Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Legal Challenge
pphrdza was one of several readers who sent in the latest on the Lindows front - it's a Ny Times (Free reg. blah blah) article entitled Glass Panes and Software. Not a whole lot of new information - more around the legal challenge blah blah.
/. should start linking to the non reg ver like this.
that M$ already has the patent on stealing software from others? seems the Apple case law would work against M$ on this one.... First post!
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
Not a troll...
Is anyone out there even using Lindows?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
The CEO of Lindows should legally change his name to "Bill Gates."
here
Google news
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
"In the case of software sales, which often involve multiyear deals, a major gray area exists in determining whether to book the revenue when the deal is signed, or when some or all of the software is delivered and installed. The problem worsened during the boom, when both software and Internet companies were signing many multiyear deals ultimately ?worth? tens of millions of dollars."
L0L(tm)
"People who are compensated in options had an incentive to inflate prices," he said.
"There is a pattern here," he said, referring to company behavior. "There will be more indictments."
maybe the kingdumb will call IT, FUDux.0h0h
doesN'T l00k LIEk they're goon to be abull to call IT Lindows(TMp). that sure would have been handy. would have made a nice name used to priNT up some more phony billonly stock markup payper, to "spin" off onto trusting old J. et AL.
likely, that bullshipping(tm) co. won't go for the FUDox lowgo. has anyone heard how elmer fudd's name dilution/defamation litigation is going? he was the won whois hurt the MoSt, we think.
Microsoft has more a leg to stand on in this trial than Lindows, as much as I hate to say it. Lindows has the potential to create confusion in the marketplace. Granted this isn't too easy, but it would theorectically be possible for someone to walk into CompUSA looking for Windows and pick up a Lindows box. Apple took the eOne off the shelf for the same reason.
Lindows on the other hand can't really go though with this and have it work. If Microsoft had to give up the Windows trademark, so would Apple with Macintosh, as it is a type of apple (with slight capitalization differences) and so would Conpaqs Armada, as that is a fleet of ships. Fords Expedition as it is a quest of a type. If there is a trade mark on Perl. I personally would have touble living in a world where every product had a non-dictionary name. It would begin sounding like a D&D campaign.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
Okay, you take your proudct, that directly competes with Microsoft's. You change one letter of it, and market it. What do you think is going to happen?
The $200 and $300 computers are perfect for those people who just want to visit this new-fangled internet thing, or type something up. It provides a low-cost, low-risk entry into the digital world. This is why Microsoft feels threatened.
Now, Lindows is not Windows, that is true. It may not be able to run as many programs, etc, fill in whatever you want, but the average super-low cost user doesn't need this. All they want is word processing, and internet access. If you don't want to spend $400 For Office XP, and $200 for Windows XP, because all you want to do is type and surf, you will opt for the PC that costs less than your OS.
it's a Ny Times (Free reg. blah blah)
-1 redundant.
Come on, someone says this every time there is a NYT story. Quit it. We know.
Anyone who reads slashdot knows this.
Anyone who goes to NYT will find this out soon enough.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If the editors don't really have anything to say about a story, why post it? There are plenty of other articles that you could post.
Wait a sec, are you modding down the actual article post???
The irony here, of course, is that it was Xerox that pioneered the GUI ...
Say that three times as fast.
Oh, and then market it to people who don't know much about computers. Do you think they'll really know the difference when it sounds like you're trying to intentionally confuse them?
And then complain when you get sued. Idiots.
-
Before anyone mods up a stupid comment - would you be up-in-arms is Microsoft's next server platform was called Minux? Thanks. Next.
Score:-1, Funny
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
YOU FAIL IT!
What are you talking about? The article is about trademark law. Back in the day, Microsoft was granted a trademark on the name Windows. Now, you can't trademark a word commonly associated with the product you are making. For example, I couldn't trademark the name "ice cream" for my ice cream product. The word is commonly used for that already, and this has two negative effects. One, I gain value by associating my trademark with the words defining the product. Two, I shut out all my competitors from being able to market "ice cream".
In Microsoft's case, the answer will be pretty clear. The trademark on "Windows" should never have been granted in the first place. It was already a common name in computer software. The fact that Lindows changes one letter is irrelevant if the Windows trademark is invalid.
And the preliminary injunction said it was invalid, and allowed Lindows to use its name pending trial. Expect Microsoft to get slammed. But don't worry - this will not affect trademarks on WindowsXP, Windows2000, Windows3.1, or Windows NT, each of which can stand alone as its own trademark.
But the generic term Windows will be gone. And plenty of other computer manufacturers will be quick to use Windows in the names of their products.
No, but you can do that on kuro5hin.org. k5 has an editorial queue, where you can suggest better wording/grammer, etc. or make snide comments like what I just did.
Some day I'd like to do this for Slashcode, but not enough time today...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
from the article: ..and how many of those people used computers before 1991 (let alone the early 80's when computers were cost prohibitive) , and how many of those people have ever directly used an os other than a M$ product? what none? so a bunch of people that have only used "windows" thinks that "windows" is a term that M$ pioneered.. go figure. Maybe if they didn't capitolize it just windows, people would remeber they have em in their house ("but i think maybe M$ has the rights to them too"). I'm gonna start a new product called Doors, oh lemme guess that'll dilute windows won't it... geez
"consumer survey that found that 83 percent of people who used PC's at work and 73 percent of PC users at home regarded Windows as a Microsoft trademark and not a generic name
"
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
My father recently purchased 5 Lindows-OS pc's from Tigerdirect (yes Tiger sucks but they were cheap and fit his needs). As they were to replace workstations at his office, which runs a critical app which is windows based, we wiped them out and put Windows 2000 Pro on them.
however, I played with Lindows and at first I was very skeptical, thinking it was going to be very cheesy and cruddy for a linux install. However I thoroughly enjoyed it, much to my suprise.
I was delighted to use this Debian-based linux distro! as my first debian like linux, I was marvelously delighted with 'apt-get install __' since I'm used to redhat and their cruddy rpms.
Also, I have tried to play with WINE in the past on redhat and after many hours troubleshooting a fresh latest Wine release I couldnt even get Notepad.exe to run. But I knew Lindows came with a solid tweaked ready-to-go WINE setup, and just for "kicks" I popped in the install CD for the business Windows application which stores his patient records, eye prescriptions etc. in a database. Much to my ejoyment, a window popped up with the contents of the cd, I double-clicked setup.exe expecting some horrible ugly crash but the install program came right up, installed the app to C: (/C/Program Files/) and it worked perfectly! however I didnt trust this untested critical app to wine+lindows so we stuck with win2k. but I am playing around with this lindows and its a decent product
Microsoft's next trademark: Mouse(R)
Lindow's next product: Louse
Microsoft may be in trouble on two fronts here. First of all, "windows" seems to be a word that was used for GUI's before MS marketed their product as Windows. Second, every GUI-paned desktop environment looks like windows in a building (or on a desk, I suppose), so "windows" has become a generic term, even if it wasn't one before. If everyone thinks of GUI desktops as "windows", then MS doesn't have a right to retain a trademark on it. Worse, it's a common word in the language, which makes use of it even more risky. Remember "cellphane, "aspirin", and "escalator"? They all used to be trademarked terms for products. Microsoft's choice of terms isn't even as good as those.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
The New York Times has to register with YOU!
Okay, you take your proudct, that directly competes with Microsoft's. You change one letter of it, and market it. What do you think is going to happen?
You are not accutately describing the situation. Windows is a generic term. Trademarking windows is like me going and trademarking "wiper blades." It's a generic term already in common use, just like windows was. It shouldn't matter if my wiperblades company gets 90% market share, I picked a generic term.
BTW Xwindows only differs from windows by only letter too, so even with your logic MS should loose their trademark.
Life is too short to proofread.
I'm gonna start a new product called Doors
sorry, too late, external programs off of the main BBS sofware are called doors.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Windows Commander is now Total Commander!
Why this name change? In Summer 2002, we received a letter from attorneys representing the owner of the trademark Windows. In this letter they expressed concerns that our usage of the name could lead to confusion with their own products. In particular, people could think that our program could be from their company. We were indirectly asked to change the name of our software.
Because Windows is registered as a trademark, we didn't want to risk a lawsuit, and decided to change the name. It's important to mention that we have been treated in a very fair way: There have never been any legal threats, and we could negotiate a transitional period until the end of the year. We ask you to consider this, and not to make any negative comments - especially in the forum. Because we are legally responsible for its contents, it could bring us into deep legal troubles. Please also do not contact us because of the new name. As a small company, we couldn't handle the big amount of messages. We will not give more information about the name change anyway.
The original name Windows Commander was chosen more by coincidence. There were already many Commander-style programs for DOS (e.g. DOS Command Center, DOS Controller, and the Norton Commander), but hardly any for Windows. The word Commander was standing already at this time - 9 years ago - for a whole class of file managers with 2 windows side by side. Windows Commander was one of the very first such programs for Windows, therefore the chosen name was quite logical.
The new name Total Commander was chosen together with a trademark attorney. Total Commander was also registered as a trademark. Thanks to the new name, we now also have new possibilities to offer similar products for other platforms, e.g. for PocketPC or Linux. The name should stand for the fact that the program puts you in total command over your files. It allows you to see what is really saved on the harddisk, and helps you to manipulate all files directly.
We can only speculate why the owner of the name 'Windows' has become active just now (after 9 years). On one side, they have been put under pressure by the usage of their (slightly changed) name by the Linux community. There have been reproaches that they wouldn't be actively defending their name, and losing their trademark this way. On the other side, someone else had just registered the domain www.windowscommander.com (which we own ourselves in the meantime). The company may have noticed us because of this registration.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Okay, you take your proudct, that directly competes with Microsoft's. You change one letter of it, and market it. What do you think is going to happen?
Pretty much any company would do this. And, Lindows is going to lose. Try to open a restaurant named "Mc Ronald's" and see what happens. Or a store named "Bal-Mart". Or a drink named "Coca-Mola". The guys at Lindows obviously have never used a lawyer.
... if Lindows was anything but an OS. If it were a game, for example, then there'd be no lawsuit. But you've got two products that do, from the customer's end, the same thing. Changing one letter of it is not enough. You have to remember that this product is being catered to people who are not computer saavy. They're not going to know why it's called Lindows and why it's different.
What should they have called it, though? Well, it's a Linux Alternative for the Consumer, how about LAC? LacOs. I like it.
All they want is word processing, and internet access.
Everybody keeps saying this, but it's just not the case. Maybe 3 years ago, but now people want a bit more. Digital photography is getting really big. Just about every average-joe I know either already prints out their own photos, or wants to print photos like the guy across the street. Oh yeah, and does it burn cds? People are asking more from their computers these days. Email, web, and word processing isn't going to cut it anymore.
Microsoft did never ever get a trademark for "windows". They got a trademark for "Microsoft Windows". Even back in 1983 any apply for a trademark on a single world like "windows" would have been laughed at.
It is a very big difference between having a trademark on a word like "windows" and a product "Microsoft Windows". Their trademark of "Microsoft Windows" leaves it open for anyone to call anything "blabla windows", "BLurwindows" or anything with the word windows or derived from the word windows.
HTTP/1.1 400
Pardon my ignorance...but what are you referring to? I'm not familiar with this goatse.cx business...
Click and find out ... but put on some dark glasses first ...
--I only have one walmart to look at, but they sure don't sell the 200 buck lindows or mandrake PCs here. Their boxes start at closer to 500$ and have XP on them, and the employees in the "electronics" section weren't even aware that walmart had them. In fact I got the distinct impression they don't even know what a "linux" is, I think they think linux is some program you run on "a computer" which means "an electronic machine that looks like a tv and gets ya the intarweb and says "windows and intel inside" on the front sticker. I'd like to hear if anyone has actually SEEN these linux machines on the shelf, of if they are restricted to walmart.com online store. And they also don't stock any boxed linux distros locally, again, all they have is XP.
...not so hard...and no free registration required, either.
BTW Xwindows only differs from windows by only letter too, so even with your logic MS should loose their trademark.
Uh, I thought the X people got upset if you called it X Windows, since it's either "X" or "the X Window System" (no plural on Windows)...
Uhhh, back in the day? According to the article Microsoft first applied for a trademark in 1993 and was rejected. Borland had some pending trademarks on names which included Windows. Microsoft bought those pending trademarks, and in 1995 was issued a trademark on "Windows." Hardly back in the day. ;-)
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
[delurk]
/. and the major websites. I think this warning is a Good Thing, it takes up little bandwidth, and is polite.
Bah. New people surf the web all the time, as well as new people looking at
Why slam people for being slightly conscietious? It's behavior to be encouraged, not discoraged.
[lurking re-engaged]
Searching for Truth, Justice, and the Guy Who Boosted My Wallet a Few Weeks Back....
I've been looking forward to someone building a Windows comptable GUI over OpenBSD and calling it 'Gates'...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Out of interest, if they all ready had the trademark for "Microsoft", what would be the point in getting another trademark for "Microsoft Windows"?
I'd just like to say that it's not a goatse.cx link.
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
By far, the most hillarious sig I have ever seen!
And the Lill Lates comment wasn't bad either!
All though you may get sued by Bill for giving advice to the owner of Lindows on how not to get sued by Bill
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
Yeah, but why just the dislaimer for the NYT?
Why not put a disclaimer for ALL news sites ("cnn.com: No free reg required", "Salon.com: Free reg required". Blah blah).
Just a thought.
I went through something similar. I took the plunge and bought a Lindows 3.0 CD to play around with. Much to my surprise, I now have a Lindows PC at home running MS Office 2000 and able to get files from my Windows XP Pro machine and able to print to the shared printer on my XP box. And I had all of this up in less than 45 minutes. The hardest part was the file sharing thing. The printer set up uses an excellent wizard and the Office 2K install went without a hitch.
I've used a little bit of everything (Windows, NetWare, Linux, Unix) and am more than a little impressed with the ease of use in Lindows.
Well, I did... Two words for you: X Windows
Oh, and what about WindowMaker . Not as clear as X Windows , but really close.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
X predates Microsoft Windows, correct? Well, then, couldn't it be used as a proof that the use of "window" and "windows" wasn't even MS's idea? It was nothing original, thats like me trademarking "Text Editor" as an original application.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
Lindows has not only a good legal leg to stand on, but an excellent PR strategy as well. This company is getting tons of free press by taking on the 8 ton gorilla of the software industry. Go get 'em boys!
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
mod parent up. It's funny
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Good job we're not blah paying the supposed editors blah to do anything like actual editing blah blah blah.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Even is MS do have a legitimate trademark, they could still lose it, simply because it has become a term that people associate with any windowing system. I've occasionally heard people call the Apple UI a Windows User interface, and far too many people refer to X as X-Windows. Windows was not a strong trademanrk in the first place, being a descriptive terms rather than an arbitrary or fancifal name (e.g. Apple or Kodak respectively)
This sort of trademark dilution can cost a company a trademark. Generic terms cannot be trademarked, and likewise, once a term becomes generic, the owner can lose it. An example of this is Cellophane.
Of course, the law is wildly variable in this matter. "Famous trademarks" get better protection, but whether Windows is a famous trademark is another matter.
Too late dude - there is already software called Doors and I noticed this comment at the bottom of the page - "NOTE: MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows NT v3.xx are NOT compatible with Doors."
BTW Xwindows only differs from windows by only letter too
No, the trademarked name of the window system is "X". The trademarked name of Microsoft's operating system is "Windows". I fail to see how "X" and "Windows" differ by only one letter.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
That's pretty odd. But I guess this would be another good example of what's not trademark infringement. Being that Linux, the kernel for an operating system, and Linux the (German?) i guess soap, are two completely different types of products.
Let's just hope for sanity's sake that this soap company doesn't make any software, or my head will soon explode.
I wish there was some there was some way that I could be outside playing basketball, in the rain, and not get wet.
Masta Bates!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
would be the DARPA Grand Challenge. Too bad the Slashdot "editors" didn't think it was cool.
IIRC, both Xerox and Apple had windowing systems at that point. Bull Gates seems to have a long history of spewing bullshit.
If people wish to challenge Microsoft in the market place, then creating new paradigms is the way, not through the courts. Such behaviour ignores the real issues and gives the 'other side' more ammunition. I don't represent the other side, am just making a point.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Unless MS comes up with some good arguments, I think there is a decent case that Windows is indeed generic.
If Windows is ruled a "generic" mark for a windowed operating system, then it is irrelevant that there is secondary meaning in the term "Windows" to the general public -- the trademark is likely invalid. period.
If Windows is ruled as merely "descriptive" of a windowed operating system, then secondary meaning could be shown pretty easily by MS (i.e. when I say "Windows" you think of MS Windows, unless you are in the construction industry) and the trademark is more likely to be ruled valid.
So, this may turn out as a fight over whether windows is "generic" or just "merely descriptive." Given the preexistence of XWindows, Lindows has a decent case. But many windowed operating systems existed that didn't need to use the word "windows": GEOS, GEM, MacOS, Xerox Star, etc. Points for MS. However, and here's the kicker... go into any of these operating systems, and look at the programming guides, and what to they call a program "window?" A Window! (Yes there are widgets too but they are not a window).
Anything construed in this comment as legal advice or a legal disclaimer is false.
This is one thing that bugs me as well. Every time I read one of those it makes me cringe. Recently there was a post where they put an acronym... ntfryy (new york times free reg yada yada). Please stop, please...
My name is Bill Gates and I received a cease-and-desist letter from Microsoft stating I can't use my name anymore. What should I do?
On a side note did anybody else notice this at the bottom of the article
The idea of an AOL windows is either terrifying or hillareous. A product that you have to dial up to register but the line is always busy
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
In other words, even if Mike Robertson wins the trademark battle, Microsoft's lawyers can begin scrounging up ways to pile frivolous lawsuits on him. For example, browsing around the lindows.com web site, I notice the use of the phrase "Microsoft Windows", without any mention of trademark of the word "Microsoft" (much less Windows).
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
As has been stated several times, the name is X Window System, and as you can easily read doing a man X:
If the people call it X-Windows or XWindows anyways, that's not a problem of the X Consortium.
BTW, the (unofficial) term X Windows appears everywhere in the GNU documentation (problems using trademarks in GNU documents?)
For that matter, how many of those people think the Internet is either a Microsoft or AOL product?
Ask 10 random computerusers what they think "Windows" means, and 9 will say "Microsoft Windows Operating System". The 10th is a granny who was born before computers took off and knows the concept of the large rectangled pieces of glass people tended to put in walls to look through.
/. when someone mentiones "Windows", in 99% of the cases, that person isn't refering to X11, but MS Windows.
Who are we kidding here? Even on
"Lindows" has just 1 character different from the synonym of the OS it wants to emulate (!), hence confusion is born. Allthough with the US' system of justice, you'll never know what you're gonna get, I don't think Lindows will win this case: its name looks too much like the OS it wants to emulate.
(MS trademarked "MS Windows" btw, not just "Windows").
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Just an fyi, the actual name is the X Window System, not Xwindows.
The expression is "I could NOT care less." Think about it.
Um Xwindows and Windows differ by one letter.
Unless you are doing an Ascii diff in which case Capitalization counts. But Capitalization counts on Unix file systems, but not on dos based file systems. So I'll give you a letter and a third.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ever read 1984? Well, in the book, the government tried to control popular thoughts and belief by limiting and manipulating the English language.
It seems to me that by transforming the word windows back into a generic term could eventually (albeit far far in the future) lead to a popular movement away from Microsoft
The makers of M&M's have a trademark on the letter M. Using the Microsoft rational, Microsoft should be sued because it's name contains part of a trademark.
(Free reg. blah blah)
Could article submitters stop including this in their postings? What is the service that you are providing with this? Either you are making the assumption that the reader already knows what this means (in which case you are adding no informational value) or you are obfuscating the information which you are trying to convey with a cutesy in-joke. Either way, it is completely useless.
This would be a good place for an editor to step in and correct the text of the submission. If only Slashdot had editors.
Apache is covered by the Apache Software License not the GPL. It seems to be a X/MITish sort of license. Item 5 relates to your post:
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I suppose the case could be made that "Mapache" contains "apache". "LindowsOS" on the other hand is plausibly derived from "Microsoft Windows" and is intended in it's short form (Lindows) to sound like MS Windows short form (Windows). The whole thing is going to hinge on whether MS can convince a judge of that.
Um Xwindows and Windows differ by one letter
I have never before heard of this trademarked term "Xwindows."
If is some type of software then I imagine that both Microsoft (which holds the trademark for the operating system named "Windows") and the X Consortium (which holds the tradmark on the window system named "X") would have something to say about it.
It would be cool if the people who made this obviously infringing "Xwindow" software you're talking about were sued by the people who made the "X" window system, but I can't really see that happening. I imagine Microsoft will get to them first.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Bull Gates seems to have a long history of spewing bullshit.
Gates also seems to have a long history of disrespect for the law.
Microsoft, which also has trademarks on "Word", "Company", "Powerful", "Money", "Monopoly", "English" and "The" has declined to comment. However, it has now also trademarked the words "Harris" and "Chance", since these refer to their new knee-capping and concrete-boot products.
Share and Enjoy!
Similarly, if Microsoft hadn't registered "Microsoft Windows", it would be legal for the Lindows folks to take a screenshot of Lindows running genuine copies MS Word and MS Excel, and say, "Look, our computers run Microsoft windows too!" (And from what I know of Lindows, I get the impression that they probably would.) An open Word document is, after all, a "Microsoft window."
I hope that makes sense; like I said, IP law is hard.
MSK
prior to windows 95, i always heard dos heads saying that windows was better because it had a cli.
with linux, the complaint is that it is too hard to use for newbies because of the cli.
now that linux is closer to windows (needs to catch up to the mac still - that's the real bar to shoot for) for end user friendliness, the windows sheep need something else to criticise linux on.
first they fight on licenses, but now with lindows we see the height of hypocricy: these linux people are marketing in an unfair way.
oh really? obviously lindows is not the entire linux community - not even close - but it's a joy to see ms being tripped up by their own tactics. someone is playing against them on the marketing front - good. it's the only area ms has outplayed the competition they've trampled/bought/stolen. and now someone is trying to fight back on that front so the dosheads start whining.
oh boo hoo.
now, stfu, i want to enjoy this ass-kicking in peace.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
From the X.org site:
X.Org is the worldwide consortium empowered with the stewardship and collaborative development of the X Window System technology and standards.
OK, So we have X space windows, but space is a non printing character. They Dropped the S, but Capitalized the W Again. I'll grant you two whole letters.
I Don't think they've trade marked the Letter X. Then again, maybe they were the Corporate Sponser for WHen Sesame Street Was brought to us by the Letter X.
I wonder who trade marked the letter B? THey brought us a lot of Sesame Street
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
I Don't think they've trade marked the Letter X.
Apparently, verifiable fact is trumped by your uninformed guesses. I guess this brings the argument to a close, since I can't imagine any debate technique that's effective against such sheer stupidity.
Windows is a generic term. Trademarking windows is like me going and trademarking "wiper blades." It's a generic term already in common use, just like windows was. It shouldn't matter if my wiperblades company gets 90% market share, I picked a generic term.
That's a can of worms, tho'. Advanced Micro Devices? Hmm, a generic name for a company making... advanced micro devices. IBM? A generic name for an international company making... business machines. Cisco? Hmm, they happen to be based in San Francisco, so can that be trademarked? See where I'm going with this?
The only safe option is to use a made-up word, like Compaq or Nvidea.
OK, So we have X space windows, but space is a non printing character. They Dropped the S, but Capitalized the W Again. I'll grant you two whole letters.
Don't forget the entire word "System" immediately following "X Window". See the X man page for more.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
Well, just because Microsoft pissed its money away associating themselves with a generic term doesn't mean they should get trademark protection. If I spend millions of dollars on something that isn't mine in the first place (especialy something that is a public trust), I can't make it mine. That principle would imply that anyone could throw enough promotional money around and eventually claim any word of the English language.* They screwed up. I'm not saying they should give up; "Windows" is too valuable to them and they owe it to their shareholders to try to keep it. But they should lose.
* Otherwise I've got dibs on "the"
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
Justice and dealing with MS is like oil and water, they are almost always separate.
Don't believe me? Nothing that is so, is so. read more.
--------
Free your mind.
ROFL. You have to be kidding. Assuming you don't have something really badly broken in your hardware, the only way you can get that to happen is to purposely configure something as root in such a way that it does something massively illegal, and then trigger the fault during your copy to floppy disk.
Well that's out of bounds. You can cause that to occur with any O/S under the sun, as long as it gives you the power to configure dangerous setups in the first place.
I've been running a pile of other Unix-type O/S and then Linux since it came out for almost two decades, and, short of a half-dead disk causing a SCSI bus lockup, they simply do not crash, ever. We're not just talking about a different ballpark to any pre-XP MS Windoze, but a different reliability planet entirely.
So you're either talking tripe, or are triggering the crash on purpose, or are from Microsoft and hence simply lie.
Few people who are Slashdot readers will buy a LindowsOS PC. Few people who buy a LindowsOS PC to use LindowsOS, will read Slashdot. Asking this question on Slashdot is like walking into a Microsoft developer conference, using a bullhorn to ask how many of them prefer Linux, and declaring that an objective market survey. Everyone knows that most Slashdot readers are either Microsoft lovers, or users of Debian and Gentoo.
A solution to the problem with music today
Ah. Thanks
The Lindows claim is that Windows was already a generic term for Windowing GUIs when Win 1 came out, they give the example of Microware Windows, a graphical window program that pre-dates MS Windows.
Therefore the Lindows people can claim that Lindows is a play on words between Linux & the generic term for Windowing software. Therefore quite a apt name for any Linux distribution with Z-Windows on it.
Whether they have alterior motivations about potential customers misinterpreting the name is irrilvent to that fact. That was the risk MS took when it named its GUI using the generic term
blah, blah, blah, blah, interesting, blah, blah.
Blah.
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
blah blah
http://www.lindows.com/opposition
See the numerous PDF files on that page? Those are the court documents you refer to.
A solution to the problem with music today
If there is not a lot of new information then why post it. I mean blah blah.
so what you're saying is that even though RMS beats everyone over the head with his "GNU/Linux" rants he doesn't respect the X Consortium's naming wishes for their "X Window System"? bwahahaha... that's just too damned funny.
Trademarks and company names are really entirely different beasts. A trademark grants the holder exclusive rights to use the trademark for a given product line and protection from competitors' use of product names that are easily confused with the trademarked name. A company name doesn't grant the company protection from confusion created by competitors with similar names, unless the company name is itself trademarked.
The PTO is not supposed to grant trademarks for generic terms for the items sold under the trademark, as in the example of "wiper blades". "International Business Machines" is not trademarked, but "IBM" is, because "IBM" is not a generic term while the full name is. Both "AMD" and "Advanced Micro Devices" are trademarked, perhaps because "Micro Devices" is two words; I doubt a trademark would have been granted for the name "Advanced Microdevices".
You can use a trademarked name for a product that is totally unrelated to the trademarked product; in fact you can trademark a trademarked name for a non-competing product. If you wanted to start a bread company and call it "Cisco French Bread", that would not infringe on Cisco's trademark. However, if you were to start a networking hardware company and call it Cisco, Sysco, Sis-Co, or anything like it, you would be in trouble.
So, to review: Trademarks must not be generic terms for the trademarked products. Company names may be generic terms for the products sold by those companies. In order to avoid "crowding" of your company name, make sure it is not a generic term for the products you sell and then trademark it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Probably is ancient history when you're a 12 year old uninformed kiddie!
Blah.
...that Bill Gates purjured himself? The quote on page 2:
:-)
"In written testimony last month, Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman asserted that...Windows is a layer of software between an operating system and an application...."
In the antitrust testimony Bill Gates was very emphatic that Windows and the OS were the same thing and could not be separated. Maybe someone should pass this along to those states which are still in litigation. Be interesting to see the response Mr. Gates has on this.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Does anybody remember the claim "The microsoft network is an alternative to the internet" .... I kid you not this was in some early promotional material for MSN.
Lib Erates?
When did the X consortium start using the term "X Window System" to describe X?
In the nytimes article, Bill Gates is paraphrased as saying:
Mr. Gates said that unlike most competing products in the early 1980's, which were simple window systems, Windows is a layer of software between an operating system and an application like a word processor.
Doesn't X do the same thing? And if so, isn't this an example of someone else using the word "windows" to refer to a GUI before Microsoft?
- Nathaniel
A trademark only prevents use of a term as a commercial label, not as a descriptive term
Trademarks are defined wrt a specific market. Just because Microsoft trademarked "Windows" doesn't imply anything about the use of the term in different contexts - such as "Blake's Windows" as the name for a store that replaces glass windows.
The use of the term IBM-compatible is generally fine as long as it is noted that the IBM in IBM-compatible refers to the trademarked name owned by IBM. Then, you are actually using the trademark to refer to the trademarked item - which is fine. It is not fine to call something else an IBM computer and use the term IBM to market it.
That is no longer true (I know, I know, Win 9x/ME is still based on DOS, but you no longer have to install DOS first and run the win command, do you?). MS Windows is the OS and not separate from it. As an aside, I believe that what BillG actually said at the antitrust trial was that IE was an integral part of MS Windows, not that MS Windows and the OS were the same thing.
So BillG is correct if his testimony in the Lindows.com case referred to MS Windows circa 1993. I can't really be sure of this, since the author was paraphrasing BillG, but it seems reasonable to me.
Lindows IS getting a leg up because of MS "Windows"; they sought the association by choosing the name. Now, because Microsoft went with a term that is both generic and heavily promoted by them, Lindows gets a substantial and probably legal boost.
:)
OK by me, but how tragic for Microsoft. If only they had called it Wacintosh in the first place.
BTW, one bright spot: McDonald's Restaurant didn't have a claim against a long-standing McDonald's eatery in an Illinois town, operated by a guy named McDonald. Big McDonald threatened and cajoled little McDonald, and lost. Eventually the McDonald's franchise in town closed, too. So there.
Wow, your a good example of a Linuxite. Your attachment to a OS is a little to emotional buddy. Lighten up.
On another note, I like this from your website: "Against my ethics i bought a dvd player"
Against your ethics? What kinds of ethics are those? Kinda goes against the whole point of ethics, dont it?
BTW Xwindows only differs from windows by only letter too, so even with your logic MS should loose their trademark.
The correct name is "The X Window System" if I recall correctly. Everyone calls it X-Windows, but that's not the official name.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
In this case, I say, go Lindows!
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
Actually, I suspected that, but hadn't seen the actual trademark. Thanks
For those without the Man Page installed. Formatting changed to protext the lameness filter.
bash-2.05$ man X
Reformatting page. Please Wait... done
Standards, Environments, and Macros X11(5)
NAME
X11, X - a portable, network-transparent window system
SYNOPSIS
The X Window System is a network transparent window system which runs on a wide range of computing and graphics machines. It should be relatively straightforward to build the X Window System software distribution on most ANSI C and POSIX compliant systems. ommercial implementations are also available for a wide range of platforms.
The Open Group requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
X Window System is a trademark of The Open Group.
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
> Advanced Micro Devices? Hmm, a generic name
Pffft. AMD does not claim trademarks on the individual words "Micro",
"Devices", or "Advanced"; it's the combination. IBM does not claim
trademarks on the indivual words "International", "Business", or
"Machines", only on the combination. That's very reasonable; while
other international companies make business machines, the machines
are not international, so it's neither common nor necessary to call
them international business machines.
Microsoft is a similar case; they can't trademark "soft" or "micro"
per se, but they can certainly claim trademark on "Microsoft", and
no sane company would challenge that; the combination of "micro"
followed directly by "soft" was not used in the industry prior to
the founding of that company.
"Windows" is entirely another matter. I'm not certain I wholly
support Lindows.com, for a couple of reasons (not least of which
that their founder used to be involved with mp3.com, a source of
a great deal of spam then and now), and I'm not as condemning of
Microsoft as a lot of people here (though certainly I like to have
some alternatives), but there's only one right way for this suit
to turn out. Computer windows are a general concept in GUIs and
have been since before Microsoft started doing them; that point is
not in dispute, and it is really the only question that matters
to the case. Otherwise next year AOL Time Warner (or some other
huge company) can start putting a metric tonne of thousand-dollar
bills into marketing their new product called "the Internet" or
"Necktie" or "Milk", and in ten years time go out and get a trade
mark, and everyone else will have to stop using the term -- and
that's plain wrong.
Besides that, Microsoft does not _need_ the name "Windows" anyway;
they can (and should anyway, IMO, for other reasons) just start
calling the OS Microsoft (with a version indicator).
I'm going off topic now... There are several reasons MS should
do this; one is that their customers do it anyway half the time.
Another reason is that the "Window" metaphor is old and Microsoft
may decide to loose it in a future product. The best reason,
though, is because of the added implication of compatibility it
would lend to all their other products ("Microsoft Foo") -- a way to
FUD competing ISV products without actually mentioning them at all.
Microsoft got a lot of mileage in the nineties out of there being
loads of software for Windows, but what they need now, in order to
expand, is to be the primary providers of said software. (Select
ISVs could sign special contracts and get a "Microsoft Compatible"
seal of approval if their products pass a Microsoft inspection,
don't run on other platforms, pay royalties to MS, and swear
eternal undying loyalty plus their firstborn sons...) Where else
is MS going to expand, once everyone has it on their desktop? To
keep growing the revenue stream they need more. The embedded
market is not embracing them, and while they have had some gains
in the server market, there's no future for Microsoft there, for
two reasons: first, because the whole server market is much, much
smaller than Microsoft's existing userbase, and second Linux.
Where can they grow? Applications are the obvious place. Either
that or branch into other industries than software, but they have
more leverage going into software than, say, baby toys or cars.
So, all those ISVs that have got MS where they are? Microsoft
now needs to kill them. That's my take on it. Systems that will
only run signed code are one way to do that, but that's the hard
way, because it can't be done gradually. FUD can be done in the
lobster-boiling way: first kill off the two-bit nobody ISVs,
then come back for medium-tier, and save the big boys until you
have the users used to thinking in terms of your "Microsoft
Compatible" seal of approval meaning compatibility, at which point
you can drop each of them one at a time and make not just 90% of
the OSes but 90% of _all_ software. Making it harder to download
executable files with MSIE in the name of security would be one
logical early step down this path; another would be dropping the
"Windows" name in favour of calling the OS "Microsoft", starting
with the next version.
So, err, back to topic: Microsoft (having lost their preliminary
injunction thingy) should be trying to drag this case out for
virtually ever and hope to have Microsoft ready to release and
the Microsoft Compatible seal of approval ready to advertise just
about a month after the verdict hits, before any other major
company, can take any real advantage of the word windows.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
(Sorry for the mistype before. :-) )
Here are some references:
NewsFactor Network
PC World
Actually, just go to Google and do a search on this. According to Mr.G his testimony says that you can not separate Windows from the OS and that is why MS could not allow third party software to have a way to change things. Now (remember the current testimony is from last week and not several years ago) that Windows is separate from the OS which is why it should have unique standing for trademark purposes. This contradicts his earlier testimony and makes this testimony perjury. Because he is changing his story on what Windows really is. Which is to say it is nothing more than a glorified GUI stuck on top of an OS just like X Windows is to Unix.
The truth is - you can't have it both ways. It either is or it is not an integral part of the OS. So Lindows should pick this up and run with it. Just like the remaining states should pick this up and run with it. It is the proof they both need that MS is willing to say (and probably do) whatever it takes in order to win a court battle.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Here's a timeline of X vs MS WIndows:
1981 MS starts work on graphical UI called "Interface Manager"
1982 Gates kicks Interface Manager into high gear after Fall Comdex demo of visicorp's Visi-on DOS graphical overlay.
1983 Apple Lisa released; Windows 1.0 announced
'84 MIT project athena started; Macintosh 128K released, followed by the Mac 512K.
'85 Windows 1.0 shipped. Very slow and buggy. Quarterdeck's DESQ, Digital Research GEM, IBM Topview also released, to better market acceptance than Windows.
'85-'86 X windows in use at MIT and other schools.
86 Mac Plus ships, has SCSI port allowing HD's to be attached. Paper called "X Window System" published in April '86 ACM Transactions on Graphics.
87 Windows 2.0 (overlapping windows) and Windows/386. Pagemaker and Corel Draw appear for Windows. Mac SE (w/ optional hard disk) and Mac II (nubus based box w/ separate monitor) ship. RFC 1013 "X WINDOW SYSTEM PROTOCOL, VERSION 11" submitted.
88 First "official" release of X Version 11 release 2
90 Windows 3.0 released. Provides cleaned up UI and access to > 640K memory.
92 Windows 3.1 released. Major improvements made to memory management and performance. Windows really takes off.
93 Windows NT 3.1 released. Adoption is slow.
94 NT 3.5 released. Adoption picks up on server end.
95 X Consortium releases X 11 R6. Windows 95 released.
96 NT 4 released.
So, you can see the idea of the the GUI with windows was in the air in the early eighties. However, Windows had essentially zero impact on the market until 1990, when Windows 3.0 was released. Very few people saw Windows before 3.0. Windows 2.0 was by DOS/GUI add-on standards a success I suppose, but again perhaps only a handful of people ever used it. The "X Windows" name clearly precedes the Windows 2.0 release by at least a year. Windows 1.0 is very
So I think it very unlikely indeed that X Windows was named for MS Windows; it was extremely obscure until Windows 3.0 was released. In fact, the Mac was the windowing system that had by far the biggest market and mindshare impact in the eighties. "Windows" were a fundamental element of the Mac UI (and API) since the Lisa, which was a shipping product at the time Windows 1 was announced.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
See X(7) and http://X.org/ for more info.
----------8<----------
aio@aio:~$ man X | head -n25 # show the first screen of X manual
Reformatting X(7), please wait...
X(7) X(7)
NAME
X - a portable, network-transparent window system
SYNOPSIS
The X Window System is a network transparent window system
which runs on a wide range of computing and graphics
machines. It should be relatively straightforward to
build the X Consortium software distribution on most ANSI
C and POSIX compliant systems. Commercial implementations
are also available for a wide range of platforms.
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used
when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
aio@aio:~$
----------8<----------
root@aio:~# nmap -sX -iR -p1- # Ho, ho, ho! Merry Xmas, everyone!
What are you talking about? My XP comes free with my computer!
I seriously think that most people have no clue that maybe 1/3 the cost of their $699 (insert big name PC manufacturer) PC is the Microsoft tax.
A more accurate analogy would be you trademarking "wiper blades," but not for use with wiper blades, but for use with a car. All cars have wiper blades, just like all GUIs have windows. But you don't generically refer to a car as a wiper blade, just like you don't generically refer to an OS as Windows.
It would be incredibly stupid to name a car wiper blade, and it wasn't very smart for MS to use the name Windows either, but it is not generic with reference to a class of goods, it is generic to a feature that is common to a class of goods.
But windows wasn't an OS at first, so my analogy holds.
Yours doesn't make as much sense because MS doesn't just want control over the term windows, when directly talking about an OS.
Yeah a car includes wiper blades, but MS is trying to claim control of the term windows in any computer related sense. Like the whole "Windows Commander" thing. It's not an OS or a windowing system.
It would be like you naming a car "wiper blades" selling it, and then later starting to sell just wiper blades and trying to claim a trademark on both, as well as any other car-related reference to the term wiper blades.
Life is too short to proofread.
And in Non-Soviet Russia, they take really hot, young, ambiguously lesbian singers, tart them up in Catholic schoolgirl outfits, hose them down, and have them grope each other on film. It's pure marketing genius.
*wipes tear from eye* Man, it's beautiful to see capitalism spread its wings and fly....
" ..and how many of those people used computers before 1991 (let alone the early 80's when computers were cost prohibitive) , and how many of those people have ever directly used an os other than a M$ product?What does that matter? MS software was a large part of the popularization of computers.
Check out this document starting on page 14.
Perhaps Lindows should preemptively change their name to Lindoze; it would moot the lawsuit against them, while causing even more negative press about M$' coercive [read: "monopolistic"] tactics.
Or, perhaps they or someone else could leap into the frey and come out with a product Windoze--just to smoke out what Gate's Goons would do...
score -1:funny
funny at -1, I can't contain my laughter; roflmao!
give me more!
or give me death!
Remember when the Cyrix 686 first came out? Intel lost the fight (and rightfully so) to trademark the ??86 sequence of numbers. But guess what, all that happened was that Intel renamed their 586 the Pentium and made sure as heck that that was trademarked properly... and in the end, despite any number of stupid jokes at Intel's expense, their brand was stronger than ever.
Terry
Just about every average-joe I know either already prints out their own photos, or wants to print photos like the guy across the street. Oh yeah, and does it burn cds? People are asking more from their computers these days.
So a distro for Joe average should put an icon for gimp on the desktop, but call it something like "Click here to edit photos".
Also an icon for one of the many cd recording apps.
If a distro did that it would be ready for Joe Average.
A distro maintainer reading this post could update her distro in the same amount of time it takes for some troll to reply to this post.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
The original QDOS from which DOS evolved was little more than a program loader.
Even the DOS based versions of Microsoft Windows could be classed as an operating system in the sense that they provide an API which other programs call to interact with the system.
Then again, all GUIs do that, so are guis operating system extenders?
The lines are fuzzy. Is the OS just the kernel? Does it include the memory management subsystem? Does it include the filesystem?
The answers to these questions probably depend on the architecture. Whatever the developers of a system call the OS is the OS. I'm rambling here.
Anyway, back on topic (sort of) I prefer to use the term GUI or just interface or desktop environment to the term windows because there's more to it than those rectangles displaying program output.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
1984 delt with an ongoing war between two super powers after they had obliterated the major cities of the world in the 1960's, and going on to enslave the population through socialism run-a-mock. The book is one man's attempt to change the system within, which goes on to be slapped in his face hard when the system has such total control, he could peacefully resist for a thousand years, it would still make no difference and he would still get caught.
This article... is about trademarking the word Windows. I think you're streatching, a little.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Sure Windows is a monopoly, sure they have cheated to get to where they are, but having Windows around, no matter if any of you want to admit it or not, is a very good thing. They bring a level of stability to what would otherwise be a chatoic computer world. The internet would be no where near as popular now as it is if it wasn't for a simple, easy to understand standard for tens of millions of people to use - Windows. Are you really suggesting that you would want to see people who show up to buy a computer have to choose between which Linux distro to have installed on it? You really want to explain to 50 year old dads buying a computer so their daughter can get online and do that "chatting" thing how to recomplie a kernal?
/.ers out there started out with windows, or are using windows right now?
Perhaps for a moment you should tone down the Windows rhetoric and not look at Windows as something that is going chew up the rest of the computer world until there is nothing but windows. Think of it as a gateway. People get intelligent on Windows, they move up to Linux. The linux movement is growing, Windows isn't killing it. So perhaps until windows starts trying to squash individual distros into oblivion, people in the community here can back off on the anti-windows rhetoric.
And besides... how many of you uber 1337
They're a software company. At the moment they happen to be in the lead. Deal with it.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Going back to the original quote from the article, the poster left out the first part of the paragraph, as well as the sentence that followed it. These are somewhat critical. The full quote is:
He's not talking about Windows today, he's talking about Windows as it was at the time that the trademark was established. Now, granted, the sentence does say "Windows is" rather than "Windows was", but that is the NY Times writer's choice of words, not necessarily Bill's choice of words. The rest of the paragraph is written in the past tense. The author is paraphrasing, not quoting. This is an important distinction. The one sentence he does quote directly is also entirely in the past tense, referring to Windows circa 1983, not Windows circa 2003.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
I searched for (but did not find) the original quote before I posted again. I will have to go back and try finding it yet again at the NY Times. I did find the statement on one other location but they also left out he was talking about the 1980s.
Later!
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is
whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling
is that it is not crazy enough.
-- Niels Bohr
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...