they were infringing his trademark.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
He cannot revoke their GPL. No more than you can summarily revoke Microsoft's EULA.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
There are a few of us now, and seem to be snowballing in numbers ;)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Current Bids: 0 (Yes, zero. nada. zip. big friggin' surprise)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Wrong. Linuxlover's porno has nothing to do with an Operating System. Perfectly legal.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Funny you should mention winfiles.com. It used to be called windows95.com. It's no great stretch of the imagination to assume that Microsoft did have something to do with that domain name change.
This is all a little ambiguous...
Yes, and that's why ultimately legal issues get decided by people, not machines.
Linus owns Linux' trademark. But is he the arbiter of all things Linux? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either. Someone mentioned using this to try to squash LinuxOne. I don't like that idea at all, much as I dislike what they're trying to do. It sounds very slippery (as in the slope).
I agree that it's a slippery slope and I'd rather not see the day when it becomes necessary to apply for "Official Linux(TM) logo certification." However, even if that day comes, I think most current Linux users could hardly give a damn about the name and would carry the GPL'd code over to a new project, and that's what's important in the end.
Well, our difference, then , is that I don't think that first-come-first-served is necessarily the fairest way to distribute things, but you seem to prefer it.
Our do understand, however, the sentiment against somebody apparently making something for nothing, and that probably accounts for why ticket scalping is widely outlawed. Even so, it's legal in many places, and it's not so profitable that it attracts a lot of attention.
Interestingly, the economics of the domain registration situation are slightly different, in that there is only one possible seller for a given domain name. You can buy playoff tickets from any one of a number of scalpers, but you can only buy a particular domain from the current holder. And the seller might have many prospective purchasers bidding for the name. That imbalance probably drives up domain prices considerably.
Hmmm....... no?
The three that are *left* are the opensource names... it *clearly* states that the ones containing the trademark "linux" were removed (~250 of them). RTFA, good advice. Take it.
"Bah!" - Dogbert
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
It's extra-legal, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that the lawyers acted was that these domains were going to be AUCTIONED.
Individual consultants with "linux" in the name have a single domain name, and they don't make a beef about representing THE Linux, only the collection of HOWTOs, programs, limited distros, etc. packaged in a convenient place for the reader. (This allows the Linux material to survive reorganization of the sponsor's main web site - obviously the material can be collected on that page, but a reorg could break links.) The fine print inevitably refers people to Linux International for THE Linux.
In contrast, with an auction you don't know what you're going to get. As others have pointed out, the feeding frenzy for anything with "Linux" in it suggests that you'll find porn sites, scam sites, and worst. That's something that no trademark holder can afford to ignore.
So my impression is that this is much ado about nothing -- and it's certainly not illegal for his lawyers to focus on extra-legal factors like whether the domain name is being publicly auctioned.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
It would appear that Slashdot users strongly embrace the assertion of the Linux mark when used for noncompeting goods (or not used in commerce at all), presumably approving of the dilution-based or cyber-squatting theories asserted by counsel for Mr. Torvolds.
Forgive my cynicism at wondering whether this is a new manifestation of truly a principled view embracing strong IP trademark law by slashdot denizens, or whether they are simply rooting for those whom they perceive to be the "good guys."
Ironically, whileI ordinarily adopt a strong IP position in these forums on traditional Copyright, Trademark and Patent issues, I find the new cybersquatting laws and broad assertion of dilution theories to be very dangerous unbalancing of the fundamental policies of trademark law; and one that in the long run will hurt our community far more than it will help.
I believe that both were horrible mistakes and will never stop hoping that the Congress will someday come to its senses and repeal the ridiculous power-grabs by trademark powers that be.
Even when those laws operate to benefit those, like Linus, whom I also perceive to be the good guy.
Time will tell whether our community will likewise cheer the same conduct when asserted by perceived "bad guys" against perceived "good guys."
First I need to disclaim: 1) I know very little about the DNS system, I wish I knew more but I don't. 2) This is mildly off-topic.
My general understanding of the domain system is that it works on a cascading system with the database propagating through the system server to server. If this is true, why not write a little robot to keep track of speculator's listings (eBay alone has several thousand) and simply refuse to resolve the domain to an IP? I know this could get messy on servers with virtual hosting, but I feel it's an interesting concept.
Or just plain stupid. Either way, whadda'ya think?
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Of course I can't write HTML. I do it for a living, after all.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I called Mr. Linus Torvalds and asked him about this domain auction problem. He assured me that any legitimate projects have nothing to worry about. His lawyer informed him that he needed to take action. Refusal to enforce a trademark makes future enforcement impossible. As long as the registered domain is a legitimate project and all references to Linux indicate the trademark there shouldn't be any problems.
As the registered owner of NLinux.com/.net/.org I was a little concerned. My project is just getting off the ground and it's mostly just a hobby. The last thing I need to deal with is a letter from some lawyer.
Linus said he is terribly busy with the Transmeta rollout on Jan 19th, but as soon as he gets a moment he'll address this issue. If you are extremely concerned about your domain then contact John T. Hall-VALinux Vice President, Support and Professional Services.
Trevor Lowing
Whether a despot is benevolent or not is in the eye of the beholder. Contrary to what a lot of people in the world like to think, there are no absolute morals to decide this type of thing.
I have often argued that I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot. He thinks he is doing the world a favour by taking power for himself, and that is why the whole antitrust trial frustrated him so much. In his own mind, he does have good intentions, and doesn't appply force when he doesn't have to. That you and I don't happen to agree (because on the whole we don't agree with his goals or methods) doesn't really change that.
Because people are different and freedom is fragile, infringing on our basic freedoms is bad even if the intentions are good.
If Linus is a benevolent despot, then he is a despot of a country with no borders, no laws, no police, and no currency. Except for occasional events, the only thing Despot Linus actually involves himself in is the national infrastructure, and even in that he works together with the populous ("so you built a bridge hu? Lets see if we cannot run a highway by it"). The royal roads are tollfree, kept clean by volunteers, and everyone is expected to take responsibility for themselves (well, not all, there are of course bus and train companies like "VA" and "Redhat"). Today he offered a decree that we try not to spoil the national name.
He, maybe I got a little carried of on that metaphor...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Don't you?
When I say 'benevolent despot', I mean that Linus is in a position of self-made authority... and that his decisions are his own, not subject to being overridden by a 'public', and that he has demonstrated he is willing to use that authority (hence, 'despot'). Linus controls the kernel. The 'benevolent' part is that he uses this authority well, in my opinion. He is not capricious, he uses the Big Stick of lawyerdom sparingly, and lets self-correcting problems take care of themselves. The world needs more benevolent despots and fewer self-serving oligarchs (big word!).
I like Linux. I have a feeling I'd like Linus, if I knew him personally. I certainly respect the heck out of him, and I certainly don't intend that my comments be taken as negative.
As noted by others, Linus has left parody sites like www.linuxsucks.com alone. Those are not a commercial infringement of trademark. There's no impetus to do anything about it... one of the legal definitions of when something like that is 'parody' is whether the intent is primarily commercial.
I imagine Linus gets a laugh out of it once in a while, too... and even he will admit there are parts of Linux which do, in fact, suck.
Let he whose software is free of suction cast the first Dhrystone. (My code certainly sucks!)
Linus is forcing the squatters to not sell the domains. He owned the trademark first, and so he decides. This is a good thing, I think, as the squatters are just trying to profiteer on Linux(r)'s good name ;-)
Etoy had their domain first, and Etoys grabbed their "eToys.com" trademark after, so the prior art bit kicks in. I'm sure if those squatters had bought the name before Linus held the trademark (say, in 1995), they'd be well within their rights to continue to sell them.
Similar, but not same situations..
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I'm sure a lot of us realised that, yes, these are the foul scum known as domain squatters. As well as the fact that the "nominal fee" listed on the page is a fee the domain squatters get. Linus is just trying to make sure they don't sell to every Tom, Dick, and IPO Jane out there.
This gets lost in the, "domains, Linus, lawyers -- oh my!" keyword stream of thought, which leads to rantings of hypocrisy.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The domains in question were being actioned off by domain squatters...
:-)
How many of these Linux domains were snapped up because of the various IPOs in the 4th quarter of 1999? I betcha lots
Linus was doing the community a service. If you're a guy in a basement with an idea for a new distro or something, and instead of the 50$ NSI or (cheaper) alternative, you have to go give 2,000$ to 200,000$ to some squatter for it (and they are using them for money) you're SOL. Linus is giving the middle finger to squatters (who rank with spammers, in my books), and helping keep the domains as cheap as you can find them. And that's a Good Thing (TM).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You're oversimplifying the situation.
Etoys who registered their trademark after Etoy existed is clearly in favour of Etoy.
SeriousDomains, a cyber-squatting group that buys domains speculatively and auctions them off to the highest bidder, bought these domaisn after Linus received the trademark. It's his decision on how they use it, and he's chosen to not let them make money from squatting.
Do you see the difference between a big company bullying someone who was already there, and someone who owned the trademark stopping domain squatting/auctioning which is likely a direct result of the recent $$$ IPOs?
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
For a long time I've been comfortable to know that Mr. T holds the Linux TM. However this act almost seems exactly what I think many people (including myself) hoped to avoid by Mr. T holding the TM.
While I do not like domain hording at all, I wonder if this means that anyone wishing to have a domain using the TM Linux must deal with or pay Mr. T and his lawyers? Such actions seem entirely contradictory to a free an Open Source OS and similar software. Filtering what domains may have his TM in it seems a scary step that could be taken farther to use of that TM on sites that may be deemed inappropriate. Often when a corporation or organization takes such action it can become an ugly PR mess, and for myself this so far seems like a very disappointing act from Mr. T.
Many legal actions like this have become very ugly PR problems (some even seen here on /.). Many companies stay out of such messes that can also be monetarily costly. I hope this does not become the case with Linux.
I also worry about a concern you brought up. While Mr. T indeed is deserving of respect regarding his work in Linux, I wonder if such action isn't determination of the use of the name of an OS that he does not actually own. Yes, legally he owns the TM and that indeed entitles him to attempt such action. However (regardless of all the work he's done) he does not own the OS and such action gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. No I do not think Mr. T is going to one day rise up and somehow grab the OS as his own. Yet such action does not seem to follow the same free and open principles of the OS, who's name Mr. T owns the TM on.
Often we seen many companies skirt trademark law by using similar names for nearly identical products, so I wonder:
Could one day this all escalate and Mr. T become some horrible dictator wielding his mighty TM so violently that Linux production splits into two nearly identical products?
Could we see another OS called LinEx with a toucan in a tux as a mascot?
Will we find ourselves at each other's throats on the edge of violence like we are about issues like Heinz Ketchup and Hunts Catsup even though there's partially no difference what so ever between them!?!?
*tear*
Let's see: a domain-hoarding company says that Linus is bullying them and that he's charging fees for domains including "Linux"-- and we believe them? Bullying, I can believe, but charging fees? Sounds like these guys are trying to smear Linus.
--
314-15-9265
The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)
Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.
Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.
"Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")
Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?
Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.
Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?
Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..
VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.
Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.
(So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)
Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.
"Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?
Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.
No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)
Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:
- Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
- Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
- Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
Maybe the resulting agreement would be as simple as "our free software is GPL, but if you have yet to agree to our terms, you are not yet free to call it "Linux" nor free to pretend that you are a Penguin. (no fraud, please) You are free to join us if you choose to at http://our.linux.org/agreement/LPLReputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?
What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?
These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.
Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)
Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")
Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.
"Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.
If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.
chaorganize!
[sources: LINX . "attEnTiOn"-NoT . StiG . BiOnOMiCs . CHaOs-is-G00D . PaRtneRsHiP . FrEELoAdiNG . MoNeY . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE . RHaT-IpO . AddApT . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . ViSA . DeE-HoCK . CoMMiE-UniTy? . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . MiNDcRaFTiNg . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs . ETHiCs-of-iP . ScSL . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs . wHaT'sa-NaMe? . CrEdiT-DuE? . OPEN-CoDE . ETHiCs
I don't intend this as flamebait, but: what was the whole eToy[s] thing about? A company forcing another to give up the domain name, because (among other things) it included profanity. I don't fully understand why this good when Linus does this, but not when eToys does.
-----
"But really, I think life is just a game of Mao Nomic." -Purplebob
It sounds to me like Linus was simply stopping some domain speculation on domains that should remain freely usable by the linux community. Domain speculators are the scum of the earth. Why should a person be able make money by selling domains they would never otherwise use. It's wrong.
I am MuchTall
I'm chiming in to say that, since TurboLinux is trying to sell a bunch of software that is not GPLed, I'm hoping this action means "goodbye TurboLinux, hello Turbosnu" == Turbo's not unix... wait, that's probably an gnu infringement. How about TurboLOSE: Turbo'll Open Source Everything!
I am relieved that Linus is taken steps to protect the Linux trademark so that it is not being misrepresented. Can you imagine the damage it would do to the credibility of Linux, and the open source movement in general, if the only information that someone found on Linux was incorrect because somebody threw up a domain with the word Linux in it to try to catch the ipo craze like LinuxOne has?
I'd trust Linus to keep himself in check in regards to the fairness with which he applies trademark restrictions more than many other huge companies. Have some faith.
- tokengeekgrrl
I just noticed that www.lnux.com (ie: VA Linux System's stock ticker) is a web site dedicated to the Be operating system, or some books about it anyway.. I think that's pretty funny.
One possible reason could be that auctioning off these urls would create a artifically high price for linux urls. If there is a high price on the urls, it would encourage people to buy whatever varients they can think of, and sit on them until someone else wants them - which is not a good thing, and something I think that this auction would have encouraged. IF Linus keeps control of the what urls can be used and by whom, then we don't have to worry about url squatters.
Minds are like Parachutes,
Minds are like Parachutes,
They only function when open.
surely purchase of domain names with the intention of selling them to the highest bidder is a bona fide revenue making exercise. The practice does not appear to be forbidden by law (however, I am from Australia, and so am not that crash hot on us commercial law). There are many businesses selling products, items, or services they themselves would not use. is this any different?
VoodooBïrd
The truth is, by homogenizing the Linux domain names and keeping it among the "elders" and established Linux leaders, the whole theory of open source pretty much goes out the window, don't you think? I mean, open source means anyone can view it, change it, or repackage it, doesn't it? Why is it different with domains?
As for the argument that windows95.com and activex.com weren't challenged for their domains, perhaps it's because they're MS-flag-wavers and essentially free advertising?
I question Linus getting involved this far along in the game. It seems like suddenly the Linux market is becoming more and more concerned about trademarks, licenses and IPOs than they are about the things that got them here in the first place: OPEN SOURCE.
Creativity, freedom to change and offer alternatives. That's Linux. It should reflect in their domain names as well.
Go back to Transmeta, Linus. I'm sure you'll make some money there.
Well, the police finally did catch somebody tearing down the fence, and they did arrest him. Caught him in the act. The case never went to trial, because the State's Attorney dropped the charges. It seems that, because the path had been used for years as a public traffic route, and the property owner had made no attempt in those many years to protect his ownership rights in that part of his property, he lost some of his rights. (I believe the technical term was adverse posession, but it's been many years.)
Now, I don't know if the Linux.com and other web sites were registered before Linus had trademarked Linux®. However, I do know that Linux is trademarked now, and that if Linus does not take action to defend that trademark against even harmless misuses, he will lose the right to defend it against flagrant misuses. Once he lets people walk all over it, he no longer has the right to try and stop them.
One thing that I would find interesting (although it's not important to Linus protecting his trademark) is what the license terms are. Could they be just as simple as agreeing to put "Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" at the bottom of the main page?
If you do not CONTINUOUSLY act to protect your trademark, it has the potential of becoming generic. Just ask Xerox or Kimberly Clark (makers of Kleenex). Linus was silent when Linux.{com|org|net} came online. Also too, when valinux.com, linuxhq.com, linux-hw.com, corellinux.com, etc. Did Linux act to protect his trademark? No. Looks like it was abandoned to me. Linux cannot jump up many years later and reassert full ownership any more than Sony can claim ownership over the term VCR (yes, this was a Sony trademark at one time, abandoned, and now generic and used my many makers of VHS players w/o payment of royalty to Sony).
The reason why windows95.com is now called winfiles.com is because they don't concentrate solely on Windows 95 software anymore. Even if they only dealt with Windows 9x software, the name would still be outdated once Windows 98 came out. Now that they also list Windows CE and Windows NT software, it makes even less sense.
Also, the domain name windows95.com is still owned by (and still points to) winfiles.com, which is a service of C|Net. Furthermore, windowsce.com takes you to HPC.net, specializing in all things CE, and windowsnt.com is owned by noname.com. In fact, of all the combinations of windows(95|98|CE|nt|2000).(com|net|org), the only one owned by Microsoft is windows98.com.
In other words, please don't don't drag Microsoft into this discussion of Mr. Torvalds's newfound litigious behavior. There's enough FUD arond here as it is.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Keep in mind.. Linus did not prevent them from selling the domains, and did not prevent anyone from using them, and did not even TRY to prevent them from using them.
What he did was prevent them from AUCTIONING THEM OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, as if they were a 'product', as this would be a fairly clear trademark violation. The only thing giving these domains value IS LINUS' TRADEMARK 'LINUX', as an operating system, under the terms it was marked under.
So.. don't think of it as a domain problem... the problem was a company was selling something based SOLELY ON HIS TRADEMARK.
I must say, I find this funny. I'm not going to delcare this as a one sided thing... a black and white thing... but can admire this.
1) Linus isnt' trying to profit or protect his interests, he's just putting the brakes on a business that most of us would agree is sleazy. Domain speculating is SLEAZY. If he sent them a letter informing them that Linux(tm) is a trademark, and that he is willing to fight it.. the speculators won't be willing to fight it, it's not worth their time. So good for linus.
He's *not* trying to keep people from using linux in domain names.. he was just using his trademark to stop some domain speculation. GOOD FOR HIM.
Uhm, in this case the domain names are not being used yet. So, unless Mr. Torvalds can predict the future, you can't know whether the domain names will "hurt" the linux name or not.
-- Abigail
otherwise how would the linuxsucks site have been able to register the domain name?
These other folks were clearly just obnoxious, profiteering, domain squaters and deserved to be slapped down like the running dogs they are.
I have lost track of the number of cases where we have screamed at the domain name "bullies" who have demanded domains be handed over for 'trademark infringement', only to have the Slashdot hordes scream and kick loudly about how "he got it first", "first come first served", "go to hell".
Now, when someone tries to register a domain involving the 'holy grail' (as many here would equate it to), the shoe is ever so apparently on the other foot.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Linus is clearly doing the right thing by defending his trademark; as others have noted, failure to defend it can lead to losing it.
That said, what exactly is so bad about domain speculators? It seems to me that they provide a useful service, just like ticket scalpers. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the scammers who used to register and re-register domains without ever paying for them.
Most domain names, at $35/year, are priced below their market value. That's why there are so few good ones available. People register them as if they were free, because they nearly are. But that low cost is also what creates the shortage. Domain speculators help alleviate the shortage, by making names available to people who are willing to pay the most for them. In other words, by reselling the names at a profit, domain speculators help insure that the names will go to somebody who intends to use them, or at the very least, to somebody who will pay dearly for the privelege of not using it.
To illustrate: I just missed out on being able to register bobk.com, having been beaten by a couple of months by Microsoft (remember MS Bob?). As of last month, it's registered to somebody else, and I don't know the story behind it. But consider the situation of Microsoft holding the name, one that many other wanted, and for which MS had no further use (nor did they ever use it, as far as I can tell; a great domain name just went unused from 1994-whenever). What should Microsft have done with it?
Obviously "give it to me" wasn't an option; for that matter, there a a zillion Bobs out here who would love the name, but only one could own it. Who should get it? Should they have everybody write an essay as to why the deserve it and then give it way? Giving it to the highest bidder is an imperfect solution, but it's better than all others. Even if MS donated it to charity to avoid looking greedy, there's no assurance that the charity would be able to put it to use unless they sold it.
The Microsoft example is an anomoly, but it illustrates why reselling domain names (or Super Bowl tickets) helps to efficiently distribute underpriced goods when demand outstrips supply.
It's neither good or bad. It's good to see that people aren't scared about protecting the good name of Linux. It's bad because it makes Linux-using folks look like karma whoring fiends who are rabid about the .com industry - and that some people can have Linux in their name regardless of their value to the community (diverse ranges such as LinuxOne and LinuxToday) and some cannot. Who knows what might have been done with the names, positive or negative. And while I understand that Linus does have the trademark, was there any other reason besides trademark enforcement to block sales?
I get a sort of queasy feeling about it - there wasn't much to be gained by blocking them, and we might have gotten some bad repute as a result.
IMO it would set a dangerous precedent if Linus started wielding the trademark like a clue-by-four on any company that looked to make money from semi-legitimate (in the case of LinuxOne), and legitimate (in the case of Slackware, et all) businesses relating to Linux. The let them make their mistakes on their own, and let people realise that there are shady people out there.
:-)
It's a bit different when dealing with domain squatters, who are pretty close to spammers.. MO, of course
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This sounds like what Sun did in 1996, going after a bunch of domain names that included the word "java." See the NetSurfer Digest summarizing the story.
SeriousDomains would not be infringing anyone's trademark rights by selling domains with the word "Linux" in them. The buyer of those domains wouldn't be infringing by buying them, either -- it's what you do with them that counts.
For what it's worth, Microsoft has allowed many domains to include its trademarks for years -- windows95.com and activex.com are two examples. It seems odd that someone who gave away intellectual property worth millions -- his operating system -- would be exerting a trademark claim over domains while the closed-source bajillionaires at Microsoft are looking the other way.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Linus is probably getting smart and checking to see who is getting the domain names. I know It'd be irritating to go to linuxsomething.org and be confronted with say, tons of popups and porn. Enough of that and people would get the wrong idea. I have no problems with him doing this.
Parodies on known names are perfectly legal. Microslutsux.com would be a perfectly legal names, as long as they dont pretend to be a true microsoft site, but present (anything near obvious) them selves are a real parodie. Think of 'Naked gun' and other parodies..
The trademark/copyright infriction comes into places if they try to setup a linux site, with the real Linux(Tm) name doing linux stuff.
This would obviously be a difference to a parodie.
However linus has done this kind of thing before, to prevent people from misusing the linux name,think of the (old?) owner of linux.co.uk, who was abusing the linux name and domain, linus used his Tm there in a benifitial way as well. But most of the time, he'll allow just about anything to happen, as long as it doesnt 'hurt' the 'linux(tm)' name.
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Fair enough. Just as Microsoft is the arbiter of who uses their trademarks.
I really hope that all those other sites have done as this site claims, or else there is the question of selectivity. As in "Anyone can create a Linux distribution, and call it xyz Linux or whatever, but should you wish to market it, you need Linus' approval?"
This is a bit worrisome.
I use a piece of software called WinGuard. This is like saying Microsoft could pick and choose titling and naming. Think about winfiles.com too.
This is all a little ambiguous, I haven't had enough coffee yet, but apply some lateral thinking. I'm not screaming, I'm just trying to evaluate this.
Yes, I hate the idea of domain squatting. It sucks.
Linus owns Linux' trademark. But is he the arbiter of all things Linux? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either. Someone mentioned using this to try to squash LinuxOne. I don't like that idea at all, much as I dislike what they're trying to do. It sounds very slippery (as in the slope).
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. What about a domain like Microsoftsucks.com? Or a parody website of some sort? Would they also need permission? Or is this just for auctions?
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Is it possible for him to keep them from using "Linux" in their company name (and thus stop their quasi-bunk IPO)? If it is, is it proper for him to do so?
Irrespective of that, there has been a lot of stink raised recently regarding LinuxOne. The "word on the street" (Wall Street) is that this is an operation just trying to cash in on the word "Linux" and not really offer anything except an IPO. A get-rich-quick scheme. If this goes through, it could seriously damage the credibility of "Linux" (quotes added to indicate the word and the image, separated from the actual product), and that hurts every legitimate Linux user, Linux administrator, and Linux support-and-sales company.
Linus is doing the right thing.
There are those who accuse people like Linus of being despots... and they're right. but Linus is a benevolent despot. And given the propensity the online community has for divisiveness and special-interests-at-the-cost-of-everybody-else, I think that's a Good Thing.