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? :)
How old is X-Windows? Is it prior art?
Didn't Microsoft aquire the rights to the english
language back in like, 1995?
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'm happy to see that things might actually be getting better on the electronic front. Articles like this, and the recent one about software installation, the whole MS anti trust case... but there is much more to tackle.. DMCA etc. Hopefully things will at least take a turn in the right direction.
Don't Tread on Me
What about Apple?
I think the trademark will hold up.
The ruling will come back as people won't confuse their car windows with software, so using the same is name is a non-issue.
AFAIK generic words can only be the trademarked in conjunction with the companys name, like 'Microsoft Word'. Otherwise Microsoft could have sent its lawyers to every place where the term "X Windows" is used long ago.
BTW, why the hell have you chosen these names?
I had something ineteresting to fill this space, but then Google found this article that does a much better job of proving my point than I could in this tiny text area.
First we have Windows. I've been waiting for Carpet, Ceiling, and Enclosed Screen Porch. Soon I will have my software house, with each item totaly incompatible with the other. . .
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
There was a similar court case in the UK recently.
McDonalds took Yu Kwan Yuen, a chinese retaurant owner to court for naming his restaurant "McChina". The judge was quite correct in ruling that McDonalds could not monopolise the prefix "Mc". It means "son of" in scottish, and Yuen had been living in scotland for some time and adopted "McChina" to indicate "Son of China".
But would he have named his restaurant McChina if McDonalds didnt exist?
This is a similar case to the Lindows situation. Although they are deriving their name from a generic source, they are (to some extent) stepping on somebody else's turf. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but certainly in the McChina case I think it wsa the correct outcome.
I think it's unfair, but you can trademark common english words. I just herad a report on NPR last week discussing the legal basis of a compnay trademarking a memory pill called "Senior Moment." A law profesor said it is OK to do.
But, he also said other people can trademerk the same name as long as the two products do not belong in same category (such as software) and do not fool consumers. Therefore, it would be perfectly leagl to start a Microsoft clothing line (or windows clothing line). As for Lindows, it may be considered confusing to the lay consumer to have a Windows and Lindows OS in same market. But IANAL so don't quote me in court if MS tries to clean your clock when you sell Microsoft brand T-shirts.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
However, naming something Windows was a bad idea (again, for trademark law)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
>>"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.
Microsoft started using using common generic names after hiring a marketing suit named Rowland Hanson whose previous experience had been with Neutrogena.
Word & Chart, were the first to be name generically. What isnt commonly known is that Gates had to be argued and cajoled into using Windows, he wanted to call it "Interface Manager"
Incidentally, Hanson was among the first to throw software samples into magazines (freebie demo disks). Given his past experience, it was a small leap from throwing perfume samples in Cosmo, to program samples in PC Week.
My $0.02
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.
I realize that MS might not have as open-and-shut case as they want, but I doubt they'll lose this, simply because of the intent of the Lindows guy.
He's selling a directly competing product, with a name that differs from Windows by only one letter. This is perfectly analogous to trying to sell a competing cola called "Loca Cola", or some such. He's clearly trying to derive benifit from the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
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 company's name is Apple Computer. IIRC there was a settlement with Apple Records in the eighties when Apple was first getting big.
sulli
RTFJ.
- X-Windows from MIT
- Allowing vendors to suffix their product names with "for Windows" for many, many years
- Allowing vendors to prefix their product names with "Win" for many, many years
- Mac OS, a blatant ripoff of Windows
I can't tell if you're trolling or just dumb. It's a windowing system named X, not the X-Windows System. "for Windows" is a compatability statement. The prefix Win is not inherantly related to Windows. And... Damn. The last one gave it away - you are trolling.
As long as the applications that people want to run (office, quicken, etc.) REQUIRE windows to be installed, LindowsOS is not a choice. For it to be a REAL choice, I would need to be able to install it natively on a box (not windows to be seen), and then I would need to be able to install Office. Without that ability, it's just another version of Linux. If someone STILL has to buy windows, then it'll never fly because the 'average user' doesn't WANT to have to buy both.
The choice is not adding another operating system to my computer. The choice is choosing NOT to buy a second operating system. As long as MS has their monopoly and can select to write all their software to only work on their platform.
For most businesses, and the average hom euser, Microsoft software is nothing more than an imbedded software package for intel hardware. It is not a choice. It is a requirement.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
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!
The X Window System predates MS Windows. MacOS is Older that MS windows as well. Either you are trolling (most likely) or you are ignorant of your computer history. MS Windows is a Blatant Ripoff of MacOS which is a blatant ripp from Xerox.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
- 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$.
I thought hemos thought up "slashdot". That's what it said in Wired, anyway.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Heureusement, je puis employer le français. Je trouve ceci beaucoup meilleur marché, parce que l'Acadamy m'ont donné non-pour-profiter-emploient le permis.
Well... thanks for that.
Linux works just great for plenty of other people, but thanks for your ever so helpful comments...
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
See this link:
Apple Vs Apple
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I seem to remember that "Windows" was determined by a court in South Korea to belong to the publisher of a Korean desk diary system and not Microsoft, and thus Microsoft was unable to print on paper its manuals or other material, probably unless it included the full "Microsoft Windows Operating System" moniker.
But this was some time ago and maybe Microsoft has bought out the other small company?
Unuseable heh? Well I'm using it to post this ;-)
Hmm, On the court case: "Lindows" is a rather 'cheeky' name, even though it's not the full term as It is probably using both names to associate itself with the compatibility of both OSs in an attemt to draw users from them. Although one could argue that it refers to the boxes in a WIMP. environment.
WordPerfect Office has been out for many years, but that stop MS Office's sales. If another company, say Sun, came out with a product called Windows then everyone would just refer to them as MS Windows and Sun Windows.
Of course Microsoft could change their product name to MS Windows.NET which is possible in anycase.
We should be able to sue them over their use of "X" in the "X Box"
Can someone tell me how Microsoft was able to copyright their flopped program "Bob"? Can you imagine getting a cease and decist order for using your own name?
Tim ODonnell (trying to be the most
The case you mentioned is indeed a very interesting case, but it doesn't directly support the Lindows side of the case. Why?
In the case you mention, the man proved that the Mc- prefix actually meant something in a language that he knew well, and that it made sense to name a restaurant McChina because of the meaning of the prefix. Therefore, there was reasonable doubt that he was capitalizing off of McDonalds' success.
However, in the Lindows case, there is no doubt that the product would have been named Lindows if there was not already a product named Windows that was created by Microsoft. Indeed, if you look at Lindows' about page, it is obvious that the name is a mixture of Windows and Linux, and doesn't derive from another language.
I, too, think the McChina case had the correct outcome, but Lindows doesn't have that luxury. IMO, Lindows will lose.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
"It already did -- ISTR that they had a dispute with Apple Records back in the 80s. Needless to say, Apple Computer won (or at least didn't lose)."
e atlesvsapple.html
This is completely inaccurate.
Please see the link http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/april/990419/b
In part, the article says:
"The suit involves Apple Corp., a record company founded by all four Beatles in 1968. Apple Corp sued Apple Computer and agreed to settle the case as long as Apple stayed out of the music business. According to the article, an appeals court ordered Apple Computer to pay the record company US$26.4 million."
There's more on the net about it, look up "Apple Computers Beatles" on any search engine for more information.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
www.uspto.gov
It looks like there are a lot of Windows(tm) out there.
The original ruling came in the early 1920's, IIRC a few years before the first radio-broadcasted game, let alone TV. I could see it described as local exhibitions then, even if the argument itself was nonsense. But now, and when the Supreme Court upheld it in the early 1990s, national TV deals should've made the whole argument a moot point.
If that really was the original reasoning for the exemption, why in the world did the Supreme Court let it stand?
Mod up, this is pricless!
The fact that Microsoft is a big adopter of standard english words for its software and defend against the use by others of these words as for a long time always irritated me.
You can't copyrigth an English word, but it seems that their armies of lawyers have come around this problem. Same for Explorer, Word, and a few others.
What makes their claim valid is that they always prepend the MS trademark in front of the other words. However, lately I have seen documents from the Beast where the simple Word followed by TM was just mentioned. I did a double jump when I saw that, because this is the end of the English language as we know it if they can argue about this in court.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
So what is its core market?
I just don't see one, and Lindows will disappear all on its own.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
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
And they'd probably rename it somthing lame like
A-EOM The Audio English Object Model.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
A few examples - there's Microsoft:
On the other hand, there's a few ones they seemed to have pulled out of their backside, like any other software company:
I'm sure there are lots of other examples in both categories.
When you think about it, the amount of arrogance displayed by use some of those product names is quite astounding... I mean: "SQL Server" ??? All they did was take Sybase and pervert it a bit....
I really don't know which of their products are trademarked as "Microsoft + $name" and which are just "$name", but it's still a good example of their "Elite Marketing Skillz"...
Choice of masters is not freedom.
There's quite a bit of differeance.
When you think about it, Windows as the name of an OS is pretty moronic anyway. The name "Windows" implies liberation of your user interface from arcane conventions like command prompts, by bringing you a new, graphical way to look at your software.
This made a lot of sense up until around Windows 3.0, when it began to take the shape of an actual OS rather than just a graphical way of running your DOS programs.
Calling the OS 'Windows' now is dumb because it still refers to that single vague UI concept, even though Windows itself has become much more. It would be kind of like Dell trying to trademark the word "Tower" as a line of computers, or Ford trying to use "Wheels" as a line of cars.
Essentially all modern GUIs use windows in one form or another . The first mainstream implementation was of course Macintosh, but it carried not only to Windows but to GEOS (for Commodore 8-bit and later to Intel), Amiga, Atari ST ("GEM"), NeXT, X, BeOS, others... ?
Microsoft might just have some trouble here. Besides, MS has come out and said they have no trouble with the development of Lindows, just with the brand confusion that the name might cause.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
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.
Just be sure that your trademarks don't infringe on someone else's freedom of expression!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
This argument is totally bogus.
Nobody expects to eat an Apple computer.
Nobody hopes to have wild monkey sex with an Amazon website.
But "windowing" graphical user interfaces is a term of art that has been incorporated into countless products, many predating the first commercial release of Windows. (And to answer the inevitiable point, MIT was working on the X Window System long before the first vaporware announcement of Windows 1.0, and it was released outside of the Athena project many years before the first practical release of MS Windows (3.1)).
Even the first releases of MS Windows was called just that - Microsoft Windows. I have no problem with MS enforcing a trademark on "Microsoft Windows," but over time they (and others) have abbreviated that to just "Windows" and now Microsoft is trying to claim that the unadorned word is not a generic. Well, tough, it is.
I should also reiterate my earlier point about the envitable confusion about what "X programming" is. "X" is also fairly generic, but there are billions of lines of code written to use the X Window System, and it's been commonly abbrievated to just "X" for close to two decades. Yet I'm already seeing indicators that "X programming" may refer to development for the very limited market, proprietary Microsoft X-Box.
So it shouldn't be hard to predict what I hope the judge will rule: "Microsoft Windows" can be trademarked, not "windows" alone. Ditto "Microsoft Word" vs "word," "Microsoft Office" vs "office," etc.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Kinda puts the whole Chevy Nova thing in perspective doesn't it? :P
Indeed, if you look at Lindows' about page [lindows.com], it is obvious that the name is a mixture of Windows and Linux, and doesn't derive from another language.
Almost, but drop the W, and you have "Lindos," which means "pretty ones" in Spanish.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The case will get directed to another judge, and he/she will reverse the decision due to the unwieldy power and influence of Microsoft. Isn't that what always happens?
"Frontpage is a program for designging print media."
It is? I think you know not what you say.
The dates are very misleading... just ask some of the MS(tm) Trolls that pop up whenever this question comes up.
The X Window System was part of the Athena Project at MIT, and it was used internally and at other academic sites long before it was first commercialized. But it's that first commercial release which is always used as the "birthdate," cause thousands of users at academic or clued-in industial sites don't count.
It's also "X version 11" for a reason - when I first learned it there were still a large number of references in the documentation to an earlier "X version 10." I think I once read a history that said that X versions 1-7 were developmental versions that refined the API, and versions 8 and 9 were only used at MIT. Version 10 was the first one widely used. I've been expected an announcement of Version 12 for some time now, to reflect the tremendous improvements in graphics hardware, but for now everyone seems to be satisfied with the extensions mechanism.
In a world full of Gates, the date of first commercial release is the only thing that matters. But in the real world I suspect there were more users of X than MS Windows until Windows 3.1 was released in the early 90s.
And this brings up the second point. Bill announced Windows 1.0 in 1983. So what, talk is cheap. Windows 1.0 wasn't actually available until 1985, and it was totally unusable. Even with the fastest available CPUs and far more memory (at thousands of dollars) than the average system, performance was a dog and nobody was developing for it because of the incredible overhead.
MS Windows 2.0 was a bit better.
But MS Windows was not a viable system until 3.1, and some individuals make strong arguments that this was only because other companies were entering the same market with much leaner APIs. This was the early 90s (92?), and it was nothing but an application running under DOS. Same thing with MS Windows 95, although the relationship was hidden by then. That's why there's still some controversy (possibly even ongoing litigation) whether MS deliberately crippled MS Windows to fail with an unspecified "system error" if it detected DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS.
The bottom line is that there's just enough there for a lawyer to make these claims, but they don't stand up to even cursory examination. If you're cynical, you might even suspect that Bill made the announcement and first releases just to confuse the issue a decade or two later.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
miy teechrs kp komplaining aboot miy wirk
I'm sorry, sir, but "aboot" is a registered trademark of Canada.
>Senior Moment
Precious, precious.
Speaking of "Precious" and "Moment", what exactly does Precious Moments Inc. own? I understand it owns a trademark on the phrase "PRECIOUS MOMENTS" in many markets and a sculpture copyright on the specific appearance of each of the figurines, but does it own any monopoly on the slightly more general concept of super deformed (SD) characters with teardrop-shaped eyes?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The article was a little thin, but it looks to me like we're dealing with the difference between "Windows" the brand and the windows that every current GUI interface uses. If the Lindows folks were arguing that their brand was based on a combination of "Linux" and "windows" (say, if they were developing yet another desktop interface for Linux) that's one thing, but if it's a combo of "Linux" and "Windows" that's something else.
Given that the big appeal of Lindows is supposed to be the ability to run both Linux and Windows software, I have a hard time believing that the generic sense of the term will apply here.
-- "" - Harpo Marx
I guess we can't say "Windows" any more. We have to create a new name for those square things we have in our houses.
Sun and Oracle are the next. "Sun" is a pretty common word, isn't it?
We need to keep in mind, as Hormel pointed out, that a trademark is a "Proper Pronoun."
Wrong. According to Hormel's page, "a trademark is a formal adjective and as such, should always be followed by a noun.".According to Apple's page, "Trademarks are adjectives used to modify nouns; the noun is the generic name of a product or service." For example: Windows operating system, Linux kernel, Disney movies, Alpine stereo, SPAM luncheon meat, Macintosh computer, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft in the past has argued that words like "internet" and "explorer" are generic, and can't be trademarked. All the while claiming (with a straight face) that "windows" is not generic, and demands trademark protection.
A little background. In 1994, a little-known Chicago area company called SyNet started distributing a web browser, called "internet explorer". Then, in 1995 Microsoft came out with its own "internet explorer". The Chicago company sued, and went bankrupt fighting the behemoth. Eventually, in 1998 Microsoft agreed to pay $5mil to settle the case (after SyNet had gone bankrupt, so they basically accepted anything that they could).
While this suit appears to be just about the Windows trademark, it smells like MSFT is defending the Windows-compatible O/S turf. Other than OS/2, there's yet to be a fully binary-compatible Windows knock-off. That it took a company with IBM's resources to do it is significant. (Although I did just find this: "REAL/32 is a sophisticated, 32-bit, real-time, multi-tasking, multi-user DOS/Windows compatible operating system.")
This brings to mind one of the antitrust lawsuits against IBM, brought by DOJ in 1969 to challenge the monopoly IBM had on the mainframe hardware and software market. IBM was bundling its operating software with the hardware, and would not make it available as separate product. This was intended to prevent rival hardware manufacturers (scroll down a bit) from getting into the IBM-compatible mainframe business.
IBM's business model was classic lock-in. If the software were available to all comers, there'd be no more reason to buy big iron from IBM, except of course FUD ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...")
So, although it looks on the surface like a trademark dispute, my gut sez MSFT is out to keep Lindows off the desktop.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
I seem to recall about the lawsuits that were brought against MS for a "windowing" GUI, MS argued that "Windows" word and the whole "windowing" scheme was an obvious social trend in computing and could not be trademarked, copyrighted, patented or protected. This argument seemed to help MS and they skirted the lawsuits and went about their business.... Only to later copyright, patent and trademark everything about the Windows GUI.
Sort of like when Henry Ford was sued about patents on the Automobile shortly after the Model T. (Business of Armerica by John Steele Gordon) He argued that the Automobile was a "Social" device and should therefore not be applicable to a patents. Of course I am sure that he then went about patenting everything about the Model T once the patent lawsuits were over.
Should Dante's Inferno be revised to include not only the Popes in hell but also businessmen who have behaved in such a double standard manner.
It is not sour grapes when the dishonest win but a feeling that civilization has suffered a damage that will be harder to repair each time.
Don't you mean "Microsoft clearly visible"?
As long as the applications that people want to run (office, quicken, etc.) REQUIRE windows to be installed
They want to run office, but do they need to run Microsoft Office® brand office as opposed to OpenOffice.org brand office? They want to run personal finance, but do they need to run Quicken® brand personal finance as opposed to GnuCash brand personal finance?
The choice is not adding another operating system to my computer. The choice is choosing NOT to buy a second operating system.
Well, LindowsOS ($100) is less than one-third the price of Windows XP Professional retail ($300), which is important to those building PCs for their friends and family either from parts or from a $400 naked PC from Wal*Mart.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Company A: Microsoft, producer of baby gold bond medicated powder. ooh.. and Windows(R)
Company B: Lindows, producer of a linux "?distro?"
Company A owns trademark "Windows(R)",
company B uses name 'Lindows',
Company A says "I don't like you, you are based off Linux, not windows!! you are in voiolation of our trademark, give it up!"
Company B "Trademark? are you retarded?"
Company A "you will get people confused, they will think Lindows is Windows"
Company B "How many people confuse 'Loser' with Woser'?"
Company A "Shutup or I shall taunt you a second time."
Company B "Bite me foot boy"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Linux ... projects are given names ... that you would NEVER guess what the programs do unless you ALREADY KNEW what they did.
How is this different from "Office", "PowerPoint", "Outlook", "Excel", and "DirectX"? Try explaining "Outlook": it's called that way because the O and L superimposed make up the faces of a clock, WTF?
Its generally not a very smart idea if you in any way want to attract new users, who by definition *don't* just happen to know (or have been born with the knowledge) that "Pine Is Not Elm".
In the IE 3.0 days, before Outlook Express was called "Outlook Express", it was called "Microsoft Internet Mail and News". (The program is still msimn.exe.) This name strikes me as similar to PINE, a "Program for Internet News and E-mail". (Many of the initial-named apps explain themselves adequately in their about box.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wonder if the holder of the patent for the 4 pane glass window could argue that the M$ Windows flag logo isn't patent infringement? Undoubtedly that patent is expired, but the thought remains that this could be considered prior art for the 4 panel design that M$ stole from them.
Andersen? Pella? Anyone?
It is true that generic terms do not get trademark protection. However, I don't think the term "Windows" is generic in this context. We don't call all GUIs "windows" as a general term (even non-tech people only call GUIs "windows" under the assumption that MS software is involved). I also don't think that "windows" was the generic term for computer GUIs before MS put out its first version of Windows (correct me if I'm wrong).
On the other hand, I do think that the term "windows" is descriptive of the GUIs found with the MacIntosh, MSWindows, the X-Window System, etc. "Windows" is a way of describing the frames that the programs inhabit and through which users graphically interact with their software.
It is also true that one cannot get a trademark on a mark which is "merely descriptive." See 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 1052(e)(1). However, if MS's continuous use of the term in connection with its software (for 5 years to be safe) makes "windows" become distinctive (read: most people associate "windows" in a software context with MSWindows), then MS can trademark the term "windows" anyway. See 15 U.S.C.A. sec. 1052(f). Such is the case here, IMHO. Feel free to disagree.
~~~~~~~~~
dissertus scribendo latine videri volo.
Yes thanks for making a link to slashdot. I would have never found slashdot with out it!
When this first came up I made a comment about Microsoft possibly going after glass companies for "installing windows". My point being that Microsoft was more than a bit silly for going after Lindows over the word and that Windows was too generic to be the basis of a real lawsuit.
Oh the crap I caught on here for that.
I sure hope that everyone who gave me crap points out to this judge what a blithering idiot he is.
For the courts next move I think they should find against Microsoft and in favor of Parker Brothers. Why? Parker Brothers has had the trademark of Monopoly for far longer than Microsoft has been playing the game.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
...Microsoft defending their newest product to come to market: the Microsoft Personal Computer
Interestingly enough I found this with a simple search on that site:
Word Mark WINDOWS XP
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: providing software user training and tutorials over computer networks and global communication networks; education and training services, namely, conducting classes and seminars in the field of computers and computer programs
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 78043951
Filing Date January 19, 2001
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition March 5, 2002
Owner (APPLICANT) Microsoft Corporation CORPORATION WASHINGTON One Microsoft Way Redmond WASHINGTON 980526399
Attorney of Record William O. Ferron, Jr.
Prior Registrations 1872264;1875069;AND OTHERS
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "WINDOWS" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)-IN PART
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Distinctiveness Limitation Statement as to "WINDOWS"
Doesn't it say right there that there is no exclusive claim to use "windows"?
I think Scotland has prior art on that one.
As this article points out, we have a lot more to worry about than the English language.
Sorry, this is the one we are really interested in:
Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer programs for use in automobiles, namely, computer programs for monitoring automobile performance, for mapping and navigation, for electronic mail and wireless communications, for maintaining personal directories, contact lists, address and telephone number lists; operating system programs and utilities; computer programs for wallet-sized personal computers, namely, personal information manager programs with calendars, contact information files and to do lists; programs for facilitating voice, text and pen input; access programs for global communication networks; computer programs for accessing global communication networks and displaying content therefrom; and 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. FIRST USE: 19840000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840000
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75980682
Filing Date October 10, 1996
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition April 28, 1998
Owner (APPLICANT) Microsoft Corporation CORPORATION WASHINGTON One Microsoft Way Redmond WASHINGTON 980526399
Attorney of Record WILLIAM O. FERRON JR
Prior Registrations 1872264;1875069;1989386;2005901;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
This could be common place :
Honey, could you please close the.. um... hole in the wall? Theres a draft in here"
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Went to see if Winux.* was registered, but they're taken, natch. Interesting thing is, nnone of those sites was registered.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
mod this up even more. not only is it funny for english ppl but it's even funnier for french-speaking ppl. your french's as good as my german :P
"not-for-profit" translates "a but non-lucratif"
"non-pour-profiter-emploient le permis" eheheheh
if I'd translate this back in english it would give something like "not to take advantage use the permit" ehehee
"Play on Words" naming is very common in the porn industry. For example, there is "Shaving Private Ryan" which is obviously a play on "Saving Private Ryan". Therefore, I would expect precedent for Lindows vs. Windows to be found in legal battles over the naming of porn movies.
. html
For a very short list of such movie titles, see:
http://www.teamnattyice.com/shame_pornnames
On the other hand, I expect that the pornographers' defense is based on the fact that their movies are parodies of the original, non-porn movies. I say this because otherwise the porn movies are obviously infringing because they also copy storylines and everything else from the original movie.
I don't think such a parody defense would be relavent for Lindows in its current form. But, if Lindows had a substantial amount of political/humorous content then such a defense would probably hold up, no?
I think Michael Robertson and co. should call his new OS License Violation and see if Microsoft will sue him then. I mean they seem to think they own that idea as well.
Is that you, Cmdr Taco?
cpeterso
I don't think "Office" is any less generic than "Windows", do you???
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
I don't think there's much relevance here as to whether or not "Windows" is a non-generic name. The issue is whether a competitor can produce a similiar product that is only 1 letter off from the main word of a registered trademark.
If they wanted a name to suggest Linux and Windows perhaps Winux would have been a better choice. I doubt MS could have objected, although the Linux folks might not like it.
Enough said, laughed my ass out :)
fsm
Damn it worked when I tested it. I didn't think about the user login thing they do. Guess next time I'll cut and paste. :-)
While not the final word on the question, this is a huge issue. As reported, the Microsoft saga with the United States Patent and Trademark Office reflects significant issues with the registrability and enforceability of the WINDOWS mark, although they were ultimately resolved in Microsoft's favor after an appeal. The TARR report there interesting relates that the windows mark is presently the subject of a, perhaps unrelated, cancellation proceeding before the USPTO.
But the difference between a straightforward trademark claim, and one where a serious challenge will be mounted to a mission-critical asset (such as the WINDOWS mark), makes a responsible company far more interested in reaching a settlement or accomodation. But this is Microsoft, who isn't even afraid of the United States Government.
I'm sure this has already been long discussed about, but how much is
2- Lindows is an operating system designed to take place of Windows by allowing you to run Windows apps without running Windows.
going to mess up the image of Linux in the eye of the public? The originator of this stupid Lindows idea is already a PHB who's been trying to cheat people off their money and failed before. Will RMS say that the FSF has nothing to do with this crap, once it flops in the market? Would that help Linux at all?
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
In light of your thoughtfull comments, I have to admit your correct and I completely missed the sarcasm.
:)
But because this is Slashdot (where the anti-MS FUD flows freely) I think I can be forgiven this oversight on my part.
Sincerely
It's doing something else. It's saying "We run Windows applications better than Windows does. We do everything Windows does only better than Windows does. If you buy Lindows you don't need Windows" (Yes, it's not as blatant as that, but that's essentially the lure of Lindows.)
What's so bad about that selling point? Bleem could have used the following: "If you buy Bleem, you don't need to buy a Playstation!" No harm there. We use this strategy in our capitalist society all the time. We call it competition.
Part of the planned Lindows market is businesses/eductational institutions. If you tell me that the people running the IT department are smart enough to realize "Oh, this definitely isn't Windows even though it runs Windows programs and sounds a LOT like Windows and even mentions Windows a bunch in their literature and stuff..." then... You've got more faith in the average human being than I do. =]
It's no surprize to find the product being emulated mentioned in the documentation many times, no matter how dumb the target audience. Lindows Inc. isn't masquerading as Microsoft or even trying to make people think their flagship product is Windows. They're selling a product with a name that people will recognize and associate with Windows, not because they're trying to trick anybody but because that's what the program does. It emulates Windows. When Linux came out, did people accuse Linux of trying to trick people into thinking his product was Unix?
Yes, the name "Bolex" on a watch is clearly trying to fool somebody into thinking it's a Rolex. Unlike watches, software can do many things. Unlike Bolex to Rolex, Lindows actually has some valid connection to Windows. Now perhaps if Lindows' graphic logo looked remotely similar to Windows, or had Michael Robertson tagged the product "Lindows px", we could be suspicious. But heck, look at the motto right beneath the name: "Bringing _choice_ to your computer!". If the user sees that and still thinks it is the actual Windows, that can't be helped.
This whole Lindows suit is just silly, especially considering that "windows" might soon be struck down as the generic trademark it is. As someone else said here: What grand irony it is that Microsoft might be losing their wrongfully granted trademark while trying to protect it!
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Linux follows a long tradition of similar names.
In the begining was Multics.
Then came Unix, a pun on Multics.
Then came commercial puns such as HP/UX and AIX. And non-commercial educational puns like Minix. All careful to avoid the letters U-N-I-X to avoid AT&T lawyers. But it's important to remember that U-N-I-X is a meaningless word - the only thing remotely close to it is eunichs, itself a bad pun on the social life of most programmers but not a generic term in any way.
In this environment, it's natural that some punsters started referring to Linus's pet project as Linux. He didn't name it that, others did.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I can hear another US vs Canada debate rolling down the line ... I have lived in Canada all my life and I have NEVER heard anyone say "aboot." They pronounce it a little differently on the east coast but I always thought that 'aboot' was an American thing. (At's least that what the I Am Canadian ads made fun of.
Outlook is a very appropriate name for MS' mail client. It's a reversal of Lookout, as in "Look out, you got another virus!"
Imagine if Linus had got his way and called it freenix. RMS would be having fits demanding it be called GNU/Freenix, that's freenix with a capital f. We'd probably have to say "GNU/Capital-F-reenix".
And then there'd be ESR trying to get everyone to call it "OpenSource-nix".
Nightmare.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Actually, intent is a JIT software product
from the TAO Group!
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
>MS's mistake. We are soon going to release a
>product with the name "XYZ Genericword."
That's *exactly* what Microsoft did. Way back when, because "Windows" was clearly too genericd to trademark, and the word too widely in use in the computer indusry (X and the Apple II both come to mind), they made a big fuss about the trademark being for "Microsft Windows," and pointing out that this would stop, say "DRI Windows," or "Desqview Windows" from being produced.
hawk
>It's doing something else. It's saying "We run
>Windows applications better than Windows
>does. [etc.]
Given the scope of the trademark, they can go as far as saying that their windows can do it better than Microsoft Windows.
Using "Lindows" rather than "Linux Windows" (or whatever) just makes it a bit more clear.
hawk
>That would give them legal protection.
I'm not sure. Since windows is already a parody of Multifinder (system 5) from 1987, a parody of a parody may be a double negative.
If so, Lindows needs to move the litigation to a romance language country, rather than an english speaking country, so that a double negative will remain a negative, rather than cancelling out as in english . .
hawk, esq., setting new frontiers in forum shopping . . .
>system if "Windows" (the MS program) did not
>exist to give them that name?
MS Windows did *not* give them that name!
Go get a manual for the Apple II. It tells you how to use windows on the screen (poke the margins into addresses 12-15). This is hardly the first usage; it was common by the timje apploe did that . .
hawk
That's *exactly* what Microsoft did. Way back when, because "Windows" was clearly too genericd to trademark, and the word too widely in use in the computer indusry (X and the Apple II both come to mind), they made a big fuss about the trademark being for "Microsoft Windows," and pointing out that this would stop, say "DRI Windows," or "Desqview Windows" from being produced.
Um, did you mean to say that this would not stop "DRI Windows" from being produced? (If it would, how would this not be claiming a trademark on the generic word?)
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
hawk