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."
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."
The statement "information from Wikipedia... is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark" is wrong. The article states:
The applicant used Wikipedia and Google to back its claim but IP Australia dismissed the examples. "The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use.
So basically, Wikipedia as a source is fine, but in this particular instance, the source didn't back up the claims. A totally different situation than the summary makes out.
What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.
That would be perfectly legal, trademark or no trademark. It only protects the use of the word in the specific domain it is defined (Operating systems, presumably, in this case). The purpose of trademark protection is to avoid confusion for the customers (and thus protection from that confusion for the owners).
Here in Japan, for instance, there is both a Unix laundry detergent and a Unix brand of plastic food containers. The domains do not overlap and thus no confusion.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
First, to all you Slashdotters out there - I'm not trying to feed the trolls - this post looks legit to me - I'm just trying to help someone navigate what I'm sure you realize is very confusing - the Open Source world.
I'm posting anonymously because this isn't really the proper place to discuss this (don't ask me what the proper forum is - it probably isn't on Slashdot, although you might try the Ask Slashdot section), so this will very likely get modded down. Also, let me say from the beginning that I am still learning Linux myself, but I know several people who are bona fide experts, and am fairly familiar with the basics of the open source community. A full primer on open source and Linux is far beyond the scope of this post - I suggest spending some time with Google and perhaps Wikipedia for more in-depth information. Your IT consultant may also be a good resource since he or she installed Firefox on your computer.
First, let me say that - in my opinion, others would disagree - Linux is going to be more complicated for a non-technical user than Windows. My experience has been that Linux is more complicated and harder to install and operate. I would venture to say that to run Linux, you will need an expert of some sort - either you must become an expert yourself, or you must get an expert to help you. You can do this by hiring an expert, or by purchasing support for the version of Linux you use. Be sure, however, not to confuse software with support. There is such a thing as software that you don't have to pay for. You will probably always have to pay for support for that software, no matter what operating system you use. Everyone has their own opinion on what operating systems require the most support (my personal opinion is that Linux requires more support than Windows); many people will agree that if you want to minimize the the amount of support that you need, you would be well advised to look at Apple's OS X.
I'm not familiar with Redhat's business plan, but I do know that they cannot (legally) charge for the portion of Linux that is licensed under a legal contract called the GPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl/, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html). I think (but don't quote me) that what they charge for is their add-ons to the core Linux operating system and for support of the operating system. Novell does a similar thing with SUSE Linux - although I know for a fact that you can download SUSE Linux for free - remember, that's just the actual software you get for free, no support is included (http://www.novell.com/products/linuxprofessional/ downloads/suse_linux/index.html). The bottom line is that you can get good, stable, production-ready versions of Linux that are totally free, and not maintained by any commercial entity. Some of the best known are Debian (http://www.debian.org/), Ubuntu - a derivitave of Debian (http://www.ubuntulinux.org/), and Gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org/). As for the "source" (or source code) of Linux or any other Open Source software, this is not something that will do you any good unless you are an advanced user. A discussion of what source code is goes far beyond a Slashdot post - suffice it to say that it isn't something you need to worry about at this point, and that you will need to become much more experienced with Linux before it will help you at all. Suffice it to say that source code is helpful because if a programmer has the source code to a piece of software, he or she can modify that software and make whatever changes he or she wishes. This is why open source software can be modified by anyone, whereas with commercial software, the source code is almost always a heavily guarded
And yet, the Internet Archive's Wayback machine has been successfully used in several copyright court cases.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that either of these are the best sources. But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is. (Because it keeps records of page updates as well, so you could trace the entry all the way back to the original post of the entry, as well as identify specific sources of each tidbit of information).
Google... nah, not really. Google is good for finding information, not validating it, imho.
I8-D
Microsoft Pillows in Australia, Microsoft (the software company) has had 2 lawsuits against and lost both of them...
Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).
Wikipedia and Google are poor choices for any kind of "proof". Since Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at any time, the contents are subject to change and may be of questionable authorship. A Google search is even worse because you can use a Google search to back up whatever theory or belief you want.
For any argument, you need to refer to a good, solid, and authoritative source. In this case, they should have been pointing to trademark law and court decisions in the jurisdiction. That is a good, solid and authoritative source to back up your claim.
Wikipedia and Google are good for casual use, but are nothing to stand on.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
If Linux is already trademarked in ANOTHER country, wouldn't it make sense to go ahead and use that as the reference (I mean common bloody sense) and then re-submit it.
He has a book out also.
How about a couple million penguins show up at the patent office.
These patents are so fucking stupid.
The requirements for a specimen provided to foreign trademark associates are rather strict, and need to demonstrate (generally) that a mark is being actively used in commerce and in the way that is described in the trademark application.
... in which case he'd need to show examples of most to all of these or amend that part of the application.
In this case, it looks like they registered in classes 9 (basically computer programs), 16 (printed matter), and 42 (computer programming services).
So they would usually need at least three specimens that show a commercial use of the mark (LINUX) in each class. Probably the best way of doing this would be for the applicant (Linus) to show a web page of his own ownership that sells/provides these services and goods directly. Advertisements and brochures are good as well.
Now, there are some parts of his app that specify use of the mark in things like " Computer programs, data processing apparatus and devices, peripheral devices for computer systems, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of signals, magnetical and optical data carriers "
All he would have to do is make/produce a brochure and he'd have been golden, provided that his app didn't ask for retroactive protection (the Oz IP site doesn't go into that much detail in its preliminary searches).
Things that (perhaps surprisingly to many) almost NEVER work as a specimen are things like letterhead, business cards, many types of advertising, and even certain presentations of packaging.
Now, a refusal doesn't mean that a mark is dead. Linus will now have the opportunity to provide a substitute specimen that will satisfy the requests and requirements of the examiner.
First, to all you Slashdotters out there - I'm not trying to feed the trolls - this post looks legit to me
l .3.178798.3
Of course its not legit! Ask yourself why someone claiming to be who she is would post that in a trademark in Austrailia thread on Slashdot, of all places. It was originally posted on Joel on Software, as a quick Google search discovered:
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joe
The trolls thank you for the free meal.
The
It's a hobby work, not commercial; no TM protection is offered to this down under.
"The earliest version was an unlicensed ripoff of the proprietary Multics operating system, and was partly responsible for destroying the market for this pioneering operating system."
No, Multics was being developed by a consortium that included AT&T, and then they abandoned development -- it never became a product. After it was abandoned Richie and Thompson, who were at AT&T, and had worked on Multics, decided to develop Unix.