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."

Comments

First to file!

[Anonymous Coward]

O sorry, that's patents...

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should shut the hell up and get back in the kitchen.

vitriolic?

[efuseekay]

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 :).

Re:vitriolic?

[saider]

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.

Re:vitriolic?

[ramblin billy]

You're right about the response letter. As for sources? Look again. The problem with using wikipedia and google as sources wasn't that Intellectual Property Australia rejected them as qualified or legitimate. The problem was that they did not support Linux Mark Institute's argument. In fact, they did the opposite. The IPA is denying the application, in part, because of the existence of too many other legitimate uses of the name. Both wiki and google established the widespread inclusion of the name in many products offered by many different companies. In other words - "linux" is too generic a term to restrict its use to one entity.

This response did not bother LMI. They were basically protecting the name from abusers by claiming it first. If they can't restrict use of the term, neither can anyone else. In this one case, the IPA seems to have made an informed and reasonable decision.

Don't try to explain that to the poster of the article. I have no idea whether stupidity or irrational bias accounts for the poster's inflamatory slant. I'm sitting on some mod points right now, if I could figure a way I'd slap 5 big 'T's on this article, although 'KW' might be more appropriate.

billy - remember the boy who cried 'wolf'?

Re:vitriolic?

[Whafro]

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 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 " ... in which case he'd need to show examples of most to all of these or amend that part of the application.

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.

Re:vitriolic?

[mysticgoat]

This response did not bother LMI. They were basically protecting the name from abusers by claiming it first. If they can't restrict use of the term, neither can anyone else.

This is an excellent point, and one not mentioned in the article. Did the LMI construct their case with deliberate weaknesses to assure this result? A problem with FOSS is that institutions governing ownership of IP are designed to establish and protect specific property rights; they have no mechanism for assuring that a specific property is to be free of any such encumbrances. So it almost seems like the best way of assuring no one can trademark "Linux" is to use a kind of null hypothesis approach: argue before the court that it can be trademarked in such a way that the court has to look at evidence that shows a trademark should be denied.

Re:vitriolic?

[anagama]

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.

I double-doubt that they used google or wikipedia as a legal reference. I'm sure it was to demonstrate a factual basis relating to the usage of the word "linux". Citing solid cases is good for legal arguments, but citing a solid case about "Foster's" or some other name, will do nothing to prove the facts about the genesis and usage of the word "linux". For that you need to reference linux history.

Re:vitriolic?

[Fordiman]

It still smells of "looking for an excuse"

Re:vitriolic?

[Bun]

This is an excellent point, and one not mentioned in the article.

Um, yes it was:

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.
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.

Did the LMI construct their case with deliberate weaknesses to assure this result?

Unlikely:

Oxer said the Linux Australia executive committee was in favour of continuing with the process, although there might be "a fairly low chance of success".

Re:vitriolic?

[mysticgoat]

I took that to mean that the goal was to fail to obtain copyright... perhaps I was reading too much into the OP's words, and (and perhaps missing some nuances in the original article). Clearly a case of an insufficient blood caffeine level.

IAC, I appreciate your clarification.

The good, the bad and the ugly

[adtifyj]

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?

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Tatarize]

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.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Lifewish]

This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.

No, this will mean that they can't 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.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[JanneM]

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.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[adtifyj]

act is not a synonym for legal action. In the fictitious example you cite, the appropriate response would be to inform the ACCC that this "Linux OS" is being falsely presented as Linux. Remember that as a result of this trademark decision, Linux is now equated with an Operating System that uses the linux source code. It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.

A less emotive example would be a manufacturer attempting to produce cardboard tissues. It doesnt matter whether Klennex has a trademark or not, cardboard is not a good material to wipe noses with.

Less obvious abuses may require an advertising campaign or a peaceful protest outside of the offices of the offender; the actions required will depend on the situation the LUGs see as unacceptable.

Now that the law is no longer involved, common sense can now fill the void, and Linux companies can keep their money, and pay the wages of the people that put their sweat into the quality of the name. In 10 years time, someone who attempts to slander "Linux" will be ridiculed on the front pages of APC.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[B747SP]

This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia.

Actually, I disagree. I think that this is a huge opening for a competent trademark lawyer to leap in and snap up the term before the (apparent) rightful owner gets its act together and submit a proper trademark application.

I wouldn't look upon this as 'good' or 'safe', I'm thinking dangerous situation.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Threni]

> 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.

Libel and slander? You can't libel or slander an operating system!

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[B747SP]

It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.

That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that the ACCC couldn't shut down a loud party in a park.

The 'ACCC', for those not ofay with the name, is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Officially, they're the "Australian government organisation responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act". Practically, they're an utterly toothless tiger that, well, pretty much just lays around and does nothing really.

Under the former head, Professor Fels, the ACCC took a pretty proactive role, and bounced around banging heads (where deserved) with gusto. Nowadays, it's toothless.

Right now in Australia, for example, we're being utterly rorted by the oil companies. They've somehow managed to set up a situation where a bunch of issues (some real, some just 'excuses') are whereby the price of petrol (gas?) at the pump is skyrocketing, and the oil companies are actually turning a couple of million dollars a day, per company, extra profit. This isn't passing on of costs from higher worldwide oil prices, this is actual rorting. The whole country is screaming out for the government and the ACCC to act by way of investigation and regulation as appropriate. The ACCC is just lying there "oh, er, this really isn't something we can involve ourselves in". FFS, this is the whole reason that the ACCC exists!!!

So yeah, end rant, back on topic... the ACCC has the power to act in a situation over misuse of the Linux name as you describe, but they will not ever actually get off their arses and do something!

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[krymsin01]

There needs to be a Linux window. Keeps the bad Linuxes out, lets the good ones in.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[inode_buddha]

I've got some news for you; depending upon how Linus Torvalds declared his citizenship, it probably depends quite a bit. Furthermore, the word "act" *does* mean legal action around here anyway. It is a valid legal issue, and IMHO common sense doesn't have a lot to do with it.

Current USA Federal law recognizes 4 forms of IP:

(1) Copyright
(2) Patents
(3) Trade marks or Trade Names
(4) Trade secrets

It doesn't matter whether cardboard is a good Kleenex material; what matters is whether Linus can use the "Kleenex" name. In the same way, it doesn't matter whether or not you or I can use the "linux" name; what matters is whether or not you or I have the rights to do so. And IMHO that is where it's falling apart.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[masterv]

Businesses are free to set their own prices. There is no fraud going on here; it is not illegal to make a big profit. It is not government's job to set prices or profit margins. If you think the current prices of refined oil in Australia are too high, please tell us of your wonderful supplier that is willing and able to supply oil for a lower price. Better yet, contact them and sell the oil yourself, and you will be able to make a profit.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[dtobias]

That's actually just about exactly the situation that the former lead singer of Katrina and the Waves found herself in after the hurricane a few weeks ago; she's quoted as saying "The first time I opened the paper and saw 'Katrina kills 9,' it was a bit of a shock." However, as far as I know she doesn't have any trademark on her name, and even if she did (in the field of pop music) she would have no ability to prevent it being used as the name of a hurricane.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this will mean that they can't 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.

No, that would be a trade description issue. Linux already has a clear meaning without being a trademark, just as any other commonly-used word does, so far as Aussie consumer legislation is concerned. I can't sell you a brick and claim it is a "vacuum cleaner". I can't sell you DOS and claim it is "Linux".

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[evilbuny]

Microsoft Pillows in Australia, Microsoft (the software company) has had 2 lawsuits against and lost both of them...

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Dr. Evil]

That's it!

Rename Linux to Kleenex. Kleenex can't claim trademark in the OS arena!

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[TeraCo]

Price fixing is illegal, and I find it hard to believe that is not what is happening with petrol prices.

Yeah, they just all decided at once to hike their prices by 20 cents a litre. Pull the other one.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[ShieldW0lf]

Price fixing may be illegal, but it is nevertheless the way the world works. If you don't like it, you'd better act yourself because the politician you elected isn't going to.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[jahudabudy]

There is no fraud going on here; it is not illegal to make a big profit.

Ah, but (in the U.S., at least) it is illegal to make a greater profit during times of war or crisis than you were before the war/crisis. It's called profiteering. I remember people in Florida during the last big hurricane (Floyd, maybe) that were prosecuted for selling things like generators at inflated prices. If the oil companies are truly making greater* profits now than they were before Katrina or Iraq, how is this different.?

* I don't know what the oil companies' actual profit margins are, I am responding to the GP's assertion.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[jeffasselin]

If someone were to talk about how it's annoying that gravity pulls things down, and you said "That's the way the world works", I'd agree. But the way our civilization works is the sum total of how we make it work, it's all artifical and built the way we want it to be. If you just take it the way others are making it to be, it's your loss. I tend to try complaining and trying to change things if they don't suit me.

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[zoney_ie]

And here in Ireland - a window cleaning company with the name... ...Windows 2000

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[mattr]

And down the street in Akabane, Tokyo there is a UNIX hair salon. Nice big letters and poster of a model with nice hair!

Re:The good, the bad and the ugly

[Threni]

Why, does Windows suddenly become a living human being in any of them?

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[csirac]

and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Good, as long as it doesn't go below 1% then...

Its surprising....

[amodm]

that they were using Wikipedia and Google to prove the references. They are good for us people, but in a court.......no way !!

Re:Its surprising....

[BarryNorton]

Wikipedia and Google [...] are good for us people, but in a court.......no way !!

Are you kidding? In a formal document? Yes, you probably are one of those people who would hand in an essay quoting Wikipedia as a source...

Re:Its surprising....

[madprof]

Don't talk nonsense. Courts rely on more substantial things than some web pages.

Re:Its surprising....

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Wikipedia and Google, and for that matter Slashdot, are probably among the best ways to track common usage of tech terms. Certainly there are no written, traditionally published references which are likely to be able to keep up.

Re:Its surprising....

[paulatz]

You are arguing that is the media, not the content, that matter. Than if Linus had printed the web pages on solid paper, or even carved them on stone, the court respose would have been different. What is so dramatically different between an electronic document and a paper one?

Re:Its surprising....

[sparkz]

The difference is the quality of the source.

If the source for a Wikipedia article is some blogger with nothing better to do with his time than submit articles to Wikipedia, then it's not exactly credible.

If the source is Linus Torvalds explaining explicitly what Linux is, then that has more credibility.

Re:Its surprising....

[Waffle Iron]

Courts rely on more substantial things than some web pages.

Yeah, like testimony from hardened criminals who have made a deal to back the prosecution's case in exchange for leniency.

Re:Its surprising....

[pamri]

Surprising or not, not the first instance, though.

Misleading summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

...yet again. The summary states:

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.

Re:Misleading summary...

[aussie_a]

A misleading summary that allows the user to forward his anti-Wikipedia agenda? That's unpossible on slashdot!

Re:Misleading summary...

[amodm]

My guess is, as soon as the judges know that wikipedia is a volunteer based service (which in fact faces defacement of pages often), it would stop being accepted as a source.

In law you need to be sure beyond any doubt. As much as I would've wished otherwise (at times), it remains that way, and would remain that way.

Re:Misleading summary...

[PhilHibbs]

Microsoft Windows is a range of operating environments for personal computers and servers.

Does that "demonstrate" that Microsoft Windows is a generic term and not a trademark? The trademark office has misread that entirely.

Re:Misleading summary...

[Anonymous Coward]

In law you need to be sure beyond any doubt.

Not true.

In most criminal law the court has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt but in most civil law, the judgement can be based on the balance of probabilities.

Re:Misleading summary...

[Bloke down the pub]

In law you need to be sure beyond any doubt.

In that case it's impossible to convict anybody of anything. So what if you murdered someone in front of 50,000 witnesses and on national television too? Any doubt means claiming a shapeshifting alien dooppelganger did it is a valid defence.

Just guessing, but YANAL, right?

Re:Misleading summary...

[shutdown -p now]

The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use.

About time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along". Never would've thought that silly dispute could have any practical meaning.

Re:Misleading summary...

[gbjbaanb]

About time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along". Never would've thought that silly dispute could have any practical meaning.

One day, I'll have more mod points, then I'll be coming back for you.

Insightful or funny though, which would you prefer?

Re:Misleading summary...

[squoozer]

That's easy to fix just go to Wikipedia and update the article to make it reflect what is needed. Once the trademark has been granted change it back. Problem solved :o)

Re:Misleading summary...

[dbIII]

time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along"

Think back a bit, after he stopped pretending that he had never heard about it when he was asked about it in interviews for a couple of years (either for some attempt at comic effect or deliberately putting it down perhaps - it got a bit old after the first couple of times) he put forward the "LiGnuX" name. It got a bit less silly after that but no more relevant - and no, it wouldn't make any difference if the FSF had tried to register it instead, they would have had to do it the same way wouldn't they?

RMS has done a lot of stuff, but linux is a project worked on by others. If gnu wanted to name the thing all they had to do was bring out their own distribution (that is why there is RedHat linux but no gnu linux).

Personally I think charging people to use the name to build up some sort of war chest to go after people that abuse the name is going a bit far (we can band together when required instead if setting up some kind of insurance company!) - other reasons may be valid but were not outlined well enough to appear so by the people setting up the trademark in Australia.

Re:Misleading summary...

[ynohoo]

Surely anything mentioning RMS should get an automatic (Score:5 Flamebait/Troll)?

Re:Misleading summary...

[shutdown -p now]

Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that my post has been voted funny; it was not an intended effect... I'm really curious as to what RMS' reaction will be now.

Breaking News

[OSXpert]

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.

Oy Weh!

[putko]

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.

Re:Oy Weh!

[putko]

You are kidding, right? How does $35.7 billion sound?

Re:Oy Weh!

[Dr. Cody]

Is this how Anti-Slash members go up in rank?

Re:Oy Weh!

[sweetnjguy29]

Is that australian yiddish for Oy Vey?

Decision doesn't mean anything for other markets

[FlorianMueller]

I don't think this Australian decision has anything to do with the validity of the Linux mark in other places. The information in the article suggests that Linus Torvalds has been poorly represented and/or IP Australia didn't fully understand that Linux is not a "generic" term, or it could be a combination of both.

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".

Editors on crack...

[Cody Hatch]

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.

Re:Editors on crack...

[nagora]

First, it's a sign of sanity - all too rare in government bodies in charge of intellectual property protection.

I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one? "Hoover" clearly became synonymous with vacuum cleaners in general, what has "Linux" become synonymous with? Operating systems? Hardly!

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 you think that it's fine that Microsoft can now release basically any load of old toss (eg, Windows) and label it "Linux"? Or anyone else for that matter.

TWW

Re:Editors on crack...

[robnauta]

It really surprises me how someone like Linus who has been working on Linux for 15 years already can act so unprofessionally.

I mean, numerous books have been written about Linux, companies have been founded to provide support for it. Show the lawyer a few books and he knows what you mean.

Instead he half-asses submitted a poorly written wikipedia page and some google searches.

The Slashdot summary is wrong, the reply isn't vitriolic, it's a clear factual refusal. It's a shame Linus is unable to realise what a poor job he has done with this patent, how he has embarrassed himself. He willingly shows the world he's a fool and a buffoon, a moron without any real-world sense.

Re:Editors on crack...

[A beautiful mind]

You must be new here.

Re:Editors on crack...

[TheRaven64]

The term Linux is used on Slashdot to mean anything from `open source' to `UNIX-like'. And this is a community that supposedly knows more about Linux than most other people. If that level of confusion is here then I can imagine it's far more widespread.

Re:Editors on crack...

[shutdown -p now]

In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic?

It is a generic term for any OS or distro based on the Linux kernel.

Re:Editors on crack...

[Kjella]

I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one?

1) The Linux kernel
2) Operating systems based on said kernel (as in "I run Linux")
3) "Appliance" systems based on said kernel (e.g. Linux PDA)
4) Huge kernel mods (RTLinux, ucLinux)

This rejection seems to focus on #2, personally I think maybe #4 is the strongest reason why there should not be granted a trademark on Linux.

So you think that it's fine that Microsoft can now release basically any load of old toss (eg, Windows) and label it "Linux"?

There is still such a thing as misleading advertising. You can't sell a live mouse as a computer mouse or vice versa, if you've made the customer expect something else.

Kjella

Re:Editors on crack...

[danila]

No, just like an SUV (or in some countries jeep) is a certain type of car made by any company. Linux doesn't denote a product made by a single company - anyone can make and distribute a Linux OS and so it shouldn't really be a trademark.

Re:Editors on crack...

[jdmetz]

I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse about the editors, but it looks to me like the summary was simply plagiarized from osnews.

Re:Editors on crack...

[ArtStone]

3) You now can't write lawyer letters to companies using the term Linux in their name demanding payment in order to fund their litigation against your own interests
4) The cannot demand that companies deemed "not worthy to carry the Linux(sm) name" stop using the name in commerce.

Wishing for a utopian world without intellectual property rights cuts both ways.

Re:Editors on crack...

[incabulos]

So you think that it's fine that Microsoft can now release basically any load of old toss (eg, Windows) and label it "Linux"? Or anyone else for that matter.

Should that ever happen, it would take a few nanoseconds for the truth about the fake-linux to come out. The company responsible would be mocked and humiliated in every form of IT media that exists, including here on /.

What I'm fine about is that I now no longer have to worry about receiving extortion notices from laywers demanding bribes ( aka trademark licensing fees ) of thousands of dollars just because I mention that my small business sells Linux support, or systems pre-configured with Linux!

Remember the whole 'free as in speech' aspect of the GPL that the linux kernel is licensed under? That particular freedom has now been upheld in the domain of language and communication, which is a damn fine thing.

Re:Editors on crack...

[nagora]

Should that ever happen, it would take a few nanoseconds for the truth about the fake-linux to come out. The company responsible would be mocked and humiliated in every form of IT media that exists, including here on /.

What, you mean the same way all those TCO-studies-for-hire have been?

PHBs don't read /. or anything else IT-related. They do, however, go to MS-sponsored beanos where they get told all sorts of crap.

What I'm fine about is that I now no longer have to worry about receiving extortion notices from laywers demanding bribes ( aka trademark licensing fees ) of thousands of dollars just because I mention that my small business sells Linux support, or systems pre-configured with Linux!

I know what you're getting at but I don't think that was ever an issue. The real point was to stop companies trading as Linux companies; but it's a fine line indeed and depends on how much you trust Linus.

Remember the whole 'free as in speech' aspect of the GPL that the linux kernel is licensed under? That particular freedom has now been upheld in the domain of language and communication, which is a damn fine thing.

No, this is BSD, not GPL, which means any bastard can now use it against the very people that created it, just as Microsoft are happy to use BSD-licensed code to support their efforts to destroy BSD.

TWW

Re:Editors on crack...

[Jamesday]

Right on all points. The same would apply to wikipedia as well, because it's also used generically for the encyclopedia and is essential for everyone else who needs to identify their distribution as being a distribution of wikipedia.

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[DoktorTomoe]

A web professional I know once printed the following sentence on orange cards he handed out anytime a customer tried to "improve" his work:

Some people buy a dog but keep on barking themselves

You, a "business woman" (altought I might doubt this one), are a managerish type. You have obviously no idea of IT. Let your IT staff decide, they know better (and they might even have the time to distinguish "free" and "free" for you). If you do not have an IT staff, well, bad luck. Ask the 17-year-old guy/gal who comes around and fixes your computer, removes spyware on a regular basis ... you have no one who maintenances your system? Get the fuck out of the network - your computer likely is infested and a frequent member of spambot networks.

Jeremy Malcolm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Linux doesn't deserve a trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

Good catch!
or have we uncovered AutoTroll(tm(but not in Aus.))?

Re:Last Disk (a tribute to *BSD)

[so1omon]

You know that "Last Kiss" is not a Pearl Jam song, right? It was written by Wayne Cochran, and made popular by J. Frank Wilson and the Cavaliers in 1964.

Re:Article text in full

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:LINUX SUCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares as long as you don't stop swallowing.

Lawyer failed to do his job properly? Maybe not --

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

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.

John "maddog" Hall and RMS on "Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[Itchy Rich]

Maybe it is a wrong impression, but that is what a good business woman like myself sees.

A good businesswoman would know how to research the comparative costs of two options, she'd also know when to delegate a decision to a qualified professional rather than making a poorly informed decision.

If this is a serious post, rather than a wind-up, then it sounds like you're trying to find some information. However this is the wrong forum to do that. Slashdot is supposed to be for discussing news.

Can anyone suggest an unbiased place for non-technical people to learn about the differences between MS (I assume) and Linux?

Wikipedia

[DingerX]

... 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.

Re:Wikipedia

[gowen]

I agree with your drift (especially with regard to court cases) but I find Wikipedia very useful for research papers, with the proviso that you should double source everything you take from there. Fortunately, many wikipedia articles do now cite their references, which makes this a lot more straightforward. (Hell, even if you ignore the entire wiki article, the reference list is often useful for less protean information).

Re:Wikipedia

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's kinda like those slashdot posters who seem to be professionally involved in everything.

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.

Re:Wikipedia

[petroc]

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.

Not necessaily true. For trademark applications, and some other areas of intellectual property law such as passing off, what generally carries the case is the perception of the general public. Tending as it does (on the whole) towards a majority view, Wikipedia would be an ideal source of evidence for this, though it may not be sufficient alone.

As others have pointed out, what the registrar was objecting to was not the source, but the fact that it is not the right type of evidence. To clarify: to support a trademark application, you must provide evidence of the mark being used as a trademark, i.e. by a business in the course of trade. The Wikipedia article does not provide this, though I imagine several examples exist.

Methinks Linus needs a better lawyer.

Btw, IAAL :)

Re:Wikipedia

[DingerX]

Heck, if the Wikipedia article does not provide this evidence, then he really does need a better legal team. Heck, all he needed to do was ring me up, slip me a few bills (say,$5000 and free usage of the trademark in australia), and I would have made the appropriate modifications, complete with a whole mess of alt-0153s. That is, if his team was too lazy to do it themselves. So I'm saying that Wikipedia's very openness and flexibility mitigates its value as a good source of evidence of general public perception?

come to think of it, the last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become a court-accepted indicator of public perception, since then many contributors would be people trying to manufacture just such perception.

well, okay, until the 500 pages of bickering in the article history pages also gets submitted.

Re:Wikipedia

[mdwh2]

or the fact that most of the entries can be altered by anybody at any time, regardless of their qualifications or competence

Although note that this problem is not unique to pages that can be edited by anyone. A webpage or even a book cannot be assumed to be authoritative, unless possibly if you can show that the person who wrote it is an expert in that field.

I dislike the way that many accept anything written down, even on the Internet in some cases, to be the truth, but Wikipedia is made an exception "because anyone can edit it". If anything, Wikipedia has an advantage: it's very difficult to put in any bias or outright lies if anyone else can edit them out, but it's a lot easier to do so if you're writing your own book.

Another important point is that Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is not a primary source. It's intent is to collect objective facts, and not to be a source of original research (in fact I believe the latter is specifically disallowed).

Whilst an encylopedia may be a useful way to quickly check or learn some facts, ultimately if you want to prove something, you need to go to original sources and research. "It must be true because I read it in this encyclopedia" does not hold whether or not we're talking about Wikipedia.

Re:Wikipedia

[ramblin billy]

You can use any source you want in court. You can have doctors say smoking doesn't cause cancer, engineers say blown tires don't cause accidents and psychologists claim the defendent was insane because she was suffering from PMS when she drove her car into the lake with her 3 kids in the backseat. The other party is equally free to dispute the validity of your witness. The judge decides if the witness is qualified as an 'expert'. Finally, if you get that far, the jury decides.

By the way, the fact that data can be changed may suggest that it should be carefully reviewed, but it can in no way be logically used to assign value. "Today's Date" is a good example.

billy - it's from /dot...how good could it be?

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[Tarwn]

How many more times are you going to paste this post into threads...?
I mean, hell, how hard is it to come up with a new story once in a while, maybe misspell some differant words, you know, innovate a little...at least make it interesting for us to read or something, geez...

Re:The real problem with Linux

[nagora]

Reputable software companies such as Microsoft

Why was this moderated "Troll" when it was clearly humour?

TW

Re:Misleading wikipedia entry....

[lunadog]

'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... I thought it was just the kernel..

Why surprising?

[elgatozorbas]

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.

Re:Why surprising?

[dajak]

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.

You are setting higher standards for the legal system than it can meet. You can try to bring whatever evidence you like. The judge habitually relies on what he learned in school as a child, what he saw on television, what he read in a book, what his colleagues told him, etc. In addition to that, he will accept as truth the opinion of experts on subjects he knows nothing about.

There is no problem in backing up your arguments in a court with a Wikipedia entry or Google search results, as long as the argument you are trying to provide evidence for is not considered too controversial by the judge. A Wikipedia entry that has not been challenged for a long time indicates that the information in the entry is apparently not controversial. If there is a problem with the information, the opposing side will surely challenge it.

I once won a case without presenting any form of backup for my claims, because the position my opponent was trying to defend was so ridiculous the judge immediately decided in my favour after determining the opponent didn't actually want to challenge any of my claims.

Re:Why surprising?

[lav-chan]

Read the post you replied to again.

Re:Why surprising?

[Ford Prefect]

Would you perform any critical action (open heart surgery, nuclear power plant control,...) based on Wikipedia's information?

I have, and I'd do it again!

... At least, I would if my doctors let me near sharp cutlery. :'-(

What's 'Vitriolic' About That Letter?

[reallocate]

The letter doesn't seem terribly "vitriolic" to me. Obviously, someone has never received a letter from a lawyer.

Re:What's 'Vitriolic' About That Letter?

[robnauta]

Well that's slashdot fanboyism in full effect. Why bother with just the facts and the story if you can also distort it and abuse any story to serve your cause ?

Re:Linux doesn't deserve a trademark

[Bloke down the pub]

I wondered if it was the "We tried .... that person is no longer with the company" troll.

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Where's the vitriol?

[B747SP]

I don't see any vitriol there. When did Slashdot become a tabloid?

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?

Re:Where's the vitriol?

[McGregorMortis]

Oh, I assure you, he's fully baked.

Re:Where's the vitriol?

[Alioth]

Slashdot never became a tabloid; it has always been a tabloid.

Re:Where's the vitriol?

[the eric conspiracy]

Slashdot never became a tabloid; it has always been a tabloid.

Slashdot gives tabloids a bad name.

Windows(tm) in Australia ?

[Antiocheian]

Does anyone know if "Windows" is a registered trademark in Australia?

Re:Windows(tm) in Australia ?

[onenil]

That would be a big fat YES. Check it out for yourself: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.a pplication_start

Re:Windows(tm) in Australia ?

[Antiocheian]

Thank you. I found many references to Windows. Here is one:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=603960&p_search _no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=16&p_ rec_all=76

and here is the one for Linux:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_search _no=2&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=6&p_r ec_all=8

Well it's an Australia state issue and I am sure it will be fixed soon.

Re:The real problem with Linux

[orzetto]

I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot.

On Slashdot, moderators troll the fuck out of you!

GNU/Linux!

[ISayWeOnlyToBePolite]

No?

Treaty?

[Goo.cc]

Doesn't Australia and the US have a treaty in place where these kind of things are observed?

Re:WTF???

[adtifyj]

After 10 years of not being actively protected? Dont be silly. Linus himself said he would not go down this path 10 years ago.

Now I dont presume for a single minute that Linus has changed his tune; he just wants to make the best OS around and doesnt want trademark problems affecting him or others; the simplest strategy is to control the trademark legally. Sadly, he has delegated this problem to others, a legalase lieutenant so to speak, and they have blissfully ignored the fact that while it is a great idea to trademark the name, that approach is not backwards compatible.

So, another approach needs to be found. Here in australia, with the ACCC, stupid trademark concerns like those that occured in America, are not a problem.

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[TheRaven64]

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Yeah, it must suck to have more than 1% market share. We can see how much it upset Microsoft...

Re:The real problem with Linux

[TrancePhreak]

Apple OSX 10.4, that's 5 upgrades at $130 each. A total of $650 before tax. So at least for the OS, MS is pretty low actually.

Editors?!?

[BarryNorton]

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...

Re:The real problem with Linux

[tritesnikov]

I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot.

In Soviet Russia, trolls fuck you.

Sorry, it was right there.

What about Internet Archive?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

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.

Re:What about Internet Archive?

[hackstraw]

But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is.

Anything can be evidence in court, but it helps is the evidence is credible or at least semi-permanent. For example, a scribble with a pencil that left an impression on a pad of paper could be evidence in a murder trial, but I doubt the same could be much evidence in a contract dispute.

Wikipedia is a living and changing work that anybody is free to contribute to. The Wayback machine is a part of an organization that is interested in historical preservation of many types of electronic media. Under most circumstances, I would take the Wayback machine over Wikipedia.

Re:What about Internet Archive?

[Ioldanach]

Internet Archive tells you what a page contained on a given date. If what you want to do is prove that someone said something bad on their website on a given date, then naturally it could be a good piece of evidence. Wikipedia also tracks changes, so if, again, what you want to do is prove that someone said something on wikipedia on at a given time, then you could use Wikipedia as evidence too. What neither of these sources is good for is finding out how accurate the statements made on the webpage are. Wikipedia has a decent reputation, but sources are not always cited and "facts" can be hard to cross-check.

Re:What about Internet Archive?

[Anonymous Writer]

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.

Re:What about Internet Archive?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Here's a scary thought- Slashdot as a valid legal source

Given your username, it's clear you've been concerned about this potential for a while.

FOSS and trademarks

[james_gnz]

Trademarks aren't new to FOSS, and I can't imagine the Linux trademark being restricted as severly as the Mozilla or AbiWord ones:

If an individual or organization is creating a Community Edition of Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird, it must use the names "Firefox Community Edition" or "Thunderbird Community Edition" to identify this software. Mozilla Community Edition Policy

... AbiSource freely licenses the use of certain of its trademarks solely in combination with the suffix "Personal" when applied to derivative works based on an AbiSource GPL product. Thus, for example, you are free to use the mark "AbiWord Personal" in connection with derivative works that are based on "AbiWord". AbiWord Trademark Usage Guidelines

(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.

Re:FOSS and trademarks

[bullitB]

(Unlikely IMHO) worst case scenario if "Linux" were trademarked:
Debian and Fedora are based on Linux®. "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Have you ever picked up a retail box of Linux software in the US? They almost all have that in the fine print on the back of the box.

Re:FOSS and trademarks

[james_gnz]

Interesting, I didn't know that. The main point I was trying to make though, was that if "GNU/Linux" was dropped from "Debian GNU/Linux", you'd hardly notice the difference. (In the case of Fedora, it's not got "Linux" in the name anyway -- although I think it would make things clearer if it did.)

In other words

[sl4shd0rk]

More ching and we might see it your way.

Basis of the application must be sound

[panurge]

I've written before about trademarks on Slashdot, and although IANAL, I have done enough trademarks unassisted that I might just have a clue...

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.

Re:The real problem with Linux

[ceejayoz]

Psst... that's what the family five packs are for. $199.

Linux Trademark Status in US? Laundry detergent?

[miller60]

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.

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[zotz]

"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

Re:The real problem with Linux

[SillyNickName4me]

I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot.

That's fine, I just hope you are not feeling very special because of it, trolling is the rule here.

Thats a bit off

[loadquo]

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

Wikipedia

[DogDude]

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 heard ..

[gaanagaa]

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.

Offtopic:Editors on crack...

[FlynnMP3]

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.

3 years ago I was ready to kick the /. 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.

I wonder if there is an option to turn off the comments? There probably is, I just need to look.

-FlynnMP3

Re:WTF???

[pookemon]

That's because the ACCC doesn't actually do anything. (Bought Petrol lately?)

So you didn't manage to create a Knoppix CD then

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Demagog

[Peaker]

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.

Re:Demagog

[zotz]

Let's not confuse people with the catalogue power of synaptic, ok?

We cannot allow the masses to discover the hugh trove of wealth that is the debian repositories.

Insert the bard's quote on ignorance.

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/53984

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[lucifig]

I swear I have read this exact same post on another thread a few months back. People need new material.

distinc tive

[sgt scrub]

"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?

OS X costs and Windows costs

[j0kkk3l]

How much does it cost to upgrade 5 PCs from Windows 2000 (NT 4.0) to Windows XP (NT 4.1)?
Compate this.

Re:OS X costs and Windows costs

[TrancePhreak]

You seem to have also been mistaken, as I was talking about 1 computer over 5 release cycles. However, Windows XP Upgrade (Home) is $100, which is $30 less than OSX upgrades, and only came once in 5 OSX upgrade cycles.

Re:OS X costs and Windows costs

[j0kkk3l]

Don't compare XP Home to Mac OS X. It's XP Pro you have to compare, to be feature equivalent.

The point you are missing entirely, is nobody forces you to buy every Upgrade from 10.1 to 10.4. There are still lots of people working with 10.2 and 10.3.
Remember back in the 90s. Nobody was forced to buy Win 95, 98 and 98 SE.
10.1 was a free upgrade from 10.0. So there are only four upgrades you have to pay for.

The upgrades are full operating systems, so if you buy every release, you can always sell the last version for about 80 $/.

Fair enough

[sparkz]

After all, the GPL allows forks and doesn't require a name-change.

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?

Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[sczimme]

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.)

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[xappax]

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. ;)

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[glesga_kiss]

Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source??

Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.

Sure, you cite laws on expert witnesses. Do all book publishers ensure these requirements on all authors or contributers to a body of work? Hell no, you can publish just about anything! So, wikipedia won't stand up in a court of law, but neither will any other exyclopedia. It's "just another source", and you have to admit probably one of the best ones out there right now. Once the concept is mature, I imagine there will be more influnce in the process from people who are genuinely qualified in each topic. However, in the early days if you'd enforced this, there would be far less contributers and the project would have floundered.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[SComps]

Please present your credentials and prior performance in identifying babbling idiots. Until such time I cannot take your statement in good faith.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[mysticgoat]

[GP]:Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source??

Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.

Please re-evaluate your criteria for evaluating authorities.

One often useful criterion is to apply a simple cost - benefit analysis done from the publisher's point of view. A hardcopy publisher invests quite a bit of money in printing, storing, and delivering books, so it often makes sense for him to verify the book's accuracy to protect his investment. There is no cost at all for publishing something through Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a valuable tool that I use almost daily and I love it. But it is not an authoritative source. (Its better articles do point to authoritative material though. It is a great time saver, but it is the first stop, not the last stop, when doing research.)

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[orac2]

Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?

Ahaha! Good one! ... Oh wait, were you being serious?

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[nacturation]

Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?

LOL

Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate.

Wikipedia has the possibility of being as authoritative as anything else. But if this trademark application is anything like other slashdot discussions linking to wiki articles, I'm guessing when the trademark commissioner read up on it, someone had already changed it to a goatse image.

Wikipedia's strength and weakness is that it can be edited by anybody. Nobel prize winners can go online and contribute. So can your local village idiot. One man's detailed explanation of nuclear physics is another's opportunity for vandalism. However, there's something to be said about bringing an in-print widely respected encyclopedia which can't be altered on the fly to someone and saying, "Here is evidence that backs up my claims", and point to the authors, references, and bibliography used.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[maxpublic]

Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?

I suppose that was technically true when I altered the entries for Lee Hyo Ri, Kristin Kreuk and Kiera Knightely to include "and indubitably, one of the sweetest pieces of ass to ever grace the planet". Those entries stayed around for some time before someone decided that perhaps they weren't as factual as they first appeared to be (although I contend the statements are indeed facts, and to claim otherwise only proves that you're, well, gay).

However, my entry for Mark Hildreth (Kristin Kreuk's boyfriend, and therefore my hated nemesis) stated that he appeared in the film "Butt Pirates of the Carribean" which, I'm fairly certain, is not an actual movie. At least I hope not, because what a waste of film that would be. I further went on to allude that Ms. Kreuk had dumped Mr. Hildreth because he "had a tiny penis" and "couldn't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack". Last time I checked Ms. Kreuk is still dating Mr. Hildreth (sigh), and while it may be true that he has a tiny penis and can't last longer than thirty seconds in the sack, at the moment these statements simply represent my lame, pathetic hopes, along with the fantasy that someday Ms. Kreuk will decide I'm god and become my second wife (a man has to have dreams, you know).

While Wikipedia may be useful for getting references to REAL sources of information is certainly contains bucketsful of untrue crap, whether placed there deliberately or done so by packs of morons, idiots, or looneytoons (e.g., the blasted entry on UFOs). Saying that it's "authoritative" is quite laughable; saying that it's "more authoritative and accurate than anything else out there, including print" marks you as one of the morons, idiots or looneytoons.

Max

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[glesga_kiss]

A hardcopy publisher invests quite a bit of money in printing, storing, and delivering books, so it often makes sense for him to verify the book's accuracy to protect his investment.

Ah, so THAT explains all of the anti-evolution books that keep on cropping up in the news. I'm sure that the publisher ensured the accuracy of the claims that dinosaurs lived alongside modern humans.

My point was that no 'book' would be accepted in court. Authorative papers from renowned authers with citations and references, yes, but a book, no.

I have about as much faith in wikopedia as I have in any book from any random author. Give the wiki time, the 'anyone' can edit won't last as yes, there are many folk popping in goatse images. However in future I'd bet that articles have listed authors, along with moderation scores for both articles and authors. A formula will determine the 'accuracy' of an article, giving the reader a view on how good the article is. You don't get author scores in print, so in some ways, this is superior. As long as the moderation doesn't follow the slashdot 'mods on crack' ideology!

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[mysticgoat]

I'm certain that many publishers of "anti-evolution books" have spent a few dollars to assure that the work is an accurate portrayal of the belief system it purports to represent. Can't afford to put out a book that insults the intelligence of its readers-- that would be a bad design wouldn't it?

Which demonstrates that there is a big difference between accuracy and truth in many areas. This borders on a pet peeve of mine, where "authoritative" is mistaken for "scientific".

A mild suggestion: your posts would seem more authoritative if you used a spell checker on words like "authorative". Traditional desktop dictionaries still work quite well for this, and can be found in used book stores at very low cost. :-)

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[theLOUDroom]

While Wikipedia may be useful for getting references to REAL sources of information is certainly contains bucketsful of untrue crap, whether placed there deliberately or done so by packs of morons, idiots, or looneytoons (e.g., the blasted entry on UFOs). Saying that it's "authoritative" is quite laughable; saying that it's "more authoritative and accurate than anything else out there, including print" marks you as one of the morons, idiots or looneytoons.

Wikipedia CAN be very authoritative or it can be a bunch of nonsense that some jerk added to screw things up. What they need to do is have both stable and unstable versions of wikipedia. Stable would be archived periodically and only edited to fix errors, not add new information.

Wikipedia as it is right now provides too much immediate gratification for jerks who screw with pages. If they knew that only a handful of people would ever see their nonsense, there would be much less motivation to perpetrate it.

It would be very similar to stable vs unstable Linux kernel trees.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[Doc Ruby]

What can a reasonable reader make of your claim about "many" publishers of anti-evolution books? Do you mean 4 or 5, or even 2 or 3, of maybe dozens of publishers? Even if you do mean "a majority" (which is not what "many" means), what is the "belief system it purports to represent"? Beyond selling books, that is. Why are you so certain that these publishers have spent "a few dollars" (like 3 dollars?) on that accuracy? And why are you so sure that they got what they paid for, if indeed you mean "a lot of money", like "as much as they paid for printing costs"?

What makes you think an ant-evolution Creationist book has any intellectual quality whatsoever? People buy lots of comic books to reaffirm their "good vs evil" entertanment appetite, and are pretty satisfied, regardless of the fantasy nature of the content.

On reading your last statement on the topic, where you distinguish between "authoritative" and "scientific", I almost believe I could guess your answers to my questions. "Ha ha - I don't have any idea, because there is no reason to believe any of that!" you might say. That is, unless you think scientists aren't authorities on science. Or that science isn't authoritative regarding "reality".

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[mysticgoat]

What can a reasonable reader make of your [statements]...?

I've been puzzling out how to respond to all your questions. I give up. I just can't find answers for you that fit the context you have provided but meet my criteria for reasoned discourse.

So perhaps you could find a reasonable reader and ask him your questions? Surely there is one such person in your circle of acquaintances?

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[Doc Ruby]

If you can't answer as a reasonable reader, then your criteria come from an unreasonable reader. Don't bother answering. In fact, don't bother making those statements again, or any others, until you're reasonable.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[mysticgoat]

If you can't answer as a reasonable reader, then your criteria come from an unreasonable reader. Don't bother answering. In fact, don't bother making those statements again, or any others, until you're reasonable.

I think this is the part where I'm supposed to say "Ouch! That stung!" then slink off with my tail between my legs?

heh heh

It appears that my posts bother you excessively and I'm not sure under what conditions I'd want to do anything about that, even if there was something I could do. I'm not keen on climbing into other people's minds to fix their wiring problems. Just the idea of that has a yucky feel to it.

But tell you what. Slashdot has provided a mechanism whereby YOU can actually do something to make your life better in at least one small way! So why don't you click on the little gray button after my name in the "by" field of this message's header, and where it says "Change this?" you can make me a Foe. Then you can go to your "Preferences" screen and adjust your personal point award system so that you would never see anything from me or any of your other foes ever again.

I recognize that I would thus become your first ever Foe. But OTOH, there are about 170 slashdotters who have listed you as a Foe, so you are certainly comfortable with the backside of foeshipness. (IME, that's a very large freakdom you've got, indeed).

If you choose to make me a foe, then by reciprocation you take a place on my short list of freaks. It would be a small honor for me to have you on that list.

Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea...

[Doc Ruby]

Nah, I get off on deriding gibberish. Hiding from it is coward's play.

Re:Linux Trademark Status in US? Laundry detergent

[slavemowgli]

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.

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[Shaper_pmp]

The trolls are getting lazy. Not even bothering to write new ill-reasoned or inflammatory screeds, several times recently I've seen them just re-post old content verbatim, often not even bothering to update it for added relevence.

The only question is, are they seriously stupid enough that they think anyone will rise to such a pathetic attempt at igniting an argument?

It's the forum equivalent of shouting "you're a fuckwit" in a crowded room, and waiting for a fist-tight to break out.

Tragic.

Re:The real problem with Linux

[dwayner79]

I make it a point to work in MOM and POP computer shops whenever I need extra cash for the discount. I end up spending most of what I make, but oh well.

The cost is 80 bucks for home, 150 for Pro. OEM retail for pro is 219.

Great, information wants to be free!

[Anita Coney]

Now let me step out and get my fire retardant coat.

So sorry

[dwayner79]

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.

re-submit the fucking patent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is a good point

[panurge]

In fact I originally wrote (but deleted) a suggestion that the answer was to follow Microsoft and trademark e.g. "Linux 2.6". The problem is that distros aren't numbered by kernel version, and I can't see people wanting to call them things like "Red Hat Linux 2.8 Enteprise Server 10" or whatever. But you are right. Another option would be to trademark a phrase like "Linus approved Linux".

But knowing what Torvalds thinks about Slashdot posters, I decided not to bother.

Caveat boner.

[CyricZ]

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.

not effective either

[nemik]

but changing a Wiki to support your claim is also "not effective in making the case for a trademark to be (not) registered." ;)

Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke

[SComps]

As much as this is a repeated troll, and definitely meant to stir up trouble, try to look beyond what the poster is trying to do and really look at the content.

YES! linux is difficult for the average user to install software. YES! It's difficult to troubleshoot, and YES! It's user interface isn't intuitive to anyone that isn't familiar with linux in the first place.

What the poster is saying is truly valid, how he's saying it is dumb.

Remember, Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my Uncle Jack off his horse." and "I had to help my Uncle jack off his horse."

Re:If linux is OS and kernel. New twist old debate

[shutdown -p now]

Take the OS minus the kernel. How much of it did Torvolds write? None. How much of it is GNU? Lots...maybe most.

The issue revolves mainly about what you define as an OS. There's no agreed definition of "Linux base system", so any borders you draw will be rather arbitrary. Should we count X and the desktop environment that runs on top of it? If so, then for the majority of Linux desktops, KDE would dwarf anything else in the system by virtue of sheer code size. If you define it to be the kernel, glibc, and binutils, then I guess it would be about even. Et cetera... we can argue endlessly, 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.

It is rather interesting to watch it backfire now though...

Torvolds has no right to rename the GNU system.

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".

Wikipedia - Illiterate?

[cannuck]

Seems like the courts don't find Wikipedia as a legimate source of information.

Re:Wikipedia - Illiterate?

[petrus4]

I'm not sure whether I still consider it a legitimate source of information about a lot of things, either.

It's become horribly insistent on being politically correct, for one thing. I've noticed that if they have to choose between factual or political correctness, anybody with revert priveleges will choose political every time.

One other, more subtle and disturbing thing that I've noticed is that a number of articles have attracted a group to whom the topic (and usually a particular perspective on said topic) is important. Anything written on said topic page which goes against the prevailing opinion held by this group, is more or less guaranteed to get reverted.

For purely technical or scientific information (stuff about different pieces of software, zoology, etc) it can be good, but for anything even remotely dealing with people, (especially politics) forget it. It isn't remotely objective, and shouldn't claim to be...what it does do however is express bias in a very subtle, and often difficult manner to detect.

Re:Wikipedia - Illiterate?

[cannuck]

I tried posting to Wikepedia - alternative viewpoints about "HIV Being The Probable Cause Of AIDS". I was totally censored out of existence - by those "in the know". Unfortunately very few people in the medical "profession" are literate when it comes to what is scientific versus what is voodo medicine. So it is not very surpising that those not in the medical professional are even more lost when it comes to distinguishing what is scientific - and what is bullshit. For example, 56% of all medical treatment performed by MDs have no scientific basis for use. 70% of all prescription drugs are useless (British Medical Assoc.). 50% of diagnostic tests don't test for what they say they test. And on and on.

Re:Stupid question, but why linux?

[ShinmaWa]

First, to all you Slashdotters out there - I'm not trying to feed the trolls - this post looks legit to me

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?joel .3.178798.3

The trolls thank you for the free meal.

Thank you

[HermanAB]

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

MS Linux

[HermanAB]

Well actually, MS has been marketing Linux for a few years already http://www.mslinux.org/

Linux is also a gold mining company

[J.R. Random]

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?

Rorting?

[Alcilbiades]

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?

Re:Rorting?

[schotter]

It's probably unique to Australia yeah. Roughly synonymous with 'cheated', 'ripped off', etc.
http://rort.urbanup.com/

Hahahahahaha

[dscho]

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.

Oh my god the sky is falling!

[Colin Smith]

"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.

Re:Oh my god the sky is falling!

[Lifewish]

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.

But you can't do that in the US. This is the point of trademark law. If Microsoft or someone pulled a stunt like that in the US then Linus could legally bitchslap them for it. In Australia, however, that option is no longer available. Anyone can dilute the value of the trademark by producing a poor-quality DOS clone, call it Linux and proceed to sell it on to unsuspecting punters who will never again risk trying "that dodgy linux stuff". Which sucks.

BEWARE: parent contains porn link!

[Mudcathi]

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!

Re:If linux is OS and kernel. New twist old debate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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. ...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.

It's a HOBBY work, not commercial:no TM protection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hobby work, not commercial; no TM protection is offered to this down under.

Re:If linux is OS and kernel. New twist old debate

[maxpublic]

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

Re:The real problem with Linux

[TrancePhreak]

I wasn't talking about 5 computers, that's 1 computer over 5 release cycles.

nope

[drewness]

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, we know Groklaw is...

[randyflood]

Well, at least we all know that Groklaw is a vallid source of legal information...

http://www.grokline.net/detail_vendor.php?id=1

Re:The real problem with Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

WTF?

[greasy_ass_fart]

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.

Re:WTF?

[IceRa]

Hey - it's the other way round - all Linus wants (and is forced to) is to PROTECT the Name "Linux" from misuse. Sad that it nowadays had to be that way...

IceRa

maybe

[POds]

slashdot should have been on that list?

Re:The real problem with Linux

[Conrad Mazian]

Man that was hard to read - spelling and gramatical errors, improperly formated sentences...

And all for nothing. The writer doesn't appear to be all that familiar with the history of either Unix or Linux, or is deliberately misrepresenting events.

Then there's paragraph 3 - if this person doesn't work for Microsoft, they should apply RSN.

In other words...

[gidds]

...Wikipedia has just as little authority as any other encyclopaedia.

Feature Request: improved crap filter

[salesgeek]

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...