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
...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
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
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.
What about "Gates"? They could have a slogan like "Why stare through the Windows if you can walk through the Gates..."
-- Qu'est-ce que la propriété intellectuelle? It is thought control.
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.... ;)
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
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:
"Shades" We've got your Windows covered.
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
Licrosoft Windows!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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 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."