Slashdot Mirror
LindowsOS.com Email Lists Collected For MS Suit
Over at the LindowsOS website is a message from company chief Michael Robertson, who advises readers that, in the course of discovery for the ongoing lawsuit instigated by Microsoft against Lindows.com, the company was "compelled to disclose your email address to Microsoft." The email addresses aren't just those who have submitted product names with a connection to "Windows", but rather "everyone who had
submitted their address asking to be signed up for the Lindows.com mailing
list since we turned on the website," according to email from Robertson. He adds: "The information which Microsoft
received in the list was name, email address and physical address. It was
not just people that posted to our forum, but basically every address for
every person that we had collected." (Note: If you'd like to contribute to the list of "Windows" products, it would be helpful to include more than just a product name photocopy -- e.g. a company name, URL, or photocopied manual.).Update by HeUnique: And here is Michael Robertson comment.
No matter how reviled M$ is... the term Lindows DOES infringe on the name Windows...
Unless there's prior permission given by the company, it's illegal...
I mean, after all, if a company came along calling itself Lisney, and had a character named Lickey Louse, there would definitely be concern. Perhaps we must think in a broader, more even-handed perspective in order to fully grasp the basic facts of the case.
I'm not sure, but isn't X-Windows trademarked?
Big precedent there. Maybe Lindows should "compel" the kettle to see whom it's calling black...
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
It's not like no one ever heard of X-Windows.
It's not like anyone ever looked out of a hole in a fucking wall that had glass in it, either.
Strictly speaking, it's "X Window System" or something like that, and it definitely predates Microsoft Windows by many years.
But you forget about the special place for Microsoft under the law. It can use "Window" without infringing on "X Window System," it can even use "X" (for X-box) without infringing on "X Window System" or causing the slightest amount of confusion about what "X programming" is.
Meanwhile, it's nothing but piracy if any other company uses "Micro-", "-soft" or more than three consecutive letters out of "Windows."
We might think this shows the emotional maturity of a 2-year-old, but we're not billionaires.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Here's the problem. Discovery is great, and it can make you give up lots and lots of bits, but I'm curious why and how the discovery process could make them give up SO much, so fast. The Lindows people can still object. Especially on the grounds that MS is simply asking for too much. While MS might have a right ot know the number of folks signed up to the list, or perhaps their email I have a real hard time believing MS found that viable of a reason for getting everything without objection.
Especially because this is a TM case. It has absoloutely nothing to do with the folks who subscribed to the list, their personal bits or home location. I think the folks at Lindows are either caving early, or their lawyers suck.
Witty quotes suck.
Statistics lie, and you just told some whoopers.
1) That site you linked to clearly states that MS Windows was not released until late November, 1985, two years after the announcement. It may have been announced in 1983, but every Windows release has come out years late. Windows 95 was not originally called '95, and it barely made it. Same with Windows 2000.
2) MS Windows 1.0 followed the Microsoft tradition established by MS DOS 1.0. It was unusable crap that satisfied nobody but the lawyers. Did Microsoft release software in 1985? Sure. It was totally unusable on any real system, but it satisfied the terms of the contract and gave Microsoft some breathing room to try again.
And just like DOS, Windows did not become a viable package until the 3.x days.
(IIRC, Office followed the same pattern. Microsoft is nothing if not consistent.)
3) The first commercial release of X might have been in 1986, but that's completely irrelevant since X was developed in the academic world. The X Window System was out for years by this point.
4) For the same reason, X was a viable package by the time it was commercially released.
Put it all together, and you have the situation reported by many people here - the X Window System predates MS Windows by about a decade, and is roughly contemporary with the Lisa and Mac. Microsoft may have announced its windowing system at about the same time, but in practice *everyone* used their own or third-party graphics routines until Windows 3.1 came out... and suddenly Microsoft applications couldn't run on DR-DOS, etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Truth-in-advertising types of laws, implied contracts, ...
If so, are those laws enforcible?
If you have deep-enough pockets, then there's a good chance they're enforcable. Otherwise they can run roughshod over you, and there's nothing you can (afford to) do about it.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
I disagree. Microsoft has been exceptionally reluctant to resort to law or politics. If Microsoft were more politically aware, the antitrust suit would probably not have happened. And Microsoft almost never sues for blatant ripoffs of their software with confusingingly similar names (staroffice, OpenOffice, abiword, etc.)
If they had made the slightest effort, they could have gotten some seriously damaging legislation passed against free software. Unlike the MPAA/RIAA, Microsoft seems to have put little thought into lobbying, at least until the antitrust suit.
Apple is much more litigious than Microsoft. They are constantly suing anyone who sells a product that looks or sounds like one of their products. They even gleefully attack free software such as the aqua-themed desktops.
If Microsoft vigorously sought and defended software patents, they could seriously impact Free Software. Whenever Microsoft announces a major intiative, somebody starts cloning it in the Free Software world. Microsoft has not used the patent system to lock up things like Plug-N-Play, COM and
I don't like Microsoft's software or business practices, but I am sick of the assumption that they are lawsuit-happy and eager for more legislation. Compared to the truly scummy companies of this industry, Microsoft is not an abuser of the courts and legislature.
You know, this whole thing could have been avoided, if the lindows project was Michael sitting in his bedroom coding after hours, and submitting the code to sourceforge, as a completely free distro, like debian.
Information wants to be free.
Rent wants to be paid.
Another question that hasn't yet been specifically answered: Were you ORDERED by the court to provide the mailing list or was it just Microsoft asking for you to provide it?
Ummmm...
One tiny difference:
WinAmp, WinZip, etc are applications
LindowsOS is an operating system
Windows is an operating system
Can you see why Microsoft care more about the use of their _OS_'s name in ANOTHER OS than they do about their _OS_'s name in an application that happens to run on their OS.
If Microsoft release an application called LinuxPassport that seems OK to me.
If they release a modified version of Windows with a few Cygnus things pre-installed and call it MSLinux, that might strike some of us as a little unreasonable, hmm?
-----