Slashdot Mirror
MS Asking Makers of 'Windows' Software To Rename
An anonymous reader writes "Today WebWereld is running a story (http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/13347.phtml) on Microsoft's attempts to stop other software makers from using 'Windows' in their names. Several software makers that are listed on the Lindows-list (http://www.lindows.com/lindows_home_list.php) have received a letter from Microsoft's lawyers. Basically Microsoft asks them to stop using the word 'Windows.' Windows Commander and Windows Spy have changed name as the result. Christian Ghisler (of Windows Commander) changed the name into Total Commander and Sureshot changed the name of Windows Spy into Farsighter.
Alexander Tchirkov of Windows Backup Wizard also received a letter from Microsoft, but he is not willing to change the name of his software, he tells WebWereld. 'I received a letter from attorneys Microsoft (SEED Intellectual Property Law Group) with the recommendation to change the program name into Backup Wizard for Windows(R).' Tchirkov says Windows is not a registered trademark in Russia."
How about X Windows?
All your favorite sites in one place!
... for creating a non-unique product name. If they want to control branding, then they better make sure to label the product "Microsoft Windows", or next time they can be a bit more creative.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Microsoft has a point. These companies are selling their products by the customer association with "Windows", Microsoft Windows. Of course, it's rather DUMB of them to do it, as when walking through a software store, seeing a bunch of programs marketed as "Windows This" "Windows That" creates a mindset in the consumer that Windows has a lot of programs running for it. Just like we have KOffice, KCalc...or GProducts.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
AFAIK, they got turned down flat for a preliminary injunction in the Lindows case. With the judge expressing doubt that "windows" was a term that could be trademarked. So are these letters not an extra judicial effort to obtain by intimidation what they have been denied in court? If so, does it constitute contempt? Anyone have an informed opinion?
But does anyone doubt that the software in question is playing off the Microsoft Windows brand and mark ? I'd understand the argument if the software described did things totally unrelated to MS Windows, but I bet (without actually looking up these products) from the sounds of their names that their functionalities are intimately related to MS Windows.
As for whether or not Windows is a registered trademark in Russia or not, I have to say I'd be very, very surprised if it is not. And if it isn't , then someone in Russia ought to go and register that trademark NOW. In fact, it makes me wonder why the Russian programmer in question wouldn't register the trademark if only to protect HIS mark.
Come on Slashdot editors, the whole reporting-on-M$'s-every-move thing is getting REALLY old now. Do you realise that the people who are capable of thinking for theirselves are generally rolling their eyes at almost every headline posted? Why don't you try being a little less biased, and maybe we won't think you are all whining geeks. Sure, nothing wrong with being a geek, as long as you embody some of the positive qualities rather than all of the negative ones.
Moderators: Mod me down all you like, but perhaps a better use of your time would be to reply with constructive criticism.
If your product does something useful, people will associate any name you choose with the functionality of your product. Just because your product runs on Windows or is written in Java, you should not feel that you should include the word in the title. Just because your software is an FTP client, you don't have to name it JoeFTP.
Naming your product similarly to another project piggy backs on their efforts. I would rather have my stuff stand on its own merits. Naming after functionality, platform, or language can later be limiting if you ever want to expand your functionality or port it to other platforms.
As a previous post mentionedm the term WIndows in these software titles is referring to MS Windows - it is not being used in a generic sense. And to have the software title be "Windows Backup" or "Windows Extender" or whatever makes the product seem as if it came from Microsoft as an add-on for Windows - ala "Windows Plus!" Changing the name to "Backup for Windows" or whatever makes it more clear that the product is intended for use with MS Windows but it not made by MS.
I think that would be better for everyone, but I don't think MS has any legal clout to force the issue.
If you've already lost a trademark by not enforcing it, it's too late to do anything about it. You can't start sending nasty letters to people one day and say "ok NOW it's a tradmark"!
If only this applied to patents...
If this stuff pisses everyone off, why doesn't everyone write to Microsoft instead of bitching on Slashdot? Bitching on Slashdot gets you nowhere.
(No offense to the poster, just trying to get those that are angry to do something about it.)
evil adrian
Window, huh?
I don't understand why these smaller companies don't just stand up to Microsoft and take them to court. I mean, I think the Department of Justice and various states demonstrated pretty clearly that all you need to go up against Microsoft is millions of dollars and a small army of lawyers. If you don't believe me, or squeak something about DOJ not really being successful, consider "little guy" Sun Microsystems, who sued over Java.
More seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I can understand Microsoft wanted to protect its branding -- names like Lindows are meant to draw people away from MS Windows -- but they're just bullies.
You know, a real solution would be for someone to come up with a new metaphor, or paradigm.
But I'll never cave to this intimidation! See, I've bared a Window® into my soul. This is our Window® of opportunity to take a stand against this Window® dressing. It's our Window®
Damn, it's getting stuffy in here, excuse me while I go open the f*cking Window®.
Company A contacts company B and says "you can't use the name X for your product, we suggest you use Y".
So, company B obliges....
What the fuck? Why? If X is something as generic as Windows and is not trademarked, I can use it for whatever the hell I like.
Does this mean we may not use Office, Money, Exchange etc. etc. in naming our porducts? I have an incredible itch to challenge this.
Sigged!
Try and make a steering wheel cover and call it Porsche Commander and claim that it makes you drive your Porshe better, Porshe would sue your balls off.
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
Windows is a generic term. It always has been a generic term and always will be a generic term. In every GUI, different frames of programs are called "windows". "Windows" should have never received a trademark in the first place, as it was generic when the trademark was granted.
Thus, no one should heed MS's demands to change their name. The Lindows case already proved the "windows" trademark was void.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
OFFTOPIC?!?!? How in hell is that off topic? The whole Lindows case was about their ability to use the word "windows", and this action by MS appears to be a response to that.
Darn. First I fed the trolls, and now I'm feeding the crack-addict-moderators. Next I'll be feeding Natalie Portman some hot grits... (hhhmmmm.... grits.... I mean, Natalie Portman....)
There I go, off topic. And now I'll get modded Insightful, or Funny, or God know what.
And you can see by MSFTs actions they are being reasonable.
They don't have a problem with:
Backup Wizard for Windows(R)
But they do have a problem with:
Windows Backup Wizard.
And, parent already stated the reasons why. The second is misleading, and connotes some sort of MSFT sanction. The first plainly denotes a 3rd party product designed for Windows.
I might just write a military strategy game and call it "The Linux Colonel".
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Trademark's are defend it or lose it. Unlike a Trademark, Copyright and Patents can be selectively enforced or licenced with no bearing on the status of the Copyright or Patent.
If I have software called Linux Commander, do you really think
its part of the kernel?
And your Sun comparison is way off. The direct analogy would be
Solaris modifier
Or, it would have been analagous if the M$ targets were calling their software
Microsoft modifier
In other words, to refute your first sentence, absolutely nobody
I know would think that "Windows Backup", presented in
an appropriate manner, was produced or sanctioned by M$
Said another way, don't you think the intention of the targets
is a relevant question in this case? - are they trying to give
the impression of being a Microsoft product?
Turn it on, hook it in, no admin
Microsoft chose to call their product "Microsoft Windows" in an attempt to get product-company association. That's fine, but they forego the ability to attack people making products called "Remote Windows" or "CacheWindows".
Oh, they'll probably make some stupid case about how the thing is close enough to cause confusion, but I have a hard time seeing a judge buying it.
May we never see th
It's kind of ugly for everyone involved. "window" is definitely a generic term for a windowing interface. When MS chose the term "Microsoft Windows", they sure as hell weren't thinking of trademark issues.
The problem is that then Lindows came out. Now, "Lindows" isn't just a windowing system -- it's an operating system, rather similar to what MS is selling. Furthermore, Wal-Mart sells these damn little boxes to people who have little computer experience and say that they have "Lindows" and are "Windows compatible". There's a pretty good case for confusion there if you have an inexperienced buyer. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Lindows people -- I think it's fair to claim that they were trying to take advantage of confusion.
So MS sues them. Probably the only justified legal move MS has made in the last decade. The judge not *only* denies the injunction, but states that "Windows" is/has become a generic term. So now Microsoft is panicking and trying to do damage control to regain control of their product name. They go after everyone using Windows to try to build up a stronger case for future trademark infringement suits. There's nothing MS would hate more than ten companies out of China selling WINE+Linux+GNOME systems called "Super Windows".
Frankly, this whole thing wouldn't have happened if the Lindows people hadn't pulled their attempt to grab a little MS market share...
May we never see th
This move on M$'s part will dilute the trade marks of all the other companies involved and confuse each and every one of us. Take the "Windows Commander" example. Christian worked for years building up a name and reputation. Can you tell me what he's changing his name to without scrolling up the page? Christian just got ripped off and his new program is indistiguishable from many other utilities that do the same thing.
Nothing new really. Do business with or have anything to do with M$ and you will be burnt.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And don't bother telling me MS is evil - in this case that would be a real strong signal of a dull, well-rutted mind.
Except for that line, your comment makes sense. They're still evil, though. But not because of what they're doing here ;-)
Microsoft can't try to defend their Windows Trademark (which is in computer software) against Companies that make glass Windows, or Companies who install Windows in cars, or who create decorative Window artwork.
Just computer software, and especially when there is substantial risk of dilution of their trademark or confusion over the nature of the products. Which is precicly why they suggested that the Backup Software be changed to Backup Wizard for Windows(R). There is no risk of confusion that the product is actually sanctioned by Microsoft, and it acknowledges the Microsofts registered trademark.
I thought the loss to Lindows set the precedent that MS cannot prevent people from using the word 'windows' in naming their software product. Hell, Linux and Unix have had xWindows for years now. No copyright or trademark infringement there. It's a descriptive term.
This really baffles me.
There would be a difference: Sun stands for Stanford University Network and is the name of the company. Thus calling it Sun Network Management Adminstrator would be using another company's name.
They aren't calling it Microsoft or MS but a generic word: Windows. Calling it Solaris blablabla would be OK. Calling it Sun Solaris blablabla again would be confusing.
Just run winver and you'll see it's Microsoft (R) Windows. Every application I've seen says Microsoft blablabla.
MS just doesn't have a case
...even though MS isn't in the habit of calling things "Windows Doongle Dongle".
What are you talking about? They use it all the time! "Windows Update," "Windows Catalog," "Windows Media Player," "Windows Messenger," "Windows Movie Maker," and "Windows Explorer" are all sitting in the Start menu of my XP box.
Having said that, I think these third-party software makers should tell Microsoft to go fsck themselves. Microsoft chose their product names with the specific intent of co-opting the generic terms-- they reaped the benefit of that almost from the day they started doing it, and now they're going to cry about it when the pendulum swings the other way? Forget it! I know that all the targets will knuckle under because they can't afford the lawyers to fight this bullying, but if this ever made it into a courtroom, I think the little guys would prevail.
~Philly
Microsoft cannot do this and if they took it to the courts I think it would fail (assuming that the defendant does not run out of money). This is because the Computer Defintion of Windows is Windows A trademark for any of a series of GUIs or GUI-based computer operating systems. - Dictionary.com The definition is NOT "A Microsoft Operating System". It is a GUI- for a series (does not specify microsoft) of Operating Systems. They cannot copyright a word like they are trying to do and if they can copyright the word then someone else could easily copyright the name George and sue everyone with that particular name claiming that friends and relatives are confusing him with other Georges.
IMHO, Microsoft has the full right to do this.
Sure, windows is a common word, but Microsoft isn't sueing the glass making companies.
If you owned a company - Bobsoft and made an O/S -called BobOS - which you thought was really good, would you a)protect the name from people working off your achievment or b)Give everyone free reign over the name? You wouldn't sue all people who had the name Bob, but you wouls sue people using the name in their software to make it look like your brilliant company made it.
All in all, one heck of a legal minefield...
I prefer MS Windows to Linux