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.
Next thing you know Joe_potential_Lindows_User
will be "sending" a letter to congress praising M$'s "Right to Innovate", along with his dead cat, fish, and web server.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Additionally, how can MS force them to hand over the addresses and even some of the messages when the Lindows privacy promise explicitly said they would do no such thing?
Legal subpoenas trump privacy agreements. Damn, Microsoft is making an ass of itself here.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Your privacy is no longer protected by a web site statement. Beware!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
...and starts more MS bashing, refresh yourself on the actual post first. Granted, the article brief makes you inclined to think that this post is another chance to bash Microsoft, but something good has come out of it nevertheless.
The "Michael's Minutes" article which is linked to has a primairy purpose of NOT bashing Microsoft or jumping to conclusions about the "seizing" of the emails, but instead ask everyone out there in the Lindows.com community to help them in their case. They've developed a strategy to aid their case by trying to find AS MANY products out there on the market that have some kind of "Windows"-derrived name. Here's the actual important text:
Here's how you can help. We are composing a list of the many hundreds of products named "Windows Something" or "Something Windows" or even variations on the word windows, which are not from Microsoft. We know there are many, many products that fit this characterization and we could use your assistance to help us create this list. We are looking for hardware products, software products, products for any operating system and even operating systems themselves.
You can help us generate this list at www.lindows.com/list in three different ways:
1. By submitting titles which can be added to our
list by filling out this simple form www.lindows.com/listform
2. Send in printed materials which use the term "window(s)" generically such as software boxes or complete manuals to our offices, the older the better:
Lindows.com, Inc.
Attn: Legal Info
4350 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 450
San Diego, CA 92122
I say go for it. The goal is to catch Microsoft's real motivation for pursuing this lawsuit against Lindows: targeting competition rather than enforcing their trademark. So, rather than bash Microsoft here, take some time and actually help out the fight against them!
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.
because the trial court is likely in WA. IANAL but this is just discovery phase, the material is supposed to be used in a trial. Probably as a proffer to prove one of the requirements of trademark infringement cases. M$ has to at some point in the case, prove that LindowsOS was actively marketed. Since the don't seem to have actually delivered anything and taken no money in return, this will be a major point of the trial. Pre-trial publication is not going to happen within the state. Most likely, the judge will allow a statistical summary of the email list and declare the rest to be confidential information not to be released.
Of course, if this list does get beyond the M$ laywers computer, or placed into publice record by the judge, it could get real bad for anyone who put truthful info on the lists.
Either way, it might be a good time to start being an Anonymous Coward.
Using every legal, market, technology and political process for its own ends is the definition of M$ current business practices.
You know, there's something about a parasite that licks people that I think just might be bad for business...
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
In this case, I'd love to see the defense attorney tell the judge:
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.
You don't need to suboena Microsoft's mailing lists. Just find the address of one of their IIS/Exchange servers and help yourself ;)
--Jon
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
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.
As to the actual trademark issue, Microsoft calls their products "Microsoft Windows XP Professional" and we call ours "LindowsOS". There is no confusion.
Also, Microsoft is alleging that anytime someone uses the word "windows" that means Microsoft. Take a trip to your local computer shop and see for yourself how many products are called "Windows something" on the store shelf that AREN'T endorsed by Microsoft in any way and yet aren't sued.
Apparently, when it's convenient for them, Microsoft claims that any use of "windows" is an infringement and unleashs their 600 person legal department and Bill's dads 350 lawyer firm Preston Gates as well. But only at rare times when its a convenient measure to block competition and chase away potential funding sources.
If you're helping extend their monopoly through use of windows term or not a perceived threat, then your use is ignored. Not a bad strategy to continue their hold on an illegally created monopoly if the courts will let you get away with it.
-- MR