Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Unix Trademark
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."
After all, Apple has trademarks of their own, how would they like it if MS or some other company started using them without a license?
AC comments get piped to
You know I love Apple as much as the next guy in many respects, although not one of the fanatics who have fallen into the apple marketing hype or a part of the cult(As I love my windows 2000 box as well) and Linux. Well, I love computers.
Anyway, Apple is getting a little taste of it's own medicine. Didn't they sue somone over them copying, or making a similar color scheme on a pc case?
And haven't they sued before for things just a frivilous. Apple is fanatic about protecting their ip.
But maybe they are wrong here.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I thought that apple paid the Open Group to certify themselves as a Unix, around the time that OS X came out.
What am I missing here?
... because if you took this stuff any more seriously, you'd have to cry.
SCO suing IBM
Open Group suing Apple
Apple suing Open Group
It's starting to sound like a game of "Six Degrees".
Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic. Thank the great good lord someone with clout is finally going to push this position. Incidentally I've only ever seen Apple use the phrase 'Unix-based' or 'unix-like' in their advertising literature, but I haven't been exhaustive by any means. It's good to see them at least put up a good fight in the name of the greater good (i.e., stopping Unix snobs from weilding that particular sledgehammer against Linux) rather than just capitulating and signing a cheque, which they're certainly able to do.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
If most people look on it that way, the trademark is probably generic.
This is true. The underlying technology should be taken into account, rather than just the name used to describe it. Unix is a generic term now, and trying to sue people over a name that describes a large and diverse base of technology is just silly.
In fact, I don't see Open Group suing FreeBSD over *their* use of the UNIX trademark, right on their front page!
My journal has hot
It has definitely become a generic term. I'd like to see the courts support Apple so that we can all use "Unix" without fear.
e a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.
When was the last time that some company came out with Unix v9.0 or whatever?
Slipping Away...
In any case, no company is required to pay more than $110,000, said Graham Bird, vice president of marketing for The Open Group.
You know the legal battle will cost much, much more than that...but instead of doing what makes economic sense, they're doing what's right, and taking the burden off the rest of us. Because you know that if the Open Group succeeds, they're probably going to start suing red-hat and other linux distros for explaining that linux is "unix based" in their FAQ.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Unix has become a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.
I think there might be a little more to it than that. Just got done reading ESR's OSI Position on the SCO-vs-IBM suit paper, and it looks like the right to use the Unix trademark is conferred upon vendors who go through a certification process to confirm compliance to Unix standards.
So it's sort of like if somebody slaps the famous "compact disc" logo on a copy-protected disc - you're advertising conformance to a standard that you don't conform to. That's not to say that apple is necessarily out of compliance with the standard, the point is that the "Unix" trademark is the TOG's "seal of approval".
I agree with Mr. Perens. If UNIX trademark becomes generic, some Joe Blow can create any old OS and call it UNIX. How would you feel if you bought such an OS to find out that it's really based on Windows NT kernel?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
It's quite generic. With regard to your "Coke" example - it's actually "Coca-Cola" - Cola is the generic part there, and anyone can (and do) use it.
When someone says Unix to me, in my mind, I do not think "Officially Licensed Solaris UNIX", I think, "oh, what flavor?" Is it Coca-Unix, or Pepsi Unix? FreeBSD Unix, or Linux Unix*?
(Demonstrating, of course, that Coke > Pepsi)
Sort of like saying "works with Windows" or "Made for Windows" when in fact it doesn't and isn't?
I like the idea of making UNIX generic because we can now market Linux and FreeBSD as UNIX, giving it instant credibility and attraction in the market.
I dislike the idea of making UNIX generic because we can now market Windows as UNIX, giving it instant credibility and attraction in the market.
Still, I believe that Apple has a legitimate claim to the Unix name, and that, contrary to what you say, OS X probably qualifies as a UNIX; at least as much as, say, Solaris does. Furthermore, I think that the case you bring up concerning Microsoft is probably trivial. Microsoft would open itself up to lawsuits based on false advertising, or false representation of goods or services.
I think legally the "UNIX" label carries with it a set of generic expectations on behalf of the general public, and nothing more. The public would clearly feel misled if Microsoft started marketing Windows as "Unix," as you suggest -- it clearly does not meet the generally accepted definition of what a "Unix" is. Apple's OS X, on the other hand, from any reasonably technical standpoint, clearly meets that definition. This definition is left intentionally vauge by this post, as I firmly believe the defition of a "unix" is vauge indeed.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Shit, they licensed Unix way back when they made AUX! I know that Next also licensed Unix from whoever owned it at the time, so for fuck's sake, they've already got 2 Unix licenses! I have always wondered if the other Unix companies (Sun, SGI, IBM, DEC, HP, etc...) had to buy a new Unix license for each version or type of OS that they had, or did they use the same one all along? For example, when SunOS became Solaris, and there was substantial feature change (breakage) to the whole OS, did they have to run out and buy a new Unix license, or did they use the old one that they still had for SunOS?
I would think that sooner or later somebody at Apple will remember that they, too, have one and quite possibly two Unix licenses of their own, and the case'll be thrown out.
While thinking about it, I would guess that Apple wants to be to able to use freely the Unix in its marketing, yet also have the freedom to build a system that is based currently on the Unix 'approach' and then branch as they feel necessary. Having to conform to Unix certification would probably prevent the system from evolving as it needs to.
What is going to be interesting is between this and the SCO vs IBM issue, Unix may just as well be in the public domain. There is so much of the basic workings that is public knowledge and has found itself into numerous computer science text books, I wonder whether anybody can lay a claim to Unix, either as intellectual property or as a trademark.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Not that arguing, debating, or even discussing this will matter or change anything but...
I've known about UNIX for about 10 years now. I've been using it in some form for about that long. (NetBSD, Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, etc.) I know of The Open Group, I've heard/read a few mentions of them before, in relation to the UNIX trademark, but I haven't a damn clue what they do or why they own that trademark.
Do they make a version of UNIX? Shit, I don't know.
Do they market UNIX? Again, dunno. I never see any "UNIX: Brought to you by The Open Group" posters, or ads or anything of the sort. To me, they don't have any public presence.
Does this make me ignorant? Maybe. I've gotten along just fine being ignorant of this group.
What does that say about their trademark? I bet if you took a poll of the slashdot community (and since slashdot has that capability, why not?) most of them would probably not know which OS is REAL UNIX, or who The Open Group is, or what they do. Furthermore, I'd guess that most of them think about UNIX the same way I do: FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X, AIX, whatever; it's all just UNIX, they basically all do the same thing. To me that's the equivalent of everyone calling bandages Band-Aids, or tissues Kleenex, etc., etc. I am not everyone else though, so perhaps I'm wrong.
Has apple misused the UNIX trademark? Perhaps. I do recall seeing some Apple ads touting that it is UNIX based, though I do not recall any stating outright that it is indeed UNIX (R). Does this mean that Apple is misusing The Open Group's trademark? Could be. But that's now up to our legal system to decide evidently, and given the actions of our legal system over the past 3 years or so, I'd say there's probably not a great outcome to this.
Gabriel Ricard
Now I know this post will not be read by many because it's a late one in 500+ comments, and lemme preface by sayign I love Apple... but...
Why does apple license some ridiculous "technologies and patents" like 1-click shopping from Amazon and then at the same time not bother to plunk down the small amount (i'm sure it is for a company the size of apple) of change to officially get their OS UNIX certified?
I mean, it should meet the open group's standards, right? My concern is apple might not think it will meet TOG's standards and they'd rather not risk it. (eitherwise, they'd just pay for it like they did with 1-click)
Apple added to this a MacOS layer (all of the MacOS ran in a single A/UX process) - I was really impressed with the nifty job they did - if you look at the later A/UX releases when you walk up to a screen you have to look hard to figure out it's not a native MacOS box.
It only ran on 68k Macs, they let it die when they went to PPC - I still have a copy that boots, rumor is that there's an AUX DNS server still running somewhere in Europe. And of course I go to the A/UX user's group dinner at MacWorld every Jan.
A longstanding failure to vigorously ensure that those third-party products only cover licensed Unices or otherwise make clear that unlicensed products are not Unix makes the Open Group's case a tough one to win. Just like asprin, kerosene and the thermos, Unix has arguably long been a generic term for a specific class of operating systems.
To put it another way, when you hear that an OS is Unix, do you immediately think, "Ah-hah, it's passed the UNIX 93, 95, 98 or Base conformance criteria administered by the Open Group! I can now use the T_TCO_TRANSFAILPROB QoS flag without fear!"
In any case, nothing can be more ironic than the X/Open version of the famous license plate: "Live Free Or Die: UNIX. (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.)"
"Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."