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)
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.
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.
Slashdot was an attempt at a confusing name:
http-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-org
AnimeFu - no idea... I assume it has something to do with using the word Kungfu as the "magic" that a hacker uses to control systems... just a guess tho
DOS is dead, and no one cares...
If there's a Bourne Shell, I'll see you there
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 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$.
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.
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?
How can you sue? Have MS prevented you from using the letter X?
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
This isn't really correct. Apple Records and Apple Computer reached an out-of-court settlement essentially favoring Apple Records. However, they later sued, and won for infringement in a later lawsuit.
/ be atlesvsapple.html
See:
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/april/990419
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.
Simple. They didn't trademark "Bob." They trademarked "Microsoft Bob." Similarly, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is in the public domain, and one can do as they will with it. However, "Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is NOT in the public domain, and is protected.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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.
The point, and target audience, for Lindows OS is cheap useage. Supposedly, people will see Microsoft Windows for $180 and then see Lindows for $50 and say "oh, I want the cheaper one". After working in retail for ~3 years, i can tell you for sure, posatively, that there will always be people looking for the cheapest, damn the quality. I repeatedly saw people buy the "Audiophase" brand portable CD player, even when the phillips was argueably 4x the quality for $10 more, and even when on the back of the audiophase packaging it said: "Audiophase: A division of STARLIGHT market research". Same goes for computers. I see cheap computer manufacturers going for this eventually, i.e. Emachines. Emachines has already ditched the MS works suite in favor of star office, for cost reasons.
Judge the target audience is the moral of the story here. For people that want the most compatability, windows is the choice, and will be. For people who don't know better and can't find a warez site, lindows is the way to go.
Which actually brings up an interesting point: How compatablie is Lindows? To illustrate: the other day, I tried to install command and conquer on a windows 2000 instalation. It wouldn't install, citing that it needed "Windows version 95 or later" and i was running "Windows version 5" of course meaning windows 2000, or NT5. Will this happen on lindows? Will software that is supposed to check compatability before install prevent you from installing it? If office checks for the string VERSION: Microsoft Windows, Lindows can't possibly put that string in their registry, how can you install office?
~z
sig?
There's quite a bit of differeance.
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
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.
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
The one market I can really see taking an interest in it is small to medium sized businesses. Most businesses only use one or two applications for the majority of their work, so if all the applications a company used ran on LindowsOS, then there would be the potential for them to save a lot of money the next time they have to upgrade their systems and software.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
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.
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"
Whoops, my apologies, a space got inserted there somehow. Apple Versus Apple
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hmm. There's two possibilities here.
One is that you picked up on the fact that the parent poster inexplicably switched his style of sarcasm - the "Outlook" and "FrontPage" examples were ones which would follow from the idea of choosing names that make sense, but which weren't true, while on the other hand the "Start button" example is true but wouldn't follow from that idea, and decided to comment on this in an indirect way.
The other is that you just failed to grasp that there was any sarcasm at all before posting a smartass reply. Given that this is Slashdot, I find this more likely.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
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?
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.
I think Scotland has prior art on that one.
But a macintosh is a kind of raincoat, therefore can they hold a trademark on the word?
As this article points out, we have a lot more to worry about than the English language.
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
I think the parody defense would hold up really well if any issues came up with regards to GNU/Linux and related trademarks (slim as that chance is).
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
Names CAN be trademarked.
o ct 96.html
Clan McDonald has had some problems with the McDonald's hamburger chain.
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/herald_7
There was also a narty bit of business when the Taylor wine company was bought out by Coca-Cola.
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.
Yes, but it's Iron Clad(tm) when you throw on a modifier or two.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
It occurs to me that while Microsoft may not be able to buy it's way out of this PARTICULAR situation (it still might) it they might be able to patent their process of buying their way out of things such as this. It might be described as a five-step process.
Anyway... you get the idea...
Just because abuse of the legal system is unethical and illegal in some cases doesn't mean the process can't be patented does it? And I'm sure Microsoft can afford to buy all forms of prior art.
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
>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