Slashdot Mirror
Linux Trademark Protection In Australia
robyannetta writes "Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year
to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."
He's a crackpot scientologist.
First hit: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm is really interesting.
Jere4my Malcom isn't a practicing lawyer. He's a whore for the Church of Scientology.
Just do a google for "Jeremy Malcolm Scientology". All he does is write letters, which you can safely ignore, since he never follows through.
He's just another crackpot trying to hustle a few buck.
Come to Australia instead.
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=smh.com.au
User: SamJones42
Pass: SamJones42
Login: SlashyLaRue
Password: slashdot
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Here's an article stating as much.
About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm.
Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application. Those using the term in a descriptive sense do not have to pay, he says.
"It is your legal responsibility to obtain a licence from the Linux Mark Institute before you are allowed to use the word 'Linux' as part of your product or service name or brand," Mr Malcolm wrote to companies.
User group president Jonathan Oxer says the trademark application is to protect the name from abuse. "At this point, the exercise is not about extracting fees from people," he says. "It's an extremely small number of people that are likely to have to licence it. It's about establishing the trademark. This is the reality of working in the commercial world that we're in now."
Reactions ranged from support to confusion.
"I suspected it was a scam, so I posted the message (to a local mailing list) to find out more," says Richard Ham, a Sunshine Coast IT consultant whose ventures include his EdIT Counsel consultancy and Linux-related website http://linuxhowtos.net/">linuxhowtos.net.
Investigations relieved Mr Ham's concerns, but not everyone is so understanding.
"There's been a mixture of positive support and paranoia, and that's kind of what I expected," says Mr Malcolm, who was engaged in a celebrated 2002 anti-spamming case against Perth company T3.
The trademark action emerged after a 2003 conflict in which an Adelaide Linux consultancy called itself Linux Australia Pty Ltd. The user group, in operation for years, took exception to the name's similarity and blocked the application through IP Australia. The consultancy changed its name to OpenEra but the incident highlighted that the Linux name was in legal limbo because it was unregistered.
The user group acted to become an agent for the Linux Mark Institute, a US-based organisation created in 2002 to police use of Linux creator Linus Torvalds' trademark after he became concerned about a website operator selling pornography through http://linuxchix.com/">linuxchix.com.
The Australian trademark application was lodged with the trademarks office on January 19 last year. It has an acceptance due date of September 7.
In the weeks leading to that date, Mr Malcolm hopes to build momentum for the initiative so the trademark will be granted to Mr Torvalds, with the user group monitoring use in Australia.
About a dozen letters have been returned and Mr Malcolm is in talks with IP Australia over whether that is enough.
"I'm hopeful that just to show that we've got positive responses from some of the most important users of Linux out there will be enough to convince IP Australia to grant the trademark," he says.
OpenEra, whose inadvertent naming conflict with the user group started the process, got its letter last week and "we'll be signing it", says managing director Hosi Stankovic.
"We have the legacy of (the dispute) and all the hate mails but we don't really have any objections to (the user group) registering the name," he says.
"We just want a trademark and to have it safe to trade with."
and guess who the lawyers are representing. This article is the biggest troll ever to get posted on Slashdot. There's a FAQ for anyone who actually cares to learn what Linus is trying to acheive in Australia.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Does it go on forever?
Created an account on there for all of you to use: Username: slshdt0816 Password: slashdot
There is a letter from the lawyer at http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html. It spells out the intent of the letter a bit better than the articles.
Evidently it was a poorly written letter in the 1st place. Some lawyer.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
If you read that FAQ it's only been created to try and justify the fake letter. Nothing but trolling.
Bottom line is no one can force you to pay to say "Linux", and that's that.
If you remove the 'oneclick' argument from the URL.
r otection-comes-at-a-cost-for-some/2005/08/15/11239 57995044.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/next/linux-trademark-p
Your FAQ is from the organization this quack lawyer represents, in his attempt to extort A$thousands from people using the Linux trademark appropriately. Who cares what their answers are? Why are you defending this creep, and his obvious ploy to cash in on the brand equity created by Torvalds and everyone else actually contributing to "Linux"?
--
make install -not war
Guys, the Slashdot summary is a little misleading. The group "Linux Australia Inc" is NOT applying for the trademark.
:(
I work at the patent office here in Australia and so I looked it up. The details of the trademark are:
Trade Mark : 985197
Type of Mark: Word
Acceptance Due: 07-SEP-2005
Class/es: 9, 16, 42
Owner/s: Linus Torvalds
GPO Box 4788
SYDNEY,2071,NSW
AUSTRALIA
This actually seems to be a genuine attempt at preventing malicious abuse of the Linux name.
So I'm a bit ambivalent about this trademark. On one hand it goes against the spirit of open-ness. On the other hand I can think of numerous examples where I would want this enforced (eg, it protects the name from abuse by certain world-dominating-software-companies who may have an interest in dirtying the name).
I'm no fan of patents in IT, but this seems like a necessary evil to me.
Sad reflection of the times we live in...
Umm.. well, since Linus is named as the owner of this trademark application, I'd say that it DOES have his blessing. Bad choice of lawyers, maybe, but it appears to be legit nonetheless.
Work in progress?
DOMAIN: MICROSOFTPORN.COM
RSP: Transip B.V.
URL: http://www.transip.nl/
created-date: 2005-08-08
updated-date: 2005-08-08
registration-expiration-date: 2006-08-08
owner-contact: P-JES120
owner-organization: Schutte, j
owner-fname: J
owner-lname: Schutte
owner-street: Veenlustplein 15
owner-city: Veendam
owner-zip: 9641 MG
owner-country: NL
owner-phone: +31598633597
owner-email: aan.michel@planet.nl
Linux Trademark owned by Linusm l
See Slashdot post
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/19/0828245.sht
I run a small consulting company that had the words Linux mentioned in several places on the Website. I'm one of those who got the email letter from Jeremy. Anyway, my blog below provides a brief summary.
http://www.livelogcity.com/users/penguinman/269.hMaybe we need a new non-trademarked word to refer to Linux in Australia, so that small companies like mine can still refer to this OS without having to worry about paying no trademark license. Maybe we can all put Tux icon in place of the word Linux.
Alexander Melbourne, Australia
THANK YOU... I was hoping someone was going to post that soon.
An FAQ for the /. hordes...
We're not... the letter (and the email body which contained the first paragraph) specifically state "This is not a letter of demand, but rather a request for your assistance..."
Don't look at us, that's the pricing set by the Linux Mark Institute (LMI) and they say that most uses are no more than $500. What's more, the license only covers direct uses of the name (like in a business name) not descriptive uses like "We sell Linux CDs". In any event, that's all down the road, and we're not likely to be the ones pursuing it anyway (that's LMI's job). Don't get your panties in a knot.
No, it doesn't. That's what we're trying to do, get it registered for Linus here.
Yes, really. Feel free to check with Linux Australia Inc, LMI, whoever. I'm not sure if Linus personally knows of our efforts, but Jon "maddog" Hall (President of OSDL I believe) certainly does.
Andrew Cowie (one of the Linux Australia board members) has written an excellent summary in his blog. Well worth the read.
And in case you think I'm talking out of my rear, I work for Jeremy (on the IT side, IANAL) and was the one who "physically" sent out the 90 emails.
Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
Mr Malcolm is quite a respected individual in these parts; having been an EFA board member, and being involved with Western Australia's pre-eminent Internet Association on some level for quite some time.
He's also a lawyer; in that capcity he has acted both for (see previous cites) Scientology, and against it (www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual00.html, www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual01.html).
He voluntarily stood down from the board of EFA during his actions on behalf of CoS, in order to prevent accusations of bias. A clam would probably not have done this.
He's just a lawyer trying to make a buck from his clients. Not a clam.
You're doing it wrong.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
No, Scientologist TrollMod, the parent to which I replied is "Flamebait", starting in on the ad hominem attacks. My reply is Flame. "Get it straight, before you moderate." - Johnny Cochran
--
make install -not war
Other interesting links;
http://www.linuxmark.org/
http://builderau.com.au/program/work/soa/Suspicio
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
He provided a lot of fuel for the fire, without giving a single one of the "obvious" examples.
With friends like that, you don't need enemies.
Or to pick a more apropos thought - "useful fool." After all, people like him, who have to join mensa to try to make people think they're smart, must think we're all stupider than he is (fact - more than 99.9% of all geniuses world-wide are smart enough to avoid the mensa scam, whereas lots of non-geniuses with enough time and practice testing - you can buy the practice tests from the person who wrote the mensa test - can get in).
I think we can be pretty sure Linux infringes on hundreds of patents. Just like every other nontrivial program. Supposedly OSRM will tell you which ones if you ask, although they do have a vested interest in saying Linux infringes. But the famous setuid bit patent is one concrete example, albeit expired. Whether the patents "could lead to further litigation" is a different question.
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Jeremy Malcolm has also published a FAQ, including the following:
Linux Australia is the group organising the big linux.conf.au conference each year. (Both Linus and /. editors have attended in the past...)
They are currently in the process of setting themselves up as the group to talk to if you want to talk to FOSS volunteers in Australia. This is pretty much a self-appointed role for them, but they have put a lot of effort into communicating with the LUGs all over the country and they have deeper pockets and a higher profile than the LUGs due to organising the region's major FOSS conference, so the LUGs are, as far as I know, consenting. Most Linux Australia people are pretty active in their own LUG: the Sydney and Perth groups have a great deal of overlap with Linux Australia. LA is also open membership and most conference attendees do end up joining (it's free with the conference admission) so a reasonable chunk of FOSS developers in Australia have voting rights. Rusty Russell and Andrew Tridgell have both been involved to varying degrees.
So they are a legitimate user group, or meta-user group, as much as any other LUG in Australia. It's in their role as the umbrella of Linux in Australia that they seem to have asked Malcolm to act to shore up Linus's claim to "Linux" in Australia, currently in doubt because so many businesses already use the word.
Ok. Jeremy is my Lawyer, and folks actually need to understand he's a bloody good guy who helped out a community journalism group I'm involved with free of charge once because , well we where poor asses and he's got a heart.
Jeremy is doing this as LINUS's rep here so as to assert that the trademark application is REAL, so as to stop unsrupulous companies abusing the name "Linux" or trying to trademark it.
I dont know if they intend to collect on the money, my suspicion is that its pretty damn negotiable. Its just to assert that linus's trademark is a real one.
I don't know what the deal is with Jeremys Scientology suite was. I know he stepped down from the EFA over it, which was the ethical thing to do. Either way, I doubt Jeremy can answer that concern for you because of the lawyer/client confidentiality thing. I guess everyone has a black -spot in the history.
[b]THERES ALWAYS MORE TO THE STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE[/b]
Jeremy is a geek. A raging geek. He's proud of it too. He gives a damn about linux, and you can be assured this is not some SCO type grab.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
If I understand correctly, Linus first set up "Linux" as a trademark so that he could stop a site called "linuxchix.com."
I'm curious if a company like Apple would be able to stop an (as yet non-existent) site named "ipodchix.com" given that there are a ton of "iPod" sites that use the iPod trademark: "ipodhacks.com", "ipodsync.com", "ipod-fun.de", "ipod-dj.com", "ipod-shop.co.uk", "ipod-warehouse.com.au", "ipod-conga.com", etc, etc. And if they can, would they?
Does this mean that the open source movement is actually more protective of its associations and (as the story article suggests) litigious when it comes to this matter than a corporation?
(By the way, if anyone is thinking of setting up ipodchix.com just to see what happens, here are some (mostly work safe) pictures to get started. Purely in the interests of trademark research of course!)
http://www.eluid.org/images/misc/iPod1.jpg
http://www.eluid.org/images/misc/iPod2.jpg
Given how people completely went off their heads in here, that this process has been going on for well over a year, and, as others have pointed out, there was ample press coverage at the time, I can't imagine that anything else that anyone says is going to dramatically improve the situation.
But, for what it's worth, I posted a rather conversational piece about this in my blog a couple weeks ago that a few people around and about seemed to think explained the situation reasonably. So, for anyone who is still reading this thread, here you go: Linux Trademark In Australia.
AfC
Ok, but why charge for the use?
I mean, keep the use free of charge, but require anyone using the word "Linux" to send a copy of their work to be certified, or something... but don't charge for it!
Because, if I want to hack Linux and put inside my clockwatch... and them make it avaliable on my website under the name of WatchLinux for FREE, I wont want to pay someone to use the trademark... Hell, I'd rather make a WatchNetBSD or something!
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
So, lets see what was wrong with that (again going over stuff that was said back on March 1st):
- If its so obvious, why not give even 1 instance? As a lawyer, he should know that making unsubstantiated allegations
- Its been 6 months since his March 1st "infringes hundreds of patents" claim, and he still hasn't backed it up with a single instance, even though lots of people have called bullshit on it;
- It's not about protecting the trademark. Filing the paperwork, etc, was about protecting it. Blabbering about how people may have to pay up to 5k to use it, even though it won't even be granted for another month, is just stiffing up shit;
- Sending letters out, even though the trademark hasn't even been granted yet (and people are free to oppose the grant) smacks of the same tactics another enemy of open source used - SCO. Remember how they sent out 1500 letters demanding license fees for an "intellectual IP license?"
- A grant in the future doesn't automatically remove the rights of people whose use of the term has been tolerated to date - they may, in fact, have a better claim, as they can show they've been using it;
- A grant in the future doesn't necessarily invalidate the rights of current users in other respects as well;
Sending out the letters was not just premature - it comes across as an attempt to get people to agree to something by threats because you don't have a leg to stand on (and since the mark hasn't been granted yet, he doesn't). Asking that people acknowledge that they are using the term under license, when the mark hasn't been granted, is BS. So I have no hesitation slagging the hack.The whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. Linux Mark made a mistake using this guy. Whether they picked him, or he approached them, it still stinks, and the end result is going to be people doing the same thing as IBM did using the term AIX instead of Unix.