Slashdot Mirror


Linux Trademark Protection In Australia

robyannetta writes "Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."

26 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. Appropriate phrasing by Kelson · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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...

  2. Er, uh by Luigi30 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    503 Sig Unavailable

    The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    1. Re:Er, uh by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Er, uh by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. Err, excuse me? by Famanoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Err, excuse me? by stupidnickname · · Score: 3, Interesting


      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.

      --
      It's over now. That, or it's go time. One of the two. acts of gord
  4. That fucking whore/scientologist by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:That fucking whore/scientologist by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
  5. Re:Austrailia by mattjb0010 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Come to Australia instead.

  6. Full article for the lazy by ZakuSage · · Score: 4, Informative
    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."

  7. Claim: LINUS supports it by Barbarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Claim: LINUS supports it by zsau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Look out!
  8. explanation by ehaggis · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a letter from the lawyer at http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html. It spells out the intent of the letter a bit better than the articles.

    Evidently it was a poorly written letter in the 1st place. Some lawyer.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  9. Registration NOT required... by SJ · · Score: 4, Informative
  10. That's not so bad... by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  11. You Are Lying About a Liar by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your FAQ is from the organization this quack lawyer represents, in his attempt to extort A$thousands from people using the Linux trademark appropriately. Who cares what their answers are? Why are you defending this creep, and his obvious ploy to cash in on the brand equity created by Torvalds and everyone else actually contributing to "Linux"?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. Necessary evil by Bandraginus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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... :(

    1. Re:Necessary evil by jonoxer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  13. Re:parent is a troll by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative
    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 :-)
  14. Re:Doesn't seem to be in the spirit of openness by jred · · Score: 3, Funny

    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"...

    --

    jred
    I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  15. Re:the summary is 100% lies by fuzza · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Can't find examples of evolution? No matter, neither could Dawkins
  16. Re:the summary is 100% lies by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Informative
    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
    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  17. Re:the summary is 100% lies by LibrePensador · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  18. PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok. Jeremy is my Lawyer, and folks actually need to understand he's a bloody good guy who helped out a community journalism group I'm involved with free of charge once because , well we where poor asses and he's got a heart.

    Jeremy is doing this as LINUS's rep here so as to assert that the trademark application is REAL, so as to stop unsrupulous companies abusing the name "Linux" or trying to trademark it.

    I dont know if they intend to collect on the money, my suspicion is that its pretty damn negotiable. Its just to assert that linus's trademark is a real one.

    I don't know what the deal is with Jeremys Scientology suite was. I know he stepped down from the EFA over it, which was the ethical thing to do. Either way, I doubt Jeremy can answer that concern for you because of the lawyer/client confidentiality thing. I guess everyone has a black -spot in the history.

    [b]THERES ALWAYS MORE TO THE STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE[/b]

    Jeremy is a geek. A raging geek. He's proud of it too. He gives a damn about linux, and you can be assured this is not some SCO type grab.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    1. Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! by Alan+Cox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.