Slashdot Mirror
A Setback For Microsoft In Lindows Trademark Case
One Louder writes "Lindows.com is claiming victory in an important ruling in the Microsoft case - the judge ruled that the jury must only consider the genericness of the term 'windows' prior to the introduction of Microsoft's products, and that a term that is generic cannot be made ungeneric. Of course, in Microsoft's home turf, the story has a different spin. In other countries, they're telling judges that Lindows.com is an imminent threat requiring immediate injunctions, while in the United States, they're dragging the case out, perhaps for years, by appealing issues in a trial that hasn't even happened."
...while in the United States, they're dragging the case out, perhaps for years, by appealing issues in a trial that hasn't even happened
/. "editors" put a negative spin on everything Microsoft does? If Red Hat were in a law suit to defend their most valuable brand name, would you expect them to lie down and play dead or fight it? Of course Microsoft (or any other company) is going to fight something like this. Given that the directors have a legal obligation to provide shareholder value, it could be argued it would be illegal for them not to put up a good fight!
Why must the
Read reviews of shopping cart software
'Windows' could be a trademark... 'windows' cannot!!
Michael Robertson is delighted to get his product's name splashed across newspapers.
Regardless of the merits of the case, even if the guy loses, he probably wins.
in English speaking countries MS has not got a chance in hell to win this one.
Window is a generic term in IT industry before they even came with the idea to embrace and extend it from Apple and Xerox.
In non English speaking countries is a different matter, since the generic term for a window in an IT context(ventana in Spanish for example) is clearly different from the name of the product.
So to enforce the trademark elsewhere but the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Singapore, etc sounds like a hollow victory.
MS: just suck it up and get on with it!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That depends. What do they call windows (i.e. the actual boxes with titlebars) in other countries? Do they translate the word "window" into their own language, or simply use the English word?
Sure it can. Apple, Gateway, Dell, etc...
Not _necessarily_, the term "X windows" has been around for a while, Xerox engineers have probably been calling that GUI element a window, not to mention Apple. Since technical terms are often not translated it still remains a generic term.
It's bit like trying to trademark the word "Petrol" for a combustion engine based car. It's simple a common word when used in certain context.
If that's the instructions given to the jury, then they can't possibly find for Microsoft.
The term "windows" - ignoring the obvious hole-in-a-wall - has been used since the WIMP interface (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) was developed at Xerox PARC in the 70s (commercially available in 1981). Later developments of that interface - the Apple Lisa in January 1983, Project Athena (which generated the first versons of X) was set up in May 1983, and based X upon the preexisting W window system, plus others - were around before Microsoft Windows was.
Microsoft Windows 1.0 was announced in November 1983, and released in 1985. At a rough count I reckon that there were at least 3 or 4 prior windowing systems using the phrase "windows" generically prior to that - and specifically using it in the same sense as Microsoft use it, not in any of the other ways that the term "windows" can be used generically.
Moral of the story; when naming products, make words up... you listening, Firefox?
Of course, in Microsoft's home turf, the story has a different spin.
Let me see if I understand this. You're comparing an article in the Seattle PI with a Lindows press release and you claim the PI is the biased one? I don't think you understand the purpose of a press release. Of the 3 elements here, you (submitter), PI article, Lindows press release, 2 of them appear biased. 1 of them is not the PI article.
Well, they're both operating systems that will usually sit side by side on a shelf. If I created a soda and called it Moca-Mola and had it next to Coca-Cola on the shelves, I would expect flocks of lawyers to come after me. And Lindows can't possibly claim they didn't name their product to rhyme with Windows accidentally.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
I think you're confused about how trademark infringement works. A trademark is infringed if and only if it can be shown that the name would cause a consumer to confuse the two products. Just having a name that's reminiscent of the name of another company's product isn't automatically an infringement. (That's why if there's a car called a Mercury, and I want to call my software suite Mercury, I can do so: there's no risk that someone will mistakenly believe that my software suite is a product of the car company.) There is no way someone would confuse "Lindows" for "Microsoft Windows."
Common sense says that the underlying problem is that a trademark on "Windows" should never have been awarded to Microsoft in the first place. Lots of stupidity can be traced back to that decision.
It's not like the term "Windows" didn't have a generic use prior to it being turned into a trademark, nor can anyone sensibly claim that Microsoft was the first to use "windows" as a description for a way of displaying multiple applications on a computer screen simultaneously. Xerox PARC was using the term, and had a demonstrable windowing system, several years prior to MS first applying for the trademark.
As an aside, it's always struck me as strange that MS successfully patented "Windows", but no-one patented "mouse".
A sensible legal system would throw out the original "Windows" trademark as being invalid.
Much as I hate to admit it, maybe MS have a point. Think about why Lindows chose the name they did? Why pick a name that is very close to "Windows"? Why not pick a name which associated Lindows with Linux or UNIX etc, which their OS is technically much closer to.
The answer is that they were purposely avoiding those terms because they scare computer users. They picked the name Lindows because they new that users would associate it with Windows. So the user sees three boxes on ths shelf. Windows, Lindows, and Redhat. To the user, Redhat is scary and unfamiliar, they've probably never heard of it, or if they have, it's been in association with other scary unfamiliar things like Linux and UNIX. Windows is what they know, it's familiar and safe. Lindows, on the other hand, may not be familiar to them, but they might think they can safely assume that "Lindows" must be much closer to Windows than "Linux" is.
So clearly, Lindows are attempting to market their product by creating an association with another strong brand. "By Lindows because it's like Windows" is the unsaid message.
Users won't be confused between Lindows and Windows, but they will be confused into thinking Lindows is like Windows.
IANAL, so I don't know if that's actually illegal, but to me, it seems rather dishonest - as their product isn't in any way associated with Windows. And it was clearly intentional. They presumably would never have called their OS "Lindows" if it wasn't the case that Windows has a near monopoly on the desktop.
Of course, I still hope that Microsoft lose. They are by far the greater evil.
You're confusing "generic" with "descriptive." Generic terms make great trademarks (Scope, Crest, Tide, etc.). The problem is trademarks that are generic and descriptive of the product or service.
"Office" is certainly descriptive, and thus, you might notice that Microsoft is not wasting it's time going after "StarOffice" or "OpenOffice." The same is true for SQL Server.
"Word" is iffy, and a legal challenge would be interesting -- in many ways it is similar to "Windows."
The other product names you listed (Excel, Access, etc.) are good trademarks. You will never see a "Oracle Access" email program.