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."

Comments

Appropriate phrasing

[Kelson]

...may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required) [Emphasis added]

So you have to register to read about how people may have to register...

Re:Appropriate phrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=smh.com.au

User: SamJones42
Pass: SamJones42

Re:Appropriate phrasing

[Kelson]

*sigh* There's always someone who doesn't get the joke.

Re:Appropriate phrasing

[Jafar00]

Remeber, bugmenot.com is your friend! ;)

Er, uh

[Luigi30]

Isn't this the kind of thing Free Software was supposed to be against? Anyone can distribute their own flavor of Linux and call it Linux without being threatened by lawsuits over trademarks?

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

Ignore it.

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.

Re:Er, uh

[DNS-and-BIND]

I don't know...everything I've read says that the CoS lawyers are mean and vindictive, and spare no expense to make you miserable. Maybe this guy is just a Scientologist, and not part of the cult's legal army?

I tried that Google search you suggested and it looks like he tried to sue Google because Google Search linked to pages where people got pissed off after he tried to sue them.

Re:Er, uh

[jcr]

He's not trolling, he's correct, as a quick check of google will show you.

-jcr

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

What's your problem? I followed the post's advice, and Googled (Jeremy Malcom Scientology) (applying the correct Google syntax for searching for the words, rather than as an exact phrase). I found all kinds of pages documenting Malcom's role both as an abusive lawyer for Scientology in Australia, and as a general abuser of speech/suppression techniques - consistent with the suppressive actions of Scientology worldwide. Maybe you just have poor Google skills, or took the instructions too literally, searching for the phrase delimited by quotes, rather than by parentheses.

Or maybe by "this" (in your "this has to be teh best troll I've ever seen") you meant your own post. Shooting for "best troll". Well, it's not bad, but not so great. All it took to debunk it was to do what the poster to whom you replied instructed (translated to actually work).

In either case, no one has (as of this writing) modded you up. But you should opt out of moderating - you're dangerous.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

... and the funny part - he's never won.

He's the same idiot that was quoted saying that "Linux might infringe hudnreds of patents." Notice the weasle words. We've dealt with this a few times before on slashdot (zdnet australia isn't too bright, methinks) http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/ 1845258&from=rss

The "expert" in "computer and internet law" isn't. Just one of many stupid quyotes:

According to Malcolm, who admits to being against software patents, said there is 'no question' that Linux already violates a number of patents, which could lead to further litigation.

Of course, he didn't provide any concrete examples. It's all fud, trying to generate business and "name recognition." He's a fucking leach.

Re:Er, uh

[QuantumG]

Jeremy Malcom
Jeremy Malcolm

bet you feel like an idiot now.

Re:Er, uh

[jcr]

bet you feel like an idiot now.

I stand corrected, but no: I don't feel like an idiot. Piggybacking on Linux's popularity is precisely the sort of thing I wouldn't put past a clam.

-jcr

Re:Er, uh

[QuantumG]

Take a chill pill. He is legit. He's a lawyer. He's representing Linux Australia who are operating under instructions from the Linux Mark Institute who represent Linus. It's all perfectly above board. Lawyers will represent anyone who can pay. To form an opinion of a lawyer based on one case they did is naive to the extreme. If you want to see what Jeremy Malcolm is all about, go read what he has written or look at the other cases he has been involved in. He introduced the first anti-SPAM act in Australia. He actively opposed the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He's an advocate for privacy and common carrier protections.

On the other hand, your actions are bordering on libel and have already violated anti-vilification laws in this country.

Re:Er, uh

[jcr]

That's what lawyers do.

Some lawyers actually decline clients who are up to no good. If this guy represented the CoS, then I would consider him less than ethical.

-jcr

Re:Er, uh

[Michael Hunt]

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.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

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

Re:Er, uh

[stupidnickname]

On the other hand, your actions are bordering on libel and have already violated anti-vilification laws in this country.

Yeah, because that's what is going to help your argument about this lawyer being a good guy who advocates for privacy and common carrier protections: A threat of legal action with the intent of curbing free speech.

I think I just found my first Slashdot "freak", and you're it.

Re:Er, uh

[Lillesvin]

(applying the correct Google syntax for searching for the words, rather than as an exact phrase)

... but completely ignoring the fact that Jeremy Malcom is a name, so those two words should at least be grouped as a phrase... So, the correct search string would be: "jeremy malcolm" scientology (google search).

The search above only gives me ~29 results ... most of them just flaming him. (I can arrange it so you can search for "oiawejiawejiajeidididididididididi crackpot nebula post-modernism coffee" and get about 29 results in a few days...)

Anyhow, it'd be a bit too ironic (and disgusting) if the Australian companies had to pay someone to use the word Linux. Doesn't Linus have some sort of world-wide, moral claim to that trademark? I mean, if they actually get through with it, can't he claim ownership and set the name Linux free again? (I know that "common sense", "moral" and "decency" doesn't apply in court, but wtf is wrong with this world!?!)

Re:Er, uh

[jonoxer]

That's not quite the point. What you're talking about is a usage of the term "Linux" that would be considered acceptable, but this is about securing the trademark so that Linus has the right to take action against uses he considers unacceptable, and to prevent others securing the trademark instead of him. Given his very inclusive, community-oriented nature it would take something pretty serious to make him take action to stop someone using the term, but the point is to secure the trademark so that he *can* take action if he needs to.

As I pointed out in a follow-up story a couple of weeks ago and discussed in the latest Linux Australia podcast, this all came out of a situation where a commercial organisation attempted to register the trademark in Australia. If that had been allowed to occur we could have been in a very difficult position indeed, with the trademark holder potentially either requiring large licence fees from anyone who uses the term in a commercial context or just straight out denying use of it at all. Imagine the mess we'd be in then!

So the action to secure the trademark on behalf of Linus is to ensure that sort of thing can't happen.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

Except that people are often referred to as, eg., "Mr. Malcolm", or just "Malcolm". So "omitting the quotes" (as Google often recommends when there are few search results) is appropriate. In any event, it's perfectly clear from the content of even just a few of those pages that it's the same sue-happy Jeremy Malcom that we're dealing with here.

The entire point of trademark (as encoded here in the US in the "Lanham Act") is to protect the consumer from mistaking one product for another with the same name ("mark dilution"). It's so oriented to the consumer (at least in principle in the US) that the mark holder is required to "vigorously defend" the mark from dilution: failure to take action to protect the identifiability from dilution, when the mark holder is aware of the dilution, can result in the diluter claiming the mark for themself.

What's wrong with the world is that 1> people trust lawyers (at all, certainly too much), and 2> people are quick to back up these thieves when they too would like to "get rich quick" by stealing someone else's property. Just check the ridiculous flames defending Malcolm I've had to douse in my own threads, to say nothing of the others rampant on this site. Fascists are always quick to squeal "ditto", but (to paraphrase Niemoller) there's always a bigger fish, and the penultimate brownshirt is just bait.

Re:Er, uh

[Lillesvin]

You're right about people being refered to by other phrases than "firstname lastname", but any newspaper, in fact any text the least bit trustworthy would mention his entire name at least once. (You (hopefully) wouldn't see an article in NY Times about Bill Gates not mentioning his whole name even though mentioning Microsoft and using Gates to refer to him would be enough for most people to know who it was talking about.)

In other words, if someone writes something about someone else but doesn't refer to that someone else by his/her full name at least once, then I (probably) wouldn't trust it anyway.

Yeah, people trust lawyers way too much. It's like suing is becoming "the easiest way to solve your problems". When I become supreme overlord of earth, I'll have all the lawyers sent to dea-I mean, forced labo-Uhm... Happy Camps, and then force some common sense and decency down everyone's throats - at gunpoint! :-p

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

I notice your dates (2000, 2001). Since then, he's adopted the same FUD tactics as other enemies of open source (particularly SCO), in making his foolish, inadvised, and to now unsupported statements about linux http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020 390,39189591,00.htm

According to Malcolm, who admits to being against software patents, said there is 'no question' that Linux already violates a number of patents, which could lead to further litigation.

Nice piece of fud. The enemies of open source pounced on it back in March, and said "Look, even lawyers in favour of linux say its infringing."

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).

Re:Er, uh

[sir99]

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.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

If the patent is expired, then the application isn't infringing :-)

YOu can't infringe an expired patent, just like you can't infringe copyright on an expired copyright.

Also, after reading the patent, its' trivial to come up with a scheme that doesn't use the setuid bit, but achieves the same effect. Too bad the patent wasn't still valid - I could then patent an alternate method (except that I'm against software patents).

Re:Er, uh

[cpt kangarooski]

The entire point of trademark (as encoded here in the US in the "Lanham Act") is to protect the consumer from mistaking one product for another with the same name ("mark dilution").

No, you're confusing a couple of things here.

The point of trademarks is to avoid consumer confusion, but that's a part of trademark infringement.

Trademark dilution is when there is no confusion, and the marks are used in different areas of commerce (e.g. Coca-Cola soda and Coca-Cola Dry Cleaning Services). The idea behind dilution is that it is unfair to allow the notoriety of the more famous of the marks to be diluted by the less well-known mark, even though no one thinks that they're otherwise related or competing against one another.

Dilution is very new, and widely considered to be a very stupid idea. However, big business has managed to get antidilution laws on the books regardless.

At any rate, the reason why a mark holder needs to police his mark is to avoid losing it altogether. If others use it, then there is sufficient confusion that it no longer functions as a mark, and can be lost. And there may be sufficient loss of fame, that the junior mark supplants the senior in the minds of the public (e.g. if everyone did their dry cleaning at Coke, and forgot about the beverage).

But it's really more likely that a mark would become generic than usurped. (Though a non-famous mark is vulnerable to junior non-infringing users gaining fame)

What's wrong with the world is that 1> people trust lawyers (at all, certainly too much)

Well, I wouldn't agree with that at all. IMO what's wrong with the world is that there are entirely too few lawyers, and they're not getting paid nearly enough. ;)

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

According to the US State Department, (among others), the definition of trademark "dilution" is:

A type of infringement of a trademark in which the defendant's use, while not causing likelihood of confusion, tarnishes the image or blurs the distinctiveness of the owner's mark. To possess the selling power and recognition protected by antidilution statutes, a mark must be relatively strong and famous, at least within a certain group of people, product line, or territory.

Further clarification is available:
The legal doctrine of dilution, recognized in the statutes or case law of 31 states, applies to marks which are highly similar or identical to strong, well-known trademarks. The doctrine stipulates that the use of a famous trademark by any party other than its owner will result in loss of the mark's distinctiveness - even when the goods or services are not related and there is no likelihood of confusion. Some names may be judged to be available because they are already diluted; not, that is, the name is in use by a number of different companies which may or may not include a famous user.

This means that someone can't use a famous mark to sell their unrelated product, even in a different market (geographical, product type, etc). It applies not only to owners of a mark, who must reregister in another "class" to use it in that class, but also to others who won't be confusing the consumer as to which company is selling the product, but rather what kind of product the mark refers to at all. It is not clear, however, that dilution is restricted to mean only competition with the mark in noncompeting markets, only that the doctrine recognizes such dilution as infringement.

Re:Er, uh

[corblix]

Everyone in this thread seems to want to point out what a jerk the guy is. Still, I thought your question was worth answering.

Isn't this the kind of thing Free Software was supposed to be against?

Of course it is. But legal judgements are not based on RMS's rhetoric (or anyone else's). The fact that the Free Software Movement has certain goals, does not legally prohibit someone from registering "Linux" as a trademark. And calling yourself "Linux Users Group" does not obligate you to promote anyone's philosophy.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

That's how I stay sharp. Arguing with these idiots is certainly no challenge.

Re:Er, uh

[cpt kangarooski]

Aside from the further clarifcation, what's your point?

Re:Er, uh

[sg_oneill]

He fucking is so a practicing lawyer.

LOOK AT WHO THE CLIENT HE IS ACTING FOR. ITS LINUX MARK!!!!

Frigging hell this board gets stupid sometimes.

Re:Er, uh

[sg_oneill]

The guy isnt an enemy of open source. He's spent years advising people, often for free, how to protect themselves and protect open source.

Which is consistent, since this whole action is about protecting Linus Torvald's trademark.

It'd be nice if people RESEARCHED IT before slagging people off.

Re:Er, uh

[BrokenHalo]

He's a fucking leach[sic].

You're probably right. I don't like the sound of his supposedly acting for Linux Australia, though. They are just an association, and have no more right to enforce a fee for use of the name Linux than I do.

Re:Er, uh

[Pete]

He's not right. Jeremy isn't a "leach", nor a leech. But he is a lawyer, and he was hired by Linux Australia to represent them in this.

I don't know the specifics of the arrangement between Linux Australia and Linus Torvalds (and I am certainly not a lawyer of any kind), but if Linux Australia indeed have no status to represent Torvalds in this trademark issue, all that should need to happen is for someone to bring that up in court. Or maybe not even in court.

Knowing Jeremy, and knowing that he is, to put it mildly, extremely competent, I'm willing to trust that everything is above board.

Re:Er, uh

[Unnamed Chickenheart]

Maybe true, but Flame is also Flamebait.

( Because there's always two sides; your opposing side will be baited to your flame and flame back, less they can constrain themselves. )

Re:Er, uh

[Pete]

Wow. You've really got something personal against Jeremy, don't you? You should try to restrain yourself on the irrelevant ad hominems, it's really not a classy look.

What's the primary issue you've got? As far as I can tell, it seems to be his statement about the Linux kernel violating patents. Are you angry because you know the statement's true, or because you think the statement's false, or just because a respected person in the Australian Linux community made the statement at all?

Would it piss you off if I did the same? I've got no particular status in the Australian Linux community, but I've got a four-digit slashdot ID under my own name, that's gotta count for something :).

Hey, I absolutely believe the Linux kernel violates some software patents. Most of those patents are probably about as worthwhile as the British Telecom(?) patent on hyperlinks, but some of them are probably less trivial and could (in theory) be enforced.

The legal problem with software patents is that they're given out too easily, they're too wide-ranging and it costs so fucking much in time and money to defeat them. And even if you defeat a patent in one country, that's no guarantee you're safe in another.

So the whole point of people tiptoeing around the patent issue is that they know things could blow up at any time. Would you rather continue to tiptoe? Or would you rather actually do something worthwhile to change the system? Because that's one of the things Jeremy's trying to do.

Re:Er, uh

[jschrod]

Why is this FUD?

Linux clearly violates a number of US patents, this has been researched several times, independently. It's also well argued that patent violations are one of the next battle grounds for OSS. Groklaw reports on these issues on a regular base. This is no FUD, this is reality.

Or, do you want to say that Pamela Jones of Groklaw, who presents the same arguments as cited in your ZDnet article, is `adopting the same FUD tactics as other enemies of open source (particularly SCO)'? Please do so, it's making your drivel as risible as it is.

From your other posts, too, you come around as somebody with foam at his mouth everytime you write about Jeremy Malcolm. Do you know him personally? Did you have contact with him previously?

Please note: I'm not involved in any of these discussions. I don't live in Australia and do no business there. I know from other news sources (that I trust) that Linux Mark Institute is triggering these actions in Australia and not this lawyer. I'm just wondering why you're so full of hate against this guy.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

Dude,. he does all he can to avoid actually having to show his face IN COURT!

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

It'd be nice if people RESEARCHED IT before slagging people off.

Hey, I guess you missed the quotes, or you're too lazy to click on the links to them, so I won't bother linking - I'll just reitterate the one that caused the big stir - "obviously linux infringes hundreds of patents".

So, lets see what was wrong with that (again going over stuff that was said back on March 1st):

1. If its so obvious, why not give even 1 instance? As a lawyer, he should know that making unsubstantiated allegations
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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?"
5. 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;
6. 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.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

Dude, think of it - the term "linux" has been used by people in Australia for over a decade, without any trademark ever being filed for.

A very good case could be made that its now a generic term.

Filing for trademark status, then sending out letters asking current users to acknowledge that they are using it under license, even before the trademark is granted, is bullshit.

Personal? Nope. Just that we've seen this sort of tactic elsewhere (make claim vis. linux, send out letters before claim is proven).

As for the patent issue, it would be a good thing is we stopped tip-toing around it and faced it directly, and got rid of the whole crackpot scheme of patenting software. Software is a written work. Copyright is the right modality for protecting it, not patents.

Jeremy's not helping change the "software patent" system - he's perpetuating it.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

The other problem is that the current users have an established claim, which he's trying to get them to "acknowledge" as not being valid.

The term "linux" has been used for over a decade in Oz without anyone filing for trademark status. It may very well be argued that its generic now, say, for any distro that contains, well, any generic brand of linux (ouch - a self-referential argument that actually proves the point without recursing into outer space. That's gotta be a first :-)

Asking people to do this when you haven't even received the trademark yet (Its' only due in September) is sleazy ...

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

Yes, its FUD. Software patents as a whole are BS, and, while I like a lot of what Groklaw does, I totally disagree with OSRMs' "linux potentially infringes 283 patents" as fud.

Solution:

1. Get rid of the "potentially" weasel-word.
2. If it infringes patents, say which ones. If there is infringement, it will be written around RSN.
3. Not saying how it infringes allows them to offer insurance against the possible infringement. If the infringement is removed, that kills off a potential source of revenue

OSRM was engaged in a bit of fud themselves with that study, and a lot of people pointed it out at the time.

As for Malcolm, just look at the facts:

1. the trademark hasn't been granted yet (only due in september)
2. the trademark can be contested, even after its granted, because other people have been using it for over a decade. They have a better claim.
3. He is trying, through letters, to get the people with a better claim to rescind their claims
4. the term has been used for more than a decade w/o trademark protection in Australia. He should know that there's a good chance that if anyone contests it, the term "linux" will be held to be generic for any os that contains - wait for it - linux!

Linux Mark screwed up in agreeing to use this guy,.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

Repeat: "It is not clear, however, that dilution is restricted to mean only competition with the mark in noncompeting markets, only that the doctrine recognizes such dilution as infringement."

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

You don't need me for vilification, Anonymous vile Coward: you're a villain. Go chew your own nuts.

Re:Er, uh

[ElNotto]

Or maybe by "this" (in your "this has to be teh best troll I've ever seen") you meant your own post. Shooting for "best troll".

Wow. That's the first time I've noticed a post on slashdot referencing the this pointer. Sweet!

Re:Er, uh

[SillySlashdotName]

Isn't this the kind of thing Free Software was supposed to be against?

No. You have confused trademark with copyright - and possibly with patent.

Anyone can distribute their own flavor of Linux and call it Linux without being threatened by lawsuits over trademarks?

No. You have confused trademark with copyright again.

According to your posting, Microsoft should be able to release an operating system and call it Linux. I am glad they are not allowed to do so under TRADEMARK law.

+5, Insightful? Moderators must be on crack again.

Free (as in speech) software is about being able to reuse others code through PRIOR licensing of copyrighted material. However, I can not make my own DISTRIBUTION based on the Linux kernel and call it RedHat, as that NAME is already trademarked. Nothing in the free software philosophy contradicts that, or says that I should be able to use the RedHat name.

Linux is a word that is used in a fairly generic way by many, but the laws require the trademark holder to defend the mark in business - or lose it to 'public domain' as a generic term. Once lost, people are free to use the word in any way they want - we could have linux soap, Windows applications, Linux air conditioners, soda pop, ANYTHING.

(that's a joke, I say, that's a joke son!)

Wish I had moderator points; you would get a -1, Overrated just for being so wrong.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

Dereferencing :). I'm grateful to a college English professor who insisted I recognize that "this" is a pronoun, referencing only the latest mentioned noun, then persisting. As a geek (and overall language hacker), I often think of pronouns as "pointer registers". Careful not to ambiguate them into an accumulator, or a clobberable inline buffer.

Re:Er, uh

[jschrod]

Concerning the patents: I always understood the `potentially infringes' as `there are patents where Linux infringes against if they are valid'. Which ones? At least the setuid patent, to start with. There are lots of other patents that cover coloring algorithms used in the scheduler and other places; IBM has a whole bunch of them. They are not `written around' because it's not worth the hassle, and one doesn't know in advance if they will be valid anyhow.

Concerning the lawyer: Your four arguments might be true, I don't know. But if they are -- then you should turn your rage against LMI and not against the lawyer. LMI wants to establish the Linux trademark in Australia, and they engaged that lawyer. It's not his idea and, for all that gets reported, he doesn't do this to get the trademark assigned to his own company. He does it to get the trademark assigned to the non-profit organization that is charged by Linus Torvalds to manage his trademark worldwide.

So, your arguments means actually: Linus shall not have the Linux trademark in Australia. There shall not be any trademark protection at all for the term Linux in Australia. If Microsoft Australia or any other company wants to name one of their offerings Linux, even if it has nothing to do with Linux, then it shall be so. If you think so, say so; don't hide behind the rant against a lawyer.

For my country, Germany, I'm glad that only those can use the trademark Linux who do it according to the rules. And the fees to LMI are negligable, compared with other business expenses.

Re:Er, uh

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, the definition of dilution is this:

The term "dilution" means the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of (1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.

The remedies for dilution, however, include this:

The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection.

and

The following shall not be actionable under this section ... Noncommercial use of a mark.

Which would seem to indicate that while there there need not be direct competition between marks (e.g. Coke the drink and Coke the dry cleaners), they do need to both be acting commercially in commerce, and so they would at least need to be in your 'noncompeting markets.' If the purported diluter is outside of the market, then there's no remedy, and they might as well not be a diluter at all as far as the famous mark holder is concerned.

Re:Er, uh

[Doc Ruby]

You first posted

"[t]rademark dilution is when there is no confusion, and the marks are used in different areas of commerce".

Now you post

"The term "dilution" means the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of [...] or (2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception.".

So, as I originally stated, a competitor marketing a competing product, in the same market under the same mark, is diluting the mark. Which dilution, if known to the mark owner, must be actively defended against by the mark owner, or risk losing it to the diluter. Other infringements like the ones you introduced to this thread as examples of dilution, are also dilutions, but don't demonstrate that the infringement that I first mentioned is not a dilution.

So it's my turn to ask: other than tangential overcomplication, what's your point? Explain to me again how there are too few layers, getting paid too little.

Re:Er, uh

[cpt kangarooski]

So, as I originally stated, a competitor marketing a competing product, in the same market under the same mark, is diluting the mark.

Well, while one could proceed under a dilution theory in those circumstances, that's something that's just tacked on to the real case, which would be about infringement.

Additionally, you seem to be forgetting that there are more prerequisites for dilution than merely "marketing a competing product in the same market."

There must be fame, which excludes the vast majority of marks. This means that there must be inherent and acquired distinctiveness, which excludes descriptive marks with acquired distinctiveness. The fame must extend to the persons in the market where dilution is claimed, e.g. Lexis (the legal research company) lost its dilution case against Lexus (the car company) because people in the car buying market don't usually know about legal research services.

There must be actual lessening of selling power of the purportedly diluted mark, which means you have to prove that it was the result of the dilution, as opposed to there being some other cause. Mere likelihood of dilution is insufficient.

And for all your trouble, if you can manage to win on the dilution theory, all you usually get is injunctive relief.

Infringement actions are easier to win, in the factual scenario you set forth, and provide damages as well. Dilution would probably be a waste of the client's money to argue if you can win on infringement. I'd be very hesitant to advise a client to do so.

And that's why when you see actual dilution cases, they're generally not about goods in the same market, using the same mark.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

We don't know if LMI looked him up, or he approached LMI. What we DO know is:

1. letters were sent out BEFORE the trademark was granted (it won't be granted before next month at the earliest). Unethical? Sure doesn't pass the smell test ... and the letters were NOT LMI's doing;
2. There is a possibility that, because of the more than 10 years that have elapsed since people started using the term "linux", it has in fact entered the vocabulary to mean any OS that contains the linux kernel, at least in the jurisdiction we're talking about (Australia);
3. People who may in fact have a legit right not to have to pay a licensing fee as per the above are being improperly pressured, before the trademark has even been granted, to rescind their acquired rights without full informed consent. All this does is create more problems down the road for LMI;
4. What would be the problem if linux were to become a generic term? Unix woud probably have faired better if that had happened (something to think about, maybe);
5. Trademark law allows you to name unrelated offerings with the same name without being considered infringing, so long as there is only a minimal possibiity of infringing, so even if the trademark is granted, you are still free to come out with linux brand peas and carrots, for example (it happened with Lexus Peas);

If linux becomes a generic term to describe any linuxy system, this actually becomes an advantage for linux. It means linux has arrived! The usual trade restraints still apply, in that you still can't name a product (say, for example, Windows XP) Gates Linux, because that would be a misrepresentation to the client; the misrepresentation would still be there even if there is no trademark protection - so what is the big deal, already?

If, say, Redomnd comes out with a Microsoft Linux, that isn't linuxy, and misleads the consumer as to its' actual contents, it still becomes actionable as consumer fraud - no trademark registration required.

What they should have done was the following:

1. Get the trademark paperwork completed
2. Send notice to all current vendors respecting their right to continue using the trademark as being grandfathered;
3. Offer to license the trademark to new vendors

Isn't this more reasonable than what was actually done, from a legal perspective? Instead, they'ves opened up a can of worms.

Re:Er, uh

[jschrod]

If, say, Redomnd comes out with a Microsoft Linux, that isn't linuxy, and misleads the consumer as to its' actual contents, it still becomes actionable as consumer fraud - no trademark registration required.

That's not the case in Europe, and, AFAIK, also not in the US. If the legal situation in Australia is so different, I should refrain from further comments.

Re:Er, uh

[tomhudson]

Guess Stallman was right - if they had called it Gnu/Linux, then there would have been no question about linux being a reference solely to the linux kernel, and thus not a generic term for an os. Do a googlefight:

linux:....174,000,000
gnu-linux:..7,760,000

li nux
os:......49,600,000
linux
kernel:..13,300,0 00

When people think of linux, they (mistakenly) think of an operating system, not the kernel. Linux is already generic, in that it no longer, for most people, means a kernel. You could replace the linux kernel with a different one with the ability to run the same binaries and most users wouldn't know the difference. They'd think they were still "running linux."

As for me, this has got me pissed off enough to make the switch to BSD in the next few weeks, both at home and at the office.

Re:Er, uh

[jasgo]

Uh, hello??? The letters were asking for support to have the trademark accepted, they specifically said "this is not a letter of demand". One would think it would be fairly pointless asking for help to have a trademark accepted after it's already happened? No one's asked for any money yet.

Err, excuse me?

[Famanoran]

Doesn't Linus own the 'Linux' trademark already?

Re:Err, excuse me?

[IceAgeComing]

Here's an article stating as much.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[chris_sawtell]

Yes he does, but unless he defends it, under US law, he can lose his rights to it. The Licencing scheme does that.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[stupidnickname]

Yeah, QuantumG posted this same attempt at a refutation of the story elsewhere on this discussion. I still don't get it. You are attempting to refute a claim against a lawyer by referring us to the lawyer's FAQ. That's not an unbiased source.

And, really, what gives you the ability to speak for Linus Torvalds? You may indeed have that warrant, but you have given me no reason to believe so.

And I've seen no clear indication that these lawyers are representing the interests of Linus Torvalds. Can you give me authoritative information that will reassure me?

This is a really weird slashdot post and discussion. I'm very suspicious.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[cyril3]

The same provision appears in Australian trademark law

Re:Err, excuse me?

[jonoxer]

No, not in Australia. That's the whole point. Linux Mark Institute was created to oversee management of the trademark worldwide but the registration has not yet gone through in Australia.

So please people, get a grip: this is not about scamming money out of people by taking control of the word "Linux". It's about making sure Linus himself has control of it.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[tomhudson]

No, the licensing scheme DOES NOT do that.

http://www.linuxmark.org/what_if.html

If you have a sublicensed trademark and discover that someone else is using the same or a confusingly similar mark, please contact the other party and their trademark attorneys, not us

...

we will not get involved in any dispute between licensees.

(emphasis added)

"we will not get involved" != "defending it" ...

Re:Err, excuse me?

[Florian Weimer]

Doesn't Linus own the 'Linux' trademark already?

Indeed, his fees are about the same. Indeed, it turns out that Jeremy Malcolm is acting on Linus' behalf. There is even a web site which explains the situation.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[Lonewolf666]

Maybe, but demanding license fees for using the trademark seems highly atypical for Linus, so I'm not quite convinced that this happens with his approval.
Let's watch the news over the next few days, we might see this affair squashed real soon.

Re:Err, excuse me?

[Florian Weimer]

Is there any evidence that Linus requested this.

The Linux Mark Institute? Yes, he approved. See Linux Mark Institute: Protecting the Linux trademark (written by Jon "maddog" Hall in 2002) and a more recent comment by the same author.

Of course it is a bit strange to release some piece of software, tell everyone it's free, and then register a trademark with the name of the software and try to enforce it. Surely this was done with good intent, but it really hurts projects like Debian, which would have to buy trademark licenses for Linux, Mozilla, Bacula, and God knows what.

That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

Just google for Jeremey Malcolm scientology.

He's a crackpot scientologist.

First hit: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm is really interesting.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Stevyn]

Hey Moderators! Do not mod down as troll until you've read the history of moderation!

I have and it's all lies lies I tells ya!

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

Guess there are a few scientologists who monitor slashdot ... (which we already knew, since they've tried to get posts that point out how cracked they are removed in the past).

Linkies: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm

snippet:
---&<---&<---
Scientology whore lawyer Jeremy Malcolm DMCAs Google

Following the lead of his master, the "lawyer from Hell" Jeremy Malcolm DMCA'ed Google, demanding the removal of "lawyer from Hell" sites about him.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/not ice.cgi?NoticeID=428

Attorney Demands Removal of "Lawyer From Hell" Sites

Dear Sirs

DMCA Complaint

I write to complain about infringements of copyrights held by me (which are also defamatory of me, but I realise defamation is outside of thee ambit of this complaint procedure). The search query which brings up each of the pages below is "[private]".

The results are as follows:
---&<---&<---

or http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/legal/

snippet:
---&<---&<---
cientology have a well deserved reputation of being a very aggressive organisation, accepting no criticism of their organisation or of their dead creator, L Ron Hubbard. They are legendary on the Internet with their attacks on freedom of speech, with legal action on almost every cotenant to force critics to take down web sites.

Well, my humble offering is no exception. Scientology in Perth, Western Australia has started legal action to force me to remove this site. When it became obvious that I was not going to do so, they threatened my ISP with legal action, asking him to remove my site. They even went so far as to offer him immunity from the upcoming lawsuit.

This page will be updated as the situation progresses.
The Players.
Jeremy Malcolm
The lawyer for Scientology is a local man called Jeremy Malcolm. JM used to be on the board of an organisation called Electronic Fronters Australia . EFA is "is a non-profit national organisation formed to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems."

From his position of fighting for freedom of speech, he is now fighting to stifle it. But that's life. I suppose a man has to do what a man feels he has to do. You can visit Jeremy Malcolm's web sites at the following locations.
---&<---&<---

There's lots more. This guy is a self-promoter, and now he's trying to do a SCO.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[QuantumG]

Take a chill pill. He is legit. He's a lawyer. He's representing Linux Australia who are operating under instructions from the Linux Mark Institute who represent Linus. It's all perfectly above board. Lawyers will represent anyone who can pay. To form an opinion of a lawyer based on one case they did is naive to the extreme. If you want to see what Jeremy Malcolm is all about, go read what he has written or look at the other cases he has been involved in. He introduced the first anti-SPAM act in Australia. He actively opposed the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. He's an advocate for privacy and common carrier protections.

On the other hand, your actions are bordering on libel and have already violated anti-vilification laws in this country.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

One case? Come off it - the guy is in internet kook.

The Linux Mark Institute made a mistake. And I HAVE read some of the crap he wrote at the url you point to - which includes his statement about Linux violating patents, without giving a single example.

Anti-vilification? Hey, unless he's willing to give any examples of those purported patent violations, I'm justified in saying he's full of shit, in spades.

And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits. The onlyu interests he looks out for are his and his own kind - just like every other scientologist huckster/kook/idiot (or is Tom Cruise now regarded as main-stream)?

There's a difference between filing a service mark on behalf of someone else to prevent abuse, and then going around making noises about future licensing for a mark that the original owner wants people to use freely in association with his work: this "licensing scheme" is more than a little fucked up.

So, lets see those hundreds of linux patent violations he was bullshitting everyone about. ... or stfu.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[smvp6459]

So what exactly makes this post (Score:5, Informative)? Do you just post links and paste the content to sites that aren't necesarily relevant?

Well, in that case:

http://www.silicon.com/networks/webwatch/0,3902466 7,39117865,00.htm

snippet:
---&---&---
Aussie man encodes his last will onto a digital watch

People have been known to hide their wills in some pretty unusual locations, but concealing one in digital form inside a watch may take some beating.

Australian technology lawyer and open-source advocate Jeremy Malcolm is testing the validity of digital wills in Australia by placing his last will and testament, complete with digital signatures from himself and two witnesses, on a DUGI watch that includes a 128MB USB memory key.

While government agencies have made increasing efforts to promote digital signatures as a valid means of transacting business, those efforts haven't yet extended to divvying up your worldly goods amongst the squabbling relatives.

Malcolm said: "There is no explicit recognition of digital signatures as a way of signing your will."

So will the will be valid?

The short answer is 'probably'. The longer answer, as Malcolm explained, is: "It relies on section 34 of the Western Australian Wills Act which says: 'A document purporting to embody the testamentary intentions of a deceased person is a will of that person, notwithstanding that it has not been executed in accordance with section 8, if the Supreme Court is satisfied that the deceased intended the document to constitute his will'."

"Basically, it means that you can get by with a will that isn't executed properly if you can prove that you did intend it as your will," he added.

A longstanding supporter of open-source software, Malcolm used GnuPG to encrypt the digital signatures.

"In the event of my being run over by a bus, my will and the three detached digital signatures will be available on my watch," Malcolm wrote on his blog. "That is unless the bus ran over my wrist, in which case all bets are off."
---&---&---

Malcolm sound like an attention-grubbing water-head.

Boy that felt good to get out.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

Believe it or not, not everything you read on the internet is true.

And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits.

It's spelled SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). And if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples? You can't? What a surprise.

I've met Jeremy. His company, Terminus Network Services hosts my flooble.net site. All indications are that he's a decent bloke, even if he is a lawyer :).

And regardless of what Jeremy says about any topic ever, regardless of whether he says the earth is flat or that 2+2=4, you're allowed to say he's full of shit. And the rest of us are allowed to dismiss you as clueless. Nice, isn't it?

For a start, it would have been stylish if you'd specifically pointed to his statement about "Linux violating patents" and especially references to "hundreds" of violations. Because, you see, when I look at the GP's link, the only possible link to your statement is Jeremy's article titled Software Patents, the FTA, and the End of All Things. And in that article he includes a quote from him in a ZDNet interview:

There is no question that some of the open source software that is out there - such as the Linux kernel itself - has got patent violations in there. That is acknowledged. There is more danger that those potential violations will be litigated.

Your insinuation (in bold, no less) about "hundreds" of linux patent violations actually comes from a point made by a FSF lawyer (Dan Ravicher), not by Jeremy himself - immediately below the above quote:

The resulting furore on Slashdot was deafening. But my statements aren't actually terribly controversial. Last year, Open Source Risk Management published a paper by Free Software Foundation lawyer Dan Ravicher in which he claimed to have found 283 potential patent violations in the Linux kernel.

If you want to object to the way this trademark licensing thing is being handled, do that. And be specific and refer to your sources. Don't just throw unsupported (and unsupportable) mud (and FUD) on completely unrelated topics. To borrow from one of my favourite sigquotes:

In case you weren't aware, "ad hominem" is not latin for "the user of this technique is a fine debater."

By the way, moderators, I'd suggest you take a look at the grandparent of this post, to which tomhudson was referring. It's had a grossly inappropriate mod to 0, Troll. It'd be nice if you could help to bring it back up to the 2 or 3 that it deserves. Thanks. :)

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

Jeremy quote:

"In the event of my being run over by a bus, my will and the three detached digital signatures will be available on my watch," Malcolm wrote on his blog. "That is unless the bus ran over my wrist, in which case all bets are off."

smvp6459 quote:

Malcolm sound like an attention-grubbing water-head.

*raised eyebrow* Riiiiiiight.

Did you hear that whooshing sound? :)

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[foreverdisillusioned]

You know, I have absolutely no love for Scientology, but it really irks me that no one can seem to use the word without also invoking words like "cult" or "crackpot." The difference between Scientology and most other mainstream religions is that

A) It hasn't been around nearly as long
B) It has embraced the legal system as a source of power. (as opposed to relying on the traditional "DO YOU WANT TO GO TO HELL?!" psychological source of power.)

Beyond that, it has wacky beliefs and its adherents occasionally do weird things just like every other religion in the world. Yet people (even non-Christians) continue to think of Scientology as a cult or a joke, while they regard Christianity as a respectable institution. Like somehow the Old Testiment is less weird (from a non-Christian point of view) than the crap L. Ron Hubbard wrote...like somehow a few cease and desists are worse than a systemic repression of healthy sexual desires (and repression of women's rights.) I mean fuck, right now you've got 2 informative mods, 2 funny mods, and one measley flamebait mod (assuming I'm deciphering the "slashmath" correctly.) I bet that if you used the phrase "crackpot Christian" your post would've been modded down by all but the most rabid Christian-haters.

Despite my dislike of it, I do see the purpose of religion, and one of the few rays of hope I have is that the dominant religions of the world will evolve into something more enlighted or a new, more enlighted religion will take their place. But double standards like these really make me wonder if the dominant religions of the world aren't completely immune to all rational thought.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

Malcolm is a self-promoter. This was all hashed out here back on March 1st. Nothing's changed since.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

Don't worry - I don't just pick on scientologists. I'm an equal-opportunity superstition-basher, no double standard involved :-)

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[schon]

if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples?

There are two examples posted here:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159125&c id=13326820

It was posted by the author you're trying to refute, a whopping six hours before your post claiming there wasn't two examples.

You can't? What a surprise.

Feeling a little stupid now?

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

There are two examples posted here. It was posted by the author you're trying to refute, a whopping six hours before your post claiming there wasn't two examples.

Well done. I guess the earlier it is, the more correct it is, right?

Actually, no, not really. For a start, I was hoping that tomhudson would actually respond and defend his own words, but what the hell. You say there are two examples (of a SLAPP suit or threat to sue). I see only one - the legal threat against sweenytod.com. Well, at least I'm prepared to lean towards that being a SLAPP-style threat, being ignorant of the specifics of the case. It certainly looks like a typical piece of Scientology critic-intimidation.

The second one wouldn't qualify as a SLAPP in my book, I'm curious as to how you think it would qualify.

Unless by SLAPP you just mean any legal threat sent to anyone for any reason. *shrug*

Feeling a little stupid now?

Give me a second legal threat by Jeremy that could reasonably be considered a SLAPP (probably the best place to start would be if he's actually sent any more threats for the Scientologists) and I promise you, I'll do my best. Don't worry, I've had a lot of practise. :)

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

Sorry, just to clarify - when I referred to the "second one" (as in "the second one wouldn't qualify as a SLAPP in my book") I meant the holysmoke link, which was actually listed first in tomhudson's post.

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

Damn. I wish I'd known about this technique of listing my sources back at uni. Instead of maintaining a formal bibliography and listing my sources down to specific editions and page numbers, I could have done something simple like say "Hey, here's a link to a forum discussion with about 350 comments in it. The info's in there somewhere. No, I'm not going to tell you where specifically, you can find it - and if you guess the wrong thing, that's your fault, not mine."

You, sir, are a genius. :)

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[tomhudson]

Mecode> You, sir, are a genius. :) That's *fucking* genius to you, sir ;-)

Seriously, the reason I think this whole thing sucks is because of the method being employed.

Sending out warning letters before the trademark has even been awarded, and the now-questionable status of the trademark - after all, the term "linux" has been used for over a decade in Oz without any trademark protection, it can be argued that it is now a generic term for any OS that is "linux-y" (is there such a word? Maybe I should trademark it!).

Seems to me that the people who HAVE been using it have at least as much right to continue using it w/o a "licensing fee" than anyone filing 10 years after the fact, even if its' at Linux Marks' behest.

Also, what was so wrong about using linuxchix.com to host pr0n? Seems like not too much of a reach (pardon the pun), considering the target market ...

Re:That fucking whore/scientologist

[Pete]

You, sir, are a genius. :)

That's *fucking* genius to you, sir ;-)

I do apologise, sir. Dreadfully careless of me to forget the fucking. :-)

Regarding the rest, I actually mostly agree with you, with a perhaps a bit of hemming and hawing. I don't think there's a great deal of value in Linus or Linus' agents being too protective of the "Linux" trademark, but I can't deny that the entire raison d'etre of the trademark system is to give a trademark owner some (in theory quite limited) rights to stop other people taking advantage of their mark without permission.

And I'd suggest that it's probably quite reasonable for a representative of the trademark owner to send out warning letters before a trademark's been given - especially if it's quite reasonable to think there'll be no problem with the trademark application being approved.

This case is probably a bit unusual in a few ways, mainly because the mark in question has been used for a long time by some Australian businesses. Part of me would like to see the trademark refused in Australia, and the term "Linux" accepted as a generic term. But, well, I'm not overly concerned about it. There are more important things to care about.

user group Linux Australia Inc

[SpaceLifeForm]

Soon to be the empty set.

Bugmenot link

[nitehawk214]

link

My favoite quote from TF Lawyer "At this point, the exercise is not about extracting fees from people."

No, not at up to A$5000, it couldnt possibly be about the money.

Re:Bugmenot link

[boarder]

If you read the ACTUAL story from the group, it isn't about extracting fees completely.

He isn't saying that you have to pay to use Linux in your business name, he is saying that if you choose to TRADEMARK said name THEN you have to pay.

This is guaranteeing that nobody can trademark the name linux without paying and that nobody can completely trademark the name linux.

Now, I'm guessing that the fee is to pay for the lawyers when someone does license it. It does seem fishy and the lawyers themselves even stated that the letter was poorly written.

Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[El Cubano]

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.

I think that is a but underhanded. Even in the US, isn't Linus' policy that people can pretty much use the Linux name as long as they are decent about it? I forget where I read it, but I seem to recall that he could go after lots of commercial entities (Red Hat, Progeny, and so on) but chooses not to?

What does this Austrailian hope to gain? Really, they may gain a few thousand or hundred thousand dollars, but I imagine that this will not exactly engender "good will" from the "victims."

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[scum-e-bag]

What does this Austrailian hope to gain? Really, they may gain a few thousand or hundred thousand dollars, but I imagine that this will not exactly engender "good will" from the "victims."

RTFA. These sort of directives come from linus humself. They are there to stop people abusing the word linux. An example in TFA was a porn site called linuxchix.com which caused some concern. These sort of sites tend to allow the watering down of the name linux. I certainly can't see MS allowing a site called microsoftporn.com to continue for a long time.

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[Secrity]

"What does this Austrailian hope to gain? Really, they may gain a few thousand or hundred thousand dollars, but I imagine that this will not exactly engender "good will" from the "victims." "

It remains to be seens what he may gain (I certainly hope that he gains nothing). Slime like that doesn't give a shit about "good will".

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[aussie_a]

Hell, MS has problems with people using their own name

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[Chicks_Hate_Me]

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

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[jred]

Hey! What's the idea? linuxchix.com isn't a pr0n site!!!1!!

Get my hopes up for nothing. I've got points & I'm modding you "-1 Misleading"...

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[jonoxer]

Hey! What's the idea? linuxchix.com isn't a pr0n site!!!1

It *was* a pr0n site, which is one of the things that sparked the whole move to prevent such misuse of the term. That's the reason this trademark application is in place.

Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness

[MichaelSmith]

What does this Austrailian hope to gain? Really, they may gain a few thousand or hundred thousand dollars, but I imagine that this will not exactly engender "good will" from the "victims."

We already have another scumbag making money in in dubious ways.

cluster...

[scum-e-bag]

Is that a cluster i see in the photo?

Re:cluster...

[jonoxer]

Nope, not quite that exciting: just part of a web server farm full of Linux whiteboxes running Ubuntu and Debian. The only vaguely relevant thing about that pic is that hiding down behind my left leg is a black shape that happens to be one of the Linux Australia servers.

Wait...

[ZakuSage]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sence. I thought Linus Torvalds held the trademark of Linux, not the general userbase. How can they do something like this? Did he not file in Austrailia, and if he didn't would it even been legal for that usergroup to trademark Linux there when it's already in common use? And what would Linus have to say about all this?

Re:Wait...

[sangreal66]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sence. I thought Linus Torvalds held the trademark of Linux, not the general userbase. How can they do something like this? Did he not file in Austrailia, and if he didn't would it even been legal for that usergroup to trademark Linux there when it's already in common use? And what would Linus have to say about all this?

Didn't RTFA, did you?

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 linuxchix.com.

Re:Wait...

[glowworm]

Trademark Name: Linux
Australian Trademark # 985197
Held By: Linus Torvalds
Address for service: Jeremy Malcolm
Status: Pending, Under examination

If you like you can search the Australian trademarks database for all trademarks with Linux in them at: Australian IP for free.

(And, no Linus didn't register Linux in Australia)

Re:Austrailia

[mattjb0010]

Come to Australia instead.

I Guess I'm Wrong...

[quark101]

But I was always under the assumption that the GPL that Linux is developed under generally extended to the name as well.

Does anyone have any legal expertise in this area that can help us out?

Re:I Guess I'm Wrong...

[SpaceLifeForm]

The GPL has nothing to do with the Linux Trademark. Read about the Linux Trademark

GPL is a License. Linux is a Trademark.

Login:

[Eightyford]

Login: SlashyLaRue

Password: slashdot

Full article for the lazy

[ZakuSage]

Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name, 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. 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."

Re:Full article for the lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if a developer here drops some open source code in our project, then we have to give all the source away...."

Ok I am confused here. You have just contradicted yourself in one sentence. Your project needs a piece of code that exists under an open licence. But you might have to give away the rest of your code because of the nature of the open licence. Now tell me this, if open source did not exist then where would you get the necessary code in a closed source world? The only reason you got to see the code you needed was because it was open otherwise it would exist in binary form only. It seems to me your team either lacks talent or is just plain lazy.

At least in the MS world, you know where you stand...

You don't even know where you stand to begin with. Bottom line is that you wat to steal code but the licence prohibits you from doing so.

Lazy fuck.

the summary is 100% lies

[QuantumG]

every single word of it.

Read the FAQ and educate yourself.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[kfg]

Thank God. For a minute there I thought there really were companies in Australia selling Linux products and services.

KFG

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[digidave]

Unless this guy was asked by Linus or OSI to license the trademark (which he wasn't), then the FAQ is all lies.

While the FAQ attempts to explain what he's doing to make it sound fair, if he truly were being fair the license fee would be free or 1 cent (if free wouldn't count as protecting the trademark). I understand that unprotected trademarks are lost, so sending out a free 'you have the right to use this trademark' letters to peopl who ask should be fine. I also understand if Linus or OSI want to reserve the right to take the license back if somebody misuses the name (say, MS releases Windows Linux, but it's just Windows being marketed to clueless managers).

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[stupidnickname]

Okay, I'm really, really suspicious of the intent of the original post, the original actions of the lawyer, and the many comment posts. Especially parent, which attempts to clear up accusations against named lawyer by referring us to said lawyer's FAQ. Don't know if I trust that as an unbiased source.

Geez -- this is a confluence of three things I really distrust: lawyers, IP law, and Scientology. Add a politician or two, and it's Gotterdammerung.

Anybody got an authoritative source on this story? Any authoritative information at all?

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[fuzza]

THANK YOU... I was hoping someone was going to post that soon.

An FAQ for the /. hordes...

• Why are you sending letters of demand?
  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..."
• $5000? WTF?
  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.
• Isn't "Linux" already a registered trademark elsewhere? Doesn't it cover Australia by default?
  No, it doesn't. That's what we're trying to do, get it registered for Linus here.
• Do you really represent Linus/LMI/foo?
  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.
• It still smells bogus.
  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.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[faedle]

I like the line "Do you really represent Linus?", to which your response is "I'm not sure if Linus personally knows of our efforts.."

If Linus dosen't personally know of your efforts, you're scamming people. The trademark is HIS, and until he says "yes", you're a scumbag.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[ag-gvts-inc]

ok farquad, if the license only covers direct uses of the name, explain this post.
And since you work for this tool, do you also send out his Scientology shit?

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[ozmanjusri]

It's not Gotterdammerung, it's not even a baby apocalypse. It's just a major overreaction by a few people. The best place to read about it is Andrew Cowie's blog http://research.operationaldynamics.com/blogs/andr ew/boards/linux-aus/linux-trademark-in-aus.html. That'll give you a clearer idea of what this is all about, but to quote;

The counsel that Linux Australia instructed, a jovial fellow (who also is a right proper geek) named Jeremy Malcolm, has been toiling away at this for some time now. He recently resolved some outstanding confusion (mostly just crossed wires between all the unpaid volunteers involved on various sides of whichever your favourite ocean is), and is putting together the final pieces of the puzzle that will resolve the issue properly. Part of that was a sending a letter to various people around the country who might happen to be using Linux professionally, asking them to indicate their knowledge of the international trademark and their support of it.

Other interesting links;
http://www.linuxmark.org/
http://builderau.com.au/program/work/soa/Suspicion s_fade_over_Linux_trademark_move/0,39024650,392021 41,00.htm

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[fuzza]

The key phrase there is "I'm not sure" (I haven't been liaising with everyone, that's Jeremy's job).

Also by "personally know", I mean that if you walk up to him on the street and ask "Do you know Jeremy Malcolm?" I'm not sure if he could say off the top of his head "Yes, he's applying for the trademark in Australia for me"... but I'm pretty sure he's been CCed on various emails, at the very least.

Re the trademark being HIS, yes, that's correct, but for some reason he prefers to hack and be with his family rather than spend all his time policing the trademark (go figure). Hence he assigned LMI to do the job for him. And LMI definitely know of our efforts (I've spoken to them in conference calls).

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[fuzza]

ok farquad, if the license only covers direct uses of the name, explain this post.

This reply to that post (not by me) about sums it up...

And since you work for this tool, do you also send out his Scientology shit?

No, much of that was before my time. Besides, I'm helping with this one because I'm also involved with Linux/OSS/foo... I have nothing to do with Scientology (fortunately).

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[dbIII]

Part of that was a sending a letter to various people around the country who might happen to be using Linux professionally, asking them to indicate their knowledge of the international trademark and their support of it.

No, it appears to have been asking them for sums of money which would not seem anywhere near warranted based on efforts required to register a trademark. Even if it is legal it is still a scam leeching off resources for little apparent gain to anyone other than the fee collector - and such a sudden change of the rules of use would remove a lot of the credibility of linux. If I received such a letter I would look into what would be required to get a fraud investigation going.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[LibrePensador]

Jon "maddog" Hall is the president of Linux International, not of OSDL. The CEO of OSDL is Stuart Cohen.

Given that you cannot get the basic facts right on your FAP, I seriously doubt that you represent who you claim to represent and I seriously doubt that Linux, Cohen or Jon "maddog" Hall approve, condone or endorse your efforts.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[ozmanjusri]

Even if it is legal it is still a scam leeching off resources for little apparent gain to anyone other than the fee collector

I can't really argue with your assessment of the fee scale, but I wouldn't consider it particularly onerous. http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html. In any case, it doesn't look like it's benefiting any individual (Linuxmark is registerd as a non-profit), so maybe they are using the cash to build a war chest in case litigation is required.

As stated in our articles of incorporation, The Linux Mark Institute ("LMI") is an organization established "to protect the public and Linux® users of the world from unauthorized and confusing use of the Linux mark and to issue proper licenses to authorized users of the Linux mark." LMI is not designed to generate profits for anyone, which is why Linus Torvalds has given LMI primary sub-license rights for the mark. We work to protect legitimate uses of the LINUX trademark without burdening Linus Torvalds or any one entity with the financial responsibility of protecting the LINUX community's use of the mark.
Why are we necessary?
The express and only purpose of this organization is to set up a simple, self-funding procedure by which interested companies and individuals developing Linux operating system products and those desiring to sell services, accessories and related Linux paraphernalia can obtain a non-exclusive and simple trademark license for the proper use of the mark.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[fuzza]

Jon "maddog" Hall is the president of Linux International, not of OSDL. The CEO of OSDL is Stuart Cohen.

My bad... the fax in front of me has an OSDL letterhead but I didn't actually check at the time. FWIW, he is the president of LMI (as at May 4 anyway). Point is, he's probably the next individual in the trademark rights chain (after Linus himself).

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[dbIII]

Waht we have here is a shift of ideas (nobody say the p word!) where something is moving from non-profit to profit. This sort of behaviour is like volunteering to help out at a church and then handing them a bill later on. Will it really cost $500 per registrant to do the paperwork? As for building up a "war chest" - volunteer groups ask for help when required - this thing described with polite letters of demand is a business building up money that "might be needed some day". Do we really just want to fund another insurance company?

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[KarmaMB84]

Why are they charging for the use of a mark contained within the sources of a GPLed work? That seems rather dirty to me.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[stupidnickname]

Yeah, I went and read that blog. I'm still not sure I understand all of this. If it's not even a baby apocalypse, why is the zdnet story leading with the A$5000 scare figure? Why is the original letter so . . . abusive . . . that it evokes "paranoia" from some of the recipients? And why is there so little hard information from third sources on this? I still do not accept the constant referral to the lawyer's FAQ as an explanation of the lawyer's actions.

This story is just plain weird, even without bringing Scientology and claims (and counterclaims) of weird net stalking and character assassination into it. Then it just gets meta-weird.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[marcosdumay]

Of corse you can always say that you represent somebody. What is missing is an statement from OSDL saying that the company represents them.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[boots@work]

If it's not even a baby apocalypse, why is the zdnet story leading with the A$5000 scare figure?

Because publishers (both slashdot and zdnet) often like to make stories sound more catastrophic than they actually are, so as to get more readers.

From my understanding of AfC's blog entry, there's no immediate need for anyone to pay a cent. But then "Small amount of paperwork to secure Linux trademark" is hardly going to be front-page news.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[stupidnickname]

Because publishers (both slashdot and zdnet) often like to make stories sound more catastrophic than they actually are, so as to get more readers.

That is an excellent point.

Re:the summary is 100% lies

[fuzza]

Will this suffice?

"Oh, but that must be fake." Go on, I dare you :-P

Claim: LINUS supports it

[Barbarian]

This article, Suspicions fade over Linux trademark move on ZDNet Australia that I dug up claims that, "letters sent out by a lawyer acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds are part of a legitimate process to ensure the open source software's creator maintains control of the 'Linux' trademark."

Can someone please get LINUS to verify this preposterous claim? I would not be surprised if Linux Australia is not a legitimate user group at all.

Re:Claim: LINUS supports it

[Barbarian]

Okay, how do you know that the people ZDNet spoke to are the real Linux Australia group, and that the lawyer who wrote the letters really represents the bonafide group? It's not hard to do some impersonation. It could be another group entirely trying to get a hold of the mark, since "Linux Australia" would not be trademarked yet either.

If this is a genuine initiative, why is there nothing about it on the site?

Re:Claim: LINUS supports it

[Barbarian]

Thank you for providing those links, why didn't you do so in your first post and actually be of some use. Unlike you, I would not automatically believe press reports from the Orphan and Puppies Benevolent Society annoucing that they will now euthanize puppies (and orphans!) as soon as they are donated. Hearing of this trademark action by a Linux User group seemed so unlike the spirit of Open Source that I was skeptical. I may not have the benefit as you do of knowing personally members of this group, or several hours to manually crawl their site*.

* You're going to say, "Why didn't you click their press page." My answer: how do I know it's not generated automatically from a google news search? I've seen such before on websites.

Re:Claim: LINUS supports it

[Barbarian]

Slander? Look back through my posts. I qualify all of my statements. I do not state them as fact. Calling for Linus to verify what appears to be the absurd is slander? You set a really low bar.

You don't happen to have a law practice in Australia specializing in trademark law, do you?

Re:Claim: LINUS supports it

[zsau]

linux.org.au has been a registered domain name for some years. Back before broadband, I found the supplier for my first Linux CD, Red Hat 5.1 when it was fresh, through it. (I think the CDs cost about $10, which took me a while to save up for. I was in year 7 or 8 at the time :)

The webpage looks drastically different, though, and it's possible that over the years the membership has changed so that it's no longer there for Linux users, but there to extort the name. I don't really know what my opinion should be.

Re:Claim: LINUS supports it

[hypatia]

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.

Accounthttp://www.smh.com.au/news/next/linux-trade

[excelblue]

Created an account on there for all of you to use: Username: slshdt0816 Password: slashdot

Just avoid using the name Linux

[medge_42]

Perhaps linux support groups should simply call themselves GNU support groups from now on!

Re:Austrailia

[codefungus]

Oh yeah...totally. I knew a guy from Australia...he kept talking about how American drains were over complicated with the the whole plunger and lever and all that nonsense and how simple plugs were the way to go, but other than that, was a great guy.

Australia, cheers, Austrailia, screw that place.

--
"You know's it Bill"

explanation

[ehaggis]

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.

Conversion.

[FrankieBoy]

... up to $A5000 a year ...

So that works out to about...50 pence?

Re:Conversion.

[kubrick]

Hey! No mocking the Pacific peso, please! It has enough trouble without all the hurtful words... :)

Re:Austrailia

[codefungus]

Dood chill...I think it's crazy that you have ONE ISP that gets to play god. Of course, that's nothing compared to the shit going on in the US. I wish, probably more than you, that the US had a better track record.

And aint nobody pissing on your front door.

Trust me, you aren't living in someone else's shadow ;)

scammer

[timmarhy]

he is just attempting to scam people, there is a great different between selling a IT product called "linux something" and linuxchix.com. the spirit of linuxmark is to prevent the misuse of the linux name in cases such as linuxchix.com, so that it's legitimate use won't be ruined. money has nothing to do with this. this guy is a con artist.

parent is a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:parent is a troll

[tomhudson]

You're right, of course. The ilaw site is owned by the same guy sending the letters:

whois ilaw.com.au
Domain Name: ilaw.com.au
Last Modified: 19-Jul-2004 17:33:48 UTC
Registrar ID: R00011-AR
Registrar Name: Namescout
Status: CLIENTUPDATEPROHIBITED

Registrant: NetCafe Services Pty Ltd
Registrant ID: OTHER 083 643 556

Registrant ROID: C0874417-AR
Registrant Contact Name: Mr Jeremy Mark Malcolm
Registrant Email: jeremy@malcolm.wattle.id.au

Tech ID: C1203670-AR
Tech Name: Jeremy Malcolm
Tech Email: jeremy@malcolm.wattle.id.au

Name Server: ns.terminus.net.au
Name Server IP: 203.25.143.1
Name Server: twobluedots.com.au
Name Server IP: 203.59.228.114

You'd think that people posting on slashdot would know how to do a whois ...

ilaw is another one of his scams to try to make money off other peoples work:

You can ask a question on any topic related to Australian law, and for only $50 a qualified iLaw consultant in your locality will contact you with the answer. Try it now!

Of course, when I tried to post this question

go fuck yourself (see slashdot for more info)

for some reason, it didn't go through :-)

Re:parent is a troll

[JJahn]

Duh...that's not a question! Try something like "go fuck yourself?" and then it will go through fine.

Re:parent is a troll

[ebuck]

Funny,

I could tell that it was from the same "organization" without even performing the whois.

Get used to reading weasel, and phrases like "We only exercise the trademark rights that Linux has authorized us to represent" read a lot like "We don't have any right to represent Linux because otherwise we would state up front exactly what Linux has authorized us to do."

Lawyers never beat around the bush when they are on the winning side.

Re:parent is a troll

[tomhudson]

Good thing you posted AC - I almost choked ... gawd, that's going to be my new replacement for goat.cx

agggh! my eyes! my eyes!

What would Tony Soprano do?

[leereyno]

What would Tony Soprano do?

Fahgetaboutit...

Registration NOT required...

[SJ]

If you remove the 'oneclick' argument from the URL.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/next/linux-trademark-pr otection-comes-at-a-cost-for-some/2005/08/15/11239 57995044.html

That's not so bad...

[Pedrito]

He's not charging all that much for use of the trademark. I don't usually see monetary figures in hex, though. I guess that's just a Linus thing. But $41,472 - $42,240 seems pretty reasonable.

Until Linus himself endorses this....

[Generalisimo Zang]

Until Linus himself comments on this, I'm going to have to assume that this whole thing is a scam, and that their claiming to be acting as "agents of Linus Torvalds" is simply a lie.

It looks like a scam, sounds like a scam, and is spearheaded by a guy who's previous internet comments make him look like a loon.

I seriously doubt that this is in any way legit. Seems like a SCO-like scam, with less finesse and even less of the veneer of respectibility than the SCO scam.

Re:Until Linus himself endorses this....

[Bandraginus]

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.

Re:Until Linus himself endorses this....

[dbIII]

but it appears to be legit nonetheless.

Linus in unlikely to pop into Sydney every few days to clear out his post office box - so the address is incorrect on a trademark application - which makes it look somewhat less than legit.

You Are Lying About a Liar

[Doc Ruby]

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"?

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[Chmarr]

Why? Because the story exerpt above set off the usual bunch of bullshit flags, and the FAQ pointed to did not.

That's why.

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, so the FAQ published by the guy who's charging A$thousands for "licensing Linux" says his operation is legit. But, even if you don't register to read the story (I didn't), but instead just Google for this lawyer by name in Australia, you can see the plentiful documentation that he's a scammer. And use your own bullshit detector to think "charging for Linux licenses sounds like a scam, I don't trust his FAQ". You need to get your bullshit detector calibrated: it's reversed polarity.

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[Doc Ruby]

I hope that Malcolm swallows you whole.

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[sffubs]

Okay, so "Mr Malcolm" might be an arsehole, but TFA states

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 linuxchix.com.

So the user group Linux Australia Inc. are simply extending the trademark protection that already exists in the US to Australia.

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[Doc Ruby]

It's not that simple. "Acted to become an agent" doesn't make it clear whether they acted either "in good faith" or with Torvalds' consent or knowledge. Or that Torvalds authorizes their current campaign to extort money from Australians using "Linux" legitimately. I suspect that he doesn't.

Re:You Are Lying About a Liar

[Chmarr]

I think I called it just fine. So... 'thptt' to all my detractors! :)

Old News

[scdeimos]

This isn't exactly the latest news. From ZDNet Australia, 13-August-2004:

As reported by ZDNet Australia on Tuesday, Linux Australia Inc has secured Linus Torvald's support to register the word "Linux" as a trademark with Australia's intellectual property regulator. The move is designed to prevent local companies attempting to claim the word as their own, but it will also throw open the possibility that local Linux vendors will start paying royalties to trade on the term for the first time.

Still not particularly good news, though.

Necessary evil

[Bandraginus]

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... :(

Re:Necessary evil

[jonoxer]

Thanks for pointing out the facts of this application! It looks like a lot of people are getting very upset for no particular reason, which is dissappointing.

This trademark application is being done to ensure that Linus has control of use of the "Linux" trademark in Australia. It's *not* a money-grabbing exercise by a lone scam artist. For reference, the relevant players are:

LMI (Linux Mark Institute) which was created as an organisation to administer the "Linux" trademark on behalf of Linus.

Linux Australia, the national representative body for Linux users and developers in Australia which is acting on behalf of LMI to secure the trademark in Australia for Linus.

Jeremy Malcolm, who is Linux Australia's legal counsel and has been working for more than a year to shepherd the application through IP Australia and despite the claims of previous posts is *not* a scientologist loon, but rather the victim of a character assassination attempt by a certain individual who for several years has been mischaracterising him online.

One other thing that needs clearing up is that trademarks are *not* patents! They are totally different things. Many earlier posts have made ridiculous statements about the GPL protecting the name "Linux" and generally confusing the two.

Re:Necessary evil

[glowworm]

But the address for service is:
Jeremy Malcolm
Suite 11
116 Mounts Bay Road
PERTH
6000,WA
AUSTRALIA

and the mail address for Linux Australia is:
Linux Australia Inc
GPO Box 4788
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia

Which is the address for Linus given in the application. So the question comes back to has Linus allowed Linux Australia Inc. to register the trademark on his behalf, or is this group speaking for the rest of the community and registering the name for their ultimate benefit?

Re:Necessary evil

[zsau]

Checking the GPO Box, it seems it's owned by Linux Australia, Inc., not the Linus Torvalds we know and feel ambivalent about.

Does that mean anything? I, for one, don't know.

Re:Necessary evil

[Bandraginus]

Yeah, you make a very good point. The service address (Jeremy Malcolm) doesn't matter so much. That's pretty standard for a trademark application. The service is merely the legal agent acting on behalf of the owner(s). For example, the word "Linuxworld" is also trademarked:

Owner/s: International Data Group Inc.
            5 Speen Street,
            Framingham,
            Massachusetts 01701,
            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Address for Service: Lord & Company
            4 Douro Place
            WEST PERTH
            6005,WA

However, what is interesting is the address given for Linus himself. As in the example above, there's no reason why Linus' US mailing address can't be provided. I'm not sure why Linux Australia's address is used, and not the address for Linux Mark or Linus himself.

Keep in mind that they can't falsify information on the trademark application, so there has to be some kind of legal relationship between Linux Australia Inc and Linus.

Of course, IANAIPL (IP lawyer).

Re:Necessary evil

[Dunbal]

This actually seems to be a genuine attempt at preventing malicious abuse of the Linux name.

      You mentioned "Linux" on your website now pay me? How does this prevent malicious use?

Re:Necessary evil

[Pseudonym]

On one hand it goes against the spirit of open-ness.

I don't think it does at all. This is no different from copyrighting the GPL text. Pretty much all FOSS advocates are in favour of trademarks, and the overwhelming majority have no objection to the principle of "if you fork it, rename it".

Re:Necessary evil

[cranos]

No it's more like "Your claiming you own Linux, now fuck off". It's a defensive measure not offensive.

Re:Necessary evil

[innocent_white_lamb]

Keep in mind that they can't falsify information on the trademark application,
 
Sure they can. I can knock you on the head and steal your wallet too, if I choose to do so.
 
  so there has to be some kind of legal relationship between Linux Australia Inc and Linus.
 
Of course, there is that pesky business of getting caught afterward...

Re:Necessary evil

[tod_miller]

Yes, hysterical /. reporting, I think this is legit. Thanks!

I am wondering if Linux is trademarked effectively in all necessary countries... right now I would say India and China are necessary countries, but how reliable are the trademarks over there?

Maybe this will bring more eyes to the issue of people trying to extort linux.

I played installing ubuntu on my laptop last night. I almost cried when it went on without a hitch!! Hurrah!

It is like windows 2000, but better, and it just works.

I use OpenOffice in windows... and firefox... and emacs... and eclipse.. pretty much nothing else. So how would I know the difference (I also use cygwin in windows world).

Just chuffed.

Re:Necessary evil

[wolvie_]

Linus doesn't live in Sydney, so why should he own a PO Box in the centre of Sydney CBD?

Surely it is logical Linux Australia hold a PO Box for him. He certainly wouldn't have a physical mailing address in Australia.

Re:Necessary evil

[zsau]

It is logical. I wasn't saying that there was necessarily anything wrong with it. I googled the GPO box number because I reckoned it was unlikely that Linus would own it, and I wanted to know who was doing this on his behalf.

But because Linux Australia (a group who some here have questioned the legitimacy of) own it, it means the OP's assurances of the safety of this are, perhaps, ill-founded.

In any case, like I said before, I don't know if this means anything. It's probably completely above board, but that the trademark registration bears Linus's name doesn't mean it's safe.

Re:Necessary evil

[cavemanf16]

I agree. I have recently been in contact with Jeremy Malcolm via an email listserv about the Debian-Lex distribution that he started up a few years ago to cater to lawyers. He was quite willing to let me build upon the original ideas of his, and become the project leader of this as-of-right-now non-existent Linux distribution. And from what I can tell after about an hour's worth of online investigation and reading through comments in this discussion he's getting a bad rap just for being a lawyer.

I can understand how the one dude is legitamately ticked off that he's been attacked by Scientology and all since I view at as a very malicious cult at best too, but I think he's getting pissed at the wrong people. I can't vouch for Jeremy Malcom's ethical stances, but I do know from being married to a lawyer that the everyday conflict that lawyers deal with quite often puts them at odds with at least one party to a dispute.

People! Lawyers do not exist to be the morality police and uphold the law! They exist to fight for their client's rights under the law. They didn't make the laws, they don't uphold the laws (unless they have become judges), but they do fight for people's rights under the law. Sometimes that means they're fighting *against* you. But that certainly doesn't make them all out evil people just because they are representing that which you have come to view as evil, dispicable, and wrong!

When viewed in this light, I don't see how Mr. Malcolm's past or present actions are in any way wrong... he's trying to fight for Linus' rights to maintain the trademarked name "Linux" as a name for a specific computer operating system software package. You may not agree with the fees being requested to be able to use the name "Linux" in your company's or product's names, but that's currently part of the law, and part of good lawyering: defensive lawsuits to protect a name. Bringing Scientology into this discussion only works to drive people into a fury over something completely unrelated to the facts of this particular case. Chill out people! (Even all those /.'ers showing up in this discussion as "Friends of Friends" which I generally respect when viewing comments in the threads of various /. discussion topics)

Re:Necessary evil

[boots@work]

As the FAQ says, it specifically doesn't affect use of the word as a description or noncommercially.

It would affect you if, say, you started a business called "Genuine Linux inc". And fair enough, I say.

Re:Austrailia

[dbIII]

With all the crazy IP stuff I see, this is one country I will never visit.

We had to alter a few IP laws to match US ones as a condition of a one sided trade deal - so yes, they suck.

One good thing that will become clear is that this guy will probably be doing time for fraud soon - which is what would have happened to Darl McBride if he had pulled his SCO stunt here (SCO Australia were very careful not to sell a single linux licence in Australia - when they were asked the said there were still legal issues to work out, which I suspect was making sure that it could be done without doing jail time).

Re:Hi Mr Malcom

[QuantumG]

You must be new here. I posted three as many comments in the last poll.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[tomhudson]

Why not just put them all in a room and have them sit through a year's worth of lectures from RMS.

1. Darl "Linux contains code stoen from us" McBride and Co.
2. Jeff "I want to buy the linux kernel for $50,000.00" Merkey
3. Jeremy "the Linux kernel already infringes various software patents" Malcolm (the quack lawyer pushing this scheme)

Any other candidates?

Idiot

[mholt108]

Idiot!! RTFA

Re:Idiot

[timmarhy]

i did fuckhead. how am i wrong? i love how slashdrones just repeat "RTFA"

Re:Idiot

[mholt108]

well fuckhead poobrain smellyparttongue to you too - i spit on your capitalist shoes!

Re:Let's just have him shot

[rpresser]

Funny thing ... everyone respects RMS, or claims to, yet he's very frequently called upon as a punishment...

turned to dark side?

[howhardcanitbetocrea]

How sad. Is this the same Jeremy Malcom who helped out Joe McNicol when he was being sued by notorious Perth spammer Wayne Mansfield? What happened?

Linus

[appavi]

Linux Trademark owned by Linus
See Slashdot post
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/19/0828245.shtm l

Re:Linus

[petrus4]

Agreed. This could be an issue for me in the near future (the licensing thing) but I've already had prior experience of Perthies' idiosyncracies. If this guy writes me a letter, I'll respond by saying that:
a) My intent is fair use and fair use ONLY; i.e., Linus wrote the kernel, Linus owns the kernel, and I make no claim to the contrary. I'm interested purely in marketing a distribution.

b) Ergo, the only lawyer I'll respond to positively will be one acting verifiably on behalf of Linus himself. This guy can consider himself formally invited (to use highly precise legal terminology) to take a fucking hike. ;)

Re:Linus

[cranos]

a) My intent is fair use and fair use ONLY; i.e., Linus wrote the kernel, Linus owns the kernel, and I make no claim to the contrary. I'm interested purely in marketing a distribution.

Perfect this is exactly what he wants. The whole purpose of this exercise is to establish that Linux is Linus' mark not anyone elses. There is no grand SCO like conspiracy to take control of Linux, instead this is being done under the auspices of the LMI.

What does Sun charge?

[DAldredge]

What does Sun charge to use the Solaris name?

Re:What does Sun charge?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If you called yourself "Solaris Inc" and sold Sun equipment, they might have an issue with it. If you said in your advertising "I'm a Solaris specialist" they don't care. You are yet another JACK ASS who either didn't actually read the story, or you are an idiot.

Re:What does Sun charge?

[DAldredge]

Did I touch a nerve?

Re:What does Sun charge?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Not at all. I just thought I would point out that your post MADE NO SENSE.

Re:Austrailia

[ozmanjusri]

The law is the same in the USA, and you have to pay higher fees over there. http://www.linuxmark.org/fees.html
The requirement for payment to use the Linux trademark section of this story isn't an Australian issue, it's the freaky lawyer who sent out the letters of demand that make this story interesting. He's not all bad though, he's had some success fighting spammers http://zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Perth_man_wi ns_T3_spam_case/0,39023166,20269057,00.htm, and it looks like this current venture is intended to protect the Linux trademark rather than being a scam. I'd say there's a fair chance the bulk of the fees collected in Australia will go to the US based parent organisation anyway.

Aussie joke.

[kjots]

Who cares? He's from Perth! (Also, I may require the services of a doctor to assist me with the removal of my tongue from within my cheek).

Re:Aussie joke.

[NoMaster]

And, after that, a proctologist to remove a Sandgroper's boot from your arse...

Being a Queenslander, I though we were the thinnest-skinned, most parochial state in the country. Until the day I accidently insulted an Eagles supporter...

Re:Aussie joke.

[2jray]

Being a staunch Brisbane Lions supporter myself, you just can't imagine what it's like to have three of the buggers (Eagles fanatics) living under the same roof :-) Still, if Brissy can't beat Sydney, Carn the Eagles ...... (If the rest of you can talk crap, so can I)

Re:Aussie joke.

[kjots]

Well, as a Victorian who grew up in Fitzroy I guess my next move would be to accuse you all of being motherless bastards for stealing our competition, not to mention one of our oldest teams, but with the Dons languishing near the bottom of the ladder I just don't have the energy anymore *sigh*.

Maybe next year...

My company got the letter

[alexyap]

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.ht ml

Maybe 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.

Re:My company got the letter

[Dunbal]

IANAL, but hey, you apparently have to pay money just to say a trademarked word now? BS. Microsoft*. I'm not going to pay them one cent. Microsoft*. Microsoft*. I sell computers that come with Microsoft* Windows*. You think I have to pay for using the word? I sell computers that come with SuSE Linux+.

      Rubbish, I say. Just another lazy lawyer looking to make a fast buck by threatening people with litigation. You have to give recognition of a trademark, and you are not allowed to portray it in any way that people would confuse it as your own. But paying simply for mentioning it is ridiculous. We'll be selling EULA's on words next.

*Microsoft is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Windows is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation.
+SuSE is a registered trademark of Novell Labs, Inc, or whatever.

Re:My company got the letter

[dbIII]

Maybe we need a new non-trademarked word to refer to Linux in Australia

We can probably safely ignore this guy until it is shown that he really has the rights. For one thing the application has not been processed so the trademark does not exist yet and evidence has not been shown that he is an authorised agent of the person who applied for it.

Re:My company got the letter

[alexyap]

Some background info. When I first received the letter, I was NOT using the word Linux as part of my company name. Not even my product/service name. My Website just stated that my Open source product runs on Linux and I can help setup Linux servers to run my product. My product doesn't even sound remotely similar to Linux.

Looked that even that level of usage was sufficient to attract Jeremy's attention, hence I got the letter.

Anyway, I've since removed the word Linux from my Website.

Using Tux is fine according to its creator Larry Ewing. On his Web site, he said:

"Feel free to do whatever you see fit with the images, you are encouraged to integrate them into other designs that fit your need."

and

"Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks."

Re:My company got the letter

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Your post makes no sense, so I assume you didn't actually read the story.

Re:My company got the letter

[jonoxer]

Maybe we can all put Tux icon in place of the word Linux

Ahhhh! This sort of ridiculous statement makes me want to scream! Yes, you can use the Tux icon in fair and reasonable ways because it's protected by copyright and Larry is nice enough to use his rights WRT the copyright to allow people to use it appropriately. But that's *exactly* what the trademark action is also trying to achieve for the term "Linux"! At present it's not a trademark in Australia. This action is to make sure the trademark is controlled by Linus, and do you think he's going to be unreasonable about what people are allowed to do with it? Of course not! On the other hand, what do you think would happen if the trademark was allowed to fall into the hands of a commercial entity with a vested interest? Hmm, scary thought indeed.

Effectively you're saying "I'm not going to use this term because it's going to be under Linus' control through trademark law, so I'll use this image instead because it's under Larry's control under copyright law."

Re:My company got the letter

[alexyap]

The difference is:
I did not get some confusing letter from some unknown lawyer claiming to represent Larry Ewing, and threatening to impose licensing fees in the future for the use of the Tux logo, unless I signed some "statutory declaration" form.

Re:My company got the letter

[cranos]

I'm sorry are you actually trying to claim the word Linux as your own? Are you using the brand Linux as part of a product or brand? If not then what the hell are you so worried about?

It's a basic trademark issue, making sure that the Linux trademark is not abused or claimed by someone else.

GNU/Linux and Linux

[millette]

Somehow, this could help bring some order to the GNU/Linux and Linux confusion, over which expression to use. Since Linux is the kernel, strickly speaking, to uphold that trademark, all uses of Linux when GNU/Linux was actually meant should be dealt with in order to protect the Linux trademark. It's the law. If you have a trademark, you must protect it's usage and context.

Before we spend too long about Scientology...

[Large Green Mallard]

Jeremy's other work has also including defending people against spammer's who've sued for being put on blacklists. How quickly the tide turns. As others have pointed out, he's also a very strong anti-spam campaigner.

As a disclaimer: I have met Jeremy a fair few times. I also work with his cousin and the treasurer of Linux Australia. Neither have given me any comment on this matter.

Re:Austrailia

[uberdave]

Plugs may work great down under where water drains in a clockwise direction, but here in the Northern Hemisphere, we need complicated plunger and lever mechanisms to deal with our counterclockwise water draining problems.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[AoT]

Well, I respect Noam Chomsky as a scholar, of linguistics at the very least, but I sure as hell would not want to sit through a year of lectures from him.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[tomhudson]

I would LOVE the opportunity to sit and listen to him. However, I don't think that people like Malcolm, Merkey, or McBride would - they don't hold to the principle of 2 ears and 1 mouth (so you should listen twice as much as you talk, etc).

Re:Alright, so what happens...?

[glowworm]

The law in Australia allows for a "Famous" trademark. (The quotes are important). This is basically where a product is so well known it automatically gains protection. However, it does not extend to situations when the name is a common word.

I really

[ag-gvts-inc]

ought to remember to post AC when I'm in a foul mood.

How about this...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Lintralia? Ausinux?

Re:Austrailia

[DavidTC]

That's just FUD spread by the plumbing industry.

All toilets would work perfectly well without complicated plungers and levers if they were facing the other direction.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[merdark]

RMS's philosophy is clear. However, the fact that some people see it as some moral bible of software does *not* in fact make it such.

People are entitled to their opinion. Some people don't think open source software is the way to go at all. Some thing the BSD license is a better way to go than the GPL.

Since you have no more proof that the GPL is better than proprietary or BSD code, than supporters of those philiosphies, I don't see how you feel you can get off talking about 'lecturing' others.

I do agree that Darl and Jeremy are idiots though. And Jeff seems a sleazy considering that he tried to steal stuff from Novell, but wanting a BSD license kernel is NOT wrong in any way. Of course, it would be much better just to extend an existing BSD kernel of course and leave the GPL people to their vices.

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[SerialCodeAbuser]

"I have said nothing but the truth in return, which is proof against libel anywhere." Sorry little ray of sunshine. You're dead wrong there. In Aust. (not so recently) a TV station was forced to settle when sued for libel against a retired politician (who was as crooked as they come). The reason? No where in the law does it say the truth is a defence. Impugning someones character is an offense though.

Ohh..NO!! I got one hella bill here!!!

[digital-madman]

Okay, calculators out....

Introducing my new Linux-based Linux Desktop Linux Linux System. That right folks... my Linux-based Linux Desktop Linux Linux System is all the Linux you'll ever need! So much Linux that Linux does have nothing on this Linux-based Linux Desktop Linux Linux System!!! Its Linux on Linux-based Linux steroids!

With us! Its all about:
Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux!

We don't care about developers unless its Linux-based Linux devs!!

Okay? How much do I owe the blowhard for that rant!

-Digital Madman
(Mod this one +5funny!)

Re:Ohh..NO!! I got one hella bill here!!!

[macaulay805]

Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux, Badger.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[tomhudson]

I have no problem with either the GPL or BSD licenses. Part of "freedom", from my point of view, is the freedom to choose the licensing scheme you're most comfortable with.

At the same time, I don't think linux would have been anywhere near as successful under a BSD license, and I like the way RMS sticks to his guns.

As for proprietary code - we won't know how good it is, because we can't see it. Open source has one advantage (I'm not being original here, I just don't know who to attribute the thought to) - you know other people are going to look at it, so you tend to make it look better.

There's a lot of my old code that I wouldn't want anyone to see, because, with the benefit of experience, it now looks sloppy, spaghetti-ish, or stupid, at least to me. Sure, it works, and it made me money. But the discipline imposed by knowing that others will see it would have had an effect.

What Merkey wanted to do was a scam. Here are some interesting posts from todays' yahoo scox message board vis. Herky-Jerky Murky Merkey: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&actio n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=2 91615 http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&actio n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=2 91617 http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&actio n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=2 91618

Here's the relevant section of one of them:

Cherokee License - Where is it? Why did the attempt by Merkey to purchase the linux kernel for a laughable $50K and license it under some vapor Cherokee license not ever come to fruition? I mean come on, $50K? Merkey claims to donate over $100K at a whack to other charitable organizations. Why did the site that was under a Cherokee nation owned domain name disappear after people started questioning the authenticity of this endeavor? Why did the new Cherokee laws concerning copyrights and a Cherokee license never show up on the tribal agenda through official channels? Was this entire project ever anything other than a fantastical idea from the mind of one man?

Could it have been all the peyote he's admitted (then denied, sort of ...) using? Who cares? Just another Merkey brainfart.

Jack ass.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Jack ass. You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the article or if you did, you didn't inderstand it.

Re:Jack ass.

[digital-madman]

No I'm being a complete smart ass....

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Doc Ruby]

I'd like to see documentation of that case. Because, as is well known, truth is defense against libel/slander charges. Of course, a better lawyer can be proof against justice, but I'll take my chances with this Slashnutter. I've got plenty of basis to impugn this false, wrong twit - especially when they start threatening that someone else, even worse than they, is going to sue me.

Legit claim

[mikey_d]

Linux Australia is getting Jeremy Malcolm to secure the use of the trademark "Linux" for use in Australia on behalf of Linus Torvalds via the Linux Mark Institute.

The reason is that unscrupulous operators have been abusing the Linux trademark, and so Linux Australia decided to persue securing it on behalf of Linus. (aka doing the right thing)

The T's and C's (i.e. charging for use of the trademark Linux in Australia) are no different from those identified in the Linus-approved Linux Mark Institute. But note, that Jeremy Malcolm's notice is NOT asking for money, just saying that in the future you may be asked to licence the trademark if you sell a product that is levereging the Linux trademark. This is a key point in trademark law - to secure the trademark in the first place to stop some companies from doing the wrong thing.

See Jon Oxer's blog post on the topic (he's Linux Australia's president).

Re:Legit claim

[KarmaMB84]

So will I get sued for using vanilla sources and not removing the Linux mark?

Re:Legit claim

[jonoxer]

So will I get sued for using vanilla sources and not removing the Linux mark?

The whole point of this action is just to secure the trademark in Australia so that it can't be exploited or used inappropriately. It's not to stop someone downloading and compiling the Linux kernel!

More information is available at the LMI site: http://www.linuxmark.org/

Re:Austrailia

[NekoIncardine]

Then why did several Senators and Representatives challenge the Election results on resports of voter fraud in a few states?

Linux Australia's explanation

[hypatia]

The president of Linux Australia (which is, btw, kind of an umbrella group for Australian LUGs and which manages the linux.conf.au conference), said this in his blog:

There'll be a bit of an update about this soon by someone more knowledgeable than myself, but in the meantime the important thing to know is that the email is part of the process that LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has been undertaking to secure the trademark to the word "Linux". LMI is acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds to establish and protect the Linux trademark in various jurisdictions around the world, and has enlisted the assistance of local organisations within those jurisdictions to act as local representatives. Linux Australia has been cooperating with LMI to assist with securing the trademark in Australia.

Jeremy Malcolm has also published a FAQ, including the following:

What was the purpose of your letter?
There are many businesses in Australia that are using the word "Linux" as part of their operations. IP Australia, our trade mark registrar, knows this, and considers it an obstacle for the success of Linus Torvalds' application to register "Linux" as a trade mark here. We need to show IP Australia that although a lot of people may be using "Linux" in a trade mark context, they are doing so under licence of Linus (or strictly, under sub-licence from LMI).

Why was I sent the letter?
The letter was sent to anyone whom it appeared might have been using the word "Linux", or some derivative of that word, in a trade mark context.

But I'm not using it in a trade mark context!
That's good to know. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience.

But you're asking me for money!
No I'm not. You might be required to licence the mark in the future if you are using the Linux mark in a trade mark context for your business, but I have no instructions, and don't anticipate receiving any, to pursue you to take out such a licence.

Re:Linux Australia's explanation

[alexyap]

I wish I've kept a copy of the original letter (PDF) I received so that I can post it here (anyone else has the original letter?). The letter was rather confusing and did not convey exactly the same meaning as the FAQ.

Especially the part that read:

Normally a licence from LMI costs USD$300 to USD$600, however LMI is prepared to ratify your previous use of the "Linux" trade mark and to waive its rights against you for any previous trade mark infringements, provided that you complete, sign and return the declaration that is attached to this letter.

Anyway, Jeremy probably sent the letter to me by mistake because I was not using the word Linux in my company name or product/service name.

I've removed the word Linux from the contents of my website for the time being, until I hear an announcement from Linus himself that this is all legit. I'll continue to support Linux for my business but referring to it using other words.

This is not really a big issue.

Re:Simple, don't offer Linux stuff

[jonoxer]

...because I have the trademarked word Linux on my website somewhere I will pull it...

This is ridiculous. You do *not* have to pay money to use the word "Linux" on a website! Do you have to pay to mention the word "Microsoft"? Of course not, but you can bet it's a trademark. And if you wanted to use "Microsoft" in your product or company name you'd be jumped on big time. Sure, you can sell stuff that's branded "Microsoft", as long as it actually comes from Microsoft. And you can sell stuff that's branded "Linux", and as long as it's really Linux. But if for eg you wrote a totally new operating system kernel and tried to release it as "Linux 3.0", that could potentially cause massive confusion. That's the sort of thing the trademark protects against, not someone just using the term "Linux" to refer to the Linux we all know and love.

See Jeremy speak in Perth tonight

[mlambie]

I've seen Jeremy speak at several conferences and seminars, and he's a very intelligent and well spoken individual.

See for yourself tonight: http://www.mcc.murdoch.edu.au/pubtalk/2005/j_malco lm.html

PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[sg_oneill]

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.

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[badfish99]

If they don't intend to collect the money, why not set the price at $0.01? Then people who were scared into paying wouldn't feel so bad about it.
If the price list says $5000, it looks as though they actually expect to collect thousands of dollars, even if they give everyone a discount. And if there are lawers involved, they would have to collect a good bit of money to pay their fees. Even geeky lawyers expect to be paid. Or is Jeremy doing this for free too?

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[inflex]

I received the letter in /email/ as well - what bothers me is that none of my products or service have linux used in their names, /none/. I know that the various projects I have OpenSourced will run in linux but that's the extent of it.

The letter was sent out in the evening and quite honestly is immediately ranked as spam/scam in my eyes such to the point where I started hunting around for a way to contact Linus or a group representing Linus to inform him of this.

In the end I wrote back a simple email saying that we didn't use Linux in our product names (why limit ourselves to linux when there's so many other OS's too).

If the guy wanted to be taken seriously it should have been a mailout using the registered postal service.

Looks like this was really a bit of a fishing expedition to me.

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[Alan Cox]

Well given the name Linux was invented by a third party, and the prior use I hope the mark gets thrown out. And if he's your lawyer you should be ashamed.

We had a similar scan in the EU (Austria primarily) of someone making the same kind of "for the good of Linux' type claims. That one was dealt with in the same way I hope this is.. crushed underfoot.

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[badfish99]

No it doesn't. They're not charging anyone to use Linux.
In the US, at least, the word BSD is a trademark (look at bsd.org) so Berkeley Software Design, Inc would be equally entitled to ask for money like this.

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[dotwaffle]

Ummm... Linus Torvalds invented the name Linux. It was originally called Freax, correct, but Linus used the name Linux at home, and never used it because he thought it was too egotistical - I believe it was the FTP maintainer who thought Freax was a crap name and asked him if he had any others...

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[schon]

It sounds like he is doing a simple grep for the word Linux and automatically sending a demand letter if the word Linux is detected anywhere on your website.

In other words, he's a spammer.

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[schon]

Umm, you *do* realize who you're correcting, right?

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[sg_oneill]

Alan, with deference to you and all, he's acting for Linux mark. You know. The trust thingee linus entrusted the his Linux Trademark to. But you should know that right?

The whole deal has to do with Linux australia, acting for Linux Mark, filed to register the trademark to stop unscrupulous mobs claiming it or whatever. The judge has noted other companies are already using it.

So the letter went out to companies with linux in the name to just simply state for them that they are using the name under licence from Linus Torvalds via Linux Mark/Linux Australia.

Its possible a figure has to be attached to it to make it a real deal.

Somewhere in the mess, this has all gotten mushed up in the madness of the press.

Believe me Alan, Jeremy is well known in the Aust Open Source scene. This isnt a scam, and privately between you and me (and the rest of slashdot), I'd take a wager he wont follow thru on the bill. Because thats not actually what this is about.

he didn't when he represented me (being that I was unemployed at the time).

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[dotwaffle]

Ah. Crap. It's the Welsh speaking bugger. Well, either I'm right, or I need to go borrow Linus' book from the library again...

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[rtb61]

It is all just a bit of over-reaction. Some time back a small start up in Australia let greed short out what few brain cells they had and they tried to trade make the Linux name for themselves (ahh that profit at the end of the rainbow, many many pots of gold).

It failed of course and that little start up suffered as result (no loss there). So open source became a touch paranoid and protective and wanted to do something about it. Get advice from a lawyer and expect complex twisted legal solutions that require lawyers to disentangle and interpret them (well at least that's the lawyers intentions) and a poor ugly non-solution is the result.

It did not need anything to shut up a bunch of greedy fools before why would it need any other protection in the future. Use "Linux" wisely and you will suffer no problems, use "Linux" poorly and you will suffer (Linux the trademark already has all the protection it needs - us).

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[arth1]

Anonymous Coward said:

The question is.. when Linus departs for geek heaven, and the family starts fighting over the assets, who will end up with the Linux trademark, and how much will they charge?

Indeed. Also note that in TFA, Mr. Malcolm is quoted as not demanding anything more "at this point". It's left wide open for future SCOing, with the added problem that whoever starts charging people will now have a legal foundation to do so, unlike SCO. Whether it's Mr. Torvalds turned evil or his successors.

If I were Linus Torvalds, I'd be paranoid by now -- there are unscrupulous people who would do anything to gain control over the fire his spark started. It wouldn't be the first time a corporation and its lawyers took over the work of someone, and completely changed the rules. In fact, I think that's what usually happens.

Any small steps that makes it easier to happen, I oppose. No matter what the intentions are.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!!

[saskboy]

" Umm, you *do* realize who you're correcting, right?"

I don't. But since you were moderated as funny, I'll have to guess it's someone central to creating Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox

Why is this a problem?

[sinewalker]

It's a legitimate Trademark condition. If this were a story about Red Hat chasing people for abuse of the fedora logo, or about Apple chasing people over the word Macintosh then everyone would be saying "so what?"

Well, it's the same deal here, folks. If you want to use "Linux" (which is a Trademark of Linus Torvalds, for years now) to promote your business, you must register for permission. It is reasonable to pay a fee too, though that's not being asked for yet

What we probably want is a way to refer to "GNU/Linux" systems without using the Linux word. But then nobody would know what we're talking about. Well, that's business.

Nothing about Trademarks prevents you using the word "Linux" for non-promotional stuff (which is what most /.ers would be doing).

linuxchix.com

[michaeldot]

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

Re:Simple, don't offer Linux stuff

[ukoda]

Sure, I think in general you 'should' be right but it sounds like they have already target one guy, see thread http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159125&c id=13327258 and at the end of the day it would only take one letter to me, no matter how bogus, to make me put any 'offending' content because I have nothing to gain by leaving it. I know it sounds wimpy but I like to pick my fights and supplementary web content wouldn't rate high enough.

Re:Simple, don't offer Linux stuff

[michaeldot]

I *think* the whole thing means that you can call your web site:

"KangarooInstallations.com.au - we do Linux installs on your PC"

but not:

"LinuxKangaroo.com.au - open source installations that hop to your door" because the latter includes the trademarked word in your company/web site name, unless of course you contribute some payola.

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[sg_oneill]

Glad to see you've learned all about Australian Defamation laws by reading about American defamation laws.

I might have to try that one. Shit. Maybe I can take up pot smoking and when the cops come, quote the dutch legal code.

Re:the Bush mandate

[cometman]

Off even the OT topic: Bush man-date, that'd be that Gannon/Guckert dude, eh? (heh-heh)

up one level of off-topic:
2000 was well documented - I like Greg Palast's account the best (and the noive of that woman to now run for elective office in Florida - of course, if you know the table's rigged, it's hard to resist placing your own bet)
I think you're saying, oh well, he cheated in 2000 but darn it, he actually won in 2004. But, 2004 had numerous discrepancies. Here's a link with a few details. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.ht ml
Lots more out there.
...and this is just what's known. The administration famous for executive orders to keep presidential papers secret would be likely to have secrets that nobody's found out yet, n'est ce pas?
So, no, I would not agree that Bush has won the presidency at any time. He and his team have demonstrated an impressive capacity to work together to advance their interests and defeat their foes, but they have not colored within the lines. Some express outrage at breaches of electoral process, warmongering and profiteering, and if this is "hating Bush" then it certainly isn't gratuitous.
Outrage isn't my style, though. Please tell me what you find to admire about this person, and we can think happy thoughts together.

Back on-topic - why would using "linux" in a company name be something that would matter? I think patents, copyrights and trademarks are silly, but what do I know? I'm benighted enough to think that it would be more fun to advance the cause of human knowledge than to sit on a buttload of money and sue anybody who doesn't give me my props. Although either one might be fun, if you did it with the right people.

cometman - "acceptance, forgiveness, and love - now that's a philosophy of life" - Woody Allen in Broadway Danny Rose

Re:Simple, don't offer Linux stuff

[jonoxer]

...it sounds like they have already target one guy...

No, that was just someone who received the same letter as everyone else but misinterpreted it as a demand for fees. It wasn't.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[HuguesT]

Well I sat through a Chomsky lecture once, and it was very entertaining. He says the most horrid and challenging things with total equanimity, then back them up with long lists of facts. He is a great public speaker and must be a difficult person to challenge in a public debate. If you search on MIT's website you'll find a few of his lectures available for download.

Similarly if you haven't sat through the standard RMS spiel on Free Software then you've missed something. RMS may not the best public speaker but he speaks simply, clearly and visibly believes what he is talking about.

The common point of these two people is that most people come out of these lectures at least challenged by their viewpoint. It is not at all the sort of thing one regularly hears on prime-time television.

All the best.

Jeff Merkey

[mwvdlee]

Ah yes, Jeff Merkey, whatever happened to him and his crazy plans?

Re:I got one.

[jasgo]

Someone didn't read the FAQ. It apparantly doesn't apply to you anyway.

The real reason

[Wylie Coyote]

It has been mentioned before, but I dont think it has gotten the attention it deserves... The REAL reason behind the letters is to find a handfull of the larger (ie: can afford the license fees) companies who sell Linux based products to disclaim their right to use the word Linux. These responses will then be used as evidence that these companies acknowledge that Linus owns the word Linux, clearing the way for the trademark to be granted.

IP Australia will not allow the trademark if the word is in common use, but if it can be shown that those using the word agree to relinquish their rights to it in favour of Linus, then IP Australia is free to grant the trade mark. Jeremy Malcolm will not show IP Australia responses he gets that do not support his position.

Once the trade mark is granted, they (Linux Mark Instutute) want to license the use of the word Linux. I have no problem with trademarks or interlectual property, but let me see if I get this straight... Linux is open source, and free (as in beer), yet you want me to pay for using the word Linux?

Dont respond to the letters or emails from Jeremy Malcolm. Instead, email IP Australia, outlining how and why you disagree with his position. The more emails they get, the less likely they will be to grant the trademark.

If this trademark is granted, it will likely put lots of small businesses which provide linux services or compatible hardware or software products, out of buisness. Many of these small business (such as mine) cannot afford the license fee. What are we supposed to say on our list of services?? "We provide consulting services for that operating system whose name we cannot mention", "We sell hardware that is compatible with a certain unix-like operating system" ?? This essentially makes those companies who pay the license fee "authorised dealers" and the rest of us, despite our skills, are "dodgy operators".

Keep Linux free. If people stop supporting it, or supplying hardware that is compatible with it, how useful will it be?

Re:The real reason

[cranos]

So you're saying that Linus shouldn't be able to trademark Linux? That's what this is all about, sheesh do some research befpore shooting your mouth off. I know this is slashdot, home of the mindless post, but this has got to be the worst thread ever.

Re:The real reason

[Kaorimoch]

Its about protecting the word "Linux" and won't infringe on the activities you discuss.

Look carefully at the article-
"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.

So if you use the word "Linux" in the name of your company, trading name, the name of your products or services, then you need to relinquish the name or submit to a license fee. You could perhaps offer the "Open Source PC" rather than the "Linux PC".

If they don't protect the trademark, they lose rights to protect the name. That means that anyone could come along and use that name however they want. I could start a magazine called "Linux Chicks" and take raunchy photos of nerdy girls and Linus wouldn't be able to stop me.

I feel sorry for him!!

[tod_miller]

Jeremy Malcom's Website

Look how FUGLY he is! Someone pay him some tradmark fees, heck, lets get him reselling SCO licenses to pay for some surgery/sex!

Poor guy.

Old news indeed

[afcowie]

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

But PAY for it?!?

[vhogemann]

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!

Re:But PAY for it?!?

[jonoxer]

The fees are just there to ensure that LMI can actually defend the trademark if push comes to shove. What's the point of having it as a registered trademark if the first time it's misused there are no funds to even send a cease-and-desist letter? Linus would have to dig into his own pockets or ask for help. This way organisations which are trading on his work and making money from use of the term "Linux" have to pay a very small fee that's proportional to their own turnover. It seems like a pretty small price to pay to ensure the trademark is maintained!

So you talk about hypothetically releasing a "WatchLinux" - but what if the term "Linux" is totally devalued by inappropriate use and Linus can't defend it? What's the point of using it in the product name then? The whole point of establishing the trademark is to maintain its meaning and value exactly so people like yourself can benefit from that value.

Or another way of thinking about it: imagine you wanted to release "WatchWindows2000". Do you think you'd get away with that as a product name, especially without paying anything for the rights to do so? Then why is that any different to wanting to use Linus' trademark? The fact is that with the trademark established you *will* be able to release a product named "WatchLinux" if you do so according to LMI's (and therefore Linus') licencing conditions, but good luck trying to release "WatchWindows2000" under *any* conditions!

Re:But PAY for it?!?

[vhogemann]

The fees are just there to ensure that LMI can actually defend the trademark if push comes to shove.

Sorry to ask, but here at Brasil everyone has the right to FREE access to justice. And even here, a 3rd world nation, this is true. Yes, you may have to wait hours standing in line to be listen, but you will be listen and the state will assign a lawyer to you.

And as I understand, being a democratic nation, this must be true for Australia too.

Apart from it, why can't they ask for donations instead of charging for the trademark use? Debian, for example, never charged any fees to any derivative distros... and they seem to be just fine.

This all sounds too suspect to me.

Re:But PAY for it?!?

[cbciv]

Ok, but why charge for the use?

From the article, it didn't look like the lawyer is seeking to collect money, but rather statements from people that they would be willing to pay a license fee if asked to do so. I don't know Australian law (perhaps someone who does can chime in) but it is possible that it requires proof of value in order to pursue claims of trademark infringement. The aforementioned letters might be sufficient proof of value that a court would allow pursuit of such claims by the owner (Linus) or his agents. Another possibility is that the law doesn't require such proof but that assertion of lack of value is a common defense to trademark infringement.

Note that I'm just speculating. The batch job will be done in a minute, so I don't have time to spelunk through Australian trademark law. :)

Re:But PAY for it?!?

[boots@work]

And as I understand, being a democratic nation, this must be true for Australia too.

No, it's not true for Australia. There is legal aid, but as far as I know it doesn't cover business matters such as this. And frankly I wouldn't want to rely on it when going up against, e.g., SCO.

Re:What a quack

[incabulos]

Perhaps its a new ploy by the Australian arm of SCO? Extorting money by virtue of the linux trademark rather than the linux copyright, what a brilliant and innovative idea!

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Doc Ruby]

Too bad you can't tell that I DON'T GIVE A FUCK.

Re:Now I find out he's a scientologist? Hahaha

[2jray]

It's a great pity you didn't declare that a bit earlier in the process mate. Your credibility has just hit rock bottom ... Enjoy the humble pie when you are finally forced to surrender your paranoid delusions, you rude ignorant, hateful person.

So what does this mean?

[theonetruekeebler]

Would somebody please register "JeremyMalcolmIsAnObnoxiousFuckheadnux?" so I can start marketing my JeremyMalcolmIsAFuckheadnux-compatible video card drivers?

Otherwise I'm just going to have to start calling it Lin*x.

Re:So what does this mean?

[cranos]

Yeah sure, right after I register "ReadTheFuckingArticleYouIdiotux".

Friends of friends, sock puppets etc.

[dustmite]

It's interesting that the small group of people on this thread that are (rather loudly) posting claims supporting this Jeremy character are all linked to one another as slashdot "friends" (fuzza, QuantumG, Bandraginus, jonoxer).

In fact in most cases they are just replying to one another's posts, but with the text implying they are merely strangers that are "independently verifying" what the "parent poster" is saying. Like the case in the GP post. And like hereAll rather suspect. Sock puppet accounts? Or a small handful of people who are linked to this?

Re:Friends of friends, sock puppets etc.

[dustmite]

OK, just to add to that, fuzza is definitely working for Jeremy, he admits as much, and all the others supporting Jeremy on this thread happen to be "friends" of fuzza.

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Pete]

If you didn't give a fuck, you wouldn't be responding to him. *shrug*

He was right and you were wrong. Australian libel laws are ever-so-slightly different to those of the USA. But don't worry, you can still come visit Australia if you want. I'm fairly sure Jeremy wouldn't give a flying fuck about anything you've said about him. Certainly not enough to waste his valuable time suing you.

*sunny smile*

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Doc Ruby]

No, I don't give a fuck because his feeble threats to see me sued by Malcolm are meaningless, regardless of his local law in Australia. Partly because it's a very safe bet that Malcolm would be 0% interested in this flamewar even if he ever knew about it. But mostly because he's a fool, and calling him that is how I do business. If some country has a law against that, they've got to come and get me. And it's a safe bet that they won't. I do, however, give a fuck that the fool is shooting off their mouth while I have something to say about it. Which is my little hobby: calling out fools. Maybe the law will catch up with me someday: one way or the other. Meanwhile, I'm not going to consider it, except as another brick to throw back at them.

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Pete]

He wasn't threatening to see you sued by Malcolm. He was making a point, comparing the relative morality and legality between your words and Malcolm's. The fact that you read it as a threat is perhaps indicative of your own frame of mind, but not much else.

And regarding your little hobby - can I have a genuine Doc Ruby "fool" label? I promise to do everything possible to prove I'm worthy of such a label, including (but not limited to) making sense and not completely talking out of my arse.

Although the last will be a bit tricky at times, I won't deny it :-).

*takes "fool" label*
*makes paper plane*
*throws paper plane* Wheee!

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Doc Ruby]

I followed the directions of a poster to find that Malcolm is a sue-happy Scientology hack, not just a Linux trademark extortionist. I reported my success calmly. He called me a name. So I fired back, harder, in the ad hominem vein. He started whining about defamation and libel, assuring me that Malcolm is "legit" because "he's a lawyer". So I continued to call him on his BS, and upped the rhetorical intensity to demonstrate that his pleas, remonstrations and other selfserving BS do nothing to stop me from counterattacking him. And when he spouts nonsense like whining for his Mommy State to stop the bad man from "libel" and "vilification, I don't really care that he's ambiguous about who's going to do the suing. Even if he confirms the possibility that he hopes it's Malcolm in a later message. Because that threat is empty and meaningless on so many levels.

Someone stepped in, pointing out that Australian laws don't allow one to tell the truth, if the truth hurts. I really don't care if Australia's laws are that screwed up - it's not going to stop me from telling the truth in public, especially when provoked. The fact that he sees the truth as a threat is the only relevant point here, aside from the fact that I don't suffer fools gladly.

So you can back up Tweedle-dee and Dum if you want. You're firmly placing the propeller duncecap on hour own head. Wear the fool plaque as boldly as you like - that's your problem, not mine. You're the one who wants it so desperately that you're spelling out your fantasies of flaunting it.

Too bad all the knee jerk a**hats here got it wron

[olivercromwell]

Well, to all the people here who have been jumping down Mr. Malcom's throat, groklaw.net has an excellent article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989 that explains precisely why a trademark is being filed. Seems that most of the flames here on this topic have been morbidly misinformed. Alas, I have come to expect this often here.

Response from Maddog and LMI

[lma]

I'm on the board of LMI, along with Maddog. Maddog sent the following email as explanation to David Brae. Hopefully this clears up a lot of the confusion:

From: Jon maddog Hall
To: David Braue

David,

Your story is quite accurate, LAI is acting in Australia on behalf of LMI, and this is not a "scam".

Since 1995, when an unfortunate incident in the United States showed us that the world is not made of altruistic people and companies, Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark. At that time an entity had obtained a US trademark on the word "Linux", and was trying to obtain twenty-five percent of the REVENUES of companies that had the word "Linux" in their name, or in their product names. Instead of all the member companies fighting this battle individually, Linux International fought it and won. Unfortunately it cost us a lot of money to do this, despite the pro bono efforts of Gerry Davis, of the law firm of Davis and Schroeder.

Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark for the world, which due to the costs of registering and obtaining International Trade Marks is VERY expensive. Linux International has spent over 300,000 USD to do this over the years. LI is a non-profit and does not have very much revenue, so some of this money has come from my own personal checkbook. While I can not say how much money I have spent on defending the mark per se, I can tell you that I have spent about 250,000 USD of my own money in keeping LI alive. I am not looking for medals or a chest to pin them on. I am only stating this to show people that this is not a "scam", nor is anyone making any money off this other than the international legal and trademark community, and I am sure that they are necessary and justifiable fees. Certainly Jeremy Malcolm has seemed to be above board and conscientious in all of our dealings with him, as has Jonathan Oxer and the rest of the fine people at LAI.

After a while the board of Linux International recognized the advantage of forming a separate non-profit, the Linux Mark Institute (LMI). We need LMI to be self-funding, and following trademark laws in the 200 countries of the world is very expensive. In addition to the normal issues of a company obtaining a trademark of their own product, using their own name, we have issues such as:

o "Who owns the right to use 'Linux'"
o "Who (therefore) has the right to the broad name 'Linux University'?"
o "Can there be more than one "Linux University? If so, what should its name
        be?"
o "If I call my company 'Linux Experts', does this mean that I am the only
        group of 'Linux Experts' worldwide?....shouldn't everyone come to me
        because I called myself 'Linux Experts'?"

as well as the issues of people who wish to use the name in bad ways (as a pornography attractor or on items confusing to the Linux market).

We have tried to make the licensing as unobtrusive as possible, tailored to the amounts of money that people might be making off the use of the mark, and with an eye to keeping the cost to non-profits and user groups as low as possible. We also have to re-license the name periodically so we can protect against "name squatting" (ala URLs) and defunct entities who no longer need the name they registered.

The trademark laws of the world were not created in the days of the World Wide Web, or even the Internet, where unscrupulous people can take advantage of a good name for a good idea and create havoc for people who want to start legitimate industry in their territory under a mark that is registered in some other country. By protecting the mark of "Linux" in as many countries as possible, LMI makes this type of deliberate extortion MUCH more difficult and MUCH more expensive.

Believe me, I have LOTs of other, more pleasant, more lucrative things that I can do with my life than have to deal with this, but this is the albatross that has been hung about my neck, and which I resignedly bear because others do not want it and are off making lots more money than I make.

Warmest regards,

maddog

Linux International's postion, statement by maddog

[hypatia]

Jon "maddog" Hall posted an explanation of the history of the Linux trademark (and Linux International's defense of the trademark) together with a statement supporting Linux Australia's and Jeremy Malcolm's actions in this to the Linux Australia list:

Linux International has been defending the Linux Trademark for the world, which due to the costs of registering and obtaining International Trade Marks is VERY expensive. Linux International has spent over 300,000 USD to do this over the years. LI is a non-profit and does not have very much revenue, so some of this money has come from my own personal checkbook. While I can not say how much money I have spent on defending the mark per se, I can tell you that I have spent about 250,000 USD of my own money in keeping LI alive. I am not looking for medals or a chest to pin them on. I am only stating this to show people that this is not a "scam", nor is anyone making any money off this other than the international legal and trademark community, and I am sure that they are necessary and justifiable fees. Certainly Jeremy Malcolm has seemed to be above board and conscientious in all of our dealings with him, as has Jonathan Oxer and the rest of the fine people at LAI.

After a while the board of Linux International recognized the advantage of forming a separate non-profit, the Linux Mark Institute (LMI). We need LMI to be self-funding, and following trademark laws in the 200 countries of the world is very expensive.

Re:Let's just have him shot

[AoT]

I cannot argue with anything you have said, in fact I agree with all of it, and I have heard Chomsky's lectures; however, would you want to listen to a year long lecture by Chomsky?

I would not either.

EDITORS: Trademark Infringment

[HogynCymraeg]

Dear Slashdot Editors,
We, the lawyers of Slashdot Technologies (tm), herby serve you an order to seise and desist using the name "Slashdot" which infringes our Trademark. As we are a company who are known to issue multiple press releases on the same story, we are concerned that there may be confusion about who you represent. Alternatively, you can licence the name for $5000 per duplicate story.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Slashdot Technologies (tm)

Re:Er, uh - Not quite

[Bloke down the pub]

I'm not familair with the case but I call bullshit on general legal principle.

If what you say is true, then by definition you aren't impugning anyone's character - you're telling it like it is.

Asuming Australian law is based on English law, then truth is an absolute defence against any kind of defamation lawsuit. The only problem is that you (as defendant) would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's true - the plaintiff doesn't have to prove it isn't. I'm guessing that was why they settled - they didn't have (sufficient) proof.

We're one of those

[LinuxIT]

I am a part owner of a company called Linux Information Technology. It started by a couple of us buying a company called Linux Services WA. We have been using Linux in our name since well before this was an issue. We knew that Linus didn't mind and we liked the fact that we could. We also understand there are people out there who will take advantage of this but we considered ourselves safe because of the early adoption of the word Linux.

We wholeheartedy support this trademarking in Linus's name and fully expected it to occur at some time.

On a personal level. I am extremely shocked to see this attack on Jeremy's integrity and can honestly say that it is entirely misplaced and wrong. I have known Jeremy for a number of years and absolutely trust him. Jeremy is a rare person in the world today - a lawyer with a keen sense of ethics and morals. I have no doubt that Jeremy is acting in the best interest of Linux in general. I have attended many talks where Jeremy has painstakenly explained to us what Open-Source is. If you think Jeremy has anything but altruistic motives - you have never met him.

We are one of those companies directly involved in this process.
This should be the end of the discussion.

SHAME ON YOU ALL!

[celtic_hackr]

Read Maddog's comments here. or on Groklaw.
This is being done by/for Linux International, Linus and the entire Linux community, and all this bashing of Jeremy is unjust. Take off your tinfoil hats long enough to find out the truth before inserting your foot in your mouth and running down paranoia lane!

Much said about nothing

[rootmon]

Simply add the statement:

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the US and other countries.

to your web sites, documents, etc wherever you use Linus's trademark. Remember he had to defend his mark or he loses it, if you acknowledge his mark you are no longer challenging it.

The right thing?

[ZBytz]

I thin kthe one thong that may not have been mentioned here is the fact that Linus may be trying to preserve the principles of the GPL, and many developer ARE NOT being acknowledged for their work by these larger companies making these distributions.

The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that all developers are credited for their work towards the open source community, and with them just allowing their software to be distributed for free (not all but many cases), they deserve that right.

Many of us are greatful for all the hard work that the developers put in, but what about the large firms selling linux distros?
They are entitled to sell their own proprietory applications and modifications, but are they acknowledging the developers and giving them the true credit they deserve?

Linus filing this trademark i beleive is in aid of the this fight to allow the developers to get acknoledged. I mean, how many distro setup's hav a "And Special Thanks To" section?

Re:The right thing?

[gnomes]

Hear! Hear! It's time for both credit to be given and standards to be maintained. Credit can be given freely but maintaining standards costs money. Linux IS Linus Torvalds. Protecting Linux from those who could do it's reputation harm, is protecting his own good name. It's time to quit loving Linux the way a glutton loves his lunch and start paying so that we can have a very useful and stable OS and don't have to deal with the MS Borg. Besides, if each person had to have contributed code or money to Linux to actually get to discuss it, this conversation would drop off to near silence.