Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1 in 9 Companies Sign Linux Trademark Letter

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the wonder-where-this-will-go dept.

An anonymous reader writes "More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations which received a letter asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so. Jeremy Malcolm, the lawyer who's leading the charge on behalf of Linux Mark Institute, described the response and favorable, saying: "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names. He added that one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain."

37 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. And the majority, you know the 90%.... by alsutton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like the other 9 out of 10 cats said they preferred things stay as they are?

    --
    Al Sutton
    1. Re:And the majority, you know the 90%.... by metricmusic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it didn't apply to them.

      "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names."

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  2. Re:Where will it go? by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, I understood that all the proceeds would be going into Lunis' operating system; Lunix.

    --
    The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
  3. Man, time flies by ReformedExCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There was a time when Linux was just a handful of sources on an FTP server somewhere. Full of bugs, but its programmers were full of excitement about getting it up and running.

    Now, almost a decade later and the technology is progressing at a rapid pace and people everywhere are loading it up on their systems. I guess there really wasn't any other way for the system to evolve except into a bureaucracy. It's sad in a way.

    What is sad is that it's no longer about the code. It's all about who owns what and who can use this or that name. It's a huge business. It's not a hobbyist's operating system anymore.

    I guess that's all for the better, I suppose. More business attention means more bug fixes and faster extended functionality. But it kind of loses something intangible when people start thinking like top brass and less like the rank and file.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Man, time flies by Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There was a time when Linux was just a handful of sources on an FTP server somewhere. [...] Now, almost a decade later [...]

      Almost a decade and a half later, I think you mean. :)

  4. "Butthead Astronomer" by putko · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Apple called a project "Sagan", the astronomer got irritated, and told them to cease and desist.

    Then they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Along similar lines, part of the Apple Corp (Beatles record label) v. Apple Computer settlement was that the computer company stay out of the music industry to avoid trademark confusion. So when Macs started making sounds for the first time, the default sound was called "SoSuMi".

      But only after "Let It Beep" was rejected.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Informative

      When Apple called a project "Sagan", the astronomer got irritated, and told them to cease and desist. Then they changed it to "Butthead Astronomer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

      This is pretty funny. What you guys might've missed in the Wikipedia article is that Sagan actually sued to have the project's name changed, and lost. Apple changed it to Butthead Astronomer anyway, which prompted Sagan to sue again, for libel. He lost again, but Apple changed the project name one more time, to "LAW", which stood for "Lawyers Are Wimps". :)

      If every lawsuit was this amusing, perhaps the legal world wouldn't be so sickening.

    3. Re:"Butthead Astronomer" by podperson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they changed the project to "BHA" (as per the article). Folks were encouraged to infer that it stood for "butthead astronomer".

      The codename was for one of the first power macintosh desktops (the 7100/66).

      Given that the other two projects were called Piltdown Man (6100/60) and Cold Fusion (8100/80). Given that one was a deliberate scientific hoax and the other a famously premature and wrong press release, Sagan was actually being quite reasonable. Would you like that company?

      It's also worth noting that Sagan was chiefly in the news at the time as the highest profile name on the "Nuclear Winter" paper, which had an enormous political impact at that time and was highly politicized (some people didn't like the idea that a global nuclear war couldn't be fought and won).

      Oddly enough, while Apple has a fuzzy liberal reputation, plenty of the folks at Apple are conservative or even ultra-conservative, and I suspect that the name choices were someone's idea of a poke at "Nuclear Winter".

      For those of you too young to remember all this, "Nuclear Winter" was a catchy name for a very solid piece of science (and despite the title, it basically argued that a major nuclear war would have catastrophic climate impacts, not necessarily making the world cold, but definitely horrible), and dismissing it as pseudo-science is about as intelligent as dismissing "global warming" or evolution.

  5. 9 in 10 didn't... by Vo0k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the bright side, this is vastly better success ratio than SCO had.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  6. Free as in ... by Lellor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Free to use it, but only if Linus Torvalds approves. I know I'll be moderated down for this, but it needs to be said.

    Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view? Pulling out lawyers is an awfully Microsoft-ish/SCO-ish thing to do.

    --
    Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    1. Re:Free as in ... by DaHat · · Score: 2

      It just has to do with the name.

      This is not unlike you making your own Version of the Firefox browser and calling it LellorFireFox. Despite the code being open source, the name and graphics are often not, so you would need to change both sufficiently to have it truly be your own version (despite OSS implications).

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:Free as in ... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is it just me, or is FreeBSD is starting to look pretty good right now from an ideological point of view?

      AFAIK you can't just go out and call your product FreeBSD coffee, or whatever. The FreeBSD foundation owns the trademark.

      I know for a fact that the NetBSD foundation has been clamping down on people using the NetBSD name in their products without authorisation.

      I don't see how Linus's actions are any different from this.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Free as in ... by Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't really understand this latest spat of legal attacks - it seems very uncharacteristic of Linus.

      I think you'll find it's something that Linus himself would rather not do and has no interest in doing - but the way the trademark "system" works is that you have to make a reasonable pretense of defending your trademark (from unlicensed use) or you lose it. It's quite different to other sorts of intellectual property concepts like patents or copyright.

      And that's really all there is to it. If you must blame something, blame the system - don't blame Linus (and definitely don't blame LMI or the lawyers they hire).

    4. Re:Free as in ... by rob.wolfe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the heck are you smoking? How do you get from the effort that is required by statute and common law to defend a trademark to "will the LMI be extracting vast tribute from Linux vendors, and blackmailing them a-la Microsoft?"

      What is really scary to me is that there is this kneejerk reaction that if an organization does anything at all to protect "intellectual property" -- a horrid term but one that I think actually does apply to trademarks because someone else using your trademarks can lessen the value of them -- it is some slippery slope from there to fiendish machinations and demands for royalties.

      Call me a pollyanna but I refuse to believe that everyone in the world is inherently evil

    5. Re:Free as in ... by orasio · · Score: 2, Informative

      Te difference here is that it costs next to nothing to take "Linux" out of the name of your product.

      SuSE Linux Enterprise Server ?
      ok, let's call it SuSE Enterprise Server, and list Linux as its kernel, on the side of the box.
      You say that maybe you don't get enough recognition (> money ) without using th "Linux" trademark ? ok, you can always pay for it, or probably get it for "free", in exchange of some developers.

      _If_ the name "Linux" is a revenue-generating part of your name, it's not that crazy that you have to pay for it. The good part is that nobody can blackmail you, because the cost of actually changing the name is usually negligible, although there could be costs associated with not having "Linux" in your name anymore. Nobody said you could profit off the name, though, the GPL doesn't say you can use the name of some project as you wish.

      If, on the other hand, they didn't let you use the actual software, you could be in a problem, because changing the kernel of a server has a bigger cost associated than just reprinting some boxes. You could be blackmailed for a fraction of that cost, if the GPL didn't protect you.

  7. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no reading comprehension

    You sure hit that nail on the head...if you go back and read the summary carefully , you'll note it says "More than 10 percent".

    Pot, meet kettle.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  8. In defense of Linus. by Karma_fucker_sucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The way I understand Trademarks, Copyrights, and other intellectual property (IANAL), you have to defend the marks - even if you have to fight every little battle. Otherwise, if Linus allowed someone to market "Linux Condoms" without challenging the name, he, in effect, gives permission. After that, fighting the use of that name becomes more difficult. You wouldn't want to see SCO change there name to "Linux SCO" or even to "Supreme Corp Of Linux" (SCOL). I know of some very ethical people who have the best intentions who will fight for their trademarks (An example)- you have to protect yourself because no one else will!

    --
    Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
  9. Strange thing to do by DrMowinckel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    quote:
    "Not all of the recipients were using Linux as part of their business of product/service names," he said, adding that one of the purposes of sending the letter out in the first place was to discern which organisations might use the name for commercial gain.

    I am all for protecting the Linux trademark, and I (think I) understand the reasons behind it. However, I feel that LMI should really be sure that the when they send out threatening letters, the recipients ARE using Linux as part of their business/product name. Their strategy seems like harassment.

    --
    In soviet Russia, Raymond loves Everybody, including, but not limited to, YOU!
    1. Re:Strange thing to do by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do people always assume letters from lawyers must be threatening? Can't they ever be just informative messages and polite inquires?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
  10. Forecast by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Microsoft buys the name "Linux" from Linus (or his heirs), they're going to regret this.

  11. Trademark == reputation by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that some of this is about reputation. If Linux is to become a widely-used, trusted OS, then it needs trustworthy businesses to provide trustworthy services. The first step is to control the name "Linux" so that only those companies that adhere to certain standards, codes of conduct, etc. can be allowed to use the marque. Linus can't control the codebase, but he can control the name.

    I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this, but it is what they should do as part of the Linux maturation process.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Trademark == reputation by matthewsmalley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

      The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.

      Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.

      Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a rosy future for Linux, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to close the source. There is no third way.

    2. Re:Trademark == reputation by Kalak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compare this to the Open Group owning the trademark of UNIX. Linux companies fought for the trademark of Linux and gave it to Linus (as it should be), and he has contracted out to a group to keep his trademark rights appropriately, in accordance with the needs of the law.

      I don't hear anyone claiming the Open group is making a ton of money off the trademark of UNIX. I'd say your comment is dead on and the recent Linux trademark efforts are highly similar to the UNIX trademark issues.

      Preserving the good name of "Linux" is what this is all about.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    3. Re:Trademark == reputation by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not saying that the Linux Mark Institute is doing this

      Good, because they aren't. The sublicense agreement only gives LMI the right to terminate if the sublicensee starts using the mark with unauthorized goods/services (something completely unrelated to Linux), or if they violate the agreement in another way.

      The agreement doesn't give LMI the right to terminate just because the sublicensee smeared Linux's name. LMI cannot hold the company to any standards, codes of conduct, etc.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  12. Other way around? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Insightful
    More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations which received a letter asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so.

    Personally, I think the bigger news is that just under 90% of the 90-odd organisations that received a letter have not responded to requests to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name.

    In other words, 80 of those companies may attempt to assert a legal claim to the 'Linux' name now or in the future. This is a hell of a bigger volume (and worry) than the 10 that said they wouldn't.

    Finally, if not all of them were using the 'Linux' name in their business/product/service name - what exactly was the point in sending them this letter? So they could ignore it?

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  13. Trademarks must be defended by bokmann · · Score: 2, Informative

    For an understanding of why Linus has to do this, read this article at the Motley Fool (registration might be required)

    http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rule maker000501.htm

  14. Trademark control is a prerequisite for integrity by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except... the whole point of free/open software is that it's /not/ controlled by one overriding personality.

    The fluffy ideal that so many try their very best to uphold is that if you mix enough intellect, enthusiasm and good nature together for long enough, something beautiful will result.

    Agreed on both counts. But if Linux becomes a popular OS, then it will attract some less fluffy personalities who only see it as a quick way to make a buck. If this idealistic group has no mechanism for ejecting/controlling wayward, sleazy elements, then the group's reputation will quickly sink to that of its worst members.

    Moreover, if Linux supporters feel that their efforts are only going toward lining the pockets of a few "Linux" companies, then they will withdraw their support, labors, and love. Controlling the marque is a way to control the integrity of the brand and of the movement.

    Suggesting that the mix then requires a high degree of control significantly detracts from this ideal.

    Not a high degree of control, but some control, yes.

    Either Linux Mark Institute believes in the ideal, in which case truth, justice and the American way will bring about a rosy future for Linux, or it doesn't, in which case it needs to close the source. There is no third way.

    Perhaps your post was simply sarcasm. If so, I apologize for taking it seriously. I only think that if Linux wants to be taken seriously, then Linux/Linus/LMI/whoever needs to take the Linux name seriously.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  15. Re:I think it was more than iritation... by milktoastman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bad example, maybe. Sting should deal with the fact that his stage name is generic. Maybe Robert Redford should sue him?

  16. I still think it's already too late. by RiffRafff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Hand me a Kleenex."

    "Please Xerox this for me."

    Two examples of how trademarks have made it into common speech. "Linux" made it even faster, since it has been an all-encompassing term for a collection of software for years. "Linux" is only the kernel; a small fraction of the software that comes on distributions that include the name "Linux:" Red Hat Linux, Debian Linux, Suse Linux, Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux, Damn Small Linux, etc. The majority of the software on these distros is true "third-party" software, and the next largest category is the GNU "glue" that holds it all together. The kernel is way down the line, here.

    Torvalds is likely to do for "GNU/Linux" what Stallman never could: get people to start calling the OS after something other than just the kernel.

    After all, how should we divide up credit among developers of all this software? People balked at calling it "GNU/Linux," but at this rate, GNU sounds a hell of a lot better than GNU/Linux/Apache/GIMP/OSS/KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/ Xmms/Mozilla/Audacity/X11/ARTS/CUPS/Java/Mplayer/W INE/MySQL/Perl/Python.

    Be careful, Linus...be careful what you wish for.

    --
    "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
  17. Unix does this, so why not Linux? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to jump through hoops to be able to legally call something "Unix," so why not Linux? This may sound silly at first, until you realize that certain disreputable organizations may eventually try to deliberately muddy the waters by creating "Linux" products that are not actually Linux. Kudos to the Linux folks for taking the initiative now, instead of waiting for trouble.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  18. Re:Thanks for playing, but you're an idiot. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Informative

    All the article says is "more than 10%

    Before citing the article, you might want to try actually READING the article, genius.

    From TFA:
    A lawyer acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds has hailed as "favourable" the fact one in nine Australian vendors targeted by a letter campaign asking them to relinquish any legal claim to the 'Linux' name have agreed to do so.


    Not that this even touches on the fact that the GP's post was criticizing the story fo claiming 1/9 was equal to 10%, which it clearly wasn't, but if you're going to correct a correction, you might want to FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE, IDIOT.

    Log off before you hurt yourself.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  19. Re:Ratios? by telecsan · · Score: 3, Informative

    "More than 10 percent of the 90-odd organisations"

    1 in 9 is 11.11%, which is more than 10%. I don't see the inconsistency here?

    In fact, 10% of 90 organizations would be 9.(yes, I realize it says 90-odd, but still)

    More than 9 would imply at least 10 organizations. 10 out of 90-odd is about 1 in 9.

  20. So how many? by houghi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why say more then 10 percent? why not say 10 or 12 or 89 or whatever the number is.

    Probably because "10 companies signed ..." does not sound as interesting.

    The fact that the majority has NOT signed is much more interseting.

    Also disturbing to read that "The letter wasn't relevant to the majority of people who received it," . If **AA would start to send letters to just about anybdy and then say that it was not relevant to most people, there would be an outcry.

    Perhaps even tha majority who DID sign were not realy involved in anything.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. Re:1/10 = 1/9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    #define PI 3
    #define 1/10 1/9

    Problems solved.

  22. Captian! She canna handle the spin! by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

    OVER ten percent agreed. Wow! Ten! Thats, like, more than nine! Whew.

    Oh wait. That means that somewhere in the neighborhood of ninety percent didn't? Well, if ten is bigger than nine then it must be bigger than ninety too.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  23. payback? by literate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    we use debian linux from Progeny in our FileEngine. we paid the LMI for our use of "linux" in one of our service marks: "Driven by Linux - Non-Stop File Power"

    why not? i'd pay samba too for the use of their trademark. they provide the foundation of our systems. i don't mind paying...shouldn't they both reap some benefits for their contributions to our success?