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."
With all the crazy IP stuff I see, this is one country I will never visit.
Man...that place is messed up.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
every single word of it.
Read the FAQ and educate yourself.
How we know is more important than what we know.
lay off the crack pipe.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Seriously.
It's time to put an end to the con-artists and crackpots who abuse patent and trademark law to try to make a quick buck off the hard work that others have done. As this particular fellow is clearly beyond redemption or reform, let's just save everyone the hassle and invest in a .30-06 shell and have done with the bastard.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Yep, and they faked Jonathan Oxer's Blog and the press page of Linux Australia that links to the zdnet article above is also faked, and if you were to get off your ass and call them the guy answering the phone wouldn't really be from Linux Australia, he'd be a midget who does voice impersonations for the CIA. I said it before, I'll say it again, lay off the crack pipe.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Then my job isn't done. I just suckered you. Jeremy Malcolm's firm iLaw did represent the CoS. That's what lawyers do. They take any case that pays. The CoS can pay, so they took the case. Now they are repesenting Linus. Tomorrow they could be representing SCO or some nut who wants to sue Rockstar for making GTA:SA. The problem is that you assign the motives of his clients to him.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wow. So basically you're blaming me for your unethical behaviour. You don't slander someone just because you're too lazy to do 5 minutes research.
How we know is more important than what we know.