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.
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."
That does not work for me, but this does
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
Google news
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
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.
You missed the point -
Apple products, including the Macintosh, have nothing to do with apples.
The Compaq Armada is not, and will most likely never be, a fleet of ships.
Microsoft Windows IS software that creates windows.
The trademark for "Windows" is in trouble because the word was used to describe computer GUI software long before Microsoft introduced their product.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
I believe Lindows has more hand. Not only was windows a generic term for glass in walls, it was also a generic term for a software interface. It was used by many companies. Microsoft has no rights over that.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
The irony here, of course, is that it was Xerox that pioneered the GUI ...
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.
But, it could be used for an anchor on one of those ships. ;)
Michael Loves Me!
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.
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
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.
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.
Read the article it states that there are different levels of trademark protection. Quote from the article. Trademark law affords the greatest protection to words that are fanciful or arbitrary, like Apple. Next in line for legal protection are names that are suggestive of what a product does, like Huggies. Next comes a descriptive term, which describes an attribute of a product, and last come names that are generic, or widely understood to mean a category of products. Generic terms cannot be trademarked. So Apple has it clearly, as the word Apple has nothing to do with computers, same with Armada, Expedition is use suggestive and Perl is arbitrary. Anyways, taking away the Windows trademark wouldn't nessesarly keep microsoft from calling it that. And "Microsoft Windows" would still be trademarkd, as well as "Windows XP" as the XP makes it unique.
... 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
Lindows Legal Challenge Lindows Legal Challenge Lindows Legal Challenge
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
--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.
Microsoft's next trademark: Mouse(R)
:)
Lindow's next product: Louse
Douglas Engelbart (the inventor of the original 'mouse' back in the 1960s) might well have something to say on that one...
Besides, it's always been a Microsoft Mouse, as opposed to the Apple Mouse or any of the myriad other mice out there. Bit late for them to try and trademark that one. Unless, of course, they manage to get the same guy that granted them the 'Windows' trademark...
-MT.
We do agree. It all makes me wonder about the whole "prior art" thing. I mean, did Xerox ever make a nickel from any of it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard, they never *did* license or sell the graphical environment or mouse technologies.
C|N>K
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?!
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"?
Microsoft Windows IS software that creates windows.
Then as long as Robertson's at it, he might as well sue them for Word, Publisher, Office, Flight Simulator, Media Player, Money, Commerce Server, and SQL Server. All registered trademarks, all describing either common English words or the general software functions...
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
From the article:
If you want the actual references,you will have to dig up the court documents yourself.I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
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.
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
IIRC, both Xerox and Apple had windowing systems at that point. Bull Gates seems to have a long history of spewing bullshit.
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.
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?)
It seems Microsoft has a habbit of naming products "Microsoft Word", "Microsoft Flight Simulator", "Microsoft Windows", etc., and then dropping the "Microsoft" part to attempt to get the public to associate the generic term with Microsoft. I think it would be appropriate if the practice came back to haunt them.
Development on the XWindow system at MIT started in 1984. This was during the conflict between Borland and Microsoft over the "windows" name. However, both Xerox PARC and Apple were using the generic term "window" long before that time.
"But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever....In the digital world, we don't need back-ups..."
-- Jack Valenti
The original GUI was invented at Xerox PARC. When Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, he envisioned it being part of a "graphical windowed interface" and actually invented something called a "windowed GUI", mostly as a proof of concept, I think.
This URL has some interesting background. Others here will probably cite more reference material.
http://www.webmasterbase.com/article/511/45
Suffice to say, Microsoft didn't invent the idea of using the term "windows" to refer to a GUI with what we now think of as windowing effects.
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.
This article about the Glass and Panes lawsuit does not require registration.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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!
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
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.
Who are we kidding here? Even on /. when someone mentiones "Windows", in 99% of the cases, that person isn't refering to X11, but MS Windows.
Strictly speaking, this isn't entirely true. A "window" in the computer world refers to the viewable part of a computer program. The front end. Apple copyrighted the term first, when they launched their first GUI. Microsoft had to copyright their o/s as "Microsoft Windows" because of Apple's copyright.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
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
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
Wrong. Xerox's technology was licensed to many companies including, but not limited to Apple, Tektronix, and HP. The generic term "window" was in common use WRT computers screens in the early 80's, used by workstation vendors such as Masscomp, Ridge, Tektronix, Apollo, and Sun Microsystems. Besides, it means NOTHING that Xerox made no money from the technology. The only thing that matters is that the term was in common use well before Microsoft appropriated the name.
That being said, it's still possible that the judge might rule that the term was in specialized use previously and that "Windows" as a generic term only entered the consumer marketplace as a result of Microsoft's use of that name for their product and, therefore, Microsoft owns the right to use that name in the consumer OS space. I'm not sure that I, were I a judge, would want to go out that particular limb, but it does give MS an out WRT the name.
That is all.
If there is not a lot of new information then why post it. I mean blah blah.
Trademark law affords the greatest protection to words that are fanciful or arbitrary, like Apple....
I never thought of Apples as being fanciful or arbitrary...I just thought of them as a good source of ruffage.
moto411.com
...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.
If Slashdot linked to that version, maybe the NY Times IT management would wisen up to the fact that people circumvent their registration process, and disable that "backdoor".
/.ers to not have to put up with this any more, whether by providing a dedicated partners link for /. or something of that sort.
This is exactly what they have been doing. You would think that by now, they would have come up with some way for
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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.
1981 usenet thread about windows
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.
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!
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.
" ..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.
Yes, that is true. Windows has (at last count) fourteen layers you have to go through to execute one command. (This was at a Windows internals class I went to about five years ago.) Still, even in the internals class I took they separated out Windows from the hardware interface, the OS level, the X Windows interface (which is why I took the course - third party software add-ons), and the user's program.
Usually though, DOS refers to those interfaces which deal with hardware and the handling of software. Windows (or just the GUI) is simply a graphical overlay which makes it a lot easier for someone to manipulate both DOS as well as graphical items (such as scroll bars et al). Thus the term. A user's program interacts with both DOS and Windows to manipulate everything so a desired end is reached (like making your modem dial or connecting to DSL).
So you can see that Windows can act as if it were an OS but the underlying OS is still being called. If Windows were to assume the full burden of handling all hardware as well as the scheduling of the software to execute then it probably could be called an OS - but why? By keeping the OS separate you actually have a better product. Because then, once the OS is stable, you do not have to bother with it again until you find a bug. If the OS were mixed with the GUI then you wouldn't know if it was the OS or the GUI which was causing you problem. Better to keep the two separate than to mix them together and open an even larger Pandora's Box of problems.
I can see it now: "You see that one pixel in the upper right hand corner of the screen? If you click the mouse on it the entire system will crash. We don't know why - we just don't tell anyone and hope for the best."
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
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.