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?
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 Even if they only dealt with Windows 9x software, the name would still be outdated once Windows 98 came out.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.
"Fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks. It is part of copyright law. Even the word "copyright" is embedded in the URL you gave.
Trademark law is not copyright law. Copyright law is not trademark law.
Fair use is rooted in copyright (though even there it's under attack by laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that enforce technological bars to fair use), but it has applications in trademark as well.
Although trademark law does not have the explicit fair use exception of copyright law, First Amendment concerns have carved out a narrower privilege: you can use a trademarked term to discuss or criticize the product or company to which it refers. Consumer Reports can't be sued for trademark infringement when it bashes a product in a review, and a URL aimed not at confusing readers/consumers but showing them a different angle on a trademarked product should be privileged by fair use.
(American law only, and not a long-established doctrine, at that)
-- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain
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.
The difference is that Etoy.com had their domain for years, and were using it in a generally accepted 'appropriate' manner, and etoys fucked them over.
IN this case, a domain speculator registered a bunch of linux domains in order to make a profit from selling them later, which is a filthy practice, and linus *already* has the trademark...
Look. I bet it wouldn't hold up in court.. but what domain speculator would go to court over it? They don't care...
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.