Slashdot Mirror
Linux Trademark Rejected in Australia
daria42 writes "Linus Torvalds' bid to have the word 'Linux' trademarked in Australia has failed, with the local intellectual property regulator sending his lawyer a vitriolic letter deriding efforts to provide evidence the trademark application was legitimate. In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered."
O sorry, that's patents...
Maybe you should shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen.
and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Good, as long as it doesn't go below 1% then...
The other day Linux killed three people!
What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Netcraft Confirms it: Anonymous Coward dead at 52. Regardless of whether you agreed with his posts all the time, he was a frequent contributor of great information to slashdot. Truly an American Icon.
A misleading summary that allows the user to forward his anti-Wikipedia agenda? That's unpossible on slashdot!
Good catch!
or have we uncovered AutoTroll(tm(but not in Aus.))?
who cares as long as you don't stop swallowing.
Why was this moderated "Troll" when it was clearly humour?
TW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The letter doesn't seem terribly "vitriolic" to me. Obviously, someone has never received a letter from a lawyer.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Yeah, it must suck to have more than 1% market share. We can see how much it upset Microsoft...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is why pubs are so boring these days. Whereas in the past every bar had a drunk guy who could give you practical advice on bloody anything, now they're all at home posting on Slashdot.
I particularly miss the sports, political and legal advice I used to get.
Using wikipedia for that purpose does seem as wise as accepting IANAL advice on Slashdot.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
"Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup"."
Simple way to supply that icon for debian systems:
---
#!/bin/bash
sudo aptitude install ardour-gtk
---
supply that file in a tar format pre chmod'ed. How's that for a first cut.
Besides, how long will it take for new users to get accustomed to typing aptitude install foo or apt-get install foo?
[tag]Besides, windows is so confusing, sometimes the icon is called setup and sometimes it is called install. Sometimes the software is supplied in self extracting exes and sometimes in zips. Sometimes vendors make it difficult to find the full version of the software and only want you to download an installer. Sometimes there are some sort of text files that you are supposed to actually READ after the files come out of the zip, or whatever. Then sometimes, you are HIGHLY recommedned to uninstall any older versions before clicking on those variable icons. Also, sometimes when setting up new hardware they want you to be sure and run the installation software BEFORE connecting or installing the hardware for the first time. (I could go on.)[/tag]
I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves what [tag] should be.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I heard that Linus Torvalds was given some options. 1. To change Tux to a Kux named kangaroo. 2. To remove the compatibility of Opera web browser from Linux, which they claim as the Sydney's trade mark.
Yeah, like testimony from hardened criminals who have made a deal to back the prosecution's case in exchange for leniency.
Unfortunately, as you have failed to demonstrate your authority as an expert in information integrity, I am forced to disregard your comments under the assumption that unless you have some sort of verifiable expert credentials, you're a babbling idiot. ;)
Please present your credentials and prior performance in identifying babbling idiots. Until such time I cannot take your statement in good faith.
The world according to SComps
But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is.
Here's a scary thought- Slashdot as a valid legal source.