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."
Unix has become a generic term. Removing trademark status would benefit not only Apple, but the free Unixes, Linux and the BSDs.
Yes, in other news the FGA (Fruit Growers of America) is filing suit against Apple.
"Apple" is pretty damn generic term... get off soapbox!
Davak
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".
A/UX was Apple's first try at a Unix operating system and was based on System V Release 2.2. But that wasn't where Apple stopped. They added custom extensions from Releases 3 and 4, and the networking and filesystem were from 4.2/4.3BSD. The GUI was System 7.0.1 (for A/UX 3.0.1, the version I use) and Apple's own version of the X Window System called MacX. I would say that this is Unix.
Another example (closer to Mac OS X) is NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. This OS uses the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with major contributions from Avie Tevanian. This Kernel had no natural interface, so to stay with standards, BSD was used as an interface layer (specifically 4.3BSD was licensed to be used). For a GUI, NeXT developed their own application environment (that would one day become Cocoa) and used Adobe's Display Postscript as the display engine (which Apple would replace after Rhapsody with Quartz, which used Apple's Display PDF in place of Display Postscript). There was no version of X Windows shipped with NeXT systems, but a number of people made versions for NeXT systems (much like people are doing today for Mac OS X). I would say that this is Unix.
I, personally, have a hard time not considering anything that uses either System V or BSD to be Unix. These have been the pillars of this OS, and when not used have been the models for other operating systems. I would not consider POSIX to be a good way to judge a system as being Unix because Windows NT 4.0 was POSIX compliant and it is not Unix.
There is no god
Apple accurately uses the generic term Unix merely to identify or describe an aspect or feature of Apple's Mac OS X operating system.
what is it suppose to mean if I say I've added unix features to my operating system?
bite my glorious golden ass.
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.
Suing over the name Unix doesn't sound very "open" to me. Guess they're trying to give SCO a run for the money in the bad PR department.
SCO sues Open Group for illegal suing over the Unix trademark.
Followed by:
SCO sues Mr. Sketch for using the term 'Unix' in a public discussion forum without their prior permissions.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
If most people look on it that way, the trademark is probably generic.
Guess they're not so Open about things after all?
Where do they come up with these names?
the use of "*nix" should pretty much prove their point.
I have no idea who the "Open Group" is, but it sounds like they pretend to support GNU/Linux. Suing for things like the name "Unix" however seems to me to be very much against the ideals of GNU and the FSF. I'd keep a close eye on this organization; they sound like posers.
Now if IBM would just sue Kevin Bacon, you'd really have something there...
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Apple has countersued, asking a judge to declare that the trademark is invalid, because the term Unix has become generic.
And it has. So many companies have been marketing and otherwise throwing around the name "UNIX" for so long now -- what do you think the chances are that The Open Group formally licensed their trademark to each and every one of them?
The timing and selection of this lawsuit reeks of convenience.
The coolest voice ever.
The day just isn't the same without a UNIX related lawsuit.... lately I've been thinking the medieval witch test (the water drowning one) could easily find itself a new vocation in detecting corrupt lawyers.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
According to their web pages, NetBSD and OpenBSD are "UNIX-like operating system[s]", and FreeBSD is "derived from BSD UNIX". Since parts of OSX are from FreeBSD, I could see why they can say Unix-based.
I commend them for taking it to court instead of settling, but surely they should have known that the *BSDs started because of these same issues with the Unix owners. I wonder why they stepped into this minefield.
(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.
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...
Is not Winows a generic term, not only for panes of glass, but also generic in the computer sense as well. Lindows thinks so and has a suit against MS.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
I never liked "GNU/Linux"... it's sounds kinda hokey... but "GNU/Unix" has a nice ring to it...
:)
You get everything, Unix and Not-Unix all rolled together
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
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.
a toilet papaer brand called SCO with no trademark problems.
Actually, that's reserved for Authentic SCO Stock(TM)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Neither Linux nor the BSDs infringe upon this trademark, and of course the Open Group has made significant contributions to the Linux Standard Base (about 95% of the test-suite software, I'm told) and has been working on an Open Source Strategy with me since last year. You'll like it. It's in internal review now.
If you would like to send a message to the Open Group, I would not be a bad intermediary to use. Please write to me at bruce @ perens.com . I am on the road right now and will not be able to engage in a long debate on Slashdot, so email will be best.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I see a story at osopinion about Apple's use of the Unix trademark. This has been stewing for a while, but back then it did not look like it would come to a law suit. In fact at the end of the story there is an update that indicated that Apple was getting closer to the Open Group.
Lee Joramo
isn't that the operating system robin williams uses??
While we're at it, the courts should declare SCO a generic term for "silly lawsuit"
Jason
ProfQuotes
Since Darwin is really a BSD-offshoot, shouldn't it have the same rights?
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
I woke up this morning and ate my Unix brand cereal, talked on the Unix for a while, and then Unixed my car to work.. How can anyone say Unix is not generic!!?
Apple has a rock solid case, the Opengroup can go Unix themselves
The OpenGroup (which used to be X/Open) is a nonprofit, like the FSF, which owns the trademark and licenses it when a system has successfully passed a compatibility test. The notion is that any UNIX should be (at least approximately) compatible. I'm not at all sure if Linux could pass, since it has, eg, a rename(2) system call in place of unlink. The money that OpenGroup gets is used to continue their standards operation. See
This press release on the UNIX trademark and SCO
this one on testing and certification.
What the OpenGroup doesn't do is support open source per se -- unlike GPL'ed code, you can be OpenGroup certified and still be closed source. Bad bad OpenGroup, they're not RMS-correct.
Based on what? Are we to understand that frequent use of a trademark renders it generic? That is utterly preposterous. The Unix trademark is as zealously defended as the law requires, and beyond any reasonable doubt it is most certainly not generic. Is "Volkswagen" generic? How about "Coke" when referring to a beverage? Try it out in the marketplace and see how far you get.
Get real, folks.
The story really is poorly reported by not including this information, and the rabid /.'ers posting would do well to have done the minimal amount of research before expressing strong opinions (this is the www...)
In any case the "Unix" certification is one of those check-off items that get used in evaluations so whether or not there's any real value to it there is an effective value. "Unix", "Posix", this-book/that-book compliance; they're common evaluation criteria and having or not having them is very important.
Of course the question is has "Unix" become a generic word like "Crayon" became or is it still specific to a vendor like "Xerox" or "Kleenex". YMMV but it looks like to me T.O.G. may have a point and paying through the nose may be one of Apples costs for the best selling Unix distribution out there.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
"It's a UNIX system! I know this!!!"
Did Crichton and Spielberg pay a license for that?
find the marketing genius that came up with this.
Apple used the term in conjunction with its Mac OS X marketing
have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic
At least it seems that apple has now realized its product is generic and is using terms to describe it that way. So much for brand recognition. I find it amusing that the suit and tie crowd in advertising is getting PAID to declare their product generic.
Funny thing is, Apple is a member of the Open Group.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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.
Xerox retains its trademark for photocopiers, and defends it meticulously. You're thinking of Cellophane and Aspirin, which did lose their traademarks years ago.
sulli
RTFJ.
Well, I'm suing Apple, Open, SCO, IBM, all you lot, and cowboy neal's mama. Hell, I'm suing my mom too, she uses computers, I betcha she's up to no good.
Dear Sir/Madam
/. ÂÂ 1234(c) and 666(b), the undersigned parties, bad_fx and bad_fx, attorney(IANAL) and Slashdot reader, hereby provide notice to the you, AC, pursuant to the Slashdot no-typo Act, 58 B.S.D ÂÂ E=mc^2 et seq. , of the claim which is to be brought against you in respect of damages and injuries suffered by me as a result of the insistance of afore mentioned AC to mispell "thought."
In accordance with the notice requirements of 67
As a result of the AC's gross neglect, on 12 June 2003, while reading slashdot, I sustained substantial personal psychological injuries and mental damage, the particulars of which will be set forth in a Statement Claim.
Kindly learn to type before others are hurt.
Sincerely,
Me
Reputable software companies such as Microsoft are threatened by Unix and you know it. Linux & Unix will develop a stronger hold on the server market as some important factors come into play - admins become more educated. About uptime, about availability, about scalability & most important about LICENSING. Sure, the Unix name may be tarnished by some IP wrangling now, but in the long term, companies are willing to put up with a "mess of standards" to achieve technical superiority in the server space. Desktop markets are different because they are driven by idiot consumer trends. But we're talking about the all-important corporate/server market here folks. That's what matters and Microsoft knows it. And they're slowly being beaten back to the desktop/consumer market. And I don't know how you can honestly stand there and say XP has no baggage from the 70's without laughing when it still runs 16 bit DOS stuff. Guffaw!!
"Once a trademark is selected, it is important to use it properly. Failure to use a trademark properly can result in loss of the trademark. Ways to lose trademark rights generally fall into three categories. Abandonment occurs when one stops using the mark and has no intent to resume using it. A mark will be lost by actions or failures to take action, that cause the mark to lose its significance. Also, a mark can be lost by becoming *generic* if the public comes to think of a mark as the identity of a particular brand of a product. This is really a subset of actions or inaction causing a mark to lose its significance. For example, some people think that Kleenex brand of facial tissue, Xerox brand photocopy machines, and Band-Aid brand adhesive strips are in danger of falling into this category. "
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Nah, that's nowhere near right.
/dev, /bin, /tmp, /var, /usr
An operating system being a unix variant has nothing to do with being text-based or not, since any modern unix in the past decade or so ships with a client/server, network-transparent GUI framework (X11) - while msdos, novell netware and as400, none of which even remotely resemble unix, are all text based.
mr gates claimed some time ago that windoze nt would be a "better unix than unix" but anyone who has compared the two environments would find a marked divergence of cultures, with very little in common between the two.
windoze "nt" owes more to ideas from vms, pc-lan networking and ms-dos than anything else. (Ok, got it? let's do a single-user version of vms, give it an ms-dos prompt and pc-lan networking, slap on a pee cee gui and call it "new technology"! - folks will love it!)
No, unix is a very very different beast from ms windows, vms, as400, novell netware, and other OSes - those who know the unix nature need no explanation.
But, for the newbies, I'll take a swing at it - this is a rough idea:
1. Unix has a multiuser, client/server design
2. In the Unix process model, init is the father of all processes
3. Each process has it's own protected environment
4. New processes creation is via fork, or fork/exec
5. Each process has a process id, a parent process, and a controlling tty
6. Processes become daemons by disconnecting from their controlling tty
7. Job control via nice, signals and foreground/backgrounding facilities
8. Each user has a unique user id and belongs to one or more a groups
9. There is a unique superuser with uid 0, not subject to normal limits.
10 Filesystem characteristics - quotas, hard/soft links, directory files
11 Files - The dir links inodes to filenames, inodes contain all other info
12 Filesystem layout - "/", transparent mount points, no "drive letters".
13 Overall filesystem hierarchy -
14 Generally recognizable as either SysV or BSD
15 nfs is the native file sharing protocol, can also support ipx, pc-lan
16 Generally includes a mail delivery system, c compiler, and debug tools
17 Philosophy of many small tools from which to build big tools
18 Remote multiuser shell access via 'r' commands, telnet, secure shell
19 Remote multiuser GUI access via network transparent X protocol
Judge scratches head, "you own what?"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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.
Of course, most people who think they know what Unix is have something like "something like Linux, but obsolete" in mind. These are probably the same people that couldn't write a half-way portable shell script if their life depended on it, because they wouldn't even know where to look for the relevant standards.
Apple saying that OS X is Unix-based is, of course, fully OK, and not the thing that is debated here. Just like it is OK to say that Linux is "Unix-like". That's not the point.
And you not having a clue may not be the best argument either, by the way.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
the name become a generic phrase for ALL copiers
There are other copiers whose operation doesn't resemble that of a Xerox machine, and they've never been called "xerox". Mimeographs, for example.
What does the word 'Unix' refer to? Servers? An OS? I never heard anyone with a bit of sense refer to ALL OSes as 'Unix.'
It refers, naturally, to all Unices. A group of operating systems providing extremely similar core interfaces. This includes AT&T and Berkeley products named Unix, as well as Solaris, Irix, HPUX, AIX, Xenix, FreeBSD, Darwin (aka MacOS X), Linux, and Minix. Some of the things on that list are UNIX(tm), others (those without backing from a deep-pocketed corporation) are merely Unix (sometimes written *nix, to emphasis the lack of trademark authority).
However, it is technically (not legally) accurate to describe any of them as "Unix", for software purposes. For example, if a program is known to run on Unix, then any recent version of any of those OSs will have a similar chance to let it work (after a recompile).
On a non-Unix OS, like Microsoft(tm) Windows(r), BeOS, or MacOS 9, the odds of the program functioning without conceptual re-arrangement are drastically lower.
Now I have heard people say 'Windows' when referring to an OS.
That's a new one on me. Could you provide an example? Something like "My Mac's Windows is OSX!" prehaps?
When BSDI's BSD/386 was first released, they advertised their phone number - 800-ITS-UNIX - implying indirectly that the operating system was a UNIX derivative. Lawsuits ensued, and instead of trying to prove that UNIX was generic, BSDI just changed the phone number to settle on that count. USL defended the trademark.
That round of lawsuits, though, paved the way for freeing the BSD 4.4 Lite code base to be used by *BSD and Linux operating systems to build their products. Acknowledge the efforts of those people (BSDI and the University of California) when you run your free operating system today.
The trademark had been defended in the past, and Apple can either try to defend their use of "Unix" (like it seems they're doing) or side-step the issue (like BSDI). Sure, there's alot of pollution in the press where journalists mistake a free operating systems for a "Unix-based" operating system or use the term "unix" generically, but the current trademark owners might have a leg to stand upon when it comes to corporate advertising of a product. I can't think of any company that advertised an operating system as "Unix" and got away with it.
Frankly, the term "Unix" has as much stigma to it (expensive, incompatable, hard to administer, not Microsoft) as it does positive (stability, scalability, not Microsoft). Apple could do without using "Unix" in its advertising and continue to market the operating system on its own merits. To fight for use of the "Unix" trademark seems to me to be waste of shareholder money. Is the benefit to Apple worth the expense of fighting the lawsuit?
IANAL; YMMV; yadda yadda yadda
-ez
(*) "Unix" is a trademark of <insert company du jour>.
Some things never change. The constant bickering over names, standards, and licenses in the unix community 20 years ago was one of the things that kept unix from really taking off. While all the unix providers, licensers, and organizations were suing each other and refusing to cooperate, Linux and Windows servers just took over most of the marketplace. I was hoping all this crap was behind us, but now SCO, Novell, and the Open Group are starting it all over again. All those innept idiots that managed to screw things up so badly in the past, now want a piece of the pie. And companies will keep buying Windows Server 2003.
"Think Sued..."
This is to replace the existing 'Think Pseud'?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
On the other hand, it's not clear to me that Apple has violated the trademark. They are a little sloppy when they talk about OS X's Unix origins -- they really should make it clear that they have no license for the Unix trademark -- but it's perfectly legitimate for them to claim that OS X is derived from Unix.
Really this is about the Open Group struggling to hang onto the shreds of its dwinding relevence. Sun and HP still go through the motions of certifying their right to use the Unix trademark, but they don't make a big thing about it. And Linux continues to eat into the Unix marketplace, even though it isn't certified as compliant with any Unix specification. It probably could be, if anybody were willing to spend the money. But nobody is, and nobody cares -- which is bad for Open Group.
/me dons tinfoil beanie
The timing of this is highly suspect. Apple is less than two weeks from unveiling Mac OS X 10.3, and signs are that they'll be announcing new 64-bit Power Macs based on the 970. Couple that with the fact that Quark has finally gotten their shit together and all those designers will be able to upgrade computer and OS, the Mac platform is poised to become a juggernaut.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if some money to bankroll this lawsuit was coming, although circuitously, from our good friends at Microsoft-- scared because Longhorn is still a few horizons away and there's nothing good in the pipeline before it, and looking around desperately for something to obstruct/embarass Apple's progress.
Seriously.
Apple has sued other PC makers for too closely copying the iMac. That's their trade dress and they've every right to it.
However Apple hasn't sued any toaster manufacturers unless you're referring to some of the really bad Compaq designs that ran really hot. Nor blender makers, vacuum manufacturers, not even the George Foreman Grill folks.
Just PC and OS folks too closely infringing on the iMac's trade dress.
Go ahead, rebut me. Find a citation where Apple has sued a non-computer related company for infringing. Apple iMac-identical items aside Apple has and can lay no claim to products with swoopy translucent plastic casings in bright colors. Rowenta irons, vTech phones, PaperMate ballpoint pens, all can be as harmonious as they wish with apple's iMac and remain unharassed.
If you've got a problem with a company go ahead and express it but don't go making things up.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Slashdot needs a +1, Eloquent moderation for those posts that are, well, eloquent. You know the ones i mean.
Help me remember:
Monday is patch your windows server day
Tuesday is patch your Linux box day
Wednesday is file a Unix lawsuit day?
Your favorite
I think you missed the biggy: the concept that everything (almost) is a file, and (especially) that a file is just a sequence of bytes.
This is probably so "intuitively obvious" and widely copied that today it's about as obvious as water is to a fish, but think back to the OS's of UNIX's early days, particularly mainframe OS's that had a gazillion different file types and access methods and you had to pick the right access method to open the file with. (Kind of like DOS's binary and text files, only worse.)
Some of the other stuff you mention is also significant, but a some of it is rather "Johnny come lately" as far as most of Unix's history goes.
-- Alastair
In my mind at least, linux is unix, bsd is unix, and unix is unix. I bet it is for lots of you too. Here is why:
Say I'm facing a prompt. It could be anything:
> or
%a
or
whatever>
So what OS is is it. Let's see:
ls
Did ls work? Yes. Ah OK, unix. I know what I'm doing.
Did it not work. Sh*t. What is it. Is it Prime, VMS, AppleDos, DOS, CPM, etc etc etc.
Basically. If it has ls built in, it's unix.
For me anyway.
Apple Music, the Beatles publishing company, no longer exists.
Then who owns the master recordings?
The Beatles music rights were purchased and AFAIK are still owned by Michael Jackson.
The rights to the musical works (embodied in sheet music) or the rights to the sound recordings (embodied in phonorecords such as tapes and CDs)?
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
The Open Group has only had the say in what was called Unix for a very short time in the history of the Unix operating system.
Of course, since their inception as the Open Software Foundation. Well before they had rights to the Unix name, their desire was to have people think of Unix based on how something worked and interoperated, not on the history of the source code behind it. If it acted like Unix, it was Unix, even if it was called OSF/1.
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)
SCO has been getting up people's arses enough already.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
As a long time user of unix and it's lookalikes...
I can tell you the exactl legal meanings of Unix(tm) and whatnot, as best I understand them, and I can tell you the history of Unix, and how the different versions developed, as best I understand them... but really, when I ask if something is Unix or not, or someone says something is Unix, I don't give two shits what the Open Group says about it. For two reasons.
Firstly , because once I had to use Unixware (It was Novell Unixware at the time). If that's real unix, I'll avoid it thanks.
Secondly, it's because unix in normal use just means "something people often call unix, regardless of whether that is correct or not." I realize that definition is cyclic, but you get the idea.
It doesn't serve any practical reason to me; I don't particularly care about the Open Group.
The leading Unix-type systems out there from my perspective are, in no particular order:
Linux
FreeBSD
Solaris
And the rest, I couldn't care less. I mean, the more the merrier, but these are the only real contenders. I'm not saying the rest are dying or anything, but these are the big players that drive the Unix world.
If the trademark goes away, that doesn't change what Unix means, it just brings the trademark situation in line with reality. The unix world defines itself.
(Please no flames about the other great unix projects.. I know that there are lots who think OpenBSD is the Final Solution for firewalls (it's not, come back when it does policy routing) and lots who woudl rightly say NetBSD is responsible for the rest staying as good as they are (and they are right)
A number of posts have mentioned that Apple is certified by the Open Group. I would think that the certification is for A/UX, not OS X.
It ran a patched version of the regular (system 7) Mac OS as a normal Unix process - so all of your classic Mac applications all ran together in one process, in one memory space, much like the regular classic Mac OS. But then you could have command-line Unix processes too. There was also Mac X, a rather nice X server, so you could run Unix X11 applications on A/UX as Unix processes, and display them in Mac X, which was a Mac OS application.
I beta tested A/UX 2.0 when I was a QA engineer at Apple in 1989 and 1990. I was testing the regular version of MacTCP, but was helping out the A/UX QA people who were testing the A/UX version of MacTCP that was really a shim over Berkeley sockets.
I believe A/UX 1.0 didn't have a Mac OS GUI at all. I think you could run a native X server on it.
Interestingly, they didn't use to have an installer of any sort. The way you obtained A/UX was to purchase it preinstalled on a SCSI hard drive. At work at Apple, we would duplicate installations by using dd to copy the whole hard drive to another drive.
I never had the sense that Apple as a whole ever took A/UX very seriously. For example, I was frustrated that A/UX wasn't really that great as a Unix platform, while not considering using it to run Mac OS.
It annoyed me no end that virtual memory page 0 in the Mac OS process wasn't unmapped - you could read and write nil pointers without error. That was done so buggy Mac applications wouldn't crash, but I felt that having an unmapped page 0 was the whole point to running a protected-mode OS on the Mac, to aid software development.
I also wanted Unix command-line tools for developing Mac OS applications. I thought it very silly to use the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop to develop Mac OS software on A/UX - it was a command-line tool in a GUI environment. I wanted to use Emacs and Unix make. I asked about this at the Apple WorldWide Developer's Conference one year and they looked at me like I had nine heads.
I think the reason Apple developed A/UX at all was to satisfy government procurement requirements that required POSIX certification - that's the same reason Windows NT has a POSIX box, not because Microsoft ever expected anyone to actually use it.
My understanding is that these days a Unix certification requires a whole bunch of things that neither Mac OS X nor any Open Source clone of Unix could satisfy - for example, Motif, and not just an open source clone like Lesstif.
Finally, the I/O architecture of Mac OS X doesn't bear much resemblance to Unix. For example, while there are special files in /dev, the files are created dynamically when hardware is discovered and deleted when the hardware is unloaded. You have to discover the filenames using a procedure based on Microsoft COM, as described in Apple's document
Accessing Hardware from Applications.
That alone makes OS X source code-incompatible with many Unix programs. It's not too hard to port, but the whole point of certification is that porting should be trivial.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
UNIX means all the operating systems certified to be Unix, even in common use of the word. This includes AIX, Solaris, IRIX and HP-UX and excludes BSD, Linux, OSX, minix and Xenix.
No go about the net looking for software ports. Some are available for UNIX ports, most frequently Solaris on sparc. In many places youd see Unix parallel to Linux as a selection, and you will rarely hear a geek say hes using Unix at home, while hes using FreeBSD or Gentoo.
Apple is in the wrong and might lose the case. OSX, like BeOS has great merits and has stood under its own name well. Theres a whole community of Darwin users, feeding on the leftovers of OSX, so OS-X is a known and used term. Forcing Unix's meaning here will result in failure, regardless of what we believe Unix SHOULD mean.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Everyone here needs to take a pill and get a fucking clue. Apple and The Open Group included. I'll deal with each individually.
Slashdot Readers:
You guys are fucking unbelieveable. "Go Apple!" and all this shit. You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Learn something about what "UNIX" means, reflect upon it, then think about how destroying the Unix trademark might be a bad thing. For the unenlightened; You're only allowed to use the Unix trademark if you conform to the Unix specification. Why does this matter, and who cares? YOU care because you're posting to Slashdot only because of any number of specifications, a Unix spec probably being one of them. HTML being another. TCP/IP, C, Perl, SQL, 3-Phase Power at 110 or 220 volts, whatever. The point is that standards and specifications are the only way to provide reliable infrastructure. Let me bring it down to earth for your Slashdotted minds: You know that "United Linux" thing (or whatever the fuck they're calling it this week) where a bunch of distribution vendors are getting together to make a Linux specification? It's the same fucking thing as The Open Group! Supporting one but not the other is not only inconsistent, its hypocritical. The only way that Linux will ever be able to rival Microsoft is by providing a common specification for which to program and support. Similarly, this is one of the main reasons the Unix specification and it's accompanying trademark has been around for 20 years or so. This is why big iron almost always runs an implementation of the one true Unix specification. If Linux ever wants to move out of the closet and onto the production floor, it would be wise to follow suit.
So stop being such short-sighted pricks. Yes, trademarks and other IP are misused on a regular basis. However, that doesn't make them inherently evil.
The Open Group:
I can understand that you guys are upset that Apple has been using the word "UNIX" in it's marketing literature; because you probably feel like it diminishes your trademark. Realistically though, Apple has made a reasonable effort to say things like "Unix based..." and crap like that. You couldn't possibly have come to some sort of agreement? I mean, they're only part of the fucking group.
Apple:
I like what you're doing these days, but...
Stop being such hypocritical jackasses. You throw your IP around like Mike Tyson does women. Then when you step on someone's toes, instead of removing your foot; you press down harder so that you can knee them in the balls with your other leg. What an asinine thing to do. Don't forget that you own IP on standards and specs too. I mean shit, if you'd have started "The Firewire Group" as an off-shoot of the IEEE1394 working group, you'd probably be selling more iPods because I could use them as storage for my Sony DV Recorder. By the same token, if you ever want Rendevous to be at all useful to people in the real world, it has to be cross-platform. So either submit it to a standards body, or better yet, make "The Rendevous Group" and licence it out. Then, in 20 years you might understand The Open Group's position when someone else is selling "Rendevous Based" brain implants.
Okay, I think I'm done ranting now.
Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
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.
It doesn't even apply to computers anymore...
It can refer to diapers, tupperware, fire-extinguisher, modular book shelving, ball-point pens, towel drying rack, antifog thinner, a TV antennae, a massage tool, eyeglass products, security cameras, an auto-parts trading company, a rental van, a furniture store, a dance bar, a fabric store
or a Korean Metal company...
it's also a hair salon,
and finally, it's a product for fungal diseases of wheat and barley... "There are those who take risks, and those who take UNIX."
- passion
..otherwise they'd have seen why the term UN*X was used.
And that is what counts with shareholders. I personally do somehow think of OSX as a "Unix" even though it's not. If Apple doesn't defend themselves they open themselves to being sued by every 2-bit SCO-like company to walk past the store front.
First - The Open Group was created in order to manage Microsoft's " open systems activities"(ActiveX) .
"The Open Group, created this year to act as the holding company for The Open Software Foundation (OSF) and X/Open Company Ltd., provides a worldwide forum for collaborative development and other open systems activities.
The Active Group, to be formed under the auspices of The Open Group, will manage the evolution of ActiveX technologies. It will take advantage of The Open Group services in the areas of development, branding, testing and licensing. The Active Group also will provide a forum for discussion and input on the direction of ActiveX."
Microsoft will provide specifications, source code, reference implementations and validation tests for ActiveX technologies to The Open Group.
They claim to support "standards", but their standards are not W3C type stadards. The Open Group's standards involves "Boundaryless Information Flow":
Any full solution to the Boundaryless Information Flow problem needs to have a chain of technology components, preferably based on open standards, that: - Integrate data - Securely deliver data - Register data - Enable the flow of data - Develop systems that enable this flow of data - Manage systems that deliver this flow of data - Adhere to policies that govern the flow of data
They want to standardize open source to the point of defining process and architecture. Sounds to me like a ploy to curb/control the innovation that is charteristic of the open source community and at the same time distract attention from standards like W3C. Interopablity has nothing to do with the flow, but rather the format of data (apple).
This lawsuit and their copyright is nothing but mickey mouse BS - much like SCO. Is Microsoft be behind both? If they are not - they should be - because the likes of Unix and Apple could sink their boat pretty quickly once they slap palladium in their product.
"He's an attorney! Burn him!"
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Considering the above, Apple is clearly in the wrong. To put it another way, a street peddler who sells $25 "Rolex" watches could argue that the Rolex name has become generic, but a $25 watch is going to work like a $25 watch no matter what is written on it.
OG owns the name but not the stuff... SCO owns the stuff but not the name... Apple can't call it by its name but can use the stuff... AH! Yes! Mr. Carroll, care to comment?:
Alice could only look puzzled: she was thinking of the pudding.
`You are sad,' the Knight said in an anxious tone: `let me sing you a song to comfort you.'
`Is it very long?' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
`It's long,' said the Knight, `but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it -- either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else --'
`Or else what?' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
`Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called "Haddocks' Eyes".'
`Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested.
`No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. `That's what the name is called. The name really is "The Aged Aged Man".'
`Then I ought to have said "That's what the song is called"?' Alice corrected herself.
`No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called "Ways and Means": but that's only what it's called, you know!'
`Well, what is the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
`I was coming to that,' the Knight said. `The song really is "A-sitting On a Gate": and the tune's my own invention.'
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
if you go at http:\\www.opengroup.org on the left hand side of the page there is a little box that displays their sponsors. apple is not dipslayed as a sponsor !!! draw your own conclusions!!
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."
Apple doesn't say that OSX is UNIX. It says that it's "UNIX-based" and has a bunch of material on the Apple site that says this. The legal question, a matter of law for a court to decide, is whether that is a use of UNIX that would require the certification process. I doubt it, since every variant - Linux, et al - is marketed as a UNIX-variant. To argue that UNIX is generic is much harder - and I think a loser - because everyone knows that UNIX refers to a specific operating system of which there are variants. The classic generic cases are items like Kleenex, which was threatened by its success at becoming so well known people asked for kleenex (small k) when they were using Puff's or some other brand. Now the ads all refer to Kleenex brand tissues as protection.
Thank you all for pointing out the details of Apple's standards activities. I'm much better educated for it, without having to exact the effort to check the facts myself.(/SINCERITY)
The reason I didn't check them is because they are completely tertiary to the point. Perhaps I should have written more hypothetically, but I figured that might have been evident when I mentioned brain implants.
Do any of you have friends (insert obligatory slashdot joke here) that can only respond to one point of a multi-facted email or letter? I do, and I'm reminded of them here. For those who have trouble following, I'll condense my post into a list of points: (with bullets!)
- Standards and specifications are good.
- The Open Group should stop being IP nazis.
- Notwithstanding, Apple are hypocritical assholes for wanting to invalidate the Unix trademark and consequently the specification.
If you will, allow me to clarify a few things. Unfortunately, I didn't state explcitly that whether the standards are, free, open, closed or proprietary, I don't care. When it comes to standards I care about two things:- The quality of the spec, or the implementation of the standard.
- The documentation of said standard or spec.
I apologize to the IP bigots who had to waste their time screaming, "WHAT ABOUT OPEN STANDARDS!?!?" Your cause was never meant to be a part of this discussion. But since you brought it up, I might say a few things. As I mentioned before, IP isn't inherently evil. It just seems that way because it is often times wielded for the wrong reasons. Just as the GPL is a copyright licence, IP can often times work in your favor. The trick is to leverage it effectively and not get caught up in utopian visions of software without ownership. Please, allow me to get all Nash-like on you: What's best for both the group and the individual is what's best for both. Now some Darwinism as paraphrased from Ghost in the Shell: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. That is to say homogeneous groups or individuals are more susceptible to failure than a heterogenous group. Applied the world of IP the solution for success becomes quite clear: One must use IP to benefit not only one's self, but others to a proportionate degree. By the same token, if one behaves with only the group in mind; failure is inevitable, as the individual has not paid enough attention to it's own needs to remain viable. I await the responses of both your neighbourhood PHB and Mr. Stallman.Getting back to the point, I think I just gave a good reason why The Open Group might be best to stop hoarding their IP. ;)
As it relates to Apple, whatever they might be doing elsewhere is irrelevant. Similarly, the hypocritical bit is self-evident. What matters is that they are intent on destroying the IP of others for no one's benefit but their own. How would your life, or the life of any given slashdotter improve without a Unix trademark? It wouldn't. In fact, it might get irrevocably worse. This is perhaps the fault of The Open Group, because it seems to me that the Unix specification means very little without the Unix trademark; and vice-versa. I simply don't see the benefit of everyone and his dog being able to call their software "Unix". I do however, see a problem with the loss of the definition of exactly what is Unix and what isn't. Yes, I'm aware that they'd probably just come up with another name/trademark; But that then begs the question, "Why bother?"
Remember: umount it before you fsck it.
But "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU" is a descriptive phrase, not a former trademark. (OTOH, you could buy a box of cigars marked "Corona" and not think you're getting parts for a certain model of Toyota.) And see
Dennis Ritchies "other UNIX" page for a collection of commercial "UNIX" items that aren't operating systems (hence the use of the mark is allowable).
All Microsoft has to do is claim that their "Windows Unix" certainly has common 'nix features (hierarchical file system, multi-tasking, some degree of POSIX compliance) to beat a deceptive advertising rap. (Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)
-- Alastair