Slashdot Mirror
Lindows Ordered To Stop Using Lindows Name
TheSpoom writes "InfoWorld reports that Lindows, a distribution of Linux and other software designed to emulate Windows, has been ordered to drop their name after Microsoft won a preliminary injunction yesterday from judges in Finland and Sweden."
Here's another article at the Reg about this, and one at Newsforge about Lindows new website, ChoicePC for taking donations to help Lindows European resellers fight this.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
I live in Sweden, and I'm not aware that Lindows is available for sale here. I don't think the general public (outside of Slashdot) knows anything about it. So if they would like to market it here, just give it a new name first. No big deal.
And seriously, I kind of agree with the judges. "Lindows" is a bit too close to "Windows". They should try to build their own name by themselves.
)9TSS
I still want to know how the word "Windows" can be trademarked. Especially when Microsoft's own CEO refers to windowing systems in a very generic way.
...that goes back even before the '60s."
Comments from Deposition of William H. Gates...
"Virtually every application has the ability to put multiple things on the screen that you'd call windowing.
"The idea of splitting a screen up so you have one thing in one place and something in another place I think has been referred to windowing, certainly in the '60s that was called windowing."
Inappropriate use of trademarks occurs when rational people might confuse the infringer's X (product, action) with something put out by the trademarkholder. In practice, this often amounts to that the infringer must be in the same or similar line of business. In practice part 2, there may be infringement even if you're in another line of business if a reasonable person could conclude that you chose that trademarked name in order to play off on existing fame/notoriety/image of the trademarkholder.
Therefore:
In other news, Ford has recently demanded that Microsoft stop using the name "Explorer", as in Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. Ford cites the 1990 introduction of the Explorer as evidence that they had the name first.
In Germany, Microsoft has allegedly licensed the Explorer trademark from a relatively unknown software company. At some time, this software company was rigorously protecting its trademark against those who offered or recommended software such as "FTP Explorer".
Talk to Capcom about this one. They had this sweet, sweet game called, "Biohazard." Unfortunately, there was a rock band by the same name in the U.S.
So, here in the U.S., it was called, "Resident Evil." History was made.
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent
Recently there was something similar in the news (I thought it was on Slashdot, but I can't find it right now).
Lindows has no presence in the Netherlands. However, there was one small PC salesman from a village in a rural area that was going to sell them.
He got an official letter from Microsoft, explaining that since Lindows had no presence and he was the only one selling, they were going to sue him over the trademark issue. The Lindows top man heard of this, and announced he would go to the Netherlands immediately to find out what was going on. The small salesman was rather overwhelmed by all the attention.
But it now seems like MS may have been doing this all over Europe, and it's gone mostly unnoticed by Lindows.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Microsoft has registered Windows as a trademark in Sweden, and there's also several registered EU trademarks for Windows: 000079681, 000327890, 001691963 (you can do a trademark search here).
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
You'll note that that press release talks about an agreement with SCO that dates back to 2001, long before the current situation with SCO and IBM and threats to Linux. Many companies had relationships wth them from that era - it doesn't at all mean they're party to the current behavior of SCO.
So if the package was called "Licrosoft Windows" or "Microshaft Windows", I think they'd have a case.
But not for "Lindows".
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
You may be right, but Lindows is using a tactic in their US court case that may work. May.
They're saying that "Windows" is a generic computing term, especially in GUIs (which it is). You are not supposed to be allowed to trademark generic terms.
If that part works, then Microsoft will lose their trademark on "Windows" by itself. They could still have thier trademark on the phrase "Microsoft Windows", but they would no longer be allowed to have the word "Windows" itself trademarked, like it is now.
They're also going after the fact that Microsoft has failed to try and protect their trademark in the past, and that the only reason they are doing so now is because the Lindows.com "LindowsOS" is a competitor. (Trademark laws state you can and will lose your trademark if it is not actively defended.)
So far, it seems US courts seem to be agreeing with Lindows.com on the issue.
The question here is about the "Scope" of a trademark, and whether "Lindows" is confusable.
Typically if a trademark is huge (like Pepsi, Nike, etc.) the scope of the mark is larger and more leeway is given to the holder of the mark.
On the other hand, there is a long established history of "sound alike" marks. The famous mid-century German camera was the "Leica". The not-so-famous japanese clone was the "Ricoh" (which with a Japanese accent was indistinguishable.)
It should also be said that "Window" is *not* a Microsoft trademark. Apple's first Macintosh OS used the term "Window" to describe an enclosed area of screen real-estate used by a specific application. This is important because a trademark should *not* be descriptive in terms of functional value.
So part of the issue here is the strength and recognizability of the "Windows" trademark (which granted is huge) versus the functional, descriptive, and commonly used term "Window".
The judge clearly gave Microsoft a wide berth in terms of ownership -- making the judgement call that "Lindows" was in fact too close to "Windows" -- which in turn raises some questions: What about AOL's "Messenger" product -- has Microsoft infringed? What about "StarOffice"? (or "OpenOffice"?). Let's not forget that "Office" is also a Microsoft trademark.
One could then argue that "Messenger" is in fact a 'descriptive, functional' term... but then again... so is "Windows".
The crux of the problem is this: In the rapid development process of software creation and technology in general, the 'descriptive/functional term' and the 'protectable tradename' are typically closely linked.
Given that one cannot trademark a term that describes 'functional value', this presents an inherent problem with software and technology trademarks, and gives an unfair advantages to the first mover, or the established market leader.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
but they already lost a civil court battle regarding that, vs the windows for dummies books...as I recall. The term windows was determined to have become to diluted and an industry standard term. M$ Windows of course is still theirs but as far as I know it is a dead horse in the US.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?