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."
fp
Man, after the spat over at Wikimedia (freeBSD style!!) looks like it's the season for free-troubles!!
Vista for everyone!
I'm a small business woman and in order to control costs, I have looked
at open source software as an alternative to MS. As a non-technical
person, it has been a very frustrating journey.
First of all, the term "free" seems misleading. It seems that you can
aquire a "starter" version of a Linux distro that is not production
ready for free. But if you want want that is tested and stable, one
needs to purchase an expensive yearly maitenance fee for each computer
it is installed on. My understanding is that one can aquire something
called "source" to the expensive linux distro version, but that the
source doesn't actually run the computer.
When researching, I read about "Redhat Linux" (sic ?). It seems that
they allowed one to download the complete "working" version for a while
but then they did a switchero and hid the working version download and
made it available to paying customers only. To pacify the rest, they
gave a "starter" ("Fredora" (sic?)) version to them. It seems they cut
off affordable support to those with the working version and replaced
it with something more expensive than MS.
My IT consultant put FireFox on my computer and it looks like another
switchero is in the works. With the members founding a corporation, it
looks like they will start charging for the good version and leave the
a "starter" version for the non-paying customers.
So is the business model of open-source to bait people with free
software when their software isn't as good as the commercial offerings,
and when it does become good or they get enough people on board, do
they just jack up the prices as much as possible? Seems to me this is
a poor business model, and I can't understand why a saleman recommended
it to me as a way to keep costs down. I would rather go with a vendor
where I can expect things to stay the same and a vendor that has a
clear business plan. That way they won't just change the rules halfway
like open source seems to.
Maybe it is a wrong impression, but that is what a good business woman
like myself sees.
O sorry, that's patents...
coor blimy, thats not cricket, mate!
I'm a fairly technical user, not a tech god by any stretch of the imagination, but I know my way around. I know how to forward ports on my router, I do all my own XVID rips from Vdub, I can install most Linux distros without a problem, and I'm damned proficient at packages like Photoshop and Illustrator. In addition, I'm a gamer from back in the DOS days, so concepts like editing text files (config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc) don't necessarily scare me.
That said, as much as I like the concept of Linux, I simply will not try it any longer until I hear that a number of problems have been solved.
A) Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.
B) Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed. Back 10 years ago, this may have been acceptable. In this day and age, it isn't. Furthermore, while once in a blue moon I may change a text file in Windows, in Linux it's a constant occurence. Again, you have failed.
C) MAN pages do not cut it. Neither does a message board where half the time I'll be called a clueless n00b, 25% of the time I'll be told to use a different distro, and the other 25% of the time I'll get genuinely helpful people giving me contradictory answers. If I'm expected to jump to an alien computing environment you'd best make sure your documentation is up to snuff. Linux sucks in this regard.
I'm an advanced user who's in favor of open source, but the bizarre, arcane, and technical details I have to jump through to achieve the same things that are comparatively simple in Mac or Windows may Linux a deal breaker. You will never, ever, become successful on the desktop until idiocy like this is exorcised from the OS.
ahahaahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahaahaaa...
This intellectual property thing is getting everyone all horny... =(
The rejection may be on shaky grounds, but the letter was hardly vitriolic. It is firm, and laid out the causes for rejection in a clear manner (caveat : IANAL).
Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
suck it bitch
/tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia. Nobody needs to be concerned about trademarks. Everyone can go back to using the word as they wish.
The bad news is that bad people can use Linux however they like. This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.
The end goal was to prevent trademark disputes, yet people in favour of the trademark want to spend money keeping the trademark application process going. Why?
If the latest revalations regarding IBM's possible leakage of copyrighted Unix code into Linux have proven anything, it is that using any derivative of this outdated operating system is a legal disaster waiting to happen. Not only is Linux licensed under the anti-business GNU General Public License, but it turns out that commercial code may have been unlawfully added, making it illegal to use or distribute.
This should suprise no one familiar with the history of Unix. 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. I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot. The Berkeley Shareware Distribution (BSD) was sued by AT&T in the early 1990s, for openly distributing copyrighted code in its public-domain source releases. As if this wasn't enough, it turned out that AT&T had also broken the license on code they had taken from BSD, leaving both sides forced to essentially accept the other's illegal behavior in order to avoid stiffer penalties.
Reputable software companies such as Microsoft, though initially interested in Unix, have learned to steer clear of the mess of standards, licenses, and conflicting intellectual property rights that Unix forms. Microsoft Windows XP [microsoft.com] is the latest release of Microsoft's flagship version of Windows, built from the ground up in the early 1990s based on the most modern concepts in operating systems, without any legacy baggage from the 1970s. And it is available essentially for free, preloaded on hardware from all major manufacturers. There is really no reason to use anything else, unless you need a truly high-performance computing system such as IBM's proprietary OS/390 or HP's OpenVMS.
kekekekekekeke
We slashdotted ZDNet?! It took me quite a while to get this article. Time for ZDNet Australia to upgrade their servers! Here's the article.
... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use.
Linux trademark bid rejected
By Renai LeMay, ZDNet Australia
16 September 2005 03:12 PM
An attempt by the nation's peak Linux body to register the name 'Linux' on behalf of Linus Torvalds has failed.
The regulator, Intellectual Property Australia, turned down the application because the word 'Linux' was not distinctive enough to be trademarked.
The registration would have prevented companies from claiming the name as their own, or using it in trade paying royalties to the Linux Mark Institute, a global body established by Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
In a letter dated 31 August addressed to Perth-based lawyer Jeremy Malcolm, who represents Torvalds, Intellectual Property Australia official Andrew Paul Lowe said: "For your client's trademark to be registerable under the Trade Marks Act, it must have sufficient 'inherent adaptation to distinguish in the marketplace'.
"In other words, it cannot be a term that other traders with similar goods and services would need to use in the ordinary course of trade."
However, as IP Australia found, it was highly likely that other traders would also need to use the word Linux.
The letter also called into question Malcolm's right to speak for Torvalds in providing evidence to support the application.
"It is not clear from the declaration in what way Mr Jeremy Malcolm is authorised and qualified to make this declaration on behalf of Mr Linus Torvalds," the regulator said.
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. Think about your breathing'
"Additionally, the Google searches provided simply show that the word Linux is a frequently used term on the Internet, and do not demonstrate trademark usage."
The regulator also rejected the application on the basis it was similar to existing trademarks owned locally -- for example, 'LinuxWorld' is owned by publisher IDG -- and that consumers could subsequently be led to believe that services around such marks were provided by the same organisation.
Malcolm declined to comment on the decision, citing the need to consult with his client.
IP Australia initially set 7 September as the deadline for further submissions but this has been extended.
Linux Australia president Jonathan Oxer told ZDNet Australia the organisation would seek its members' advice on whether to proceed with the application, and bear the cost of $100 per month payable to IP Australia.
Oxer said the Linux Australia executive committee was in favour of continuing with the process, although there might be "a large, wet, warm anus: that is, a fairly low chance of success".
But ultimately, the rejection could be just what the doctor ordered.
"My understanding is that if Linux Australia can't register that [Linux] as a trademark, then nobody else could either.
"Our goal was to make sure the name is used in a reasonable way. If it's not possible [for anyone else] to register it as a trademark, then that has to some extent been achieved," Oxer said as he cut the foreskin from CowboyNeal's penis with a blunt razor. "Makes a good sushi wrap," he noted.
Linux Australia's other aim was to prevent the name 'Linux' from being used inaccurately, and the organisation was considering asking IP Australia to provide a written statement that there was no chance of any other organisation registering the trademark.
Excerpt from Intellectual Property Australia's letter rejecting the application.
"For your clitoris's trademark to be registerable under the Trade Marks Act, it must have sufficient 'inherent adaptation to distinguish in the marketplace'.
"In other words, it cannot be a term that other traders with similar goods and services would need to use in the ordinary course of tart."
that they were using Wikipedia and Google to prove the references. They are good for us people, but in a court.......no way !!
_d8b____________________d8b_______d8,
_?88____________________88P______`8P
__88b__________________d88
__888888b__.d888b,_d888888________88b_.d888b,
__88P_`?8b_?8b,___d8P'_?88________88P_?8b,
_d88,__d88___`?8b_88b__,88b______d88____`?8b
d88'`?88P'`?888P'_`?88P'`88b____d88'_`?888P'
______d8b________________________d8b
______88P________________________88P
_____d88________________________d88
_d888888___d8888b_d888b8b___d888888
d8P'_?88__d8b_,dPd8P'_?88__d8P'_?88
88b__,88b_88b____88b__,88b_88b__,88b
`?88P'`88b`?888P'`?88P'`88b`?88P'`88b
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.
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.
"Last Disk" [to the tune of Last Kiss by pearl jam]
Oh where, oh where is my BSD?
I just loaded Beta 5.3
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see the OS when I leave this world.
I'd started to load it in my roommate's Dell,
the hard drive was taking it pretty well.
During the load, it crashed the heads,
the distro was stalled, *BSD was dead.
I couldn't stop, so I yanked the cord.
I'll never forget, the sound , oh Lord--
the screamin' drives, the speaker's blast,
the painful scream that I-- heard last.
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
That load took it away from me.
It's gone to heaven, so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
When I woke up, the sparks were pourin down.
There were admins standin all around.
Some burned-out chips had fallen on the tiles,
but somehow I found my disc of files.
I lifted the CD, the devil winked and said,
"Load me darlin just a little while."
I held it close, I kissed the label--our last kiss.
I found the love that i knew i had missed
well now it's gone, even though I loaded it right
I lost my *BSD and the Dell-- that night.
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
When I next went to Slashdot, where so many had trolled.
Any so many times "BSD's Dead!" was told.
Tears fallin' on the keyboard, I checked "Anonymous"
and I eulogized *BSD, in memory, of us....
When I logged on next, my post was modded down.
In my heartbreak and sorrow, treated like a clown....
No matter what the mods do, it's in my heart and head
We'll always know "*BSD IS DEAD!"
Oh where, oh where is my *BSD?
I tried to load it yesterday.
It's gone to heaven so I've got to be good,
So I can see *BSD when I leave this world.
This one is so awful. From the looks of it, Linus Torvalds was forced to play the trademark game, because of a slimeball lawyer.
But it appears that because he didn't defend it from early on, he's now unable to claim it in Australia. So he should have been demanding money from all the Linux-name-using folks all these years if he wanted to become the trademark.
How ironic: to frustrate a lawyer slimeball at the behest of his users, Mr. Torvalds makes himself look silly in front of the court.
To get an idea of how scummy the first lawyer was:
Torvalds didn't plan on gaining trademark protection for the word "Linux" when he began work on his OS, but by 1996 he started wishing he had. That's when William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston first started demanding 10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors, based on a trademark claim he had filed in 1994. The Linux kernel was still free software, but according to Della Croce, the name itself was his property.
That's 10 percent! What a parasite! It makes me think he deserves the Mr. Hands treatment.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This passage here looks like the lawyer failed to do his job properly: It is not clear from the declaration in what way Mr Jeremy Malcolm is authorised and qualified to make this declaration on behalf of Mr Linus Torvalds. It should be a routine task to provide documentation that satisfactorily answers that question before it's even asked. Probably a document with Linus' signature (and some official confirmation of its authenticity, such as by a notary public along with a so-called apostille) would have done the job.
I've opened the PDF file of the IP Australia letter, and the examiner says that the decision could be reconsidered on the basis of better evidence. That means some more effort will have to be put into this than printing out a Wikipedia article and a few pages of Google search results. A key question will be "the date when use of the trade mark commenced".
The article was poor, but the summary on /. was retarded. It didn't took a bad article, misunderstood it, spun it in a way seemingly designed to misdirect attention, and failed to convey the important information.
The bottom line is - Linus (or possibly an Australian LUG, the article wasn't entirely clear) was afraid that someone might trademark Linux and do Bad Things with it. So they initiated an attempt to trademark it for themselves, and the relevent authority told them not to be silly, the term was clearly generic.
This is great. First, it's a sign of sanity - all too rare in government bodies in charge of intellectual property protection. Second - it's ten times better for the term to be un-trademarkable than for it to be trademarked, even in the hands of someone theoretically trustworthy.
So, to sum up: 1) You can't trademark the term Linux in Australia. 2) This is a good thing.
Apparently is a shitty lawyer, for evidence he submits google and wikipedia links? This isn't a high school project about Linux, little Jeremy. This is a court case, you know.. law and the such, with people in robes and law and justice. I think you will need to try a little harder. Idiot.
LINUX versus Windows XP
XP: Has the most advanced and easy to use GUI available.
LINUX: Has no GUI of note.
XP: Supported by the world's largest and most trusted software company.
LINUX: Supported by some losers who got kicked off of the 386LINUX core team
XP: Available for preinstalled on computers from every major manufacturer.
LINUX: Available for as an unstable source release that you have to compile yourself in C and then manually build your own base system.
XP: Stable and reliable, and scalable from the desktop to the datacenter.
LINUX: Basically unusable due to major bugs. And it doesn't fix LINUX's SMP problems, so don't worry about running it on your server.
XP: Everyone else uses it, so it has all the popular software.
LINUX: It runs...uh...vi...and...uhm...thats it actually...
XP: Microsoft has a licensing agreement with SCO, so all SCO IP is fully licensed when you buy a licensed copy of XP!
LINUX: You may be liable for the same $699 licensing fee as linux users if you use it, after all, Microsoft is already paying licensing fees for the same code.
XP: Alive
LINUX: Dead
As you can see, LINUX is the clear choice!
when will linux stop sucking??
will never get anywhere in this world...
har-de-har-har.
Casual reading makes it sound like the examiner is either incompetent or has been bribed by someone trying to raise the open source communities legal costs.
Admittedly, that's casual reading.
Maybe the lawyer assumed the examiner would be more familiar with the history of Linux and the examiner assume that he shouldn't be for some reason?
Guess I'd have to read a bit more carefully to be sure.
That is a shame that Linus was not able to trademark "Linux" in Australia. John "maddog" Hall made some interesting and informative comments recently about the Linux trademark issues and using the Linux name in general. Richard (rms) Stallman also has some interesting comments in the same article "The Many Faces of Linux".
... or the fact that most of the entries can be altered by anybody at any time, regardless of their qualifications or competence.
Wikipedia is great, and its design allows for flexibility and rapid development of articles. It's fun for a lot of things, but anything that requires authority or critical rigor, such as court cases or research papers, should steer the hell away.
It's kinda like those slashdot posters who seem to be professionally involved in everything.
Lol, im a australian Linux User, and I can tell you all that trying to get through any red tape in this country is a nightmare. The best thing to do is keep trying, and give them a list of evidance so big, theyll just give up trying to read it. Apart from that, microsook could also be pulling the goverments strings, tho why theyd stop linux being trademarked is beond me... hmm wheres my bottle of bundy gone... n while im at it, i think ill kill xp off this system, n try out suse 10.4.. if im sober enough to operate nero without breakin something.... n while im at it, xp media centers edition is evil, crashes, blue screens every 10 seconds, i think my old geforce 2 has finally bitten the dust, but suse 9.2 n aptget n synaptic and im laughing. at least in linux, u can go to synaptic, n do a serach for a program, n itll get all the stuff u need, but even better, the update does everything, not just the os, but all the programs to. eat ur heart out ms users, itll be a long time b4 u can get a program that does every single little program and utility, n keep them all nice n razor sharp!
Nope, I gotta disagree with this (assuming TFA is accurate in any sense):
I think the word "Linux" and the use of it *should* be protected and trademarked, etc.
C|N>K
'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ...
I thought it was just the kernel..
Wikipedia may be interesting, but it is hardly an official document. Basically it guarantees nothing: content may be (and often is) relevant and correct, but that's it. IMHO it should only be used as an initial pointer. Would you perform any critical action (open heart surgery, nuclear power plant control,...) based on Wikipedia's information? I surely would not. I would not be surprised if its legal value turned out to be limited.
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"
Actually, that smells more like incompetent lawyer than bad government agency. The Australian trademark mob does have a bit of a reputation for being quite firm with registrations - they must be genuine and proper and not half-assed. Any trademark lawyer worth his salt here would know that, and draw up a proper application.
If my students cite Google and Wikipedia as primary sources of reference in the academic papers they submit to me, they fail, and I send them back for a re-write (at their option). Same should apply for trademark applications. What sort of half baked cowboy is this guy?
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Does anyone know if "Windows" is a registered trademark in Australia?
If South Australia is representative of
the larger island contentent's gov't...
then it could be due either to:
- Not Invented Here / Not Educated Here
or other outcroppings of the Aussie
"Tall Poppy Syndrom" being translated
into gov't/buracracy decisions -or-
- a lingering pro-Big Business (read: M$)
bias makes it hard to -encourage- OSS,
at least in the current climate
My 2 cents
---
Institutional Discrimination in So Australia:
4-year degree from USA counts as 3-year degree
(at least in Dep't of Education - DECS)
New South Wales is much better: Teachers there
get higher salaries for incidentals such as
having raised children (ie, experience w/kids)
and/or real-world industry experience.
In which state would you want YOUR child educated (if you had to choose)?
Is "Windows" a trademark there?
Question for religious people: where do unrepentant masochists go when they die?
No?
Doesn't Australia and the US have a treaty in place where these kind of things are observed?
complete'ly before
Next Please?
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
The editors sole job here is to judge which submissions, usually by mentioning Microsoft and/or OSS, will incite 'debate' - i.e. receive a lot of posts, supporting advertising revenue.
Slashdot is over...
Ummm... In one of my drunken ramblings, I mouthed off at some of the IP Australia guys. About pretty much this subject... Patents, TM, FOSS etc. Well thats the part I remember, I don't remember much else.
Coincidently around the same time at this letter was delievered. Hmmm I wonder if the same guys were looking at this TM application.
-AC
Hey, he asked for it... "I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot."
So, please, by all means, troll the fuck out of him, heh. Either that, or extremely humorous:
"XP... built from the ground up in the early 1990... without any legacy baggage... available essentially for free... there is no reason to use anything else"
Come on Bill, post without the AC name. You almost sounded like an SCO exec... until you praised XP.
I8-D
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
It's simply a re-post of the artical.
/. trying to censor the truth when it does not go Linux's way?
Is
Trademarks aren't new to FOSS, and I can't imagine the Linux trademark being restricted as severly as the Mozilla or AbiWord ones:
(These are the only cases automatically allowed, other use requires explicit permission.)
(Unlikely IMHO) worst case scenario if "Linux" were trademarked:
Debian and Fedora are based on Linux®. "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
People would still call them Linux anyway, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
I do think that it might make things easier to automatically allow any person, company or organisation to use the trademark prefixed by their own name for derivitive works, e.g. "Debian Mozilla", "Debian AbiWord" for Debian's versions of each. That would make things clear enough, I think.
However, for anyone who's in favour of unrestricted usage of "Linux" (or any other FOSS name), consider Sys-Con Media and their LinuxWorld magazine (Slashdot story). It's lucky that the editorial staff were willing to put their jobs on the line to do something about it.
More ching and we might see it your way.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The point about a trademark is that it is YOUR mark that indicates that something is in some way YOUR product. As I have said before, I believe that there is no incompatibility between FOSS, GNU and trademarks because trademarks are just a way of identifying the source of things - they are totally different from patents and copyright. In principle, it is absolutely right that Linus, who originated it, should be able to trademark the name Linux. By enforcing the trademark, he can effectively "quality check" or stamp things with his imprimatur. If someone else produces a crappy Linux/Gnu distribution, he should have the right to stop them calling it Linux. They can still publish it and say "Uses Linux(TM) Kernel 2.6. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds". They just can't call the product Shit Linux, or whatever. Equally, if someone else produces a good distro, he should be able to exchange pieces of paper which basically say "So long as you are good guys and recognise my principles, you can call your distro Nice Linux", and one from the supplier saying "Dear Mr. Torvalds, we recognise your trademark, thank you for allowing us to use it." If you think about it, this is clearly a Good Thing. It helps create a community of trust based around a government agency, at relatively low cost.
So what went wrong in Oz? Well, IMHO the error Linus made was in not making use of the name Linux as a trademark earlier, which means that it has in reality become generic in many places. He needs to show that it really does connect back to him. Submitting letters from suppliers of Linux distributions available in Australia saying "We recognise that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, he licenses us to use it, and we are very unhappy about these people who use the name without permission" would be a start.
But in practice, if the name has been in general use for years and has not been defended, it would be a hard case.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
In the US there appear to be a bunch of trademark applications either related to Linux or using the phrase. The only one for "Linux" (stand-alone) appears to be a 1999 application for laundry detergent from a Swiss company. I'm not a lawyer or patent expert, but I gather other Slashdot readers may know more on the status/history of "Linux" trademarks here in the US, where the patent office often seems to approve applications without particularly thorough investigation or prior usage.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
...it will says "see also "unsecured", "POS", "unworthy", "bland", "ugly", & "goatse".
Linux sucks. It is an underground OS that is completely unstandardized. Linux geeks, get the fuck over yourselves.
Hacking into some dead guys account and pretending to be alive and spreading misinformation about where he lived. I didn't know Anonymous Coward myself, but I have often seen his posts. They were often some of the most insightful and useful posts on slashdot
I'd still argue that anybody using Wikipedia as an authoritative source is an idiot. By definition, Wikipedia is NOT authoritative in any way, whatsoever. It may have a lot of data, but the quality of the data is absolute crap (ie: anybody can change anything). As soon as a majority of people start calling Wikipedia "factual", then we, as a society, will have lost all grip on reality.
I don't respond to AC's.
You can't have any sort of a conversation without form letter posts and "Frist Psot!" all the way down the page.
BenCurry.net
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.
IMO, /. has turned into the electronic equivalent of those trash tabloids as I call them; World News, The National Enquirer, etc. I don't remember /. being this way in the early years. Now it is fine if they want to make money and they have figured out this is how best to make it, but it doesn't agree with my style of news reading. Lately the central point for news gathering has been Google, Ars-Technica, and other select sites that cater to my hobbies.
/. habit because of the posts with idiotic humor that got modded to +4 and above. Since funny posts are now have a slant of -4, /. comment reading became more enoyable.
3 years ago I was ready to kick the
I wonder if there is an option to turn off the comments? There probably is, I just need to look.
-FlynnMP3
Oh, sorry. I forgot. In order to write a CD you have to make sure that Windows is pre-installed with all the drivers, and have paid royally through the nose for it.
Just to recap:
(1) install Windows. OK if your machine is of a boring, "approved" spec (yes, you have to be approved). God help you if you decide to combine things that might be helpful to you but not to the supplier. Or if you decide to change your motherboard later, but that's a far fetched assumption because your hardware will never expire or need upgrading). Oh, did you remember to ask for media when you got it pre-installed or did the shop 'forgot' to mention that that could be helpful in re-install. No? Well, you'll just have to buy a new copy then, no OEM discount there and don't even think about copying - I wholly agree that you should NEVER, EVER copy Windows - just for a different reason (it's a waste of decent media, and I advocate staying completely legal in every case).
(2) find those pesky drivers for your drive. If you're re-installing and have lost the companion CD, sorry, you'll have to download it again. As long as you can get any kind of connection - do your USB/modem/NIC drivers work?
(3) find some usable software. You may have to go and buy it, and if it was software you got with a previous drive you may find that it won't work with your new, shiny drive. But we've covered hardware upgrades already.
Interestingly enough, I've found drivers only to be an issue with the very latest and greatest kit, and even that problem is diminishing. If I rip-n-replace motherboard, CPU or most other hardware the worst I get from Linux is a warning that a component may not work as expected but it will STILL boot to a point where I can do something about it. If not, I can cold boot off a CD or DVD and still work with my data. Oh, and sudden power loss doesn't give me that much hassle either - any Linux box runs a journalling file system these days. There appears to be a certain inevitability for losss of data once NTFS gets confused. But hey, that's all part of that great Windows user experience. That, and the vast money sucking vortex near your wallet. It's more like a tax than you realise: you don't get much benefit from the tax you pay either.
Amazingly, I manage to list all that without mentioning once that other little problem you may have. How up to date is your anti-virus and anti-spyware software? Just wondering.
I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago where a GUI was simply a good way to get more command lines on Unix. That was then, but I can imagine that as a Windows user you're not quite used to the kind of pace that Open Source innovation has developed. After all, you don't see much progress on Windows these days.
Oh, and check on your statistics. It's not 1%. Maybe it's that which is bothering you..
= XX =
Windows: because other lemmings use it.
Actually, nobody needs to type in anything.
They just click "add/remove programs" icon (kynaptic or synaptic), and then click the applications they want to install in a gui. Or they click "upgrade all".
Its much easier than browsing for your programs, downloading them without any knowledge of how spyware-infested they're going to be, answering multiple questions, and/or getting annoying nag-screens or usage obstacles meant to encourage you to buy the "real" program.
Using Wikipedia and Google as sources to prove their case...that is friggin hilarious! While you, the brainwashed nerd reading this, undoubtedly accept these two sources as holy gospel, the legitimate business world just laughs at you. Just another example of your naievite and cluelessness.
Get thee back to the basement. There you can watch your sci-fi dvds and anime porn, and play your little video games...but leave running the world to your betters.
"The regulator, Intellectual Property Australia, turned down the application because the word 'Linux' was not distinctive enough to be trademarked."
Sooooo Blarney Boingo Poo Poo would be better?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
How much does it cost to upgrade 5 PCs from Windows 2000 (NT 4.0) to Windows XP (NT 4.1)?
Compate this.
Although it seems unlikely at the moment, it's possible that Linux will deteriorate and fork a superior version (like with gcc/egcs many moons ago) - Linus could get hit by a bus or lose his mind... it's not likely, but it's possible.
In that case, which should use the TM?
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know
Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source?? (Not directed at you, efuseekay)
Genuine authoritative sources are reviewed and re-reviewed by individuals whose credentials are verified, etc. to ensure they know the topic at hand. Think of the requirements for an expert witness, if that helps; pay particular attention to Rules 701 and 702*. Nutshell version: anyone - particularly a specialist in a given field - must be able to support and corroborate claims of deep and/or specialized knowledge before presenting such knowledge in court.
Compare this to Wikipedia: anyone with Internet access can submit [mis]information with relative ease. Yes, glaring omissions will probably be rectified shortly, but does that help the person who viewed an erroneous page before the correction was made?
(* IANAL, but have done a reasonable amount of work in this area.)
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
The Linux laundry detergent is actually older than the Linux operating system kernel, although it wasn't introduced in the USA right from the start.
The "Linux" trademark for laundry detergents in the USA was granted in 2000, but that's not a problem - trademarks are always granted *for a specific domain* only. That's why when you go to a grocery store, you can still buy "apples" even though Apple probably has a trademark filed for the term - the trademark applies to computers only, so the fruit of the same name is not affected.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Now let me step out and get my fire retardant coat.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I went for the preview and hit Submit. Damn. This is the worst post ever. I typically preview regularly during the writing process. The worst is I do not even feel like finishing my point.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
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.
But knowing what Torvalds thinks about Slashdot posters, I decided not to bother.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Perhaps a new term is necessary: caveat boner. It roughly translates to "beware of legal cockery up the ass", a problem that occurs oftentimes when intellectual property matters are at hand.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Glad you mentioned RMS in this context.
If linux is both "an operating system and its kernel" then it is at least a little dishonest to claim that it was written by Linus Torvolds.
Take the OS minus the kernel. How much of it did Torvolds write? None. How much of it is GNU? Lots...maybe most. But it still gets called "linux". Torvolds gets the credit.
And the community gives it to him gladly. People sweep crazy uncle Stallman and under the rug as an embarrassment, hiding any mention of the free software movement and its values from the casual observer. Popularizing the movement and the GNU system are his life's work. He has every right to be pissed; Torvolds has no right to rename the GNU system.
but changing a Wiki to support your claim is also "not effective in making the case for a trademark to be (not) registered." ;)
Blog via SMS text messaging
I'm 53. However, I am quite dead.
(mind-reading capcha: planted)
It is rather interesting to watch it backfire now though...
Linus never really took side in that debate. If you google for his comments on it, what he said can be roughly summed up by "I call it Linux myself, but I don't mind people calling it GNU/Linux either".Seems like the courts don't find Wikipedia as a legimate source of information.
Wikipedia is a perfect source for prior art. It's reasonably up to date, and everything has a date stamped on it. Also it comes in the form of an encyclopedia, meaning the information you find in it can be regarded as general knowledge. This means that the examiner can sort of freely use it to show that certain features of the patent application are obvious.
Dear Prof/Dr/Sir/Madam Thank you for submitting standard Troll number 9010203. It has been carefully filed in /dev/null.
Please see standard reply number 3.
Regards,
Cowboy Neal
Oh well, what the hell...
Well actually, MS has been marketing Linux for a few years already http://www.mslinux.org/
Oh well, what the hell...
http://www.linuxgoldcorp.com/ Of course, there is no likelihood of confusing "Linux, the operating system" with "Linux, the gold mining company". So this isn't a trademark violation. I'm surprised that the Australian government decided that "Linux" is a generic term. Just who was using it to refer to operating systems before Linus Torvalds came along?
Not really about your post but.....what the hell does rorting or rorted mean? I mean I looked them up and all but no one seems to know and as you use it twice a a descriptor I figured it was important. Is this some Austrailian slang?
IIRC, some time around 1997.
This is good news? The letter did not say what you state. Instead, it says: In order to abuse the system, you have to make a lawyer rich. It does not, repeat, _not_ say that you cannot register such trademarks.
"No, this will mean that they can't act."
Bollocks of course they can, if someone slanders of libels the linux user groups of course they can act.
"Anyone is free to write their own OS, call it Linux and then either sell it on or complain loudly about how demonstrably buggy Linux is."
Yes. That's the point of Free software. And everyone knows that anyone can do this. Guess what though, it's much easier to download a distribution, install, hack it to pieces and administer it badly then bitch about that. But hey if you want to go write an OS from scratch on you go, if you want to then call it Linux, well, lol good luck.
There's nothing to see here, move along.
Deleted
I downloaded his "Mr. Hands treatment" expecting something akin to Mr. Hand from the old Mr. Bill skits, but the link goes to a bestiality video that downloads with no warning. What an inconsiderate butthead, to put a link like this in his post without a warning!
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
but in the end, for most people, including myself, it's more a matter of convenience than anything else, and so the shortest, easy to pronounce version, plain "Linux", won.
...but on the other hand: if anyone can begin to clean up this ambiguity, its him and he seems to have no interest in it. Its negligent of him.
When I think about it, I don't really have a problem with renaming GNU against stallman's wishes. (I know well how awkward "GNU/linux" is and how much "linux" kicks its ass as a word)
My problem is with the ambiguity: If linux is the whole sh-bang then LBT isn't its writer and it began in the 80's as the GNU system.
I'll put it another way. The statements: a) linux was written by LBT. and b) linux contains GNU code. are mutually contradictory. This shows there are at least 2 definitions. If the community is going to go with definition B then it should stick with that because the switching back and forth is really screwing GNU.
Linus never really took side in that debate.
You do have a point there. He didn't take part in the debate himself.
Actually, XP wasn't built in 1990's, NT was, and early versions of NT (read: 3.51/4.0) really SUCKED ASS. 2000 started to get it right, but I can still sit down for less than 10 minutes and start getting 2000 to bluescreen if I feel like it. Admittedly, I have more problems doing this under XP.
/" LOL LINUX IS INSTABLE.
HAHAHA You're so good! I can also cause Linux systems to malfunction, "sudo rm -rf
Seriously, stop being retarded and pretending that the OS is supposed to protect power users from themselves. Rally against spyware and that Windows doesn't start users as Limited accounts, but don't give me crap about it not protecting you from malicious administrators, because no OS can or should do that.
I understand at a word such as Linux (which does not appear in the dictionary) may not be 'distinctive enough' for copyright. However, I would then also assume that the words 'Windows' and 'Apple' --words which for a very very long time have appeared in the dictionary-- would also be completely and totally uncopyrightable. ......why do I get the feeling my arguement would get serious backpeddling from the administrator!
Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
It's a hobby work, not commercial; no TM protection is offered to this down under.
One of the few uses of having a lot of karma is the ability to piss off fanatics, like the RMS-worshipping clowns who modded this down to 0:
"Nobody but RMS fans gives a shit about the "ambiguity". Really, we don't. That's why 99% of us call it "linux", while only a tiny 1% whine, bitch, and moan that it should be called "GNU/Linux". And they're (rightly) ignored."
Go ahead, boys. I figure I can do this another 20 or so times before I run dry.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Only a person who "gives a shit" uses putdowns like "RMS-worshipping clowns." That phrase really indicates a hell of a grudge against RMS and his philosophy. So, which camp are you in?
1) The ultra right-wing "everyone to the left of Rush is a commie" camp?
2) The libertarian/BSD/MS "GPL is viral" camp?
3) The Debian devs' "nothing is free unless it meets our definition of free" camp?
4) Some other grudge-bearing anti-Stallman variant? (Please specify.)
Just curious.
Actually, "caveat boner" would be "boner beware"*. The boner isn't the one who needs the warning. I don't have the latin skills to fix it, but maybe someone else will.
*OK, well, assuming "boner" were a latin word.
Well, at least we all know that Groklaw is a vallid source of legal information...
http://www.grokline.net/detail_vendor.php?id=1
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
Is Linus a crazy dude after all? First he started a revolution of free software then worked with open source people to help them fight the corporate software world and finally at the end of the day he is turning to be money hungry trademark pursuant?
Linux is a widespread generic name and any trademark office should reject it right without even looking. Is he think that Aussie TO is any more stupid then the USPTO ? That is not only stupid indeed but it is also nasty thing to do.
slashdot should have been on that list?
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Software is literacy work.
Linux is a title of a literacy work.
The international trademarks rules are clear.
Wellknown title of literacy works cant be stolen.
No one else than the author have a right on this title.
Accepting the deposit from some one else is IP theft laundering.
Linus needs only to ask the application of the law. Infringing the rights of an author of a literacy work is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is penal. Asking the application of the penal law is free, so there is no to much business for lawyers in this way.
This last point is the key problem.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Can we please get a way filter creationism vs. evoloution posts?
The irony of asking for this in a "censorship" thread has not escaped me...
-- $G