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."
Now will Wine have to change its name because of the Win part of its name?
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
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
"Lindowz" .... it IS a change!
"Windows"... why not go all the way?
"Bill Gates is a Jerk"
"Unix". No one would ever bother a company over anything to do with Linux
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The Lindows name is stupid anyway.
'Nuff said.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
What does this mean for Windex?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Lindows as a name gives the wrong impression about where linux wants to be anyway.
They should concentrate on marketing their product as a decent OS and not a cheap and inferior copy of windows.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
Such a stupid decision. Windows is a universal computing term that they adopted, I'd have more sympthy if Xerox Park sued. And there is no reasonable cause to assume that a consumer could mistake Windows for Lindows. It's a pretty clear case I'm very suprised that a judge supported this pile of steaming horse crap.
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.
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.
The many reliability and safety problems with Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer cause confusion among Ford Explorer customers who are themselves accustomed to these traits, a Ford spokesman said Friday.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
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
Sheesh.... Before you know it someone will patent point & click online shopping.... ;)
They need to focus on invalidating the trademark word "Windows" first, then Lindows wouldn't be infringing on anything. Microsoft should never have been able to trademark such a ubiquitous term.
BN
Now about the lawsuit-proof name "Darlsux" ?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This ruling is quite correct. I am no Microsoft fan but the Lindows name was clearly intended to play off the Windows name. It is my theory that Lindows purposefully chose this name to get the publicity it is getting now. Other attacks at Microsoft (such as the Lindows offer for Californian residents based on the anti-trust settlement) play into this.
The fact that Microsoft has a hard time winning this in the US may be due to the fact that in this english-speaking country, "windows" is a common word meaning "openable thing made out of glass". In Finland and Sweden, this is not the case. Maybe this explains this injunction?
blah
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
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,
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:
You don't copyright a brand name, you trademark it. And yes, Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows".
Thewe's one pwobwem howevew, and that's that "Winux" sounds wike its the opewating system that Ewmew Fudd's hackew bwothew uses.
In another court action today, the US District Court in Austin handed down an injunction against MS for using the code name longhorn, requested by the University of Texas. The school nickname is the longhorns and the schools mascot is a drugged neutered bull named Bevo, who wanders aimlessly about and craps all day.
UT Students were getting confused since both MS longhorn and Bevo's BM are both Stinking piles of crap. Further more UT football players, trained to lay down and play dead at the site of BEVO (witness the Arkansas and OU games) were now getting confused and doing the same thing in their computer lab. This has resulted in half the team being ineligilble for the Poulan-weedeater-holiday-trailmix bowl.
UT coach Mack "Roscoe P. Coltrane" brown had the following statement:
"IIII Know ol Bill Gates really did'nt mean any harm to us, but since the wind kept shifting directions the players were confused which crap there were smelling longhorn crap, Bevo crap or my crap". "I really thought we could keep them focused on thier school work, as soon as that Windows Start up screen came on, there they went, locked up, feel straight over, with that same glassy eyed look they get in the cotton bowl every year."
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Although in hate Microsoft like the rest of you, I do believe they have a point: Lindows is an obvious reference to the similar product Windows.
Take a for example a look at the products of Sanex, and the blatant clone Sanicur (same sounding name, same colour scheme).
I would guess that Sanex would be more than happy to sue the other company into oblivion, but they are apparently not able to do so.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
Lindows was also ordered to stop crashing so bloody much, as that is obviously another attempt to copy the winning Microsoft formula.
Said a Microsoft spokesman, "Stealing our good name is one thing, but stealing our functionality is clearly another. Our regular crashes are part of the "Microsoft Advantage"(TM), and our astronomically flukey market share is evidence enough that the people want lots of crashes, and we aim to deliver. We give the people what they want. If Lindows starts copying our patented "Crash-n-Burn Technology(TM)", we are liable to lose marketshare, and that is completely unacceptable and is punishable by immediate and lethal MS military action. We WILL defend ourselves against encroachments on our instability monopoly. Word. Oh, yeah, if those Apple guys are listening, I hear they had a security hole or two last week. Better watch it Steve, I don't remember you licensing insecurity from us...."
Apple quickly backed off by patching their security holes as ordered by Microsoft, in what was an obvious attempt to pacify Microsoft's legal department and rectify what Apple still claims was an "accident".
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
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
Lindows.com Chief Executive Officer Michael Robertson in a statement issued in response to the Swedish injunction, lashed out against Microsoft's legal pursuit of his company, accusing Microsoft of using lawsuits "as a battering ram to smash Linux."
Anyone who says that the name "Lindows" doesnt violate the trademark of "Windows" is a real hypocrite. If MS came out with a program called Winix, you guys would be going apeshit.
Even funnier is this Robertson idiot making this case out to be some kind of assult on Linux, rather than an attempt to get him to rename product.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Every time something bad happens tech-wise in a court in the US, this place is crazy with comment of how the US sucks, how horrid the legal system is here, how its just stupid what companies can get away with in court, now a stupid ruling is handed down in a European court and everyone is mum... no one seems upset at the legal system, in fact most people here are defending the decision as a good one, even though when MS tried this stunt in the US system they failed. So much for the Europeans living up to their liberal ideals and standing up for the little guy....
We do? I apologise unreservedly. I'll try harder.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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.
Licrosoft Windows!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Heres a name that I like.... Doors - "its easier to walk through a door than it is to jump through a window".
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 : )
I don't use "xerox" myself. I think that phase of usage has passed. Xerox isn't the main maker of copiers anymore, and copiers are ubiquitous enough we just call them "copiers".
The problem isn't that "Windows" is a generic term used to describe any graphical operating system. The problem is that "windows" is the name of the graphical thingies that comprise any graphical operating system, and has been for longer that Microsoft has been using the term to describe their own operating system which uses windows. It's more than just a generic name for something in computers, it is the name for the very thing which Windows and all other GUI OSs I'm aware of use.
Consider Kleenex -- I use "kleenex" as a generic term for "facial tissue". Now, what if instead of "Kleenex", Kimberly-Clark decided to call their product Facial Tissues(tm)? This is essentially what Microsoft did -- name the product after what it is. Which is fine, until you start telling other people they can't use that term or terms that evoke the same idea anymore.
Of course Lindows is supposed to conjure an association with Windows. It is undoubtedly meant to imply a product that is similar to Windows, which is indeed what Lindows wants to be. However it is highly unlikely that this would actually cause confusion. "What is a Fudge Cram pickup truck? Sounds a lot like 'Dodge Ram'... must be the same thing!"
Here's a somewhat related note on trademarks and common words. There was a box of some generic ginger snaps, and on the box in big letters it said "Made with Real Ginger!" With a tiny little (tm). "Real Ginger" was their trademarked name for whatever it was they put in their "ginger" snaps that was most certainly not ginger. Which is basically being able to shout blatant lies to people, as long as you say "just kidding" in a whispering voice that someone might hear. I can feel my cynicism congealing just thinking about it.
The enemies of Democracy are
... from now on, our distribution will be known as 'Windux'.
TallGreen CMS hosting
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."
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.
"Uh oh, what's that glass thing between you and the outside? A window? If there's more than one, you have windows.... Sorry M$, you picked a damn bad word to claim to trademark. Sue Mr. Webster while you're at it."
What's that fruit you're eating? Apple! What's that light coming from outside? The Sun! Who's that chick from the Matrix? The Oracle! Who's your date from last weekend? Palm!
"Derp de derp."