Microsoft Forces wxWindows To Rename

Peter Millerchip writes "Apparently Microsoft have forced wxWindows, the popular cross-platform C++ GUI library, to change its name to wxWidgets over the UK trademark of the seemingly generic word 'Windows.' Hot on the heels of the MikeRoweSoft.com incident, you have to wonder if their overactive legal team will be targetting double glazing manufacturers next?"

Comments

It's a better name anyway

[ObviousGuy]

Why associate with with Windows at all?

With a little more imagination I bet they could come up with an even better name than wxWidgets.

Re:It's a better name anyway

[TykeClone]

Because that's what they generate - program windows.

Re:It's a better name anyway

[10101001 10101001]

What would you expect in a portable Windowing system? The fact is, the concept of defining a 2D area defining a program's visible space as a window isn't something at all unique to MS Windows. Nor is MFC an original idea. It's just an extension of procedural into the OO world. Do you think X Window System should change its name too? Should Apple make sure all their docs do not use the word "window(s)" just in case? Should Open Office stop being made because there's MS Office?

Microsoft, probably as a result of marketing, decided to use the most colloquial name association it could fine for its products for the most part. The fact that they were a late comer to such markets only worsens their claim. If Microsoft wants to use a generic term to describe a product, they should be only able to trademark "Microsoft ". This all reminds me of an episode of Freakazoid where "Lord Bravery" tried to get a ton of people to rename their businesses because each had to chose a different name because of such widespread trademarks. "Lord Bravery" vs "Lord Bravery Bakery"...cause people are too stupid to tell one rescues people and the other makes muffins, so we should ban similar naming? Let's not even begin with the whole *Win* *Zip*. Double whammy there.

Phew, it's hot in here

[Ianoo]

I think I might have to open some wind^H^H^H^Hframed glass panes attached to hinges!

Seriously... this trademarking of generic words is just silly. Is someone going to trademark the word "The" next, so no company name can contain it?

Re:Phew, it's hot in here

[jc42]

Is someone going to trademark the word "The" next, ...

Actually, someone tried that, back in the 70's as I recall. It was the name of a new OS. The USPTO didn't accept it then. They just might today.

So why don't you give it a try? Let us know how it works out.

(There was also an attempt to register "English" as the name of a computer programming language. That wasn't accepted, either. It's worth another try, too. ;-)

Re:Phew, it's hot in here

[jc42]

BTW, if you think I was just joking, google for "the THE operating system". Right now, there are 418 hits. A few are typos, but most are about the THE OS itself.

But the attempt to register "THE" was, as I recall, reported as a bit of geek humor. Apparently the USPTO got the joke, laughed with them, and turned them down. But there's a serious question of whether their examiners would get it today.

You might also want to google for "English programming language". There are fewer hits, and most are just uses like "English programming language instruction". But a few are about the programming language, a dialect of SQL.

Re:Phew, it's hot in here

[uncoveror]

You may indeed. Check it out!

This is retarded

[fredrikj]

I can actually understand the case against Lindows to some degree, because Lindows is a name that might confuse consumers. wxWindows, however, is a tool for developers. Developers developing applications for windowing environments, people who very well know the difference between Windows(tm) and a windowing user interface. Joe Avg will never encounter the name.

I guess X is next.

Re:This is retarded

[Dr Tall]

Oh no, x is the variable I copyrighted for use in my programs. You cannot use such an infringing name in any program of yours!

Re:This is retarded

[__past__]

You remember wrong. "X Windows" is incorrect, but so is "The X Windowing System". From the X manpage:

The X consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:

• X
• X Window System
• X Version 11
• X Window System, Version 11
• X11

Re:This is retarded

[PyromanFO]

Only on Slashdot can we get 4 replies deep and still not get the joke :)

Re:This is retarded

[Craig Maloney]

Yes, but X is old enough that Microsoft might lose the trademark if they challenged it. :)

Re:This is retarded

[orthogonal]

I can actually understand the case against Lindows to some degree, because Lindows is a name that might confuse consumers. wxWindows, however, is a tool for developers.

You'd understand it better if the Slashdot headline were not misleading.

The Slashdot Headline reads (emphasis orthogonal's): "Microsoft Forces wxWindows To Rename", but the notice in the wxWidgets.org page says (emphasis orthogonal's) :

After a polite request from Microsoft, and a lot of thought on our part, we have decided to change the project's name to wxWidgets.... There will be modest financial compensation, of which the residue (after fees) will be used to fund library development and tools. Contributors can submit claims to Julian Smart to compensate for time lost because of the name change.

Now, this is not to claim that Microsoft didn't suggest they'd litigate if a voluntary change wasn't made; I'm sure that threat was at least implied, if not explicated. But the actual resolution has money going from MS-Windows to wxWidgets, not damages going from wxWindows to MS-Windows.

So if wxWidgets is willing to call it voluntary, I'm going to take wxWidgets at its word.

Prior Usage

[Ianoo]

You know, long before Microsoft ever created Windows, I remember both Macintosh and the other GUI systems being described as "WIMP", or "Windows, Icons, Mouse and Pointer" systems. Surely this use of Windows represents a clear prior usage of Microsoft's supposed trademark to describe what were very similar products? Can you still trademark terms that have been used before? IANAL, but it would seem like a pretty silly idea.

Re:Prior Usage

[mrdogi]

Slightly OT, but I have a different use for WIMP, or more precisely WiMP. It's how I shorten Windows Media Player on my desktop when I'm in MS's Windows.

Re:Prior Usage

[Mr. Piddle]

Microsoft seems to be picking their battles poorly, lately. wxWindows, Xt (X Windows Toolkit), AWT (Java Abstract Window Toolkit), Sun's OpenWindows (still around to some extent), et. al. The only reason why they would single out wxWindows is that it is an interoperability toolkit, and we know just how much Microsoft loves interoperability.

Here's an open letter to Microsoft:

Dear Microsoft,

Fuck you.

Regards,
The Free Market, Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Re:Prior Usage

[Rysc]

WIMP stands for "Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer." 'Mouse' would be redundant, given that it's the same idea as 'pointer'.

Office next?

[Vincman]

...you have to wonder if their overactive legal team will be targetting double glazing manufacturers next?
Or Office for that matter! This whole discussion makes no sense whatsoever. Windows as a word does not infringe, unless it is accompanied by the word Microsoft.
It's like McDonalds sueing every fastfood-place in the world for using the words Milkshake or Hamburger.

Re:Office next?

[Dave2 Wickham]

I'm not a trade mark lawyer, but this page seems to imply that there's no need for the word "Microsoft" to be used...

Re:Office next?

[Dark Bard]

McDonalds actually tried suing a Scotsman who had a family resturant named McDonalds. Turns out he was the head of the McDonald clan. Another case involved Dolby Studios suing Thomas Dolby for infringing trademark. Turns out he was born with the name and predated the Dolby trademark. Not much research or common sense is used in defending trademarks. Microsoft should absolutely fall under trademark but common use terms should not and there are plenty of court presedents reguarding this. Some one in the film effects industry actually got a trademark issued on the term "Waldo", as in a type of control system. The silly thing was the term was in common use since before the individual was born. He won several lawsuits reguarding the use of the term until I believe a court finally removed his trademark.

I hope they appeal..

[E_elven]

wxWidgets sound stupid, like something for VB toy projects.

Legally speaking, there should be no reason wxWindows should need to change their name, because they do not compete with 'the' Windows; indeed, wxWindows uses Windows APIs -and others as well- to create display elements called 'windows' (by which name they were known when MS was still DOS.)

Huh?

[Captain Rotundo]

What about X Windows? Thats clearly a common phrase (seeing as everyone says "X Windows" and the X people say its not "X Windows". What about the fact that wxWindows isn't even remotely a competing product with MS Windows. And the fact that people called multitasking GUIs windowing systems before microsoft came up with Windows.... I'm gonna go out on a linb and say thats why they called it Windows.

I think they are just upset they don't have a cool name like "Linux" "BSD" or "OS X" :)

You know your project is popular enough...

[ion_]

when Microsoft is going to sue you for its name.

The phrase `Windows` wasn't coined thus null

[jago25_98]

Goal: Make your product name a part of everyday language

Analogy: Vacuum cleaner; Hoover

Reaction: Legally acknowledge (or prove as hopefully it has been done) that the word is in common use and so is not used as a valid company name or product.

i.e. The word Windows means Windows like it always did. We have double the power here because the word wasn't invented

Re:The phrase `Windows` wasn't coined thus null

[TrevizeNet]

I believe a better analogy would be Escalator. I know I was in my late teens before I knew that an Escalator was at one time a trademark and not a name for a class of transportation devices.

Common Word Trade Marks

[KilobyteKnight]

Microsoft has a habit of using generic terms as names for its products then trademarking them. I believe it purposely done for anti-competitive reasons. Had they not been declared a monopoly, it probably wouldn't be a problem. However, they were... why aren't people filing complaints about them co-opting common words?

Mocrosoft's Naming System

What should we call our...
office suite: Office
the word processor in it: Word
disk operating system: DOS
windowing operatind system: Windows
flight simulator game: Flight Simulator
media player: Media Player

It makes you wonder if Bill Gates sues his neighbors for calling home their dog, "Come 'ere dog", since I'm sure that's what his dog is named.

Re:Common Word Trade Marks

[EvlG]

Except originally that software was called "Productivity software" and I don't recall a successful productivity software suite before Microsoft Office 6 back in the mid-nineties. Until then, you just had to buy all the programs separate and they didn't work alike, and they sure didn't work together.

So in that sense, calling is "office suite" is really just co-opting the brand name for the generic use, ala Kleenex. The term just didn't exist before Microsoft Office.

Re:Common Word Trade Marks

[KilobyteKnight]

So in that sense, calling is "office suite" is really just co-opting the brand name for the generic use, ala Kleenex. The term just didn't exist before Microsoft Office.

The term "office" did.

Kimberly Clark didn't decide to call one of their products "tissues", they called it "Kleenex tissues" - with "Kleenex" being the registered trademark, not "tissues". Worth noting - Kleenex isn't "tissue paper". Kleenex is Kimberly Clark's "best of" product line. Their top of the line diapers are also called Kleenex. Kleenex is also a made up word. It became well known because it is a brand name representing good products.

The word "office" has been around much longer than a microcomputer software maker named "MicroSoft". I just don't accept your line of reasoning.

"What should we call a collection of programs intended for use at the office?"

Re:Common Word Trade Marks

[spitzak]

Actually the name of the operating system was always "MSDOS". I also think the word processor was originally named "Microsoft Word", and the flight simulator "Microsoft Flight Simulator".

I agree about "Office", "Windows", even if these are not the official names Microsoft certainly is trying to get them called that.

And "Windows Media Player" (not Media Player), though somewhat in-between, is pretty bad because it covers the whole area of any program that runs on Windows and plays media.

Waste of time debating right or wrong

[presearch]

Although it may be an interesting discussion on what's fair and what's not,
it's all a moot point. If you have enough money, you can shape the legal
system in any way you see fit. This isn't insightful, or interesting, and
certainly not funny. It's just the sad truth.

Besides, anyone with enough power and money to be involved with
the decision making in Microsoft's predatory affairs almost certainly
has shares of MSFT in their portfolio.

Microsoft isn't a bunch of sharks, they are the ocean we all swim in.
Sucks, but that's how it is.

They did it for the money

[magnum3065]

Hmmm, tough choice: get into a legal battle to keep the name "wxWindows" and spend a lot of money, or change to "wxWidgets" and get "modest financial compensation" from Microsoft?

The headline is misleading.

[Talonius]

I'd like to see the correspondence with Microsoft in this case. The wxWindows, er, wxWidgets team seemed to think it was a better idea to cooperate - forcing would be to actually sue them and deliver a, what was it, 75 page explanation?

The team would've won the trademark suit IMHO, but IANAL and the SCO case should've been about finance fraud a long time ago - so take my opinion with a grain of salt. In any case as a cross platform UI toolkit the name fits better.

As it is perhaps this took place as a polite exchange. Especially considering that the wxWidgets team had to know the groundswell of support they would have if Microsoft DID force the issue. There's nothing wrong with a company asking someone to do something; there's only something wrong with that when they sue someone to force them to do something that's inane.

Flamebait Disclaimer: I use Microsoft products as much in a day as I use Linux. I use what's best for the job at the time I need it done. I'm not screaming that people are being hypocrites; I'm saying that the situation might very well be completely different than what this article seems to assume.

The only time Microsoft will truly piss me off is when they decide to go after Mono. That will have me up in arms whether it's effective or not.

Re:The headline is misleading.

[spitzak]

I understand that wxWindows did this after getting an offer of compensation from Microsoft. The question is, why did Microsoft do this in the first place? It does nothing but give them bad publicity and piss people off at them even more, for what plausable purpose?

Maybe wxWindows or even Lindows set this up as a ploy to make Microsoft look bad? But I have no idea why Microsoft is so stupid as to take the bait.

Unless a clear explanation comes up, Microsoft has lost all my sympathy in the Lindows case. Certainly Lindows is a ploy on their name and you can even make a case that it is designed to confuse consumers. But that is not true for wxWindows, so Microsoft has proven themselves to be as big of assholes as many people claim.

If anyone bothered to read the article

[zangdesign]

they did this willingly after polite discussion - no lawsuits involved. Microsoft is also going to provide them some funding for further development and to point to their domain for a year or so.

Re:If anyone bothered to read the article

[zangdesign]

If they offered money and were reasonable - I'd definitely change the name. Look, by all accounts, there was no armtwisting on the part of Microsoft and apparently, Microsoft was willing to help them out some as part of the deal.

I read that as being gracious, not brutal.

It's starting to look like a lot of the posters here are looking for reasons to blame Microsoft. While there are a lot of problems dealing with the 800 lb. gorilla, this does not appear to be one of them.

I think a lot of you have gotten carried away with your blind hatred.

I'm sorry, you're not allowed to discuss that!

[leonbrooks]

Microsoft do, after all, have this Office(tm)(sm)(R)(C) component called Word(tm)(sm)(R)(C). There is now legally no such thing as "generic Word(tm)(sm)(R)(C)s". Nor are you allowed to have an Office(tm)(sm)(R)(C) of your own, nor are your own Works(tm)(sm)(R)(C) to Excel(tm)(sm)(R)(C) in any way. And woe betide the Publisher(tm)(sm)(R)(C) who complains. Here in Australia, we can't even plug in to a Power Point(tm)(sm)(R)(C) to run our computers to email complaints; we might have to revert to Americanisms like "wall socket" in Exchange(tm)(sm)(R)(C). The Outlook(tm)(sm)(R)(C) is getting grim.

Find me a Microsoft lawyer, it's F/SWE time again! )-: