Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued Over Unix Trademark

Posted by simoniker on from the god-sued-over-apple-trademark dept.

Jerrry writes "CNET News reports The Open Group is suing Apple over unlicensed use of the Unix trademark, after Apple used the term in conjunction with its Mac OS X marketing. Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic."

8 of 881 comments (clear)

  1. Go, go, Apple, go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unix has become a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.

    1. Re:Go, go, Apple, go! by Angry+Pixie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I never liked that whole GNU movement mess. I don't like movements. As a good friend of mine once said: When something becomes a movement, it creates religious fervor - and that's not very Zen. Even good movements are just antithesises to bad movements; If there were no movements at all, a person could just release his source code, call the application freeware, and go have a smoke without first saluting someone else' battleflag.

    2. Re:Go, go, Apple, go! by cait56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. None of the classic purposes of trademarks apply.

      Apple's labeling of Darwin as "Unix" is neither:

      • misleads consumers.
      • creates confusion with other products
      • impairs the ability of anyone else's product to be recognized.

      Apple's use of the term "Unix" is clearly descriptive. The Open Group is merely seeking testing fees.

      If they have a complaint that Darwin somehow deviates wildly from other "official" Unixes in a way that discourages development of Unix applications I'd love to hear it. As it stands, Darwin is the single largest reminder to developers that Linux is not Unix.

  2. Re:Apple should pay up. by naitro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isn't really the price, but rather the fact that MacOS X doesn't follow the given standards describing what framework a Unix is supposed to be based on. Take the directory tree as an example.

    Thus, even if Apple did want to buy a license, they probably couldn't.

  3. Apropos UNIX quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (http://catb.org/~esr/writings/unix-koans/unix-nat ure.html)

    Master Foo discourses on the Unix Nature

    A student said to Master Foo: âoeWe are told that the firm called SCO holds true dominion over Unix.â

    Master Foo nodded.

    The student continued, âoeYet we are also told that the firm called OpenGroup also holds true dominion over Unix.â

    Master Foo nodded.

    âoeHow can this be?â asked the student.

    Master Foo replied:

    âoeSCO indeed has dominion over the code of Unix, but the code of Unix is not Unix. OpenGroup indeed has dominion over the name of Unix, but the name of Unix is not Unix.â

    âoeWhat, then, is the Unix-nature?â asked the student.

    Master Foo replied:

    âoeNot code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet never changing.â

    âoeThe Unix-nature is simple and empty. Because it is simple and empty, it is more powerful than a typhoon.â

    âoeMoving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty, profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!.â

    Upon hearing this, the student was enlightened.

  4. UNIX: What's the first thing that comes to mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When someone asks you about "UNIX," what's the first thing that comes to mind? BSD? A Class of Operating Systems? Linux? SCO? Sun? IBM? Apple? DOS?

    I'll tell you what the answer is NOT: The OPEN GROUP. I don't even have a clue what they do. Most people have never heard of them, even most people who know what unix is.

    Also, Apple is accurately describing their OS when they say it is Unix-Based.

    The mark should be generic.

  5. Re:In other News... by TiMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FreeBSD doesn't have as much money as Apple does....

    --

  6. Unix name and Standards by Dagum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me that everyone (and I mean absolutely everyone) who has so far posted here is missing one important aspect of this licensing/evaluation issue.

    Unix is a standard. As I understand it, Linux is referred to as "*nix" because it hasn't passed the Open group's Unix standards evaluation. Just as companies are ISO-certified when they meet certain workflow, structural, managerial, and who-knows-what standards according to a very expensive evaluation, an OS will be certified as "Unix" once having been evaluated as specifically matching those standards.

    Investors and entities considering contracting a company's services will use the "ISO-whatever" certification as an indicator that that company has been evaluated to have a certain set of qualities, just as those evaluating operating systems for a project will use the "Unix" certification as an indication of the OS's having met a certain set of standards.

    Now, I'll have to leave the value and full meaning of the "Unix" standard up to someone else to define for us, but the point is that it is not the simple purchase of the right to use a trademark name.

    Starting with Windows NT, there was a "POSIX compatibility layer" in Windows, but I don't believe that Microsoft ever claimed to be offering "Unix." However, if Apple were to win this suit, it is conceivable that the precedent would be set that would allow Microsoft - and anyone else producing an operating system - to claim that their operating systems wer "Unix."

    If the term "Unix" is judged to have become as generic as "Kleenex," then there might well be a need to come up with another name, so that there can be a standard for future reference.

    Personally, I suspect that Apple is not "upholding a principle" by not paying for a name that should be available to all breeds of "*nix," but rather that they know of something or many somethings that would prevent OS X from meeting the Open Group's Unix standard.