Slashdot Mirror
Questions over the Windows Trademark
TTop writes "As part of the Lindows lawsuit, the judge has preliminarily ruled that there are 'serious questions regarding whether "Windows" is a non-generic name and thus eligible for the protections of federal trademark law.'"
I've always been bothered by Microsoft's habit of naming things using common
words (Then again, my history of naming things includes confusing and bizarre
names like 'Slashdot' and 'AnimeFu'
so what do I know? :)
Someone in Redmond is kicking themselves in the ass right now...
Now that judges seem to be a bit sensible, I think it's the right moment to send them a lot of similar cases: what about Adobe Illustrator? (remember the KIllustrator affair)
>>"I've always been bothered by Microsoft's habit of naming things using common words." Naming a product after an easily recognizable, representative word, even be it a common word, just makes sense for any company trying to sell said product. Granted, in the extreme, I think our shared concern is that Microsoft names their products after common words, such as Windows and Office, and then trying to bar anyone else from selling a commercial (software) product is a bit draconian. In the extreme, it's kind of like patenting the color black, air, or in an actual example, the hyper link.
I'm not sure it's such a good thing a trademark can be lost just on the basis of being a common word. I mean, a common word where, exactly? It's really not easy to think of a new name that doesn't sound utterly stupid, and then you run the risk that whatever you came up with actually _is_ a common word in some language. You could end up with many product names that can't be used in all the markets you want to use it.
And where do you draw the line? Is 'Red Hat' too common? 'Dell'? 'Ford'?
Of course, some due diligence is always required anyway: Honda apparently tried to name one of their models 'Honda Fitta', but found out what it meant in Swedish in time... With slogans like "Small outside but large when you're in it" or "It's a daily pleasure" it could have become a very real embarrassment for Honda.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
They give the impression that their software is accessible to the masses (which, to a large degree, it is).
The best way to make your product a household name is to derive it from a household name.
Words that people are already accustomed to using are non-threatening. (Think about all the weirdass company names that you can never remember how to pronounce, let alone spell.)
If Microsoft had picked a unique name besides "Windows", and another company ripped off the first letter and changed it to an "L", then perhaps Microsoft would have a leg to stand on.
The article referenced at the top of the page doesn't go into much detail regarding the outcome of the suit (which will finally be decided in a year or so), but here is an article that might be a bit more informative.
The most interesting part of that article is the following quote:
"'There's no evidence Windows is generic and strong evidence it's not,' responded Karl Quackenbush, an attorney arguing for Microsoft. He said Microsoft has spent more than a billion dollars promoting and protecting the name Windows. That includes sending letters to hundreds of infringers warning them not to use the name, he said.
In any case, he said, names such as Amazon.com and Apple -- two other generic words -- have been adjudged valid trademarks because they've acquired a 'secondary meaning' through their strong association to products."
So, even though Microsoft might not win the preliminary injunction, it is likely to win the case. After all, if Apple and Amazon were both held up as trademarks in court, it's likely that the ubiquitous "Windows" will be as well.
I, for one, will be glad if "Lindows" loses in court simply because it is confusing to say out loud. Try saying this out loud: "I'd like some help with configuring Lindows, please." I fully support anyone's right to create a new OS, but I don't support naming a product in a confusing manner (and playing off the name of a more popular product), which is exactly what Lindows is doing. This sort of infringement is what trademark law was designed to protect, and I think Microsoft will win this one in the end.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
- Internet Explorer - a browser.
- Word - a word-processor.
- Media Player - a media player!
- Windows - a windows-based OS.
etc...Making everything easy-to-understand is the brilliance of marketing and also shows how well M$ knows its customer base. Apparently they are the type who are easily confused... the perfect customers for M$.
How can you sue? Have MS prevented you from using the letter X?
X-Windows came before MS-Windows, Linux runs X-Windows. The term "window" was coined along with the first GUIs of the 60s and 70s to mean a segmented rendering space on screen.
MS-Windows is called Windows because of that research, Apple Macs have "windows" into which you type. GEM had "windows", EVERY GUI on planet earth calls them "windows". Its a generic term.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The term windows has been associated with windowing systems (obviously) since long before Microsoft Windows. Microsoft were the only ones audacious enough to claim the name Windows as their own.
So windows was / is a generic term even in the world of windowing systems which makes it even harder to protect. Had microsoft invented the term window it would have been easier for them to protect.
It's entirely possible to trademark a name in a particular market that would ordinarily sound like a regular word provided that the name wouldn't be a generic term in that market. e.g. making a medicine called Windows or a truck called a Ram. However naming a truck Truck would give you no protection.
So it seems that windows is a very weak trademark because it is derived from windowing systems which were around and called windowing systems before windows.
Microsoft have a long history of these kind of poor trademark choices - look at MS-DOS - ok you can't produce a product called MS-DOS - but DOS itself is a generic term.
I don't think "Office" is any less generic than "Windows", do you???
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?