Slashdot Mirror
Ruling Clears Way For Lindows Trial
shystershep writes "Various sources are reporting that Microsoft's appeal in the Lindows trademark infringement suit was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was the trial judge's decision [PDF link] to 'instruct a jury to consider only whether 'windows' was a generic term before November 1985, when the first version of Microsoft's Windows was released.' This is significant because a generic mark receives no trademark protection, and the ruling that the jury must make that determination based only on the use of the term before 1985 is a major blow to Microsoft."
From the trial judge's ruling:
the Court declares it will instruct the jury to consider whether the Windows mark was generic during the period before Microsoft Windows 1.0 entered the marketplace in November 1985. Furthermore, the Court will not instruct the jury that even if Windows were generic prior to November 1985, the trademark would nonetheless be valid today so long as the primary significance of the term today is not generic.
This doesn't mean that the judge has ruled that "windows" is generic, but it does mean that Lindows can (try to)point out to the jury that "windows" was used generically before Microsoft started using it. If it is generic, Microsoft loses their trademark protection in that name (althought "Microsoft Windows" would probably still be valid). Now it's all about the status of that term in the computer industry, including the commercial side of it, prior to 1985.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/uk/default.htm
:) ?
Says "Owned by OutLaw Group"....
Anyone want to get a mirror up before microsoft fixes it
for the judge to make this ruling? Wasn't this the crux of Lindows defense something like 6-8 months ago? (time passes funny for me lately, so it just seems like years have passed already...)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
This mainly says who has jurisdiction in the case, with the judge not ruling on the actual issue of whether "Windows" is generic or not. That will be left up to another court.
I don't know how well linspire can handle this, so Here's a mirror.
MS isn't my favorite company but I also detest it when people try to play off of someone else's popularity. A perplexing conundrum: I'm not sure who to root for this time.
Why is this even an issue anymore? Isn't Lindows further killing itself in other non-lawsuit-involved ways by now using the atrocious name "Linspire"? How can Microsoft still claim damages?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It's simply ridiculous to think someone can own the word Windows.
This makes me so mad.
X Windows
Do I need to say more?
Hasn't Lindows already changed their name to Altria or Claritin or something like that? Or was that Gator?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Even if they don't compete with Microsoft Windows and run on Microsoft Windows.
Microsoft thinking they won the war, when in reality they only won the battle, and will possibly lose the war over its' own name.
It's so filled with irony. Microsoft sues Lindows over its' name, Lindows loses but bites back, as it turns out that Lindows may well have severely hurt Microsoft.
... cool, I mean, I didn't really like lin-dash (or whatver they were going to call it)
I know anything pro-MS posted here is unpopular, but put it this way...
would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Intel went through something like this when AMD and Cyrix had "486 compatible" on their labels, and Intel went to court. Judge ruled: 486 too generic, which moved Intel to start naming their processors to Pentium and the like and trade mark it so somebody couldn't claim "Pentium compatible!" without getting into trouble.
Microsoft might be facing this themselves now. Let's face it - before 1984, the computer term "windows" existed. Everybody with a GUI called their interface a "window" and a collection of them was a set of "windows". MS might very well lose the case.
Short run: they call future OS's by their names and actually release "MS Longhorn 2003", much like Apple has "OS 10.3 Panther". Lindows will be able to sell their product (in the US at least) under the Lindows name.
Long run: More lawsuits between MS at Lindows anyway. Like I'm so surprised.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I agree. The Lindows guys surely chose this name to ride on MS' coattails (or borg tendrils if you prefer). The "Elmer Fudd" principle should not be forgotten: if the disputed name is pronounced the same way as the plaintiff's name if you are Elmer Fudd, you really blew it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So what systems used the term "windows" in a generic sense refering to a computer graphical user interface prior to 1985?
The first release of X was in 1984. Macintosh was also released in 1984. It shouldn't be too hard to document that the term "windows" was used generically in those systems prior to 1985.
Other examples?
Wouldn't Elmer Fudd pronounce "Lindows" as "Windows"??
The "Freemasons" should sue Microsoft, since they have been putting windows in buildings for thousands of years.
"office for windows"? WTF, windows don't have offices, it's the other way around. Buildings have offices, and offices have windows.
We had a mac in 1984, and we definitely called the windows windows. Nothing about the Microsoft version is their property, except for the code they stole^H^H^H^H^Hbought from other people.
stuff |
I don't want them knocking on my door when Zone-H kindly obliges with the submitter's ip ;-)
As we can see the poster has the both the intellect and sexual fantasies of a gerbili id=intel home+homerollshop&url=http://goat.cx
http://apps.intel.com/util/serve-url.asp?
Actually, the money was split down the middle, democrats revceived almost half of it:
Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money. Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money.
This is their Definition of "windows" Computer Science. A rectangular area on the screen that displays its own file or message independently of the other areas of the screen.
A bunch of Tech Stuff
Is Irrelevant
"X Window System" is trademarked by The Open Group. "Windows" is not.
Developers: We can use your help.
http://force-elite.com/ms-hacked/default.htm
Is that owned by the same SCO that is going after Linux? If so, it would be great if Microsoft could just prove that SCO in fact had some of *their* code... cause it sure sounds like Microsoft's lawyers would whoop SCO to the ground. They probably wouldn't, though, because it's too much fun having someone else fight Linux for them.
stuff |
Windows to trademark NT
When I was working at Nortel (hadn't merged with Bay Networks at this point), this causes a little stir since Nortel trades under the symbol 'NT'. Now I know company initials are different from trademarks (except for maybe for IBM), but Nortel felt they "owned" NT as a trademark IIRC. There was also the watercooler MS bashing of shareholders in Nortel would lose money everytime "NT" crashed. Well since then to-date, both 'NTs' have crashed many times
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
"must must make"? Is that like double-plus make? Is this an excerpt from a Dr. Suess book?
Would Microsoft have named their products Office, Word, Paint, .... Windows ... if those weren't generic terms and they weren't trying to grab the common term and associate it strictly with themselves?
Infuriate left and right
Now I wish they'd get smacked for "SQL Server", "Proxy Server", etc.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I have posted a mirror here. Mirrored here
Seems to me that speaks for itself. If, in 1985, Microsoft thought "Windows" wasn't generic, why did they think they had to qualify it by tacking their corporate name in front?
You don't hear other companies calling their products "the General Motors Cadillac" or "Schering-Plough Claritin" or the "Sanford Sharpie" or "Procter and Gamble Mr. Clean."
Anyone product manager would want their product name to be short and punchy. Nobody would tack the company name on unless the company's own legal department had opined that the name is generic, or close to generic, or in danger of becoming generic.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I'm sure Xerox PARC pre-dates all of this by a couple of years.
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
Lindows is trying to prove Windows is a generic COMPUTER/UI term that was used previously.
Apples (and the McIntosh variety) do exist since a gazillion years ago, but that did not stop a certain computer company to be sued by a certain record label.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
One begs the question - if a case in which a company can sue another over whether using the trademark Lindows infringes on the software named Windows and then becomes a pursuit to find out if a word in plural form that is printed in any "modern" dictionary is generic, how can their be any doubt that the justice system (Not all of it naturally) put in place to protect people and their freedoms has become stale crusty shell of dollar bills?
Taicho
how do you know about it?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
http://outlawgroup.cjb.net
That's where the groups homepage is, apparently some sort of hispanic organization.
If you want to bug them on IRC: Brasnet (irc.brasnet.org 7002) knal: #OutLawGroup
That's my work for the day. Enjoy.
With the current jury instructions (use time period before MS' products to determine genericness) Microsoft *IS* going to lose their trademark if this goes to trial.
This will be a great show to watch.
I predict huge press. The ironic twist is that Microsoft brought this upon themselves! By suing Lindows, 'er Linspire - they brought into question their own trademark. Now that grenade is going to blow up in their face.
I hope they do not pay some money to settle since that's what they've been doing recently. Because it will be great to watch Gates try to deny all the windowing systems they ripped off when they greated their product.
Anyone also notice that Lindows doesn't care if they lose? This is playing out perfectly for them. They get a ton of press regardless and if they win they'll be in the history books. Or Microsoft will be for being so dumb to get their OWN trademark invalidated.
It's nice to see the little guy win one.
Lindows - DON'T SETTLE! We're counting on you.
Longhorn 2003?!
You know what's funny? That google has already spidered that page (5/23/04).
Does anyone know how to provoke the Wayback machine into archiving a version for posterity? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It was fun while it was an in joke anyway ;-) AC for obvious reasons.
This reminds me of good old Mike Rowe.
Don't you ever listen to U2?
A secret is something you tell another person.
MS isn't my favorite company but I also detest it when people try to play off of someone else's popularity. A perplexing conundrum: I'm not sure who to root for this time.
I've got no problem picking Lindows on this one.
The Lindows distribution is apparently intended to be an open-source workalike of Windows, convenient for former Windows users trying to switch to Linux. The mark they chose clearly says to me that it's NOT windows but it's LIKE it (and has something to do with Linux). "Brand 'L'" Try it and it MAY work well enough for you or it may not. No confusion whatsoever.
However this case will probably be decided on another basis: Whether Microsoft is attempting to privatize a generic mark. And IMHO "Windows" as applied to software windowing interface systems was already in use well before they coined "Microsoft Windows" and then dropped the "Microsoft". If the jury agrees with this, "Windows" becomes a generic once again and coinages like "Lindows" are fair game.
If you're trying to say you have a Linux based Windows system (bearing in mind that "Windows" is NOT a trademark) that is NOT Microsoft Windows but IS a member of the same category and a convenient alternative to the Microsoft product, what ELSE could you mark it to encapsulate that message?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Surely windows is/was a generic term. I think X-windows should be prior art enough as the name of a software package that did much the same as MS's product. And the term "windows" was in use generically in the computer community before that.
I think though that "Lindows" is just a bit too close to the common practice of refering to MS Windows as just "Windows". They should name their product Linspire Windows or something similar. Which they may be already planning to do.
It IS called X Windows. That's what I've always heard people refer to it as.
It doesn't matter that the trademark and official name is something else in this context.
But when did people start calling it that? It will be a much stronger argument if that usage was common BEFORE Microsoft registered Microsoft Windows (though it can still be argued that even if Microsoft HAD the mark it has now lost it because of the use of Windows as a generic term for comptuer windowing system in this coinage.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There is a huge pile of evidence to show that the term windows was very much generic at the time MS pick it, THAT IS WHY THEY PICKED IT. They didn't pick it because they were trying to create some new brand (ala Nike, Sony, eBay, etc.), but rather, they chose the word windows because that had become the term to define an entire category of window manager type programs.
With this latest ruling, which is now appeal proof, Lindows has the wooden stake to drive through MS' heart.
This will be a fun trial to watch. Robertson, Gates and Ballmer are all scheduled to testify.
you're stealing other akamai bandwidth again, karma whore
http://outlawgroup.cjb.net
Well obviously it was generic before 1985! what else could it mean? nowdays its totally microsoft - eg. "im in windows, i use windows, do you have windows? does it have windows? can you use windows? my windows wont work! my windows is broken" almost always mean microsoft windows. But if you go back to 1985 and say that they shouldnt have been granted trademark in the first place then that changes the field (although windows-xp might count)
Tip: avoid naming your product after things that often break.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
THIS company advertised their windows technology on nationwide (USA) TV for years before Microsoft ever thought of claiming ownership of that word. (Is Microsoft planning on owning the word "Word" also?)
How long will it be before we see:
Mandrake® Windows XD
Don't forget, he's riding half the coat-tails of Windows and half the coat-tails of Linux. What if the name was completely unrelated to Windows. like, Linmoo or Lincow? He's playing off the popularity of Linux simply by creating this product.
Personally, I hope MS loses this case and Lindows drops out of the public eye. I don't feel like they are a good solid foundation for windows users migrating to linux.
The first rule of migration is "Pick a distribution that is widely supported." The fact that Walmart might have a boxed set does not mean it's widely supported.
I'm not sure when they started, but OS/2 first started pretty early, and had "Windows".
another early one is "Geos", the C-64 stuff, before Microsoft came out with windows v1.0, they had geopublish and whatnot, all "windows" references too.
and what about Motif or whatever? I was using Unix way back in the late 70s, and they had "Windows" as well...
Windows is waaaay too generic... if anything, the X consortium should win ownership...
Under different circumstances, this could have worked really well for Microsoft. Specifically, had "windows" not been a generic computer interface term in 1985, this ruling would have been disasterous for Lindows (and all non-Microsoft GUI makers who use the term "window"). This ruling basically stated that the jury could not have considered any trademark damage caused by the "genericizing" of the term since MS Windows was first released. This ruling was as pro-Microsoft as logically possible within the framework of Trademark law. (yeah, I know, law and logic just don't mix).
Microsoft will either be forced to pay Lindows a LOT of money to settle this or to lose their trademark at trial. My prediction: Microsoft will not settle and is willing to lose at trial.
Let's face it, even if they settle with Lindows, every one else will know that the Windows trademark is toast. So by settling Microsoft would only be setting itself up for more lawsuits and more payouts.
In fact, I predict that Microsoft will attempt use their loss of the Windows trademark to their advantage. They'll give Longhorn an entirely new name because they'll claim it's an entirely new OS.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
At the end of the day the court will rule that Microsoft has exclusive rights to the use of the "Windows" trademark provided Microsoft provides each Lindows user with a $5 discount coupon good on his next purchase of an MS product.
Seems like its time for Microsoft to blow the Windows name and come up with something new while they still have some command of the market.
Maybe we should help them out with some suggestions? :o)
Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money. Overall, Microsoft and its employees were the country's fifth-largest political donor in the 2000 election -- contributing $4.7 million to politicians and their committees. Republicans received about 53 percent of that money.
We heard you the first time, asshat.
was Stanford's W project. I'll give you all one guess what the W stood for.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Using "ux" in trying to make someone think about the relationship of Unix to Linux
I see nothing wrong with either... I also see no complaints when someone writes an application with "win" in the name, or "98" ir "2000" or "xp".. etc..
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
As did Microsoft. MS stole a word from the commons and benefitted from this. You benefit in the beginning as your product is selfdescriptive, later on you pay a price since you can't protect it.
Take your oick and live with it. MS did but refuses to live with their decision. They deserves to lose and they will lose. If Lindows for some obscure reasons looses they will win an appeal and the case will be remanded. Windows as a MS trademark is Doomed (tm?)
Big welcome to Linux Windows, etc.
Help fight continental drift.
From old nordic (vikings etc), wind eye. An eye to the wind. Old word, very old. Would be nice to see microsoft fail here, trademarking the name of a generaly accepted concept shouldn't be allowed.
Courtesy the GOOGLE USENET archive which gives 120 hits (103 unique) searching on "user interface" and "windows" prior to November 1985.
There is one I found curious though. If you change the search to "user interface" and "Microsoft windows" you get a single hit from Nov 16, 1983 about a spreadsheet program. Had MS been using that name for a precurser to Excel on Macintosh?
And personally, If I were going to to subpeona any documents, I would wan't to see the presentation slides used for this conference where "Leo Nicora [sic *], Product Marketing Mgr, Microsoft Windows" was to give a talk on "window architectures". If a MS employee was documented using the term generically in march of 1984 it would pretty much be a slam dunk for Lindows.
Another strong piece of evidence is a few references to "Sun Windows" which may have been a development environment, or maybe it was just references to their window management implementation and isn't meant to be a brand.
* Nikora
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Microsoft has arguably deliberate policy of giving their products generic names: Windows, Office, Word, SQL Server, Access, Works and then threaten companies which do not even directly compete with them (wxWindows were renamed to wxWidgets even though wxWindows were miles away from OS market.) thus denying competition possibility even clearly identify their products without running into trademark infringement.
It's not just trademarks, either. They also coopt inconvenient technical terms and redefine them to their advantage.
For example: "Wizard". It meant an person exceptionally good at some aspect of IT, (especially system administration). Someone with perhaps less than the mind-bogglingly total understanding of a subject that would make one a "guru". But nevertheless an expert who one would call for fast and correct solutions to difficult problems.
Typically it would be prefixed with a modifier designating the field of expertese, as in "Unix wizard" or "Sendmail wizard". If you had a problem with installing and/or a bug in configuring Sendmail, for instance, you'd look around for a "Sendmail Wizard" to help you out.
Wizards were well respected. Referring to someone as a wizard at some aspect of Microsoft system/application set administration implied that he had more on the ball than Microsoft's manual writers and helpdesk personnel (even after escalation), perhaps than their developers (since he typically solved difficult problems THEY had created without access to the source).
Then Microsoft coopted it for their (sometimes brain-dead) automated install/configuration menu sets. This became the meaning first encountered by Windows lusers (a somewhat large population). Now referring to a person as a Wizard became confusing - and once sorted out nevertheless carried the implication that he might be an idiot-savant, no more brainful than a lame stack of menus.
I see both of these trends as subsets of Microsoft's "Embrace / Extend (incompatibly) / Extinguish" strategy, polluting the namespace in an effort to trip up all competition and monopolize the IT market.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Of course the term 'windows' was was generic prior to 1985. If it wasn't, then Microsoft is, itself, guilty of trademark infringement for using it on the first release of their software, right? You can't claim a trademark on the name of software (or anything else for that matter) before it is conceived. If they wanted to do that, wouldn't they have had filed paperwork claiming the trademark without a product prior to 1985, thus resolving the issue?
Ouch! LOGIC - it's a killa!
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Intel went through something like this when AMD and Cyrix had "486 compatible" on their labels, and Intel went to court. Judge ruled: 486 too generic, which moved Intel to start naming their processors to Pentium and the like and trade mark it so somebody couldn't claim "Pentium compatible!" without getting into trouble.
So what about Microsoft SQL Server? Is that going to be the next trademark lawsuit? The Microsoft website lists a (TM) next to the name.
How much more generic a term could it be?
Don't forget a company called Digital Research that BLEW IT and opened the way up for a world with Gates ... Concurrewnt CP/M on an 8086 with 4 "windows".
All this pre M$ windows (DOS 2.125?).
Microsoft asked for permission to appeal in the middle of the case, before a trial even took place. The court of appeals refused to hear the appeal at this time. In essence, the appeals court put it off until later.
What this means is that there can be a trial, that the trial will consider only pre-1985 evidence on genericness, and that Microsoft can appeal the result afterwards. This case is far from over.
The "screen" command (type man screen) uses the term "window" to indicate an area on the screen (it also uses "virtual terminal" but that is used more like a document, a single window can show different virtual terminals, so these are not equivalent and they definately are using the term "window" for the modern meaning). I do remember "screen" from 1982 on VMS and it was considered old even then. However use of the term "window" may be later, the man page says "Copyright (C) 1987 Oliver Laumann" at the bottom.
That was GEM, and it was a little later. Microsoft was already developing Windows at that point and where I worked we had samples of the first versions when GEM came out.
This would makes obvious that the Windows qualified was just a generic way of making sure that people understood what the program did.
Help fight continental drift.
You have good points. MS deserves to lose on controlling the Windows word, but I wish it was not from "Lindows", which basically has tried to immitate/copy MS Windows and cash in with a sound-alike name.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
(Subject says it all)
how about Li(n)tiGates?
If they settle, the trademark can be taken hostage by anyone else who wants to make a quick buck.
Imagine a world in which we have "Gnaw's not a windows" or Red Hat becomes "Improved Windows" and Mandrake "More Windows". All future OS's would be obliged to have Windows in the name so that MS will pay a settlement to protect windows trademark.
I don't know how MS could win, but that's their only option now.
Both the curses library and emacs refer to rectangular subsections of a text screen as "windows".
My grandmother has called those clear things on the walls that let you look outside windows for years, and many generations before her have..
now because of some fairly recent upstart compared to the time the term has been used, now has exclusive rights to call that their name and property?
It's like McDonalds Suing the McDonald Clan for use of "their" name. (which I think actually happened)
I heard a rumor that Microsoft is already trying to settle for upwards of 100 million dollars. They are scared and running. I am willing to start a betting pool on who will win. I will put up $100 that says Lindows, Inc. either wins at trial or Microsoft pays them off. Any takers?
"dows" is to Windows and Lindows
as
"ux" is to Linux and Unix?
I need to go take a nap...
Creative Demolition
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to have thrown the case out the "window"
I guess Microsoft could always start using the word "Windoze" instead.
Windows (capital W) is not a generic term. It's a trademark. It refers to the industry standard Microsoft operating system for displaying applications and information to the user in a method incorporating multiple window segments which may overlap, interact with each other, etc.
window and windows are generic terms. They refer to the screen space an application occupies on a system which uses the window method to display data.
I honestly do think Microsoft is correct in this case -- They are referring to the use of Windows, the trademark and the operating system, as a way of attracting credibility. Don't kid yourself - it alludes to the Microsoft product very strongly.
It's not like Microsoft is taking any developer of window manager applications, or applications that run in a window or windows, or even publishers or developers that refer to their program's "window" or "windows" when talking about the application. They're taking a publisher/distributor to court over a name which sounds very similar to their operating system, Windows.
I don't see the issue...
The Windows trademark was rejected the first time around for being too generic. How it got accepted the second time around is anyones guess.
I stated here on slashdot before many months ago that MS was on shaky ground on this one and by going after Lindows they could lose the Windows trademark. If Microsoft were smart they would drop the case, settle out of court with Lindows and pay all court expenses. That way they may get out with their trademark intact, at least for awhile. I doubt they will make the smart move.
If they lose be sure to purchase my new Windows 2004 PX OS.
I think the outcome is already decided... we the geeks argue about when the term Windows was first used, etc. But the real reason why things like these are decided by a jury is because the defendents get to select the jury. Find the people who use Windows in the recent years, and ask them if they have heard the term Windows prior to 1985... and what it means to them. Most of the jury will say no, and brings Anderson Windows and Doors to mind, "proving" that Windows was not a generic use as refered to Computer OSes. This is not a case based on facts, but on a jury selected to play the victory to the Microsoft's hand.
Linspire® Windows
Red Hat® Windows Personal Edition Linux®.
SCO® UNIXWindows®
Debian GNU/X/BSD/Linux/Windows
Apple® Windows X® 10.7 for Macintosh® computers
Why did Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg
all went in favour of Microsoft?
Do I sense a Flemish Mafia here?
Of course I won't state something like:
Flemish women are coarse and smell of lard
while Flemish men are eerily affeminate
I might upset the insignificant few
But really:
- Someone ought to cut out the ear of those pro-pedofilia Belgium judges
- And while you are at it - do the Dutch a favour - cut their balls; they clearly don't use them.
- Luxemburg? - wipe that bogey of the map, thank you.
No surprise these countries, voted in favour of M$1) WindHorn 2006(R)
2) Horny BSOD 2006(R)
3) MS BSE-OD 2006(R)
4) CowPies 2006(R)
5) MS BSE0wn3d 2005(R)
I mean, Lindows are GPL violators (they don't make the source available to all who buy their product like the GPL demands), plus they bastardize a great dist (Debian GNU/Linux), charge subscription fees to access all the FREE software in their Warehouse. In addition, their website looks like a ripoff of Mac OS-X! Anyone with half a clue would just install Debian or another variant.
It's actually a very interesting paper and well worth a read.
Thanks be to Google.
Somebody, please tell Lindows about this.
The old Amstrad Schneider PC 1512 came with 3 OS'es.. CP/M dos, MS Dos, and GEM. GEM was by far the most advanced OS of the 3, as it was a full featured window manager like on the AppleII2, but with some additional great ideas in it that only reappeared 5 years later with windows 3.1. It had fontlibraries, graphics, drawing programs, text editors, and most of all, Locomotive Basic-2, which ran the very first program I ever 'wrote' (line copied from tutors): stars.bas (drawing impressive line-based star doodles)
I still have the complete manual, and iirc the term 'window' was used all over the place to explain users how to navigate, where they could find all the options by right-clicking (yes, right-clicking, pre-MSWindows)
GEM was a fine system. I'm not sure why it never caught on. It was so much better than the 2 command line DOS OS'es, I never could understand why people wanted to write those dreadfully inpotent strings of batch files. I preferred TP and QuickBasic any time! The Borland tools also had 'windows', as did Tasword, Framework, db2, PageMaker,..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
Actually, that's not generic. SQL Server would be - Microsoft SQL Server would not.
The inclusion of the "Microsoft" sets it apart, and prevents, say, Oracle from publishing "Oracle Micoroft SQL Server".
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Popularity does not grant you a trademark.
Why is that so difficult to grasp?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
derived works of all kinds? All references and samples of previous works?
= 9J =
tee-hee('!')Hiya, billy boy, wanna play touch and go fax me?[Microsoft Games/FS2000(Crash Control)] Tee-Off|On:PGA GOLF99 Hole-in-one(Paul G. Allen, CEO, VULCAN.COM/SPOCK.SYS) Puke-on-demand-install-MICHAEL=1[DELL]Way to barf and/or blow chunks of Yahoo!(R)qmailer program to abuse@prodigy.net Copy to: policy@sbcglobal.net Billionaire Bill and his Bozo Buddies have been UDP/Discover(i)[(NG?)](e-Knowlege Bas0E;->) and converting "IT"[000-001]to "IS"[(03,011 US 022)]General Properties of (C)(R)(APP)(IZATIONS)manufactured/published by "(R)(C)Copyright 1981 - 2038 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.LZ0/MC1 - SUPER COOKIE - My ass&done.386" for too many years, to the detriment of too many people and computers who are not gaming junkies or trying to conquer the FE32-bit(Formal Engineering) business world with their sooper snoopers and sym-boolean web search operators talking shit to speech engine[Word-Ups/Free Trial Offer AOL as EBONICS XLATER/Refer all new callers to my little black SAMBO's PC(Political Correctness)Meter Maid/CW.NET:0(Cable & Wireless )]. The legal privatization of public knowlege, i.e., common words and phrases, particularly ones which are crucial to the inner workings of electronic equipment, by Microsoft and their ilk is an absurdity that needs to be overhauled. Maybe this Lindows case will be the beginning of the end of Microsoft's consistantly defective software products being shoved down our throats with their pissant "Take it or leave it, EULA(e)" Enough is enough already. "My Computer" and "My Documents" are not "General E Properties Microsoft Windows Media descriptor global originals at www.music.com/dos/NOTES/ADOBE.ddd" (Pink Floyd(1)All we are is bricks in the wall of Netscape Communicator Lighthouse) Kinky Friedman,"Read My Lips: I don't know!" (Kinky's platform for TX-Governor-06 candidacy) -->GO JEW BOY! Need help? ASK(R)AMD.COM(oooo-eeee! SBCIS/IT?) I have repeatedly challenged Mr. William H. Gates III to a public debate on topic:"Religion & Politics of Computer Arts & Architectures" He and his attorneys do not respond. Perhaps some of my new potential friends/members of SLASHDOT.ORG know how to get Mr.007.html:80 to play with me in front of a global "Target Audience"? Happy Day Y'all! From Beautiful Austin, TEX-US!
There were many software products prior to MS Windows that used Windows as part of the name. I have always thought that a trademark for such a generic term should not be permitted. I have no problem with "Microsoft Windows", or "MS Windows", but "Windows" is just wrong. And saying that a trademark on a rhyming word is just absurd. I do think that "Lindows" would be a perfectly good trademark. It was not a term for anything prior to its use for "Lindows".
In the early 80's, I used several Windows packages, "Windows for C", "Windows for Data", both from Vermont Creative Sotware. I also used "Greenleaf Windows", another DOS window package, and I am pretty sure that this was based on an even earlier Windows package that Greenleaf Software purchased. Wasn't GEM also called a Windows
package? What about X Windows?
It seems to me that Microsoft's argument is we are a monopoly.