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."
...it is a much easier issue. If it's a non-english speaking country, there is nothing generic about the words "Windows", "Word" and so on. Lindows is pretty clearly infringing in those cases.
Choosing a name that will get you on the losing side of a trademark disupte, guaranteed, strikes me as a pretty shortsighted thing to do.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
And 'windows' was definately a generic computing term before MS took it for the name of their product.
IIRC, when MS first put out "Windows" they wanted that trademarked, but as it was judged too generic the actual name ended up being "Microsoft Windows". Or am I misremembering?
So "Lindows" is not infringing because windows is a generic word, not because it is too similar to Windows. Then, even a marketing a product with Windows in its name would be permissible. Lindows Windows?
I have yet to see anything that changes my mind on this one.
Lindows was named Lindows purely to generate sales from the popularity/notoriety of Windows. Yes, the word windows can be considered an everyday word, but why does that matter? It is obvious that the product in question chose to mimic another products name, not a popular GUI format or home decoration. If that were the case they would have named it something like Toolbar or Chimney.
If Lindows actually wins infringement lawsuits then maybe it will be time for MS to fire their lawyers. So far the only positive arguments I have seen are along the lines of:
"Well, we prefer the term coup de grace to murder, and as such we can't really be tried on murder charges"
Whee signature.
Additionally, Microsoft wants the Jury to consider present day only when the Lindows team wants pre-1985. Looks like a toughy there. Lindows -1 because they tampered with it in the present but Microsoft -1 because just because the name is synanymous with them doesn't mean they own it.
1888 Franklin St.
This case looks just like Microsoft trying to step over its competitors with a worthless excuse. I don't remember Microsoft sueing Sun for the OpenWindows desktop that comes with Solaris.
Basically, his world view seems to be that he has enough money already, and will do things that he feels are right, irrespective of the consequences. This I highly respect him for, but I don't know that I'd like to have him running a company that I had invested in.
That's not the point; of course people can read the difference between "Windows" and "Lindows".
What might not be immediately apparent is the fact that they're entirely different products, sold by entirely different companies. Is it really a far-fetched possibility that someone less computer-savvy than the average Slashdotter might mistakenly think that Lindows is a low-cost/value version of Windows, both made Microsoft?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
So what do you do with GMC?
Would a company making engines calling itself Jeneral Motors Corporation be infringing on GMC?
The phrase "general motors" existed before the company. Note the brand difference between General Motors and General Electric... These names sound so generic that it's obvious that they do not infringe on each other's brand.
This is a TOUGH case. Nobody reasonable looking at the name General Electric thinks of the car company. Yet EVERYONE reasonable looking at Lindows thinks of the similarity to the Windows brand.
This kind of issue needs to be resolved on a case by case basis. Just the fact that "windows" was a computer term before MS Windows does not mean that it now doesn't posess serious marketing power.
To give an example, there was a Windows (95) beer in Russia. Unlicensed, of course, but the word Windows gave it a serious marketing kick in a different industry! That's a powerful brand, folks. And I think Lindows should pay some damages.
Yeah, but was the complete name not "Microsoft Windows" as opposed to "X windows" or "glass windows"?
So the real issue here is how much "Microsoft Windows" looks alike "lindows"..
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
But it's used to describe a windowing product. It's kind of like Ford taking out a trademark on "Car".
As I recall, Microsoft tradermarked 'Microsoft Windows' and were explicitly told that 'Windows' would not be trademarkable. Whereas Mr. Robertson sells his product as 'LindowsOS'.
These just aren't 'identical or confusingly similar', as would be required. MS are trying to intimidate to extend their trademark.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Lindows is quite obviously an attempt to use the popularity of the "Windows" brand name to promote their operating system. There's really no other reason. XWindows is a GUI shell, not an entire OS - the idea that that's the same as Lindows doesn't fly, since Lindows is being billed as a brand-name operating system.
If this was a farce, a parody, that'd be fine. But it's also obviously not that.
The fact that Microsoft is supposedly so bad does nothing to make this more acceptable or right. It's wrong. MS already got what it deserved - give Lindows what it deserves.
A really hard rollicking.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
IANAL and this pertains to US (maybe others). No it would probably not be OK to advertise or sell a car from a company called Yolkswagen because Volkswagon is a registered trademark. You also could not sell software named Microsloth Windows because Microsoft Windows is a trademark and there would be confusion. The question is whether Microsoft can claim a trademark on the word "windows" in the context of software. I believe that Xerox called their invention that displayed a window-like object on a screen a "window" and I believe that Apple also calls their window-like object displayed on a screen a "window" -- and they both used the term "window" prior to Microsoft trademarking and selling a product named "Microsoft Windows". Trademarking the word "windows" is the same as trademarking the word "automobile". Imagine Acme Automobile (TM) suing Smith Automobile (TM) for trademark infringment over the word "automobile".
Why should LindowsOS change their name?
Pay close attention to this: they are WINNING this suit that MS initiated.
And if they prevail in the suit, then MS will lose its Windows trademark. They'll of course appeal, but how can a company that successfully claims "Internet Explorer" is a generic term when they are sued, possibly prevail when they used a term that was clearly generic when they took it?
Bottom line is that LindowsOS stands to gain alot more "free advertising" by keeping their name and pressing on with the case, especially if they can be billed as "David".
One last thing, the Judge just significantly increased the amount MS will have to offer to settle this case.
Enjoy driving around in your Yolkswagon Getta...
I'm going to relax listening new panaphonic stereo... maybe catch some TV on my new magnetbox, and perhaps even play around with my Sorny laptop for awhile...
The Simpsons was a little broad about the point of offbranding items with similar names, but it's not like it hasn't happened in other industries before. When nobody is mistaking product X for product Y, there shouldn't be a problem.
They should definitely fire their attorneys. The Lindows site has many of the filings. In one of the filings, MS made an argument that was later shot down by the judge. Lindows pointed that out. What does MS do in response? They say the same thing over again! MS is getting completely incompetent advice and should hire new counsel, at least for the appeal.