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."
How about the name Winix, or the OS formally named "Lindows",
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
...that it's just Finland, the cradle of Linux, where this happened...
-- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
I'm not sure, but I think this doesn't stop Lindows from selling it in the United States. The market for Lindows is greater in the US than outside of it, so this isn't as if the sky is falling.
Right?
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
While I think it sucks, I believe the end outcome might be good. This pisses people off, so maybe one or two will try linux just in spite of MS and if they don't at least they'll hear about an alternative.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
i read an article on this earlier (dont remember if it was the one linked)
a spokesperson for Lindows says that the company was unaware of the suits filed by microsoft in Finland and Sweden. This means Lindows didnt have opportunity to defend themselves. IANAL, and certainly not one overseas, but who's job is it to inform a defendant of a lawsuit? The court? The plaintiff (MS in ths case)? or (remember this isnt the US) does MS simply have to make their argument for preliminary injunction without the judge being presented counter arguments?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
In countries with WASPish legal systems, trademark laws only tend to protect against "similar" marks if they have the potential to create confusion. In continental Europe, they tend to protect where the newer mark attempts to capitalise on the goodwill of the earlier mark, even though there may be no prospect of confusion. Different underlying philosophies, different laws, different results.
Microsoft has to go after them because if Microsoft doesn't defent it's trademarks it looses it's trademarks. Note Intel having to change from x86 to Pentium moniker to prevent all the other x86 chip makers from calling thier chips the same thing.
/. IIRC was saying how it was an open and shut case and couldn't understand how a Judge could rule against Microsoft. Lindoes sounds like Windows, they are both compeating in the same market, and could be easily confused; everything that trademarks are suppose to protect against. Now when it happens, and someone rules against Lindos, everyone crise Lindows is being oppressed.
What I find Ironic is that when MSFT first sued Lindows over using the Lindows name, the majority of
Either way, though, I think Windows' case is pretty shaky. The underlying basis for trademark law is to prevent a company from confusing consumers and taking advantage of a competitor's goodwill. Unfortunately, the courts keep expanding it to ridiculous levels so that now a trademark is protected as intellectual property, instead of just to prevent unfair competition.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Why doesn't the owner of X Windows sue Microsoft for misappropriating their name?
How can Microsoft win this case, when they don't have copyright for the everyday word "Windows" or for that matter "Word"?
From what I know was microsoft forced to change "Windows" -> "Microsoft Windows" and "Word" -> "Microsoft Word".
Lindows cloned the word "Windows" not "Microsoft Windows".
Not only is it a name, it's a generic word found in any dictionary. If they were to try using the name "L-OS/X" or "L-AIX" I could see where there would be a problem.
Trolling is a art,
You don't copyright a brand name, you trademark it. And yes, Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows".
I don't care... I won't use Lindows, nor will I recommend that anyone else use Lindows. Lindows is in bed with SCO, so therefore they can rot in hell for all I care.
MS lost their attempt to do this in the USA very badly. Indeed, the judge was even musing if they deserved trademark protection for the name "Windows" at ALL.
Lindows could file suit to attack their "Windows" trademark in the US, and offer to drop it only if MS agrees to quit these nusiance suits.
Since both are US companies, I also don't see why Lindows couldn't file an unfair competition suit against Microsoft in the US, along with claims they are violating thier anti-trust settlement.
Corporatism != Free Market
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is horse crap, the windows word is common language and thus can't be copyrighted. Lindows on the other hand is an original name and a legitimate trademark.
Some lawyer paste some trademark law in a reply please?
> So, now when copyright/trademark a name for product, you also copyright/trademark every word that 'sounds like' the name or is a 'synonym' of the name? WTF is that?
When there's the potential for confusion, such when it's an operating system with a name that's pronounced and spelled almost identically with a desktop that does its damndest to look exactly like XP all the way down to the rolling green grassy hill wallpaper, then hell yes there's a case for dilution.
You hypocrites would be jumping all over Microsoft if they came out with anything that looked like Gnome or sounded like Linux. I think Microsoft has shown remarkable restraint.
This rant brought to you by the <strong> tag.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
How about changing the name to \/\/indows?(note, that's backslash, forward slash, backslash, forward slash)
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
The CEO/Founder of lindows is worth 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 USD.
Sorry, I don't donate money to people with 10's of millions in the bank.
I noticed some striking similarities with this site when looking up some product info.
;^)
Why doesn't MicroSoft go after these guys?
http://www.microsemi.com/
Name has the same MS looking name and font...Products are in multi-colored "windows"....
Just thought it was funny.
My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
Anyone who says that the name "Lindows" doesnt violate the trademark of "Windows" is a real hypocrite.
Microsoft do not have the "Windows" trademark. It's overly generic in the computer field; when Microsoft Windows was created, the X Window System and other windowing systems were already in widespread use and the term so diluted as to be untrademarkable.
The trademark they do have is "Microsoft Windows". If Lindows were going around calling themselves "Licrosoft Lindows", then perhaps I would agree with you. They aren't doing this though. What's next - will Microsoft sue anybody referring to X Windows?
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
...is rename themselves Xindows. Then they could claim the name was derived from the X Window System.
Parent deserves to be +5 Funny, but in all seriousness, I just bought someone one of those laptops with Lindows preloaded. Just in the hour or so I spent configuring the network, changing desktop settings, etc. using their modified KDE control center, the X server must have crashed 6 times, and once, the machine locked up hard and when it came back it never made it into X at all (there turned out to be a problem with their cups startup script that only manifested after the net was configured.) It took me back to 1994 when Linux was still a toy....
I recognize the place for distributions like Lindows (enough to spend money on it and even buy a lifetime CNR subscription at choicepc.com), but Robertson and the gang have very plainly taken the "ease of use over stability" route, and it's not a joke.
"Lindow" as in "X Window"
What about Sun? What about Apple? What about Oracle?
The ability to trademark common words, under narrow conditions (e.g., you could still make a cleaning product called Windows), is pretty integral to the ability to market just about anything.
I mean, let's be honest: they named their operating system product "Lindows" to cause confusion with "Windows" (or, more specifically, to suggest "Windows crossed with Linux") -- otherwise, Lindows is a pretty stupid name.
If Microsoft made a product called Winux, the same argument would apply.
Microsoft's trademark is on the phrase "Microsoft Windows", not on the word "Windows" itself. Microsoft was specifically denied a trademark on the word "Windows" by itself because it is a generic word.
Therefore I can't see how the word "Lindows" infringes on the trademarked phrase "Microsoft Windows". By any common-sense standard, they would have to be using the phrase "Microsoft Lindows" to be infringing.
The argument here is that Microsoft created a trademark that they do not have a right to defend.
Microsoft is essentially trying to legislate in the courts here. They purposefully chose to name their products after a wide range of generic names for product types they did not invent. They did this to try to enhance the perception their product is the only one. "Word" is "The Word Processor". "Windows" is "The Window Manager". "Office" is the only Office software there is. This is totally within their rights to do something like this. However, they have no right to take what is basically meant, under any sane copyright law, to be public property-- a common, predefined word like "Windows"-- sit on it for ten years, and then come crying to the courts that they have squatters rights when someone walks on the grass.
I'll throw my support behind Microsoft on this issue when and only when the Lindows corp. changes their name to "Licrosoft". Until then, I am supporting Lindows not because I want Lindows to get to use the name, but because I want Microsoft to not be able to get away with this reverse-copyright-dilution thing they have been trying to do to the english language for years and years.
MS "getting its copyright diluted" is just the natural consequence for MS of choosing to name their product a pre-diluted, undefendable word. A similar natural consequence is that if you go look at the Mac section of CompUSA, you will see a product named "Hancom Office" in a box that looks just about identical to MSOffice's and with the word "Hancom" in just leeeetle tiny letters in the corner...
Now, of course, I don't know what finnish and swedish law are. But I don't see any good justification for them being different.
You hypocrites would be jumping all over Microsoft if they came out with anything that looked like Gnome or sounded like Linux. I think Microsoft has shown remarkable restraint.
First off, if you ask me, Gnome and KDE BOTH look too much like MSWindows already, and that's their fault, not MS's.
Second off, Linus purposefully avoided registering a trademark on "Linux" for very many years. The only reason he owns one now is.. well, read the part under the "linux trademark" header on this page.
Lastly off, "sounds like Linux" is also a totally undefendable trademark. If MS chose to release "Winux" it would be totally within their rights to do so, because "inux" has become a common name for UNIX workalikes. Since "Linux" itself was largely inspired by a competing product called "Minux", I am pretty sure any hypothetical attempt by Linus to sue a product that rhymed with Linux would be laughed out of court.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think a reason that MS is having more success in Europe is language. Consider this: You wouldn't consider trademarking "The Road." It's... the frickin' road. But then say "El Camino," and at least we Americans who are old enough immediately think of a certain miniature pickup truck.
If you're in a country where English is a second or outright foreign language, "Windows" might thus seem to be more like something you could trademark. And "Lindows" might seem to be an obvious attempt to capitalize on the name, as if another car company had released a pickup truck called "Los Caminos."
This is the real danger of this case. If Microsoft could somehow prove that they had exclusive rights to the term "Windows" as it relates to computer operating systems with graphical displays, then there would be widespread reprocussions.
The X Window System would have to become the X Window(tm)-capable System. When describing an actual window onscreen in a textbook, you would be required to state something to the effect "The computer Window(tm)". We wouldn't have Window Managers, we would have Window(tm)-like Managers.
This is a totally frivolous case, MS has already lost out on the trademark for Word and they are seeking to protected an even more generic computing term.
The problem isn't Microsoft, the problem is that if they win this case they will have precident on the Windows trademark and will then be able to chase after anyone else (commercial and otherwise) who might be using that term. I think there is enough prior here that MS doesn't have a case, but we'll see how it plays out in court.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
No, no, no. Everyone who is talking about "common words" not being valid as trademarks is misled.
Common words make excellent trademarks, as long as they are not descriptive of the product.
Scope is a common word, and it a great trademark for mouthwash. It would not be a good trademark for a telescope.
Crest is a common word, and is a great trademark for toothpaste. It would not be a good trademark for a shield.
Walk into a supermarket: hundreds and hundreds of common words for product names, all good trademarks!
So...back to your question. Apple is a great trademark for a computer company. It is a generic word that has nothing to do with computers.
Windows however, is descriptive -- the word is a generic term for a GUI view -- and hence it may not be a good trademark. That is what we're about to find out in the US. Apparently Sweden thinks otherwise.
On a side note, just as everywhere in the world there are both liberal and conservative forces in European countries. And it's not the first time that the conservative forces win (see e.g. the European version of the DMCA)
The part "broke the law" is jumping a gun a little bit. Yes, Lindows used the mark deliberately and not by accident - whether to imitate Microsoft's "Windows" or generic "windows" does not matter - they are the same word and they are generic to software. Yes the courts ruled in MS' favor in Sweden and Finland as far as preliminary injunction; but that hasn't been the case in the U.S. where courts ruled in Lindows' favor and, I believe, it's still on appeal.
Moreover, in all likelihood, Lindows probably didn't even challenge MS in all these countries that MS filed complaints and requests for preliminary injunction: Sweden, Finland, France, Netherlands, and probably more on the way. I am not international (or domestic) law expert but in many countries, if you fail to show up and actively defend yourself, there's a virtual guarantee that the plaintiff will prevail (under reasonable circumstances).
Lindows.com spokeswoman Cheryl Schwarzman said the company was unaware of the Finnish preliminary injunction or the filing of a complaint in France. Lindows did know of the Microsoft action in the Netherlands, she said.
I am guessing that's what happened.
Yes, but "Palm" is not a generic word with regard to software like "window[s]." Again, IANAL, but you can trademark generic words in certain circumstances for limited use, when the generic meaning is unrelated to those circumstances. Like "Palm" in your example, or "Apple" the computer. I'm sure if you are actually selling apples, trademarking the word "apple" will not be possible.
can lindows.com get away with lindows.org or lindows.net ?
this reminds me that whitehouse.com is pr0n site and whitehourse.gov is the US gov site.
why don't the whitehouse take all the whitehouse.* domain ?
if they can't, then i don't think it's fair to order lindows.com to drop it's name.
I am not sure about Finland and Sweden, but in the USA wouldn't the name "Lindows" be protected as a parody?
http://brandonbloom.name