Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Trademark Rejected in Australia

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the minor-setbacks dept.

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."

49 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. First to file! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    O sorry, that's patents...

  2. vitriolic? by efuseekay · · Score: 4, Insightful


    The rejection may be on shaky grounds, but the letter was hardly vitriolic. It is firm, and laid out the causes for rejection in a clear manner (caveat : IANAL).

    Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:vitriolic? by saider · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

      Wikipedia and Google are poor choices for any kind of "proof". Since Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at any time, the contents are subject to change and may be of questionable authorship. A Google search is even worse because you can use a Google search to back up whatever theory or belief you want.

      For any argument, you need to refer to a good, solid, and authoritative source. In this case, they should have been pointing to trademark law and court decisions in the jurisdiction. That is a good, solid and authoritative source to back up your claim.

      Wikipedia and Google are good for casual use, but are nothing to stand on.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:vitriolic? by ramblin+billy · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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'?

    3. Re:vitriolic? by Whafro · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:vitriolic? by mysticgoat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  3. The good, the bad and the ugly by adtifyj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by Lifewish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    2. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by JanneM · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.

      That would be perfectly legal, trademark or no trademark. It only protects the use of the word in the specific domain it is defined (Operating systems, presumably, in this case). The purpose of trademark protection is to avoid confusion for the customers (and thus protection from that confusion for the owners).

      Here in Japan, for instance, there is both a Unix laundry detergent and a Unix brand of plastic food containers. The domains do not overlap and thus no confusion.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by adtifyj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by B747SP · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    5. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by B747SP · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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!

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    6. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by masterv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by evilbuny · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    8. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:The good, the bad and the ugly by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  4. Its surprising.... by amodm · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Its surprising.... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.

  5. Misleading summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    1. Re:Misleading summary... by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. Re:Misleading summary... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.
  6. Breaking News by OSXpert · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  7. Oy Weh! by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This one is so awful. From the looks of it, Linus Torvalds was forced to play the trademark game, because of a slimeball lawyer.

    But it appears that because he didn't defend it from early on, he's now unable to claim it in Australia. So he should have been demanding money from all the Linux-name-using folks all these years if he wanted to become the trademark.

    How ironic: to frustrate a lawyer slimeball at the behest of his users, Mr. Torvalds makes himself look silly in front of the court.

    To get an idea of how scummy the first lawyer was:

    Torvalds didn't plan on gaining trademark protection for the word "Linux" when he began work on his OS, but by 1996 he started wishing he had. That's when William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston first started demanding 10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors, based on a trademark claim he had filed in 1994. The Linux kernel was still free software, but according to Della Croce, the name itself was his property.

    That's 10 percent! What a parasite! It makes me think he deserves the Mr. Hands treatment.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  8. Decision doesn't mean anything for other markets by FlorianMueller · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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".

  9. Editors on crack... by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Editors on crack... by nagora · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  10. Re:Stupid question, but why linux? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  11. Re:The real problem with Linux by nagora · · Score: 4, Funny
    Reputable software companies such as Microsoft

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

    TW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  12. What's 'Vitriolic' About That Letter? by reallocate · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  13. Re:Stupid question, but why linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  14. Where's the vitriol? by B747SP · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  15. Windows(tm) in Australia ? by Antiocheian · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  16. Re:The real problem with Linux by orzetto · · Score: 3, Funny
    I am going to troll the fuck out of slashdot.
    On Slashdot, moderators troll the fuck out of you!
    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  17. Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny
    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...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  18. Editors?!? by BarryNorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  19. What about Internet Archive? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 3, Informative

    And yet, the Internet Archive's Wayback machine has been successfully used in several copyright court cases.

    I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that either of these are the best sources. But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is. (Because it keeps records of page updates as well, so you could trace the entry all the way back to the original post of the entry, as well as identify specific sources of each tidbit of information).

    Google... nah, not really. Google is good for finding information, not validating it, imho.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:What about Internet Archive? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

  20. FOSS and trademarks by james_gnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  21. Basis of the application must be sound by panurge · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  22. Re:Wikipedia by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.
    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  23. Re:hahahahahah linux on the desktop is a joke by zotz · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup"."

    Simple way to supply that icon for debian systems:

    ---

    #!/bin/bash

    sudo aptitude install ardour-gtk

    ---

    supply that file in a tar format pre chmod'ed. How's that for a first cut.

    Besides, how long will it take for new users to get accustomed to typing aptitude install foo or apt-get install foo?

    [tag]Besides, windows is so confusing, sometimes the icon is called setup and sometimes it is called install. Sometimes the software is supplied in self extracting exes and sometimes in zips. Sometimes vendors make it difficult to find the full version of the software and only want you to download an installer. Sometimes there are some sort of text files that you are supposed to actually READ after the files come out of the zip, or whatever. Then sometimes, you are HIGHLY recommedned to uninstall any older versions before clicking on those variable icons. Also, sometimes when setting up new hardware they want you to be sure and run the installation software BEFORE connecting or installing the hardware for the first time. (I could go on.)[/tag]

    I will leave it to the reader to determine for themselves what [tag] should be.

    all the best,

    drew
    --
    http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  24. I heard .. by gaanagaa · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  25. Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by sczimme · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

    Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source?? (Not directed at you, efuseekay)

    Genuine authoritative sources are reviewed and re-reviewed by individuals whose credentials are verified, etc. to ensure they know the topic at hand. Think of the requirements for an expert witness, if that helps; pay particular attention to Rules 701 and 702*. Nutshell version: anyone - particularly a specialist in a given field - must be able to support and corroborate claims of deep and/or specialized knowledge before presenting such knowledge in court.

    Compare this to Wikipedia: anyone with Internet access can submit [mis]information with relative ease. Yes, glaring omissions will probably be rectified shortly, but does that help the person who viewed an erroneous page before the correction was made?

    (* IANAL, but have done a reasonable amount of work in this area.)

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by xappax · · Score: 4, Funny

      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. ;)

    2. Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by SComps · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      The world according to SComps
    4. Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [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.)

    5. Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. :-)

  26. Re:Stupid question, but why linux? by ShinmaWa · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.