Slashdot Mirror


Lindows Changes Name to 'Linspire'

Robert Nicholson writes "As previously covered, Lindows has decided to change its name thanks to Microsoft legal threats. Well it has just announced the new name - Linspire - clever, huh? There's a site at Linspire.com. The full story and the history behind it all are covered on Techworld."

288 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Little guys can't fight a giant... by mindless4210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That left the way open for Microsoft to chase the company all over the world's courts and effectively knock it out of business with huge legal costs.

    This sheds some light on the real reason that they changed their name. I doubt there's a single company that could handle being dragged through the world's courts by Microsoft, let alone a small one like them.

    This led to the daft situation where Lindows renamed itself Lin---s, complete with new website. Microsoft, unbowed, then incredibly claimed that Lin---s was its trademark as well.

    This one just makes me say wow... Microsoft actually thingks they can claim the rights to "Lin---s"? Talk about power hungry.

    Also, if they have changed their name and everything, then why does www.linspire.com have "LindowsOS" plastered all over the place? I guess it will take them a while to implement the actual name change.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
    1. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Almond+Tree · · Score: 3, Funny

      I get it. It's like perspire ... only with Linux, right?

      --

      bau bau chicka chicka mau mau

    2. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Microsoft actually thingks they can claim the rights to "Lin---s"? Talk about power hungry."

      Well, they probably don't think they can claim the rights to it so much as they think their lawyers can beat up Lindows' lawyers. And Lindows seems to agree. Yay capitalism, where even the law is privatized.

    3. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the name "Lin---s" was kind of obviously flipping off Microsoft, especially since they had a poorly-drawn hangman on the website for it with every letter crossed out except "D", "O" and "W". I mean, come on. Michael Robertson is good at criticizing Microsoft and pissing in their Cheerios, but he's not good at coming up with with clever names, I guess (I'm not going to go for the obvious parallel). I think he just should have taken absurdity to its ultimate edge and called the damn thing Linfox.

      I was one of the people who said that you couldn't possibly come up with a more asinine name than "Lindows". Here we all are, eating our words. ;)

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    4. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > I doubt there's a single company that could handle being dragged through the world's courts by Microsoft,

      It was a PR Stunt from the very beginning. If they were really scared of MS' Legal Dept, they would have never picked "Lindows" in the beginning.

      And since they made the slashdot frontpage again, their plan is working great.

    5. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by somethinghollow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think Microsoft's reasoning was "---" stood for "dow", which was still, somehow, theirs.

      I guess in that case, bleeping out cusswords or saying f--k is the same as just saying / writing them. The FCC should take note of the case to further censor the public.

      As far as Lindows Inc., they apparently are going to keep the company name. With M$'s reasoning, I'm surprised they aren't trying to convince people that Lindows really means Microsoft and they should change their name to nothing, since all names really mean Microsoft. I'm getting images of that scene in Being John Malkovich...

    6. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by rfrenzob · · Score: 5, Funny

      >This led to the daft situation where Lindows renamed itself Lin---s, complete with new website. Microsoft, unbowed, then incredibly claimed that Lin---s was its trademark as well.

      >This one just makes me say wow... Microsoft actually thingks they can claim the rights to "Lin---s"? Talk about power hungry.

      The name still infringes on Microsofts rights. Notice that there are common characters in the names:

      wINdowS
      lINSpIre

      I suspect this conflict will lead to product confusion and continued loss of sales by Microsoft until this evil Linspire changes its name to resolve the conflict.

    7. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Otter · · Score: 3, Funny
      I mean, come on. Michael Robertson is good at criticizing Microsoft and pissing in their Cheerios, but he's not good at coming up with with clever names...

      Well, he's good at getting his competitors' legal departments to give him free publicity, but less good at turning that free publicity into an ongoing business. He'll be selling Hoca-Cola or Burger Monarch by next year.

    8. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by stubear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're forgetting that on the world stage Lindows was infringing upon the Widos trademark. In the initial suits filed, none of the countries had the word "Windows" in their language so it was a competely unique trademark. This was really brilliant lawering really because even though Lindows had a chance to keep using the name here, they would fracture the brand and Michael Robertson is in this to form a company around Linux right? I'm guessing Robertson had a little help from his board figuring this one out because I think he still wants to fight this fight that he knows he's eventually going to lose.

    9. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      It's not all that bad for Lindows..... For a long time people will continue to refer to their product as Lindows and they've gotten a lot of press!

    10. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by tepples · · Score: 1

      He'll be selling Hoca-Cola

      I wonder: Would Coca-Cola Co. be able to stop a competitor from selling Crack-a-Cola brand soft drinks whose cans do not carry Spencerian script?

    11. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by boudie · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure they were linspired by the linvoices from their legal department.

    12. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So who wants "clever" names for products? The plethora of "clever" naming in the computer world is nothing but a source of confusion for the actual users. Give users names like "Adobe photoshop" and they'll be much happier than "Adobe super-fire bird".

      This lesson needs to be taken to heart, keep the clever code names internal, use sensible naming for actual products.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    13. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      If you can tell the difference between Lindows and Windows which all but an illiterate simp could do then it's not in the least bit deceptive. It was a play on words no less and no more.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    14. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      You can only say Lindows is "deliberately deceptive" if you believe Microsoft owns the rights to the word "windows" -- which, IMNSGDHO, they don't. I should be able to market a GUI OS called "_indows", where "_" is any letter including "w", if I damn well please, as long as I don't call it "Microsoft Windows". That an army of lawyers and a handful of judges have decided otherwise has nothing to do with sound legal reasoning, and everything to do with endemic technical ignorance in the legal system.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Back to this old pissing contest again, eh?

      Joe Sixpack goes to Wal-mart to buy an OS upgrade for his computer. He sees "Windows" for $300, and next to it is "Lindows" for (say) $50.

      Now Joe Sixpack isn't a stupid man, but he's not familiar with the various OSes available to him. Joe assumes that "Lindows" must just be a lower-cost version of "Windows" (because he simply doesn't have the knowledge to make the right distinction) and is essentially tricked into buying "Lindows" when what he needs is "Windows".

      It's easy to dismiss less experienced computer users as "stupid" or "illiterate", but that just tells me you're not willing to confront/admit the real, valid issue at hand here.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    16. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by goldspider · · Score: 1
      It's not as simple as just the similarity between the words "Lindows" and "Windows". We're talking about 2 competing products, designed to meet the same customer need, boasting many of the same features. We're also talking about one product with high brand recognition, vs. another simply trying to profit off of the other's brand recognition.

      Nevermind whether or not Microsoft owns the rights to the word "windows". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Lindows was trying to profit off of the popular Windows name. If you don't see that, you are only fooling yourself.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    17. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by cnkeller · · Score: 1
      I doubt there's a single company that could handle being dragged through the world's courts by Microsoft, let alone a small one like them.

      Ahem....Eolas?

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    18. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by dedalus2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Joe Sixpack uses the os that comes with his PC.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    19. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by KlomDark · · Score: 2, Funny

      Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich, Malkovich Malkovich; Malkovich Microsoft, Microsoft Microsoft MicrosoftMicrosoft...

    20. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Joe Sixpack goes to Best Buy to buy a hardware upgrade for his computer. He is looking for a PC, but sees a G5 tower, that has a similar rectangular shape, keyboard and a mouse, is somewhat more expensive but looks way cooler. He assumes that "Mac" is just a more premium version of "PC" (which is essentially correct) and is essentially tricked into buying "Mac" when what he needs is a "PC".

      It's easy to protect monopolies by making sure their customers are not even tempted to look at other products that are simular, and named/shaped to empasize that. It's way harder to offer an explanation on the store shelf or offer refund to a small number of customers who buy a wrong product.

    21. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Uh, unchecked capitalism? A naturally occuring free market doesn't exist.

    22. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder, is --- Chemical still in busines?

      --
      I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
    23. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by goldspider · · Score: 1
      Why people would be less inclined to look at an OS called "Linspire" than one called "Lindows"? I think you know the answer to that one. The problem with strawman arguments like yours is that they don't tend to hold together very well.

      And while you're at it, do explain to me how ordering Lindows to change their name to something less similar to Microsoft's OS prevent people from taking an interest in competing products.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    24. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by oberondarksoul · · Score: 1

      I guess it will take them a while to implement the actual name change.

      Indeed it will, as said on their website (or more specifically, here:

      Thereafter, you'll see a "morphing" to Linspire on our web site and throughout our product line over the next several weeks.

      --
      And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
    25. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Hold on wasn't Lindows winning the case in America, it seemed to be loosing it in scandanavian socialist countries if I remember correctly.

    26. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I think Microsoft's reasoning was "---" stood for "dow", which was still, somehow, theirs... I guess in that case, bleeping out cusswords or saying f--k is the same as just saying / writing them. "

      You hit the nail on the head, except it works against the point you were aiming for. Seeing as how Lindows was already established as "Lindows" and the damage was already done (in the legal sense), then --- change really isn't doing anything to alleviate the problem, now is it?

      To put it in simpler terms: They probably could have gotten away with Lin---s if they hadn't already gotten into a legal battle over the name "Lindows".

      It's fun to bash Microsoft over this matter, afterall it is the 'cool' thing to do here at Slashdot, but the reality is that the CEO of Lindows has intentionally and maliciously made trouble for Microsoft. If the companies' roles in this matter were reversed, the general judgement about who's really guilty wouldn't suddenly change. Microsoft would still be the bad guy.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    27. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by ratamacue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Government defines the rules. The rules are unjust and hence exploitable. Government has laid the framework which allows big corporations to crush the little guy.

      "Unchecked capitalism" (I think you mean unfair business practices?) is an unwanted side effect, not the cause of the problem. The root of the problem is government.

    28. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      ...everything to do with endemic technical ignorance in the legal system.

      I would say it has to do with endemic English ignorance in the (other country's) legal system. In the US and other primarily English speaking countries Windows is a generic term, but that is not the case in countries with different languages is it? Lindows won the case in the US.

    29. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Ahem....Eolas?

      What are you trying to say? Microsoft's lawyers demolished Eolas. Patents hardly ever get overturned (no matter how stupid they are), but Microsoft did it.

      (Winning the lawsuit was possibly a tactical error by Microsoft. It might've been better for them to buy Eolas's patent for $5 billion, and then use it to cripple all non-InternetExplorer web browsers for 1-3 years)

    30. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Well, the name "Lin---s" was kind of obviously flipping off Microsoft...

      (repeat)
      How 'bout "Butt-head software vender"?
      (/repeat)

      --
      What?
    31. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by fcolari · · Score: 1

      Yup, www.---.com. Also the --- Jones Industrial is still around. Also Malcom Mc--wel is alive.

      --
      "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
    32. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      So what. When did pissing off your competitors become illegal. More to the point what does this have to with MS claiming lin__s is somehow confusing with windows?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    33. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Joe Sixpack uses the os that comes with his PC.

      Right. And Lindows came with PCs. (Their biggest target market was cheap $250 machines in places like Walmart, not people skilled enough to reinstall an OS). The "Lindows" name was an attempt to attract him as he was choosing the PC.

      So Joe's in the shop looking at 3 computers on the table: "Ok, this one is Windows, I've heard of that. And this is Lindows, that sounds familiar. But WTF is Apple Osex? And Susie- that must be a new game console or something"

    34. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's fun to bash Microsoft over this matter, afterall it is the 'cool' thing to do here at Slashdot, but the reality is that the CEO of Lindows has intentionally and maliciously made trouble for Microsoft."

      What? You can't possibly be serious. What kind of trouble did linodws cause MS? Please list how MS was ACTUALLY harmed by the lindows name. Did their profits go down? Did they lose customers? Did they get calls from customers who were confused?

      BTW: Maybe it's fun to bash ms here but defending poor helpless corporations like MS seems to get the mod points.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    35. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      If he'll go into a store and see a "Bolex" and think it's a Rolex...sorry, he is stupid.

      Wrong. That's not the issue. A marketer can illegally trade on another brand and generate consumer confusion even if the buyers are never fooled.

      If a man offers to sell a shopper a Bolex or a Lindows, she thinks "Aha! A cheap knockoff of Rolex or Windows! I'm cheap, and probably don't need the quality of the real thing anyhow, so I'll buy it"

      Whereas if someone advertises a Siegler or a Linspire, the shopper probably won't even guess that they are products in the same category as Rolex/Windows.

    36. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Please list how MS was ACTUALLY harmed by the lindows name. Did their profits go down? Did they lose customers? Did they get calls from customers who were confused?"

      I guess you missed the part where I said "in a legal sense". Seeing as how Microsoft caught them before they had a chance to do any damage, I can't really answer that question for you.

      "BTW: Maybe it's fun to bash ms here but defending poor helpless corporations like MS seems to get the mod points."

      Not sure I understand what that statement actually meant. I don't think I was modded up for defending Microsoft, but rather for pointing out how stupidly Lindows went about this.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    37. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      "Corporation" = "Evil Capitalism," and you can't tell a Slashbot otherwise.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    38. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by einnor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Give users names like "Adobe photoshop" and they'll be much happier than "Adobe super-fire bird".

      But "Adobe" itself is a "clever" name. Who would've thought that a company could be very successful when their name means "mud brick". It should really be called "Mud Brick Photshop" (or, taking your example, "Mud Brick Super-Fire Bird").

      --
      Acronyms Obfuscate
    39. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      Ok is Joe going to not buy the $250 machine running that same OS with a different name. No he's not called Joe (doesn't really care) Sixpack for nothing. The fact is Microsoft's battle against Lindows has les to do with it's name than it does with it's inroads into the OEM market.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    40. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by goatan · · Score: 1

      This one just makes me say wow... Microsoft actually thingks they can claim the rights to "Lin---s"? Talk about power hungry. If i was Lin-u-s i would be worried.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    41. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      For a long time people will continue to refer to their product as Lindows and they've gotten a lot of press!

      Yeah, at this point, I'm starting to wonder if their plan is just to change their name every week until it stops getting them a front page slashdot article every time.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    42. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by rjelks · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate to play devil's advocate here...and "devil's advocate" is extra appropriate in this case. :) From what I've read about trademark disputes, it seems like Microsoft's hand was a little forced. If a company fails to protect its trademark, it sets a precedence that makes it harder and harder to protect in it the future. It's hard to guess the mindset in the company, but protecting the trademark from future conflicts doesn't have to be due to heavy-handed mindsets.

    43. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by westlake · · Score: 1
      And since they made the slashdot frontpage again, their plan is working great.

      The front page of Slashdot is irrelevant to Lindows/Lindash.
      What matters is whether it makes the headlines in FOX News, USA Today, the London tabloids, etc.

      The more interesting question is, what happens to Lindows and Linux when Richardson tires of the game?

      This is the Linux distribution most tied to the enthusiasms and sense of mischief of a single individual and one of the few that exists solely to entice ordinary users away from Windows. That is a volatile combination and one that could poison popular perceptions of Linux if it implodes.

    44. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      How could you forget "Admiral Crunch" and "Archduke Chocula"? ;]

    45. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Arker · · Score: 1

      Heh, if the law was privitised this sort of thing would go away. Think about it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    46. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 2

      I'd say Lin--s sounds A LOT like Linus rather than ANYTHING having to do with Microsoft. I think Torvalds should take a stand and give Bill Gates a proverbial bitch slap.

      I'm sure Mike Rowe is sitting in his computer chair and home reading this and thinking "Hm. Damn. Been there done that." Heh.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    47. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Go to a pharmacy and explain why "Long Drugs" brand mouth wash comes in the same shape bottle, has the same color and shows a similar label as Listerin. Obviously making a product similar (but still easily distinguishable) is a valid way to suggest to customers you might use it as a replacement for another, more famous, product in every other area. Why should software monopolies get a special treatment?

    48. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by daveashcroft · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have to say...my preferred choice of new name was "porthole" ....damn microsoft and their nonsense.

    49. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by huchida · · Score: 2

      Marcomedia's done pretty well with artsy names... "Flash", "Fireworks" don't really tell you much. And when I hear "Dreamweaver", I don't think of weaving my HTML dreams into a website... I think of a ceesy 70's ballad.

    50. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by carou · · Score: 1

      I guess in that case, bleeping out cusswords or saying f--k is the same as just saying / writing them.

      In that case, you'll be hearing from the legal team of French Connection U.K. as they've trademarked the letters f, c, u and k.

      In every permutation.

    51. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I'd say Lin--s sounds A LOT like Linus rather than ANYTHING having to do with Microsoft."

      That might be true of Lindows wasn't already taken to court over the trademark dispute.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    52. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by williamhooper · · Score: 1

      Hasn't Mozilla already patented that for their Phoenix, er, Firebird, er, Firefox browser?

    53. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "I guess you missed the part where I said "in a legal sense".

      Again show me how. A judge has to decide whether

      1) Windows is a legitemate trademark (questionable).
      2) That a reasonable person would confuse lindows with windows. This one is a high hurdle as lindows does not come in a box, does not have the same user interface, does not have the same logo, and does not run the same programs.

      "Seeing as how Microsoft caught them before they had a chance to do any damage, I can't really answer that question for you."

      They did no such thing. They went sue happy in europe while the slow and ponderous US legal system was crawling along. That case has not been settled yet.

      "I don't think I was modded up for defending Microsoft, but rather for pointing out how stupidly Lindows went about this."

      You were modded up because you defended MS. It's very common on slashdot for the MS trolls to mod each other up. Lindows did nothing stupid. They chose a name combining linux and windows. The term windows has been used in software circles for decades now and is commonly refered to when talking about GUIs. Xwindows, wxwindows, ywindows etc.

      MS got all uppidy and started suing them all over the world because they have the money and they knew lindows did not. It's the great tragedy of our time. The rich sue everybody else into oblivion.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    54. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "1) Windows is a legitemate trademark (questionable)."

      It already is a legitimate trademark if they earned themselves the little (R) next to their name. That (R) is not something you get just by saying you have it. You have to go through a lengthy application process to get it. When you haven't earned it yet, they use TM instead. If Lindows wanted to fight that trademark, they should have taken MS to court before choosing that name. "Uh well despite them having that (R), we thought it was invalid so we took it anyway full well knowing they were going to drag us to court over it!"

      "2) That a reasonable person would confuse lindows with windows."

      That has been debated ad-nauseum here. The rules are simple. The name is too similar, the functions of the product are too similar. This is not a high hurdle, it's well established law with many precedents behind it.

      "They did no such thing. They went sue happy in europe while the slow and ponderous US legal system was crawling along. That case has not been settled yet."

      So they did catch Lindows before any damage was done, but they didn't? Eh? Guess I don't understand what you meant by that. They *have* to be aggressive with trademarks. Everybody does. That's one of the reasons so many less than life-or-death court cases clog up America's court system. If you don't defend your trademark, you risk losing it.

      "You were modded up because you defended MS. It's very common on slashdot for the MS trolls to mod each other up."

      Sorry, I don't think that's true in this case.

      "Lindows did nothing stupid. They chose a name combining linux and windows."

      Wrong. They picked that name on purpose. They wouldn't need a whole hell of a lot of common sense to realize they were going to draw Microsoft's fire. Given the CEO's other MS taunts (like putting up a $250,000 reward to hack the XBOX), well frankly that doesn't help their case.

      "MS got all uppidy and started suing them all over the world because they have the money and they knew lindows did not."

      Lindows ran up to Microsoft and said "Sue me!!!"

      "It's the great tragedy of our time."

      It's a tragedy that Lindows is even in business.

      "The rich sue everybody else into oblivion."

      In a general sense, I do agree with this particular statement. Megacorps in general do have too much legal power just by money alone. Though I don't think Microsoft is guilty of being abusive in this particular case, I do happily concede they have done it before.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    55. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "It already is a legitimate trademark if they earned themselves the little (R) next to their name."

      A judge can throw that little R out. It's happened before and it will probably happen again. The judge in this case has already indicated that he thinks the trademark may be invalid.

      "That has been debated ad-nauseum here. The rules are simple."

      No the rules are not simple. Maybe in your head the rules are simple but in the law rules are very complicated. The test is whether a reasonable person would confuse the two. I don't think any judge would decide that a reasonble person would confuse lindows and windows let alone lindows.com and windows.com.

      "So they did catch Lindows before any damage was done, "

      First of all no damage was done and no damage would have occured. Secondly MS sued because they got sue happy. The justice system in the US is too slow so while they were waiting for the US judge they started suing in europe too.

      The real damage will be done if the judge throws out the trademark, which as I said he has indicated he might. I suspect MS will settle this for big money rather then risk that.

      "Wrong. They picked that name on purpose."

      Of course they did. Nobody is claiming otherwise. It's a perfectly normal name for a linux distribution.

      "They wouldn't need a whole hell of a lot of common sense to realize they were going to draw Microsoft's fire."

      Microsoft sues a lot of people. They are a sue happy organization. They sue 16 year olds for gods sake. Everybody at one time or another will draw fire from MS. They are extremely agressive.

      "Given the CEO's other MS taunts (like putting up a $250,000 reward to hack the XBOX), well frankly that doesn't help their case."

      Not only is this completely inadmissible it's also totally irrelevent. Maybe MS sued out of some spite or hatred for one person (I can certainly believe it) but they can't introduce that in court.

      "Lindows ran up to Microsoft and said "Sue me!!!""

      They did no such thing.

      "It's a tragedy that Lindows is even in business."

      Why? Just because you hate them? Just because MS hates them? Because they sell linux? Why?

      "Megacorps in general do have too much legal power just by money alone. Though I don't think Microsoft is guilty of being abusive in this particular case, I do happily concede they have done it before."

      MS is a sleazy, unethical, evil corporation. They will do anything at anytime to destroy people and companies they don't like. They recognize no laws, they know no boundries. They will continue to act that way as long as the evil people running it continue to be in charge. The govts are powerless to stop it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    56. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "No the rules are not simple. Maybe in your head the rules are simple but in the law rules are very complicated. The test is whether a reasonable person would confuse the two. I don't think any judge would decide that a reasonble person would confuse lindows and windows let alone lindows.com and windows.com."

      The judge will look at the similarity of the names. Lindows is one letter away from Windows. The judge will look at the similarity of the products. Both are operating systems. The judge will look for evidence of confusion. Weak point there, this happened before Lindows had much time to get into the market. (That and they virtually gave Bill Gates the raspberry.) The judge will look at the customer for this product. If somebody buys a computer with Lindows pre-installed, they aren't likely to know it's not Windows. Or, to put it another way, it would be easy to confuse them. The judge will also look at the intent of using that name. This is where Lindows will bite the big one. They had absolutely no reason to not realize that a product called Windows existed. Worse, they've taunted MS before.

      "First of all no damage was done and no damage would have occured."

      There was no time for the damage to be done, and frankly you don't know shit about what would have happened otherwise.

      " Secondly MS sued because they got sue happy."

      They sued because they had to. They have to defend their trademark or risk losing it due to 'abandonment'. Inescapable fact, sorry.

      "Not only is this completely inadmissible it's also totally irrelevent."

      It is admissable as the judge will look at Lindows' malicious intent.

      "The real damage will be done if the judge throws out the trademark, which as I said he has indicated he might. I suspect MS will settle this for big money rather then risk that."

      So you say Lindows is doing Microsoft harm, interesting... Palm should be sued while they're at it.

      "Of course they did. Nobody is claiming otherwise. It's a perfectly normal name for a linux distribution." ... that is trying to intentionally rile up Microsoft in such a way they know they will immediately end up in court.

      "Microsoft sues a lot of people. They are a sue happy organization. They sue 16 year olds for gods sake. Everybody at one time or another will draw fire from MS. They are extremely agressive."

      I agree that's a true generalization of Microsoft, but in this particular case, they had to. Already proven that earlier.

      "They did no such thing."

      By calling it Lindows, oh yes they did.

      "Why? Just because you hate them? Just because MS hates them? Because they sell linux? Why?"

      Because it has a negative effect on Linux's reputation? Because it's a frivilous case? Because it's a waste of a legal battle they won't win?

      "MS is a sleazy, unethical, evil corporation. They will do anything at anytime to destroy people and companies they don't like. They recognize no laws, they know no boundries. They will continue to act that way as long as the evil people running it continue to be in charge. The govts are powerless to stop it."

      I agree.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    57. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by Trackster · · Score: 1
      "Unchecked capitalism" (I think you mean unfair business practices?) is an unwanted side effect, not the cause of the problem. The root of the problem is government.

      The root problem is government?

      One word: Intentions

      If there were no intentions to abuse then the goverment would not have made any laws addressing abuses. If there no intentions to abuse then even if the laws appeared on the books out of the blue no abuse would be done.

      Stop this silly finger pointing.

    58. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      If you want to get technical, the root of the problem is power, i.e. the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. As we all know, government holds a monopoly on power -- any private individual or group who initiates force is a criminal, unless government has specifically endorsed that initiation of force via (for example) unjust law.

      Naturally, the more power which exists (the wider the scope of government), the more often force will be used as a means to an end. Ergo, the root of the problem is power, which for all intents and purposes, means government.

    59. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      There is no way any reasonable person would confuse windows and lindows. Not only are the names different but the products are very much different. They look different, they work different, they are packaged and sold differently and they have different logos.

      You seem to feel that MS is entitled to any word with window in it and also entitled to any word that rhymes with windows. That's simply not true in the law.

      For example McDonalds has in the past sued other restaurants named McDonalds. Same name, same business. But they lost. Why? Because a reasonable person would not have walked to the McDOnalds diner in bumfuck iowa thinking they would see Ronald McDonald and buy a big mac.

      Yes, it's possible for two businesses to have the exact same name in the exact same industry as long as people are not likely to confuse the two.

      In this case the name is not even the same.

      Finally. Everybody hates MS. I would say that over 70% of the IT undustry sees MS as an evil organization that actually harms innovation and advancement. Saying that this one guy also hates MS and therefore deserves to lose the case won't wash.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    60. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "There is no way any reasonable person would confuse windows and lindows. Not only are the names different but the products are very much different."

      The name is too similar, the product is too similar. How could somebody 'possibly be confused'? Simple. Go to a store that sells computers. Have the salesman show the lovely couple a new computer. They see it, see something that looks vaguely like Windows (hey, it's their first computer, what do they know?), he calls it Lindows but they didn't catch him saying that as opposed to Windows that they hear all the time. They're happy with their new computer, not realizing that it's not Windows. Then they try to go buy a game. Doh. They find out they're not running Windows.

      Simple. It's just a start, too. If Lindows wanted to be aggressive that way, they could do worse. That's why Microsoft was forced to sue them. It's an old story, really. Lots of companies have had to go through this. It's not some new ground that Microsoft is breaking.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    61. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      He does not see the product Windows he sees the product Microsoft Windows versus the product Lindows. Microsoft spends large amounts advertising it's name and associating it with its products, so to claim someone would confuse microsoft windows with lindows is to say that "joe-sixpack" has never ever heard of microsoft. Of course I wish I had never heard of microsoft, but unfortunately that just isn't true. Microsoft isn't attacking the name Lindows because of similarity but because it felt it was a to dangerously effective marketing name (Linux Windows vs Microsoft Windows). The future reality of course is that once Linspire has won its court case it will change its name back to Lindows for another major surge in publicity i.e. the underdog defeats the beast, after grabbing this chunk of publicity and public sympathy for forced to change its name.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    62. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by goldspider · · Score: 1
      If a company's success was defined by publicity, as you seem to indicate, then maybe Lindows would have a snowball's chance in hell.

      Of course in the grown-up world, success is typically defined by market share. And that's one thing that Robertson, in all of his childish name-game wisdom, doesn't get. And that tells me that he's not the person that will steer Lindows to ANY success, ever. The best thing they could do is sack him and try to start over with a professional at the helm.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    63. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Little guys can fight a giant it just takes a lot of determination and time, they might not have won yet but they have not lost either.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    64. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "The name is too similar, the product is too similar."

      Sez you. A reasonable person does not think that lindows and windows are the same word. They also do not think the KDE and windows XP look or act the same. They certainly don't confuse the windows logo with the lindows logo.

      I have given you an example where the the name was exactly the same (McDonalds) and the product was exactly the same (burgers) and yet McDonalds lost. You think that simply rhyming with a brand is enough to lose the case but you are very wrong. It is possible to have the exact name and product and still prevail in a trademark case.

      "Simple. Go to a store that sells computers. Have the salesman show the lovely couple a new computer. They see it, see something that looks vaguely like Windows (hey, it's their first computer, what do they know?), he calls it Lindows but they didn't catch him saying that as opposed to Windows that they hear all the time."

      Lindows does not come pre-installed on any retail computers. Walmart was selling them via the web only. On the web site they are listed in a separate section called PCs without windows. Nobody could be confused by that.

      "That's why Microsoft was forced to sue them."

      Mmm yes. Somebody held a gun to Bill Gates head and forced him to file the lawsuit. Right on buddy.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    65. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Sez you. A reasonable person does not think that lindows and windows are the same word."

      Read it on the screen? Perhaps not. Hear it spoken verbally? Nope, there's risk there.

      "They also do not think the KDE and windows XP look or act the same. They certainly don't confuse the windows logo with the lindows logo."

      Have a look at this screenshot here of Lindows. This is what Walmart is showing us. Sorry bud, that looks a LOT like Windows. Frankly, it wouldn't take long for somebody to buy this computer, then buy a Windows app for it not realizing it's not the same thing.

      Simple as that. Damage can be done. The worst part is, the brunt of the damage goes to an unsuspecting customer. That's exactly why trademark law exists in the first place.

      "Mmm yes. Somebody held a gun to Bill Gates head and forced him to file the lawsuit. Right on buddy."

      He could choose between not filing the suit, and voluntarily give up the trademark. Most would agree that's force. Lindows made a very dumb move.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    66. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Read it on the screen? Perhaps not. Hear it spoken verbally? Nope, there's risk there."

      Thank god the law is not as simple minded.

      "Have a look at this screenshot here of Lindows. This is what Walmart is showing us. Sorry bud, that looks a LOT like Windows. Frankly, it wouldn't take long for somebody to buy this computer, then buy a Windows app for it not realizing it's not the same thing."

      Except for the fact that it's not called windows, walmart puts in a section different from PCs with windows and it won't run windows programs, there is no MS or windows logo anywhere.

      "He could choose between not filing the suit, and voluntarily give up the trademark. Most would agree that's force. Lindows made a very dumb move."

      Actually it was brilliant.

      First of all Lindows got a lot of great publicity.

      Secondly MS will not risk losing their trademark and offer them a bunch of money to settle. All they have to do is hang on for a little while longer. The US court case is still in progress and as I said before the judge is already leaning towards throwing the trademark out. All the risk is on MS. BTW the judge is also pissed off about MS suing in europe before this one is settled so I imagine he is not thinking highly of MS right about now.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    67. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Thank god the law is not as simple minded."

      Thank god it is or you'd be living in scam land.

      "Except for the fact that it's not called windows, walmart puts in a section different from PCs with windows and it won't run windows programs, there is no MS or windows logo anywhere."

      Doesn't matter. It looks like Windows, it acts like Windows, but it isn't Windows. Far too easy for somebody to end up with that without realizing what they really got.

      "First of all Lindows got a lot of great publicity."

      Yep. You're right, they got publicity from it. They got the "Well even though what we're doing is clearly wrong, everybody hates MS so we shoould be good!" publicity going. Honorable.

      "Secondly MS will not risk losing their trademark and offer them a bunch of money to settle. All they have to do is hang on for a little while longer."

      They're not going to win. They don't have a strong case. Waiting this out would be retarded.

      "The US court case is still in progress and as I said before the judge is already leaning towards throwing the trademark out."

      He can't throw the trademark out. What he can do is say "Let's let a jury decide." Frankly, I doubt it'd go even that far. Microsoft's position with their trademark is considerably stronger than it has been made out to believe on Slashdot. Putting it to a jury makes it even easier for them to sell. It's not going anywhere, sorry.

      "All the risk is on MS."

      Not really, no. Lindows risks going out of business for having to pay for the consequences of their actions. (Or Microsoft's overbearing legal beating...) Microsoft risks very little other than money and a slim chance that they lose the (R) next to their name. Thing is, they still own that mark even if the judge throws it out. Nobody's going to forget what Windows is. Frankly, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to cook up a new trademark to stand behind.

      "BTW the judge is also pissed off about MS suing in europe before this one is settled so I imagine he is not thinking highly of MS right about now."

      Yeah maybe. What MS is doing to them is excessive. Then again, they opened themselves wide open to it. Are you really sure this was a brilliant move by Lindows? Sounds like you're telling me that MS's wrath is killing them. At least that's what I read in the various articles on this topic.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    68. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Thank god it is or you'd be living in scam land."

      Look man I already gave you an example where two companies that have same name and the same product clashed in court and the smaller company won. You seem to think that if the names rhyme then it violates trademark. This is simply not the case.

      "He can't throw the trademark out. What he can do is say "Let's let a jury decide." Frankly, I doubt it'd go even that far. Microsoft's position with their trademark is considerably stronger than it has been made out to believe on Slashdot. Putting it to a jury makes it even easier for them to sell. It's not going anywhere, sorry."

      It's usually best not to open your mouth when you are so ignorant. Here are a couple of links you should read before you go around saying such things in the future.

      From law.com"

      Linuxworld
      eweek

      The windows trademark is clearly at risk.

      "Doesn't matter. It looks like Windows, it acts like Windows, but it isn't Windows. Far too easy for somebody to end up with that without realizing what they really got."

      Yes it does matter. No it does not look or act like windows. No it's not easy for somebody to end up with it because it's not available via retail and you have to go to a special area of the walmart web site to get it.

      Maybe it's easy for you to get confused but a reasonable would not get confused and end up with the wrong product.

      "Microsoft risks very little other than money and a slim chance that they lose the (R) next to their name. Thing is, they still own that mark even if the judge throws it out. Nobody's going to forget what Windows is. Frankly, it wouldn't be hard for Microsoft to cook up a new trademark to stand behind."

      If microsoft loses the windows trademark it would be devestating to them. They will not risk it and if looks like they will (and it's looking like that) they will pay big bucks to get this case settled.

      "Yeah maybe. What MS is doing to them is excessive. Then again, they opened themselves wide open to it. Are you really sure this was a brilliant move by Lindows? Sounds like you're telling me that MS's wrath is killing them. At least that's what I read in the various articles on this topic."

      I don't think you know how to read. It's not going to kill them, it not going to devestate them. They have changed the name of their product (temporaririly) but their corporate name is still lindows. That's because in the US they can still use lindows as a name. In europe they have (temporarily) lost the right to use lindows as a product name. The whole lawsuit is probably going to cost them less then a million dollars and the potential rewards are in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars because MS would pay anything to hold on to that trademark.

      But this is getting us nowhere. You have this odd idea that companies own common words and all words that rhyme with them. You haven't read up on the case, you don't really know what you are talking about. You just keep repeating the same old mantra that an average person would would somehow be confused into buying a lindows PC thinking it's windows. That's just an idiotic statement to make and I guess there is no way to convince you otherwise.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    69. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Look man I already gave you an example where two companies that have same name and the same product clashed in court and the smaller company won. You seem to think that if the names rhyme then it violates trademark. This is simply not the case."

      No, you TOLD me of a case, you haven't showed me anything. You wanna show me documentation of it? I'd love to read it. In the mean time, your little tale doesn't help a whole lot. For example, we don't know if that McDOnald's was already in place before McD's moved in. I do know that there isn't a chain of McDOnald's. I know that there isn't a chain of Booger Kings. This says to me that the conclusion you have reached from this in relation to the Lindows case is WRONG.

      "It's usually best not to open your mouth when you are so ignorant. Here are a couple of links you should read before you go around saying such things in the future."

      Funny, I've already read two out of three of those articles. Not a single one of those shows Microsoft's side of this story. EVERY court case looks like it has been clearly won before the other side steps up and speaks its mind.

      "They will not risk it and if looks like they will (and it's looking like that) they will pay big bucks to get this case settled."

      Probably.

      "I don't think you know how to read."

      Grow up. You're just mad that I pointed that out.

      " It's not going to kill them, it not going to devestate them. They have changed the name of their product (temporaririly) but their corporate name is still lindows. That's because in the US they can still use lindows as a name. In europe they have (temporarily) lost the right to use lindows as a product name. The whole lawsuit is probably going to cost them less then a million dollars and the potential rewards are in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars because MS would pay anything to hold on to that trademark."

      Funny, they claim that Microsoft was putting them out of business overseas, hence the urgent name change. $120,000 a day is a lot.

      I think you're right that MS would pay handsomely to settle if their trademark was overturned. I don't think the chances of that actually happening are very good.

      "But this is getting us nowhere. You have this odd idea that companies own common words and all words that rhyme with them."

      Nope. That's a twisting of what I said in a transparent attempt to discredit me. I'd go over this again but I have been sufficiently clear already.

      " You haven't read up on the case..."

      Wrong.

      "You just keep repeating the same old mantra that an average person would would somehow be confused into buying a lindows PC thinking it's windows."

      I also gave sufficient proof of a way that could happen. Imagine what I could do with that if I were a lawyer.

      "That's just an idiotic statement to make and I guess there is no way to convince you otherwise."

      Yeah yeah, I disagree with you and that makes me an idiot. I've heard that argument before. What's really happening is that you want Lindows to win so bad that you're throwing doubt at everything you can that you're ignoring what would really happen. You don't even see how stupid it was that Lindows picked this fight in the first place, instead you see some shiny armored hero riding on a white horse, come to slay the evil Microsoft dragon. It'd be neat to see Microsoft lose its trademark to Lindows. It'd make Slashdot's day, it'd make MY day. But it ain't going to happen. Won't happen. Never happen. Sorry. This isn't "I don't want it to happen!" speak, it's "I know their case is strong" speak.

      Pity, though. What's going to happen is you're going to read this, and you'll be shaking your head the entire time. Trying to argue every little point I've made. Well, if that's what you do, don't expect a response from me. If you can't take a moment to tr

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    70. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Funny, I've already read two out of three of those articles. Not a single one of those shows Microsoft's side of this story. EVERY court case looks like it has been clearly won before the other side steps up and speaks its mind."

      Once again you demonstrate that you don't have the ability to read and comprehend.

      The links I pointed to state clearly that the judge has already made a ruling on a small but important point about this case. Both MS and Lindows made a case to the judge regarding the validity of the windows trademark. The judge has said that the use of the word "windows" BEFORE MS named their product should be considered when determining if windows is a legitamate trademark. This is devestating to MS because windows was commonly used when describing GUIs. MS of course promptly appealed.

      BTW I gave four links and three of them were from neutral parties. They are descrbing the outcome of the case not the arguments presented in the case.

      "Funny, they claim that Microsoft was putting them out of business overseas, hence the urgent name change. $120,000 a day is a lot."

      That's right. MS having failed to prevail in the US went to europe and got enourmous fines levied. If those fines continue then lindows would go out of business. But they just renamed their PRODUCT until the US case is settled so they won't have to pay those fines.

      "Nope. That's a twisting of what I said in a transparent attempt to discredit me. "

      That's exactly what you said. Sorry.

      "I also gave sufficient proof of a way that could happen."

      You gave no proof. You simply stated that somebody could mistakenly buy lindows when they meant to buy windows. This is a ridiculus argument to make because lindows is not sold in retail stores. Only one company sells pre-installed lindows and only on the web and only in a section that's separate from windows. How you think a reasonable person will confuse the two is beyond me.

      "Well, if that's what you do, don't expect a response from me."

      Why would I want respect from you?

      "Well, if that's what you do, don't expect a response from me."

      I have tried to see your point. It all boils down to two arguments you keep making.

      1) A reasonable person would confuse lindows linux and microsoft windows operating systems. They might mistakenly buy one when they meant to buy the other.

      2) MS has the right to stop companies from naming their products with words that rhyme with windows or resemble windows or contain some of the letters W I N D O and S.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    71. Re:Little guys can't fight a giant... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "You gave no proof. You simply stated that somebody could mistakenly buy lindows when they meant to buy windows."

      Yes. In other words, proof.

      "1) A reasonable person would confuse lindows linux and microsoft windows operating systems. They might mistakenly buy one when they meant to buy the other."

      Yep. And that's exactly what could happen.

      "2) MS has the right to stop companies from naming their products with words that rhyme with windows or resemble windows or contain some of the letters W I N D O and S."

      Didn't say that. You still don't understand what I was saying here even though I've nailed Lindows on it several times now.

      Geez, and you tried to accuse me of not reading. Heh.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  2. In other news... by Rapid+Home+Offer · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, the lawyers for Winspire Success Seminars get their pens ready...

    1. Re:In other news... by Rapid+Home+Offer · · Score: 1

      Also, check out that Winspire Success Seminar site. Seminars pertaining to the foot and ankle? That's weird.

    2. Re:In other news... by LMCBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Suffice to say, I misread the word "pens" in "get their pens ready...". You owe me a keyboard, as mine is now coffee-soaked. ;)

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:In other news... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Have they the trademark protected for software and computer stuff?

      If so... there may be a problem... if not... tough luck...

    4. Re:In other news... by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      Cheerio old chap! It certainly would be something for the lawyers to get their puns ready! Ha ha that sounds like a laughingly good time!

    5. Re:In other news... by Neph · · Score: 1
      Also, check out that Winspire Success Seminar site. Seminars pertaining to the foot and ankle? That's weird.

      Weird? You'd be amazed at the kind of seemingly trivial things to which people will devote enormous energy. I work in the trade show business, so I have some idea. Just as a random sampler, let's take a look at GES Expo's list of events (note that this is just for April). Some highlights:

      • "National Association of Basketball Coaches"
      • "Washington State Dental Laboratory Association Inc."
      • "GALVATECH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ZINC & ZINC ALLOY COAT"
      • "HOME MACHINE QUILTING SHOW"
      • "National Candle Association"
      Oh, And my personal favourite, on page 5:
      • "NATIONAL TATTOO ASSOCIATION"
      Some people's livelihoods depend on unbelievably specialized things you and I basically never think about... Oh, and to keep on topic, there the "Linux Desktop Summit" run by Lindows/Linspire in there. Which of course is of paramount importance, right?
    6. Re:In other news... by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Winspire? Sigh. Perhaps they should just change Linspire to Linfuckbillgates and be done with it.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
  3. Discussion summary by timothv · · Score: 2, Funny
    • Since when is Windows not a common name?
      • It's a trademark in European countries.
    • Since when is Windows not a common name?
      • It's a trademark in European countries.
    • Since when is Windows not a common name?
      • It's a trademark in European countries.
    1. Re:Discussion summary by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 5, Funny

      What are these see-through things in most of the outside walls of my house called?

      --
      Silly rabbit
    2. Re:Discussion summary by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ventanas.

      Finestre.

      Fenêtres.

      Fenster.

    3. Re:Discussion summary by beebware · · Score: 5, Funny

      Holes

    4. Re:Discussion summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a great example of both sides in an argument being wrong.

      First, the grandparent post--wrong because the discussion is NOT about whether or not Windows was registered as a trademark, it's about whether the trademark is valid. So the argument is: "Your trademark is invalid" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" Nobody is arguing with the fact that Microsoft has the trademarks, as this post suggested.

      Secondly, the parent post--wrong because generic words in themselves ARE patentable as long as they are used in a unique way. For example, the word "Apple" existed long before Apple computers, but nobody ever applied the word "Apple" to a computer before Apple computers, so Apple's trademark IS VALID. On the other hand, "Windows", as a term for glass openings in walls, would be trademarkable for other purposes. The problem with Microsoft's trademark is that the term "windows" WAS in fact used throughout the computing industry to refer to graphical interfaces long before Microsoft's product called "Windows" ever existed. Thus, argues Lindows, it is no more trademarkable than the word "car" would be for a new kind of automobile.

      This is also an example of a clueful Anonymous Coward correcting glaring inaccuracies in the posts of registered users. Only on Slashdot!

    5. Re:Discussion summary by mahdi13 · · Score: 1
      What are these see-through things in most of the outside walls of my house called?
      Transparent Portal Coverings
      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    6. Re:Discussion summary by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      "This is also an example of a clueful Anonymous Coward correcting glaring inaccuracies in the posts of registered users. Only on Slashdot! You should realise the 'cluefulness' bar for becoming a registered user is very low. There isn't an IQ test or anything like that. Anyway, Microsoft's Windows trademark applies to its use as a proper noun, not a common noun. The term 'windows' is a common noun in both the glass and GUI contexts.

    7. Re:Discussion summary by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...the term "windows" WAS in fact used throughout the computing industry to refer to graphical interfaces...

      Maybe the term "window" for a specific part of a graphical interface was in use, but I am unaware of anyone using the word "Windows" to refer generically to an operating system. That particular argument seems to be sketchy at best.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    8. Re:Discussion summary by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What are these see-through things in most of the outside walls of my house called?"

      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."
  4. In other news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fine folks at Mozilla have decided to join forces with the Linspire team.

    Please await *drumroll* LinFire 0.9 any day now..

    1. Re:In other news ... by CrayHill · · Score: 1

      I think "FireSpire" has a nice ring to it...

    2. Re:In other news ... by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think "FireSpire" has a nice ring to it...

      A pinky ring, perhaps...

      --
      True story.
    3. Re:In other news ... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Please await *drumroll* LinFire 0.9 any day now.."

      What happened to calling it "Linternet Explorer?"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    4. Re:In other news ... by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea. Phoenix-- err Firebird has been desparate for a name change. Oh wait, I mean Firefox.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    5. Re:In other news ... by antic · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks that Mozilla should just pick one of those names (Firebird, Firefox, etc), and stick with it to develop some name recognition?

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    6. Re:In other news ... by spongman · · Score: 1
      Surely:
      • FireFire, or
      • WinPox
    7. Re:In other news ... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      They're saving it for the day when lint is the only thing left on the internet.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  5. First post! by konkani · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It came to me in a moment of Linspiration"

    --
    please change me. - sig
    1. Re:First post! by xortw · · Score: 4, Funny

      googles commant on the new name:
      Did you mean: inspire ?

    2. Re:First post! by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it lucks.

    3. Re:First post! by pangloss · · Score: 1

      googles commant on the new name:

      Did you mean: comment? ;)

    4. Re:First post! by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the parent meant to say "commant" when referring to Google since the spelling is very similar to "commandment." Given that Google is an Internet deity of sorts, wielding nearly limitless indexing, searching, and ranking power, I think the term "commant" is perfectly appropriate when referring to It. Praise be to Google for Its enlightened opinion on the morally questionable name of "Linspire."

      --
      True story.
    5. Re:First post! by DeadSea · · Score: 1
      googles commant on the new name: Did you mean: inspire ?
      I've wondered how google knows when to not suggest something. I've run into the same problem when I wrote a program I call Attesoro.

      The google suggestion is:
      Did you mean at tessoro?

      When you make up a name, how many uses of it do you have out there on the net before google stops suggesting something else for it?

    6. Re:First post! by Jedi1USA · · Score: 1

      How Linovative!

      Oh wait, M$ probably has trademarks on --novation as well.

      --
      My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
    7. Re:First post! by pHDNgell · · Score: 1

      It's linconceivable to think nobody had come up with such a lincredibly obvious name before.

      --
      -- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
  6. Oh no by re-Verse · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a Linsipid name. In my opnion it sounds like the name of a cheesy fly by night telemarketing company.. or a group that sell motivational self-help tapes to desperate and simple-minded middle management types.

    Not that I could do any better, I'm sure... but Linspire really sounds boring.

    1. Re:Oh no by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Not that I could do any better, I'm sure... but Linspire really sounds boring.

      At least it's not Expire .

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:Oh no by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      What a Linsipid name. In my opnion it sounds like the name of a cheesy fly by night telemarketing company..

      Remember, Microsoft is there to prove that it's possible to succeed brilliantly with crappy names. Remember how everybody laughed when a product called "windows" came out? I mean what next, "blinds"? And gee, even the name "micro-soft" is not exceptionally well chosen.

      But nobody's laughing anymore today, and if you need to get a pane replaced in your house and you google for "windows", you'll never find what you want.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Oh no by jared_hanson · · Score: 3, Funny

      What were you expecting? Their first choice was Lindows. That name caused me to instantly and irreversibly lose any respect for the company.

      --
      -- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
    4. Re:Oh no by colonslashslash · · Score: 1
      Agreed. You can imagine the name being the linspiration of a bunch of marketing executives with their annoying buzzwords....

      No doubt they were "thinking outside the box" and coming up with a "game-plan" whilst "touching-base" and "doing lunch" trying to "de-emphasise" the link between Windows and Lindows to stop the Microsoft law machine ruining their company and forcing them to "down-size" whilst their co-workers asked "has this idea got legs?" and "does it appeal to our key demographic?"

      God damn I hate Marketing departments, so very very much.

      --
      She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
    5. Re:Oh no by PMuse · · Score: 1

      What a Linsipid name.

      Must we follow the years of win-anything software with a decade of lin-anything? Surely we have more style than that.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    6. Re:Oh no by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Remember, Microsoft is there to prove that it's possible to succeed brilliantly with crappy names.

      Crappy like a fox. Names that seem excessively generic might hurt product adoption initially, but once past the initial rollout, the bland name is a help. If a product has a specific name (like Acrobat), then it's easy for customers to consider going to competitors (like a hypothetical PDFView). But if Adobe had called their PDF Viewer "PDF Viewer", then it'd become difficult for promoters of alternative software to even describe their products.

      It's a 1984-ish use of language to control thought. Because Microsoft DOS was called "DOS", it was tough for buyers to even talk about getting an alternative DOS vendor.

      And gee, even the name "micro-soft" is not exceptionally well chosen.

      It is beautifully, perfectly well-chosen!

      I can't think of any other name that would be better for the #1 software company. Nothing else can evoke the universality of "Micro-Soft". The name speaks for itself: "If it's software, and we don't make it, then you don't need it!"

    7. Re:Oh no by ChronoWiz · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like an open source communist pirate hippy Linspiracy to me!

  7. Is it an OS or a car? by jamehec · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, do I install it on my computer, park it in my driveway, or drink it from a fancy bottle?

    Linspire. Whoever thought that up needs to get more linspired. Jeeeebus O'Reilly McChrist in a dead DeLorean. :rolleyes:

    --
    This post made with the Dvorak layout.
    "Friends don't let friends use QWERTY"
    1. Re:Is it an OS or a car? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      I mean, do I install it on my computer, park it in my driveway, or drink it from a fancy bottle?

      Maybe all those things, as Lindo^H^H^H^HLinspire takes over the desktop from Microsoft, and seeks licensing agreements with other vendors for use of their future good name.

      Linspire......an air of sophistication that will give you inspiration!

      I should head up marketing for them, huh?

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  8. Terrible, terrible name by Schlemphfer · · Score: 4, Funny

    It sounds like a Korean car. I'm going to spend the next hour cringing. Really surprised they didn't go with LinDOS (a previous candidate) or something with a modicum of coolness. I guess the company isn't shelling out big bucks for its marketing department.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:Terrible, terrible name by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're marketing all right... but Slashdot isn't their audience. They know true geeks won't touch their product with a 10 foot pole, but they're chasing after the people who wouldn't touch Linux with a 10 foot otherwise.

    2. Re:Terrible, terrible name by gid13 · · Score: 1

      They presumably didn't go with LinDOS because they wanted the legal fight to end. If MS was going after them for Lin---s, which they were, I'm sure the technical meaning of DOS wouldn't stop them from trying to shut down LinDOS. I mean, hey, Lin---s removes D, O, and W, whereas LinDOS only takes out the W.

    3. Re:Terrible, terrible name by Nic-o-demus · · Score: 1

      I was looking forward to "Licrosoft"

    4. Re:Terrible, terrible name by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      They know true geeks won't touch their product with a 10 foot pole, but they're chasing after the people who wouldn't touch Linux with a 10 foot otherwise.

      Is Lindows (er... Linspire) really that bad? I'm not a linux geek, but I'd like to try linux again. And last weekend Fry's ran an ad for a $99 computer (1.4 ghz, 40 gig HD, 128 ram, basically everything but a monitor) which comes loaded with Lindows. Limited to 12 per store or somesuch, but if they do that often, I could show up at opening time one day.

      I'm curious, though, if I did, whether I could stick with Lindows/Linspire or if I'd need to reinstall to put Redhat or Mandrake or something on it.

      The last time I tried Linux, I got it installed, but it was useless, and to get anything to work I had to edit config files with VI, which worked much like DOS Edlin - one line at a time using nonsensical commands. Soon I realized that the comptuer was useless and put windows back on it.

    5. Re:Terrible, terrible name by schon · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      They should have changed their name to Lin-D'oh!s

  9. I wonder where they get... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    I wonder where they get all their naming inspiration...

    Maybe by drinking too much wine???

    1. Re:I wonder where they get... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are drinking too much wine???

      Well said! Then I wonder if they entertained "Line" as a name?

  10. Linspire? by bfg9000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    L'inspire? What is that, French? Aren't they the enemies or something now?

    They might as well have saved us a step and just named it "Freedom Linux" before we do it for them.

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

    1. Re:Linspire? by flatt · · Score: 1

      All things considered, I don't think it's that bad. Though I may be biased as I have registered similar types of domain names (lin*.com) for future use.

      While "LindOS" would definitely be funny, I'm pretty sure it would land them right back in court. Michael is probably trying his best to get away at this point.

      Naming products "Foobar Linux" is not especially appealing as product names can get very long very easily. I think the whole Lin* branding makes sense. So long as it doesn't turn into a gsomething/ksomething-type of thing.

    2. Re:Linspire? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its going to be annoying for the French users. Everytime they log in, a white flag is displayed on the screen and the kernel panics.

      --
      Sig it.
    3. Re:Linspire? by bfg9000 · · Score: 1

      LOL! Nasty. Mod up!

      --

      I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  11. If they were really clever... by SparafucileMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    they'd call their software the Linspire Linsuit.

    1. Re:If they were really clever... by thorgil · · Score: 1

      Linsault?

      --
      Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
  12. Hmm... by MrNonchalant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The logo and domain name seem to be the only changes at Linspire.com, everything else still says Lindows. Can you say plausible deniability?

    1. Re:Hmm... by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      They just haven't gotten around to doing %s/Lindows/Linspire/g on all the HTML pages yet.
      Probably waiting for all the images to be changed first

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    2. Re:Hmm... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      It changed from Lindows to Linspire after 30 seconds. LindowsOS seems to still be referenced in various places. Sometimes the same section will also refer to Linspire.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  13. Mon Dieu! by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

    L'inspire est le trademarke pour le Parlement du Francias! C'est et desitenement immedinantre! Alors!

    1. Re:Mon Dieu! by chmod000 · · Score: 1
      Probably that reading /. is not the best way to improve ;-)


      Does anybody seriously think it is? Grammar nazis are a pestilence--I should know, becuz I are one!


      Btw, "that" in your sentence quoted above is superfluous. Sounds better without it.

      --
      Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
    2. Re:Mon Dieu! by chmod000 · · Score: 1
      No, that "that" is ok.


      The technical answer is that that "that" is introducing a noun clause.


      (Still trying to think of a way to string four "that's" in a row.)

      --
      Aptal soru yoktur; sadece merakli aptallar vardir.
    3. Re:Mon Dieu! by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      (Still trying to think of a way to string four "that's" in a row.)

      Why? Is that "that that 'that'" that you wrote in your post not good enough for you?

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
  14. PR and Cybersquatting by LaNMaN2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Lindows" was just a PR move and the trademark equivalent of cybersquatting. Let's not forget that the founder of the company got his start by registering mp3.com as well as slight variations of the URLs of other major sites and convincing a VC to fund him as a company. Yet again, though, his strategy worked pretty well.

    --

    ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
    1. Re:PR and Cybersquatting by Nephilium · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really... so Robertson registered mp3.com... everything I've seen says that he purchased it... Robertson and MP3 Nephilium

    2. Re:PR and Cybersquatting by LaNMaN2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For more info, see these links:

      http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2 00 0/d2000-0009.html (Talk-City.com)

      http://seclists.org/lists/politech/2000/Mar/0014 .h tml

      http://www.fool.com/specials/2000/sp000523b.htm (Tu-cows.com)

      Another poster may be right that mp3.com was purchased from a third party. But, Robertson has a history of typosquatting, etc.

      --

      ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
    3. Re:PR and Cybersquatting by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      Actually, a highschool friend of mine named Linus (no, not that Linus) originally owned lindows, and sold it to its new owners a couple of years ago. He said he registered it just because it was a play on his name and thought it would be cool to have.. he wasn't serious about developing it commercially (of course, that's probably because of the trademark issue).

    4. Re:PR and Cybersquatting by timeOday · · Score: 1
      No, cybersquatting prevents the copyright holder from using the domain name, "Lindows" didn't prevent MS from using "Windows."

      I agree that Lindows clearly alluded to Windows, but there is nothing wrong with that, and it's legal. "Lindows" clearly implied what the product was - an alternative to Windows. There was little risk of actually confusing Lindows with Windows.

      MS could not get Lindows stricken down under US law so they made it a worldwide battle. The logistics of this forced Lindows to surrender.

  15. Linspire? by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a bit weak.

    Actually, it really sucks. Sorry, Michael Robertson, but you could have done better.

    "LindOS" cuts it better.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  16. I Never Thought I'd Say This, by dupper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Lindash was better. I think we need a Slashdot poll.

    1. Re:I Never Thought I'd Say This, by nkh · · Score: 1

      I think not. We would come out with 97% of: CowboyNeal prefers the new Nokia N-Gage.

  17. Hasn't this been done before? by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Shoddily made computers sold with a crippled version of an OS? Acer did it in the 90's they called it "Aspire". LAWSUIT AGAIN!

    1. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      No, running an OS that runs everything as root is punishment enough. Lindows got some good press for their click-n-run interface stuff, but... last time I checked, Lindows still logged in everyone as root.

      YIKES!

    2. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      I had an Acer Aspire from 1995(or 96), it wasn't that bad. The biggest problem I've had with it was the CD-ROM drive chokes on CD-R(but so do some other older CD-ROM drive), and the power supply died last year, but before that the thing ran almost constantly for 7 or 8 years. Also the OS wasn't any more crippled that any other verison of Windows 95, the only difference was that by default it had the Ace shell running on top of it, but it could easily be disabled.

    3. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by mahdi13 · · Score: 1
      Acer did it in the 90's they called it "Aspire".
      But Acer doesn't want people to remember that so they will probably not follow through
      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    4. Re:Hasn't this been done before? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Come on man, this is slashdot. Any version of Windows is crippled!

  18. I'd have much preferred by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Informative

    Linspire is non-consentual and "Microsoft-safe", and I can understand they want to avoid going through that again with the Redmond monster. But I'd have much preferred if they have renamed themselves "Lindoze" or "liNT" or "eXPect-more" or something like that, to piss them off...

    Oh well, bland name but still a cool company. I'm just glad they escaped their (first) legal stint with Microsoft more or less unscathed..

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  19. The lindows announcement. by asterism · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the blurb on their own site:

    http://info.lindows.com/linspire/Linspirelanding .h tml

  20. Related article on The Register by sczimme · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  21. Acer by TheTomcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Acer is going to be pissed!

    S

  22. Big Deal by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Firstly theyt purposefully chose the name to rhyme with windows, hoping to cash in with average joe's familiarity with the term windows.

    But seriously how many average joe's just walk to best buy and buy a copy of windows OS and install it on their PC. Let's face it, most people just use the OS their PC came installed with.

    Given this fact, I fail to see how the name Lindows, was any beneficial. I mean, most people don't even know what an OS stands for, so what are the chances they go to buy Windows OS and install it on their own, and Now take a percentage of those extremely small nos. who will be fooled by the Lindows boxes sitting next to Windows boxes.

    And the ones who are comfortable installing their own OS, any ways are not likely to be misled. So the name choice was unfortunate to begin with. All it did was gave them a lot of publicity (which is not a bad thing) but I really wonder how many customers really bought it think it to be windows.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:Big Deal by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Actually, they chose the name "Lindows" because they originally claimed that it would run Windows programs. That was a lie of course, and they no longer make that claim.

      It's unfortunate that our legal system is so corrupt that Microsoft can literally do anything and get away with it simply because they have $50 Billion in the bank.
      On the other hand, Lindows by any name, is crap.

      So I guess it all evens out.

    2. Re:Big Deal by Bensmum · · Score: 1

      No, they picked that name as a jab at microsoft. This is what they do, the OS is irrelevent, have you seen it? I'm just suprised he wussed out now instead of continuing to push the issue further with a name like LinDOS.

    3. Re:Big Deal by haggar · · Score: 1

      Firstly theyt purposefully chose the name to rhyme with windows, hoping to cash in with average joe's familiarity with the term windows.

      I know a company that did that before Lindows: the name totally rhymes with windows: it is, in fact, windows! Can't get much smarter than that.

      What company, you ask? I'll give you a hint: their name rhymes with Microsoft.

      --
      Sigged!
    4. Re:Big Deal by haggar · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you mean by "our". The american court actually found Lindows in the right. It was the Belgian court that ruled in favor of Microsoft. And in fact, there are signs that the belgian judiciary is really corrupt.

      --
      Sigged!
    5. Re:Big Deal by AVryhof · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a call I got once while I was doing Technical support....

      The lady called me up and asked where Word was. I walked her through finding it, and a few other applications on her computer. (the ones listed in the book) After doing this, she asks me "Where is Windows? I don't see it in my Programs."

      Needless to say, some people don't know what the hell they're running on their computer in the first place!

  23. In other news by broothal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Only 45 hits on Google if you search for "linspire" at the time of writing. I wonder how many hits there will be tomorrow at the same time.
    Anyway, they seemed to have known this for quite some time. From a whois on linspire.com and linspire.org:

    Record created on 15-Jan-2004.

  24. Or conspire by Carl+T · · Score: 1
    ...but I must say I thought "perspire" was funnier.

    <silly amount=overly>But... there's no "L" in "spire"! Thele is if you'le speaking Engrish.</silly>

    --

    This signature is not in the public domain.
  25. well. by mrsev · · Score: 1, Funny

    At least they get some publicity out of it.

    I hope that Bill G gets sued by http://www.gates.com/ The World's Most Trusted Name in Belts, Hose and Hydraulics.

    After all it is a trade mark and his "Gates" foundation is clearly in breach.

  26. Can't wait... by Tribbin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to try the new LDE with Lmail, Lword, Lonqueror and Lxmms. Not to forget Lozilla-Lirelox.

    Lat least lhey lon't lave lo lange lilo's lame!

    Solly, lounge got louse.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    1. Re:Can't wait... by Twister002 · · Score: 1

      That's what they get for letting Scooby-Doo work in their marketing department.

      --
      "For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
    2. Re:Can't wait... by Precipitous · · Score: 1

      LILO uses LAME? Wow, I can encode MP3s, without even booting the OS!

      --
      My motto: "A cat is no trade for integrity."
  27. WTF? Where's my Ford? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

    Earlier today, I was looking into buying a Ford Aspire, and I thought I got a great deal on one, as I wired the money into the dealer's account.

    When I came to pick it up, the dealer handed me a CD with some "Aspire" operating system?

    WTF? Where's my Aspire?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:WTF? Where's my Ford? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Since MS thought Lindows sounds too close to Windows, what prevents Ford from thinking that Linspire sounds too close to Aspire?

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  28. Back in the Day by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They'd have renamed themselves "Butthole Monopolistic IT Company" and gotten themselves sued (again) for slander. But the IT industry really doesn't have a lot of soul left in it, so no one would actually do that these days.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  29. XPire rejected? by airConditionedGypsy · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hmmm, I guess XPire wasn't an attractive name option. It might draw some more ire..

    ok, i'll stop.

    --
    I bootleg Fizzy Lifting Drinks.
  30. No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by sulli · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And it is blindingly obvious that it was chosen to draw fire from Microsoft. Maybe not to the hard-core unix geeks still wishing people think of X Window System when they hear "windows," but to anyone else.

    So, as expected, Microsoft played its part in this little Kabuki drama, and Lindows aka Linspire got its free publicity. And bully for them, I guess. But to suggest that they picked the name for any other reason is sheer folly.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      it is blindingly obvious that it was chosen to draw fire from Microsoft

      No, it wasn't meant to intentionally attract Microsoft.

      It was meant to confuse consumers and trade on someone else's brand name (which is exactly what trademark law is meant to prevent). Much of the public only feels secure buying "Windows" computers, and the "Lindows" name was an attempt to reassure them.

      "Oh, I'd better not buy any non-Windows computer, it might be new and scary! But this cheap one over here is Lindows... I guess that's how they're naming it, now."

      Imagine if the same stunt was attempted in another industry: suppose there was a "Bepsi" soft-drink or "Satorade" sport-drink. Any company rolling out a product like that would be obviously attempting to borrow name-recognition from the advertising of an established major competitor.

    2. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      companies are required under law to defend their trademarks

      No they're not. Companies are free to stand back and let others appropriate a brand-name.

      I have no doubt that if Bill Gates had a time machine, he'd go back to that little company spreading Vaporware in 1983 and tell them to pick a less generic name than "Windows". But that's what they are stuck with.

      Absolutely backwords!! Claiming generic words as product names (and filetypes) has been a key part of Microsoft's successful strategy! "Insert a Bitmap file from Microsoft Paint into Microsoft Word and then save the Document file"

      The fact that Microsoft's product has a generic-sounding name makes it harder for customers to envision the existence of competitors. ("Microsoft DOS" was an earlier success at redefining a generic term "DOS" as a specific vendor's product)

    3. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who gave rights to the word "windows" to MS in the first place. It's a generic word, MS has no rights to it. If the lindows lawsuit actually gets decided I bet the judge will throw out the trademark altogether.

      It was wrong for MS to claim trademark on a common word.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      It was meant to confuse consumers and trade on someone else's brand name

      Yes, not doubt that Lindows was attempting to leverage the Windows name and get consumers to believe that Lindows was some kind of ersatz Windows.

      But Windows is so ubiquitous.

      How many distributions of software no longer bother to even mention requirements of "Runs on Win 95/98/SE/ME/2K/XP" anymore? Lots. The assumption is made that "software" is running on Windows. I love Linux and Macs, but face it: when you get "software" on a CD you can pretty well bet what it is meant to run on. Windows.

      Windows has become a commodity. Like a utility, like phone or standardized electric power with special plug shapes: you simply must have it to run "software" that comes in a shrink-wrapped box.

      A good argument could be made for pushing Windows (and, for that matter "Word") into the public domain in the same way that earlier trademarks such as Dry Ice and Band-Aid have lost their proprietary ties. Because of how quickly software and applications develop, take hold and build upon one another a good argument could be made that trademark protections should lapse more quickly than for products like frozen carbon dioxide and adhesive bandages.

      Yes, based purely on legal arguments and the current situation, Lindows should lose the right to capitalize on someone else's trademark.

      But it really opens a better, larger question of whether Windows itself deserves to be an owned trademark anymore, given its commodity status as a de facto standard. (And it ought to be freely and publicly documented so anyone that thinks they can provide the standard commodity API better, faster, cheaper should have the chance.)

      Think if Intel had been able to successfully trademark x86 . AFAICT, the fact it that 386, 486, etc. were numbers instead of words prevented such a move. And being able to advertise x86 compatibility has helped foster more competition in that marketplace.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    5. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I've seen a couple people purchase the low-ends on walmart.com. They were baffled that the software was different from their work computers. Although, that might not be due to the name "Lindows". I suppose it could have happened just as easily if the machine had Red Hat on them.

    6. Re:No. Lindows was a STUPID name. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Ok this is possibly not as clever as I think it is, but if you wanted to sell a linux distro why not just push the fact that it comes with X-Windows. Most Joe-sixpack types associate both X and Windows with MS. Your not using thier trademark, and if they try any court action just point out X-Windows is Older than MS.
      The advertising could even somewhat emphasize the version "Now with X-windows version blahblah.blah" and with the recent liscense changes and forking going on you have a Legitimate reason to point out which version of which fork you are using.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  31. It is not bad by MrRuslan · · Score: 1

    but personally i think LinOS not LinDOS or lindash would work good...think about it lin=linux OS ...simple as that.

  32. Re:Just like X *Windows* is cybersquatting? by BinLadenMyHero · · Score: 1

    except that the unix graphical user interface is called "X Window"

  33. Too late for a suggestion... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    They could have shown a somewhat ironic way of accepting the demand of evil Microsoft lawyers: Linbows.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  34. Re:what by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. Microsoft could conceivably argue that Lindos was not a far enough of a departure away from their name like they did with Lin---s.

    This way they get out of it entirely and are able to continue to sell in foreign countries.

    Meanwhile they can continue the battle at home, and hopefully prove that Microsoft hijacked the generic term "windows" (like from X) for themselves.

    While this may not be the ideal solution, it will work until they win the court case, which I'm certainly hoping for.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  35. How MS was able to trademark it by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Windows" is not a common noun in countries that do not have English as an official language. Among European countries, only the UK and Ireland seem to speak English in the trademark office.

  36. hmm... by ebilhoax · · Score: 1
    "I have now used LindowsOS for a little over one week and found it to be the best Linux Distro so far."

    He left out two important words at the end of this sentence.

    "I have now used LindowsOS for a little over one week and found it to be the best Linux Distro so far for me"

  37. What a Lincredible name! by kelzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    It took tremendous Linsight to come up with the name "Linspire". I find the whole story quite Linteresting. Thanks for the Linformative links.

    --

    ---------------------------------------------
    SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  38. The more likely play on words by dedalus2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let MS chew on this it's a linspiracy.

    --
    My keyboads not woking popely.
  39. Re:Just like X *Windows* is cybersquatting? by javatips · · Score: 1

    Hummm, I not sure of this... I just did some googleling and it seems that X was created in the mid-80 and Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983 (and released in 1985 and they started working on it in 1981).

    The dates from x.org are not very precise, but it looks like mid-80s could be intepreted as 1985 which is 2 year after Windows 1.0 was announced.

  40. Rename by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they'll release a renaming tool like firefox/bird/toad.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  41. Re:FP? by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

    Well, I messed up my Karma, but I was second. Anyway, guess I shoud say something on-topic to see if i can get modded up: Does AT&T have a trademark on the name 'phone book'? does Ford have a trademark on the name 'automobile'? Windows is a generic name for the area of a computer screen where we see a file or program. It just goes to show you that money talks. Just a matter of time before they outlaw Linux in the U.S. We will have to download it from China or Korea.

  42. Trademarks are adjectives by tepples · · Score: 1

    I found it easy to rephrase that sentence so as not to dilute Dell's "Inspiron" trademark, as you're supposed to put a common noun after a trademark anyway: "Now you too can get Linspire OS on laptops for the ultimate in portable computing."

  43. Subliminal message: IN PERILS by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Obviously it's a subliminal message... they believe our right brain will subconscously recognize LINSPIRE as an anagram of IN PERILS.

    1. Re:Subliminal message: IN PERILS by pebs · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's a subliminal message... they believe our right brain will subconscously recognize LINSPIRE as an anagram of IN PERILS.

      "MICROSOFT" is an anagram for "SCO FROM IT"

      --
      #!/
  44. Re:But what about the Victoria's Secret disto???? by consolidatedbord · · Score: 1

    Think of the default backgrounds!

    --
    while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
  45. i would have gone with.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    LinD'oh

    but then you might get sued by Mr. Groening and gang

  46. hey! by Saturninus · · Score: 1

    That's Lintastic!

  47. What about... by oddpete · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think a good name change would have been Winux...

  48. Better names? by glpierce · · Score: 1

    I'd have suggested "Lindoors"

    --
    G
    1. Re:Better names? by Doogzee · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have.

  49. I can do far, far better: by torpor · · Score: 1

    Lintel.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  50. Shoulda Called It Luck Lou Lill Lates by jcook793 · · Score: 2, Funny

    yeah

  51. Licrosoft by Puzzleer · · Score: 1

    I think "Licrosoft" would have been a better choice.

  52. Yeah, if you're on cocaine by tepples · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they entertained "Line" as a name?

    They'd have to be snorting a Line of coke to think of that one.

    Say no to coke. Drink Pepsi instead.

  53. Linspire sounds kind of linsipid... by jejones · · Score: 1

    How about Lyrebird? No, wait, there's that database...

  54. wha? huh? by nomadic · · Score: 1

    What are these see-through things in most of the outside walls of my house called?

    There's an outside now?

  55. How About Perfect Inspiration? by Losses · · Score: 1

    The lin part doesn't work too well. What is "lin" anyways? They should change the beginning to Per, which starts Perfection, Personal, and a bunch of other good names. So use Perfect Inspiration, or Perspire for short.

  56. haha by hyperstation · · Score: 1

    check out all the $Lin_OS and $lin_com vars in the faq...

    http://help.linspire.com/cgi-bin/lindows.cfg/php/e nduser/std_alp.php

  57. Grub and Stitch by tepples · · Score: 1

    Lat least lhey lon't lave lo lange lilo's lame!

    You sound like the Chinese version of Scooby-Doo.

    []at least [t]hey [d]on't [h]ave [t]o [ch]ange lilo's [n]ame!

    Yes they do; otherwise, they become vulnerable to lawsuits from The Walt Disney Company alleging infringement of the Lilo & Stitch mark, no?

    1. Re:Grub and Stitch by mopslik · · Score: 1

      they become vulnerable to lawsuits from The Walt Disney Company

      The Linspire folks don't have to worry about this. These folks might, though I doubt it.

  58. figures about the name` by harumscarum · · Score: 1

    With the originality of the name Lindows it is not surprising they came up with a shitty name like Linspire.

  59. Just Wondering by Tharian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With all the controversy over changing the name to Lin---s or some such, why didn't they look at following their own comment about the "W" being all the problem and change it to something like LindOS and say that now it was a completely different name and wouldn't impinge on Microsoft's trademark?

    Wouldn't that have given them a name that was remarkably similar to their previous name to have recognition yet distinct enough to avoid ... well... I guess there might not be any avoiding a lawsuit from a company wanting to take out the competition.

    --
    I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Nerds make more money.
    1. Re:Just Wondering by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "why didn't they look at following their own comment about the "W" being all the problem and change it to something like LindOS and say that now it was a completely different name and wouldn't impinge on Microsoft's trademark?"

      a.) It could still be phoenetically read as "Lindows".

      b.) Microsoft used to have a product called MS-DOS. Not as damning as Windows vs. Lindows, but seeing as how they've already gone to court over having a product name that was too similar, it's easy to imagine that they didn't want to ruffle the feathers of MS's legal team.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  60. How about... by utarif · · Score: 1

    OS formerly known as Lindows.

  61. And since when was Windows a trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since only a few years ago. They were using Windows for about 10+ years before they trademarked it. Before then it was clear that the word wasn't trademarkable -- this in itself is a huge sea change, along time ago names could go from trademarked to public domain (Kleenix), but now, the opposite is true. Just shows you how much the law has swung in favor of corporations.

    1. Re:And since when was Windows a trademark? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "They were using Windows for about 10+ years before they trademarked it. ... Just shows you how much the law has swung in favor of corporations."

      Or maybe it shows us that Microsoft had the name long enough to get the trademark. When you're big enough, and have been around long enough, things like this can happen. The laws may very well have softened, but nobody seems to recognize that one of the important factors of this matter is how long Microsoft has had that name for that product.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  62. LinDOS a bad idea by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    general computer users do not remember DOS favorably. Associating you're product with it is a baaaad idea. But yeah, Linspire sucks, a lot. I thought LinDash, although kinda dumb, was fine. Spell it Lin\- maybe (you don't just want the '-' sign on the end, it looks bad too). But then you're customers have to find the '\' key on thier keyboard...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  63. Word marks by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    The script has nothing to do with the trademark.

    Oh really? There are word marks and there are drawings. "Coca-Cola" is a word mark. "Coca-Cola" written in a distinctive script is a drawing, and the distinctive script is part of the mark. "Crack-a-Cola" not written in the script would possibly infringe Coke's rights in the word mark but not at all on the drawing. And given that "cola" has become generic (I see it on Pepsi, RC, and store-bought soft drinks with similar flavors), are you so sure that Coke would have a case on the "Crack-a" part?

    1. Re:Word marks by schemanista · · Score: 2, Informative

      And given that "cola" has become generic

      Cola is a type of nut, high in methylxanthine alkaloids (also found in coffee, some teas, cocoa, etc.). It was native to West Africa but has been transplanted to South and Central America, among other places.

      You use the word "cola" with its commonly understood meaning: "a drink made with cola extract."

      Trademarking "cola" is possible in these End Times[TM], but hasn't been done yet. So, yes, "cola" is a generic in the same way that "soda pop" or "drink" is.

      While "Crack Cola" would probably be safe, "Crack-a-Cola" would get you a Cease and Desist order since it's well over the infringement line. The same standard which slapped down "Lindows" would apply in this situation.

      --
      I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
    2. Re:Word marks by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So let's get back to our roots: Cocaine-Cola...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  64. Re:But what about the Victoria's Secret disto???? by Neko-kun · · Score: 1

    Best. Wallpaper. Ever!

    Since they cancelled the annual show
    Let them put up a distro!

    I mean, even Mattel has one for Barbie, so why not Victoria Secret?

    http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/barbieOS.htm

  65. I like the dislaimer... by irokitt · · Score: 1

    ..at the bottom of this page:

    Copyright © 2004 Lindows.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Lindows.com is not endorsed by or affiliated with Microsoft Corporation in any way - in fact, we don't even really like them because they are suing us.
    Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

    --
    If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  66. new name for Lindows by mbrocato · · Score: 2, Funny

    I vote for calling it "All Your Windows Are Belong to Us"

  67. Re:FP? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Just a matter of time before they outlaw Linux in the U.S.

    Sheesh, some of you people just don't live in the same universe as everyone else.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  68. "Phone book" is an English phrase by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does AT&T have a trademark on the name 'phone book'?

    I don't know. AT&T could conceivably get a trademark on "phone book" in countries whose trademark offices officially don't speak English.

  69. And what about that generic word??? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    I hope they're going to continue the fight in the courts over Microsoft's usage of a comon word as a trademark... I'd hate to see them drop it just when they've got Microsoft on the ropes in the US courts.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  70. Lin by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

    I think they should have chose the name "Lin" (dropping the '---s'). That would have added Lin ("lynn") to the phonetic pantheon of linux distro patron Goddesses -- SuSE (suzy), and Debian (debbie). Wait, isn't Lynn a boyz name? Perhaps they were gender-uncertain...

    --
    "The Internet is made of cats."
  71. [nt] you're fIREd by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
    you're fIREd

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  72. aw man... by Kiyooka · · Score: 1

    I was *so* hoping for LinDoors, LinHouse LinLookingGlass, or something. These guys shoulda called me. : )

  73. Clever...? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

    The name isn't so much clever as... let me think... feeble? Maybe insipid? Fatuous? How about nebbish?

    It's too much like all the inane corporate "invent-a-word" names, like Verizon, Accenture, Cingular, Enovation, Qwest, ExpedX...

    I miss the simple, descriptive (although a bit bland, I grant) names like International Business Machines, or Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M, if you didn't know). Marketing goo makes my skin crawl. If Linwhatever starts talking about leveraging the untapped potential of Linux to empower the user to unleash his blah blah blah, I will vomit. And that is a promise.

  74. Name Game by Sneekyknees · · Score: 1

    Why yes, I do use the OS formerly known as @

  75. L'Inspire by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1
    Ah, but they could frenchly* call it...

    L'Inspire

    and corner that lucrative Yuppie snob OS market not already covered by Macs.

    * - Hah! I invented a word!

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
    1. Re:L'Inspire by (C)0N0(R) · · Score: 1

      I love animals. That's why I like to kill 'em. -- Hank Spire

      Are Hank and Lin related?

      --
      The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
  76. Better than Clownpen... by snatchitup · · Score: 1

    Remember the Saturday Night Live Skit?

    This Linspire.com isn't very inspiring, but, it is better than www.clownpenis.fart

  77. Linspire? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Surely this could not have taken more than one monkey working 1/2 hour on a typewriter.

  78. What type of hole? by gosand · · Score: 1
    What are these see-through things in most of the outside walls of my house called?
    Holes

    And those holes usually have pretty weak security by default, so they would be called "Security Holes".

    Hmm, what a coincidence...

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:What type of hole? by Atario · · Score: 1

      What type of hole?

      Why, glassholes, of course.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  79. Whispering-Windows forced.. by Merlinium · · Score: 3, Interesting

    to also change their name to Whispering-Window because Redmond told them to. Whispering-Windows is not even a computer product, it's a speaker system for retail store windows.
    Next thing you know, when you build a house your going to have to purchase large panes of glass to be mounted in the side of a wall. When will this insane madness stop and common sense start to prevail? but then again I guess, common sense is not all that common.

    --
    If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
    1. Re:Whispering-Windows forced.. by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
      and if tin missiles are made of tin, what do they make fog horns out of? Sorry, just couldn't resist.

  80. Uh-Oh---now who's going to sue? by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1
    Notice that there are common characters in the names:

    wINdowS
    lINSpIre

    Perhaps the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service will be next in line to sue for name infringement...

    1. Re:Uh-Oh---now who's going to sue? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I think Borland gave up on their brief name change, but they'd have more of a case: Take INPRISE, move two letters and add L: L-INSPIRE

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  81. Not to mention by bonch · · Score: 1

    It's not just Windows--it's "Microsoft Windows." Just like "Microsoft Word," "Microsoft SQL Server," "Microsoft Bob." They prefix with their company name.

    We can bitch about how they use the generic word Windows, but they don't just use Windows, they call it, say, "Microsoft Windows NT Workstation(tm) SP4."

    1. Re:Not to mention by MrAngryForNoReason · · Score: 1

      It's not just Windows--it's "Microsoft Windows."

      In that case Lindows should be fine, they don't call it "Microsoft Lindows". Their name is only partially similar to just the generic part of Microsoft's trademark.

    2. Re:Not to mention by fault0 · · Score: 1

      True, however, they didn't have money to defend themselves from the unlimited resources of Microsoft. MS would have continuted to sue in different countries. Microsoft didn't really care if they won or not; that was icing on the cake.

  82. I like by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Winux better.

    Heh, would have cheesed off M$ wouldn't it :)?

  83. Common use of the term clearly predates Microsoft by expro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The X Window System may not have been in common use yet, but the term "window" was already in very common use for creating UIs. You can find code all over that shows this. Even Emacs called the concept a "Window" long before that time.

    Microsoft has no right to claim "Windows" (or Office, which was in common use for Office Automation, etc.) and even less right to complain about Lindows or the X Window System. It should be "Microsoft Windows", and nothing shorter should be protectable, just like "X Window System" is protectable, but "Window System" should not be.

  84. Little guys CAN and DO fight giants by mec · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt there's a single company that could handle being dragged through the world's courts by Microsoft, let alone a small one like them.

    Caldera International purchased the rights to DR-DOS, then sued Microsoft for the damage that Microsoft had done to DR-DOS.

    Caldera settled for an estimated $150 million from Microsoft.

    Microsoft settles Caldera Antitrust Case

    To be sure, Caldera later turned to the dark side in a big way. They are now suing another software giant.

  85. It's a good thing... by Terov · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing they didn't choose "Linnovate," or they'd still be in trouble.

    --


    ---
    All your old jokes are belong to sigs.
  86. A more apt name would've been... by bugnuts · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lintimidated

  87. My name idea after everything... by mbourgon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lipshits.

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  88. For more publicity... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Lindows/spire should publically ask Microsoft's permission if their name change is acceptible. It should be in the form of a public ad taken out in the Times and go something like this:

    "Dear Mr. Gates,

    We admit it, you've won. While we were perfectly willing to follow through the legality of our name in the U.S. court system, we simply cannot financially keep up with your legal punishment in 7 different courts all over the world.

    Therefore, we would humbly ask your permission to change our name from the disputed 'Lindows' to 'Linspire'. We hope that this will stop your litigation and allow for competition in the PC/operating system market.

    P.S. Good luck on your E.U. investigation. We know the pain of trying to keep up with litigation overseas."

    I do hope that MS gets whatever they deserve in the E.U.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  89. HP lawsuits? by oohp · · Score: 1

    Isn't this going to bring any HP lawsuits?

  90. whats in a name? by zenrandom · · Score: 1

    wow... im so unlinspired right now...

  91. Yes, but is Linspire better? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Woah, reminds me of Borland's brief (and ignored) fling with Inprise. ("Linprise", hmmm.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  92. Re:Just like X *Windows* is cybersquatting? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

    it seems that X was created in the mid-80

    But the "X Window System" was a reworking of the older "W Window System".

  93. Linnovative by rixstep · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the new name is linteresting. It's linfective and very lintelligent. This little lincident with the itigation shows that great minds are not lidle for ong. With Microsoft linsisting they have lintellectual property rights on '---' any other countermeasure will ikely prove to be lineffective.

    Just as long as Linus doesn't come along and claim he owns the letter 'L' - which is hardly going to happen. He and Bill Gates weren't born on the same day, or come from the same mold.

    But let's not have any lillusions: Microsoft are a lillegal monopoly. They bode lill for the rest of the Linternet.

  94. Darn by tfinniga · · Score: 1

    I was hoping for Linonghorn

    --
    Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
  95. I know: "Lintos" by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    New "Lintos" -- the distro that's fresh and full of life!

    (Of course, they'll have to license the trademark rights from the candy company,
    and track down the European-sweater guy to put in the commercial...)

    --
    >;k
  96. This is all for good by AnuradhaRatnaweera · · Score: 1
    The only reason why I didn't want to look at Lindows OS was its name. Now, I can give it a try.

    I am sure there are many others out there who don't feel like running something called `-indows'. ;-)

  97. Re:Is...ought fallacy by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    You didn't read the article I linked to, did you?

  98. Why not "Lindoors"? by jslupski · · Score: 1

    I don't think M--ro-o-t can convince they have rights to the doors also...

  99. No more rhymes now... by VorpalHamster · · Score: 1

    No more rhymes now. Retire! Anybody install Linspire? Doh!

    --
    If you're telekinetic raise my hand.
  100. Uh oh, look who's next by R4modulator · · Score: 1

    Blindows: http://www.audiodata.de/e/products/blindows.php Why didn't they ever get sued?

  101. Didn't... by criordan · · Score: 1

    So they didn't have the balls to change to 'Linosoft', eh?

    --
    http://www.aaplblog.com/ - News about Apple Inc.
  102. Distrubution in France, Benelux, Sweden? by cwis42 · · Score: 1

    Now that Lindows changed its name, does that mean that the ruling forbidding them to sell their product to Benelux or Sweden still applies?

    Furthermore, could the agreement french company Hermitage had with Microsoft possibly allows them reselling Linspire again now they renamed their flagship product? (Not that they would be especially be inclined to do so, given that they gave up when Microsoft was starting to threaten them.)

  103. Re:Another possible name by VorpalHamster · · Score: 1

    I still like 'Not Windows.'

    --
    If you're telekinetic raise my hand.
  104. At least by puppet10 · · Score: 1

    They didnt go the punctuation as part of the company name route.

    --
    -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
  105. Hmmm by Goo.cc · · Score: 1

    Personally, I would have called it Linnovate, since MS loves the word innovate.

  106. Actually... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    ...shouldn't that be "Lindash (Lin---s) changes name to Linspire"?

  107. Should really be "L' inspire" by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    The apostrophe is important.

  108. One word: PUBLICITY by Denyer · · Score: 1
    > I fail to see how the name Lindows, was any beneficial.

    Publicity. That's really all there is to it. Gets the company seen.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  109. What? My suggestion wasn't accepted? by haggar · · Score: 1

    I thought "hot babe" would be a winner. Much better than "Windows", "Doors", "Cupboard"... it even beats "Beer", in my humble opinion.

    Imagine the headlines: "lindows changes it's name to "Hot babe" - Linux community in turmoil".

    --
    Sigged!
  110. Have some balls by MrBlender · · Score: 1

    Have some balls Michael ! Call it Longhorn.

  111. Those Wimps! by rspress · · Score: 1

    The should have fought the good fight. They had a very winnable case. At least this name was better than there first choice, Lindos. Hell, I would have changed it to LindowsXP, with the ad slogan, "Like Windows, but with security"

    1. Re:Those Wimps! by m1chael · · Score: 1

      The problem all comes down to money. One side has more, and can use that against your pathetic human case.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    2. Re:Those Wimps! by rspress · · Score: 1

      Yes, Microsoft does have lots of money and therefore they think they can ride roughshod over anyone they dislike.

      Standard Oil did the same in the beginning of this century to the point the ruined there own business. If Microsofts products are as good as they claim they would not have to worry about undermining the competition. As a user of Microsoft products for many years (and still a user) the fact is they are running scared and have good reason to.

      A person who once worked for both Apple and Microsoft stated that at Apple the product was god and everyone worked to that end. At Microsoft the deadline was god and the product shipped at the deadline, bugs and all. Maybe Longhorn will be different, I sure hope it is. Windows as it is now is an amazing pile of junk and it is often surprising when it works correctly. They need to take the OS to the next level and leave the DOS based OS hold overs where they belong, back in 1980. Of course the latest rumors are that features are all ready being dropped or scaled back to meet the 2006 deadline...a well worn path traveled once again.

    3. Re:Those Wimps! by m1chael · · Score: 1

      Brand protection is a funny thing. Let's not forget Microsomebody aren't the only ones who do this feverish 'protection' of trademarks (brand names, etc). Seems to happen alot unfortunately.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    4. Re:Those Wimps! by rspress · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against brand protection, it is a good thing, but when the companies try to shut down other people with something that sounds vaguely like their product then they don't have a leg to stand on.

      Microsoft should have never been granted the use of the term Windows in the first place. They were denied the first time as it was too general of a term. I am sure a little grease in the right places is what it made it sail through the second time. Microsoft could actually stop Anderson Windows from using the name Windows in its trademark.

      Apple lost its lawsuit against Microsoft over the "look and feel" of Windows in part by arguing that the terms "Menus and "Windows" were now generic terms in the computer industry. Far be it from Microsoft to use other peoples ideas in their products without asking!

      Of course the pounce on Lindows because it was Linux and it kinda sounded like windows. They bribed Mike RoweSoft because the guys name sounded like theirs. In any court, other than one MS pays for, the underdogs would have won these cases.

      The 600 lb. gorilla usually gets its way until a 700 lb. gorilla shows up or when people tire of the 600 lb. gorilla and shoot them. The EU is taking aim, maybe this will inspire others to do the same. Still I do not consider MS a monopoly...they are mafia of the computer industry and use dirty tricks and pressure to sell products but I don't consider them a monopoly.....just scumbags.

  112. In other languages, but not in English. by kirkjobsluder · · Score: 1

    The problem Lindows ran into was in Europe. In the United States, courts rejected the claim that Windows could be trademarked on the grounds that it is a common word for an interface. However, that argument did not work in Europe.

    1. Re:In other languages, but not in English. by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Actually, a fair case can be made that in at least some languages other than English the word "window" is used as a generic computer term. That is, "window" may not mean the kind of window you find in the wall of a house, but it does mean "window on a computer display". I made exactly this argument in this post on Language Log. It took me only a few minutes to turn up examples of the word "window" used as a generic computer term in Dutch.

  113. :P by Sn_wC_t · · Score: 1

    was Lindux already taken?

  114. Download Linspire for Free by edwardwong · · Score: 1

    For those who don't subscibe to Michael Robertson's newsletter, he is offering Linspire free, via Bittorrent download.

    Head on to http://www.linspire.com/btorder and put in "lindows" in the coupon code and register an account on Linspire to access the BT downloads.

    Ed

    --
    E.W. (as opposed to eeeeeww)
  115. Lindows web designers == hopeless by x3ro · · Score: 1

    Check this out:

    We'll migrate the thousands of web pages to the new website. It's a big and costly job, but we'll do our best to minimize the impact to you.

    Eh? Logos aside, why would the 'thousands of web pages' need any change at all (beyond a couple of simple DNS changes) unless their web designers were so utterly dumb as to hardcore references to the domain name throughout their website?

    It's either purely disingenous (and therefore an insult to the reader's intelligence) or they don't know it's an admission of incompetence (and therefore testament to their own stupidity).

    --
    [ UNSIGNED NOT NULL ]
    1. Re:Lindows web designers == hopeless by x3ro · · Score: 1

      In my last post i meant to say 'hardcode' not 'hardcore', pardon me. (Guess I shoulda used that Preview button!)

      --
      [ UNSIGNED NOT NULL ]
  116. Lindows in bed with SCO? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Had a look at their website and clicked on "SCO information" to see what their position on the whole SCO thing was. Suprisingly it looks like they've been "in talks" with SCO and even drawn up a contract. Are they paying SCO licenses? Come on Robertson, I know you're trying to do what's best for your business and all that, but SCO? Not cool.

  117. I would have chosen... by Handover+Slashdot · · Score: 1

    LINSUED!

  118. Rash? Yes. Stupid? No. by manticor24 · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that the Lindows name was a very clever (and maybe rash) way to sound familiar to the non-power users of MS Windows. And in the heads of their legal dept. (and many judges), using the notoriety of Windows was OK because you can't trademark a generic word and call it your own, therefore making the case of trademark infringement moot.

    Now, taking a step back, and looking at your statement, you're saying that Lindows did it purely to get the free PR of so many MS victims. This argument lacks any sort of real evidence.

    On the contrary, Lindows likely spent thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees, over a period of years in order to keep the name. If as you suggest, they were doing it for free PR, doesn't it make more sense to fold under the pressure earlier, before you bankrupt yourself?

    Secondly, even though Lindows had a comparatively small brand, any name recognition it did have is now erased, but for a small population. (Like maybe a bunch of Linux nerds.) Beyond that, they no longer have the advantage of using the famiiarity of the Windows name to bring more customers.

    In the end, however, I believe this legal battle will have little residual impact on the company. For one, they have a pretty intelligent CEO, and a very nice value offering. For another, they are clearly competing on price first, and everything else second. The way they will develop a brand is by creeping into homes through dirt-cheap PCs from Wal-Mart. Kudos to Linspire!

  119. If *ALL* Windows belong to Microsoft, by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    then BiGatus will be suing Anderson
    and Pella next? (How dare they!)

  120. Brilliant Name Change! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    How about calling it "Loquacious"? Or maybe even "Locutus?"

    Linspire?

    Morons.

    Dumbest product name I've heard in years.

    Although I thought Lycoris was not too bright either.

    Get off the "L" monkey, guys. Linus thought of it first.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  121. bleh, whatever by VisorGuy · · Score: 1

    I'm still not inspired to use it.

    --
    This user account is inactive account replaced by the PDA
  122. How about "Lintel"? by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Definition: "a horizontal member over windows."

    It would annoy Intel too, therby increasing publicity.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  123. You're not correct about that, IMO. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

    Trademark law specifically forbids using modified names that sound similar to a product. I can't make a copier and call it Terox because that sounds too much like Xerox. I can't create a detergent and call it OceanTide because of the trademark on Tide.

    You are under the common misconception that "confusion" is the only thing forbidden in trademark law. You can't invoke, even indirectly, a trademark simply to promote your product. That is what a trademark IS. A unique symbol, image, or word(s) that reminds the customer of your product or service. And you get FULL control over how it is used. Someone playing word games is invoking indirectly the image of your product to promote there own and that is a blatant and clear violation of the purpose of a trademark.

    Indeed Lindows doesn't deny that they are playing on the name. Their claim, one which I disagree with, is that Windows is a generic term and thus is untrademarkable. If Windows isn't a valid mark then Robertson can play all the word games he wants. That is what he won the right to do in the US. He didn't destroy the link to the Windows trademark. He invalidated the Windows trademark. For Robertson that had the same effect. For Microsoft it put it's entire Windows trademark in jeopardy.

    I don't agree with the courts ruling that Windows is a generic term. A trademark must be famous and distinctive in order to be a valid mark. Windows qualifies as both. If I say "I'm running Windows" we all know that I'm refereeing to the product from the company Microsoft. There is no confusion with panes of glass in buildings, nor is their confusion with the GUI element of a window either. Windows is as distinctive to computers as Apple, also a generic term, is to computers. Both are valid marks and I expect that the ruling will be overturned back into Microsoft's favor.

    I'm not found of Microsoft but Robertson is a troll using trickery and cheap PR moves to promote his product. He always has done that. He is a cheap thug with all the morals of a used car sales man. He does the Linux world a disservice. I usually root against Microsoft but this time I hope they squash this guy like the little bug he is.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  124. Merger Announced by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    Lindows and Borland have joined forces. The new name?

    Linprise.

    Yeah, it's a dumb name, but so is Linspire. Sounds like an online motivational sound bites page.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***