Slashdot Mirror
How Microsoft Takes a Name
An anonymous reader writes "According to a report in the "Seattle Post-Intelligencer," the Windows Defender name was already being used by an Australian developer, Adam Lyttle. His Windows Defender product protected Windows users from malicious Web sites. Adam Lyttle told the Post-Intelligencer's Todd Bishop that Microsoft contacted him a month ago, charging him with infringing on the Windows trademark but neglecting to mention that the software giant wanted to use the "Windows Defender" name. Lyttle subsequently signed over rights to the name to Microsoft and was "shocked" when he later learned the company intended to use the name for one of its own products. "
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
...so "yoink" is not the correct answer?
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
He signed away his rights to the name. What did he expect?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
A rose by any other name is worth a million dollars to Microsoft.
A trademark is a trademark. If you're violating it, you don't get to ask the owner what they're going to use it for...
I wonder if anyone had a Coke One® website before Coke make Coke One...
www.christopherlewis.com
Microsoft has only done this about 5,000 times before, why would it be any different this time?
MS bought the name off him... and then used it. Shockaroonie!
They really should have mentioned they wanted the name for a product, so the guy could have hung on to it a bit longer and perhaps got more for it. Perhaps not the most sensible course of action from MS's perspective. Perfectly understandable that they would use copyright infringement as the crowbar to get the name off the guy, but still, pretty disingenuous.
While I think that it stinks a bit, he WAS using Windows as part of his product name, which has been ruled several times to be Microsoft's trademark...So I don't think it's out of line with any other legal decisions in Microsoft's favor.
Microsoft pwned this guy :/
He signed over the name for no money (mistake), Microsoft used it for a product, he says he wouldn't have wanted money anyway - this seems like a big nothing to me.
MS isn't the only on who uses legal muscle to get what they want from the little guy.
That said, its a pretty shitty thing to do to a young kid. I mean, at least throw him a bone and give him a little money.
If that tactic failed, they would have moved on to to the next phase - use influence on "3rd party" company to have said company buy him out.
Oops. Looks like this gentleman lost out on some serious cash, reminiscent to the old domain name cyber squatting days. Even when in prison, never bend over for the 300 pounder unless he at least offers you a pack of cigarettes first...
...
...
Oh... Wait...
Yay. Got to love "Intellectual Property".
Deleted
3 MS stories in a row... I need my google/apple fix!!
Windows Commander is now called TotalCommander. Guess why.
"Two things inspire me to awe -- the starry heavens above and the moral universe within." - Albert Einstein
Why can't Microsoft just change the name?
Since it is a security product from Microsoft, how about a name like:
Microsoft Maginot Defender
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Three Microsoft articles in a row?
Please can we just have some stuff about Google or Linux? This is worse than dupes.
Didn't they do this with QDOS?
Classic case of bullying. But, even as a dumbass kid myself, I reserve the right to call this guy a dumbass kid -- If he's going to just hand over his property, potentially worth millions, he should at least have asked for $35 like that girl who designed the Nike Swoosh.
I support the separation of oil and state.
and... why does an Australian see this devious, duplicitious, nasty act as anything more than what would be expected out of any other backstabbing price gouging lawyer-empolying typical firm?
Australia is the dumping ground of vicious IP. The USA is second rate compared to ours, for we stil have the meat still between our teeth!.
If you wish to see the most visious blood baths of stageringly high cost litigation, simply review any NSW case in the past 18 months.
Satan would be proud!
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Really, this could be the mafia talking - "nothing personal, it's just business", etc. You threaten, you cheat, you BS and just in case there is any comeback you libel the guy by claiming that had you not done any of those things, he would have blackmailed you. Oh, and everyone else behaves like this, you claim, so that's OK too. Another day, another guy pushed through the wood-chipper.
And people wonder why Microsoft isn't trusted and is fast ending up with negative brand value.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
"He is working on a number of other programs -- and he gives assurances that none of their names include the word Windows."
Why? are words from the dictionary trademarkable? If I were to make an Apple Grinder would I be busted (a. if it were a physical apple grinder b. if it were a piece of software for macs that say, made deleted files non-retrievable).
I don't know - I'm not a lawyer.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Isn't Defender already trademarked within the computer/video games arena? Maybe someone else should be suing Microsoft?
But it's kind of funny that Microsoft has to admit that its Windows product needs to be Defended in the first place...
We already knew that Microsoft was devious and backhanded in its business practices. It shows how much regard the big corp has for the small but dedicated developer. Ultimately, I think this is a good thing - Microsoft, keep on alienating your backers!
The Window ou Windows named has been statued to be a generic word in court all arround the world. So MS as no rigth to the name Windows Defender. In the other hand, what about all the non-microsoft software using Windows in they name !
He just have to learn to read before !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
What a nifty plan....it is even cheaper than buying the rights to the name. All you need is a few threatening letters...I don't welcome our borg^H^H^H^Hbill gates overlord
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
MS is not entitled to tell this guy why they sued for the TM infringement. And this guy really shouldn't be surprised...did he think they would tell him to stop using their name if it wasn't something that they planned to do with it (or his product was costing them money)?
He should just rename it to something more, hm, original and be done with it.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
>Microsoft Maginot Defender
With a backdoor called Belgium?
How about "Linux Defender"? At least the two words complement each other...
This is Microsoft shooting its self in the foot again as it just highlights how much their operating systems are missing
Karmady is the best medicine.
Def: To fool; dupe:
"Microsoft Windows is a trademark, this guy infringed on it"
:)
No he didn't, he infringed on the word "windows", with a capital letter because it's the first word
What are the steps I need to take to get "Window Shit" trademarked internationally?
1) Take a dump out your window
2) Film it and copyright/trademark/watermark/encrypt it
3) Done!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You don't sign a contract until a lawyer has looked at it. Of course MS will give themselves the upper hand.. Silly Wabbit.
I dare say that with typing skills like that, you'll *never* be sued for trademark infringement. (Or was that just an elaborate text-only captcha?)
"He expected that Microsoft was acting in good faith..."
ROFL
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Theres nothing like blasting away lots of purple , green ... But enough about running a virus scanner under Windows ,
and white mutants, pods and other strange evil things
I quite liked the 1980 video game Defender too.
Would have been to change it from "Windows Defender" to "Web Defender" and trademark that.
If you are gullible, don't do your homework, and don't hire an attorney when dealing with Microsoft, they'll screw you.
In other news, if you cover yourself in ground beef and swim with sharks, you may get bitten.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
They probably figured out they needed a new name for marketing "Windows Onecare" in Europe.
POKE 36879,8
Give us a break, a naive 22yo being shocked over a minor commercial decision isnt news.
This would only be outrageous if he was making a product which defends clean windows from birds flying into them
Seeing as he was using the name "Windows Defender" to market and distribute his software, it seems clear that he is benifiting by using the name of another product, "Windows", and profiting from its success and marketing. Isn't that textbook infringement? If I made an email app called "Windows Mail", I could expect the same treatment.
This is a clear and cut case of Microsoft defending their trademark. Exactly the same thing that recently happened with the Linux trademark.
Under what obligation was Microsoft to disclose that they wanted to use the name? That would have been stupid as it would come down to pleading the other party to try and make a buck.
A lot of Slashdot readers spend a lot of time outside their cublicles and actually knows how business and the rest of the world works. This knee-jerk anti-Microsoft eye-ball whoring is becoming very tedious.
Terribly unethical things happen to innocent companies every day in the tech field, this story is such a minor non-issue. The only reason we are reading about it is because anti-Microsoft news sells.
While the inequity of MS in this case is certainly something which gives me gas it's really not all that surprising.
What concerns me more is this: By signing the agreement, has this fellow now admitted to infringing a trademark for the time in which he did use the name Windows Defender and, if so, has he opened himself up to gratuitous prosecution by the local government? If he were politically active against established authorities in local areas I bet, honestly, that he'd be looking at a state supported lawsuit.
It's another way in which every citizen is, by default, a criminal. Any illusion of rights is just that--an illusion.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
With his expert computer skills in Windows(R) security, Lyttle now currently works for a respectable innovative advertisement company...
I used to do consulting work installing and maintaining firewalls, and one of my clients insisted, over my objections, on having so many port forwards through his firewall that it was mostly worthless. Oddly, he never questioned my naming the firewall host "maginot." I suppose if he knew what that meant, he might not have continued paying me.
http://www.rtfract.com/vistapro.htm
I think the 3rd picture is nice.
What's next? Can we expect to see Slashdot "editors" parroting the anti-science witchcraft nonsense that is used to promote such ideas as "condoms cause AIDS" becaus bill gates has donated a ton of money to combat AIDS in africa?
Can't we play hide and seek, just this once?
Remember the Adobe + Killustrator thing ? Pretty much the same.. if not better. Big deal. As the parent says.. cruel, but business.
They asked (and probably with some tough-sounding legalese) and he complied. What makes it seem kind of slimy, or at least intellectually dishonest, is that they plan to use the name for their own product, implying that that they told him to stop using it not because it necessarily infringed on their "Windows" trademark, but because they wanted the complete name for their own.
The front-page blurb doesn't mention if the guy contacted an attorney and said "Hey, can they do this?", he just went along with it. Which makes him a decent, cooperative fellow, but also either manipulated or a rube, depending on your perspective.
He should have contacted an IP attorney and at least gotten an opinion, even if the opinion was "They're Microsoft, and they *might* win on merits but will *probably* win because they're the 800 lb gorilla." Even then, he could have had enough ground to stand on that he might have negotiated some kind of settlement where they agreed to pay him money to stop.
I wonder sometimes if Microsoft is aware of the incremental harm to their image every time they act like an 800 lb gorilla, particularly to a developer providing products which improve in the Windows experience. I'm sure you don't want to pay off every guy, but what if they had instead said "Hey, we think you're infringing on our name and we think can probably take it away, but we also realize you have some investment in this and we appreciate the work you've done helping windows users, so we're willing to offer you $10,000 to stop using that name."
The $10k is peanuts to MS (they could pay out $10k/day and it'd never show on their balance sheet), they would eliminate stories that make MS seem like corporate goons and probably buy a lot of loyalty. Sure, they might pay off people they wouldn't have to and they certainly would increase the number of people looking to leech money off them, but I would think that the payoff in reduced bad PR and increased good PR would be worth it.
If someone had a product called "Macintosh Defender", how would this be any different?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Didn't he learn from the episode about Compuglobalhypermeganet?
ART on dA
I don't know, but you'd better hurry....or there'll be some prior art with which to contend...
l lspeed/wmv
http://www.filecabi.net/v/file/crapwhilerunningfu
Has society become so comprehensively capitalized that every act of deception or dishonesty becomes "just business" and the victim's fault?
Well, quite. Anyone would think Slashdot had some sort of technological focus or something. Oh, wait...
Bill must be real cut up about it.
You got us. The only reason we do this is because we want to hurt Bill Gates' feelings. All that stuff about corporate ethics, abuse of monopoly and the relative merits of open vs closed development models? It's all a hollow sham. What we really wanted all along was to make the richest man in the world cry like a little girl.
And we'd have got away with it too, if it wasn't for you pesky kids!
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I wonder how they'd take to this:
A Linux/UNIX only app aimed at double-glazing firms allowing prospective customers to choose the style of windows they would like on their home improvement. Since it'll allow you to explore the wide range of windows (and frames) available, surely you can call it Windows Explorer. Especially, since it won't run on a MS platform it can't be confused with the glorified file mangler found within MS's operating system.
-- Soruk
Typical. Microsoft bullying tactics. What do you expect?
This guy should have held out. He still may have a very good case, in fact.
... and people seem to accept that so easily.
It doesn't matter what it's about.
Sorry but I was wrong. They do own the trademark. (They don't own the trademark in America a la Lindows decision but they do own it in Australia).
... call your stuff "Windoze Defender" or "Developer Studio for Micro$loth Windoze" or "FooBar Draw, Lose32 Edition". Everyone will know what you mean, but M$ is unlikely to steal your name...
...had a fool for a client. No news here.
~Idarubicin
From TFA:
Redmond startup Vista.com raised similar questions when Microsoft announced plans to call the next version of its operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft defended the choice by saying the combination of "Windows" and "Vista" would avoid confusion.
Disgusting, isn't it? Microsoft has basically said that he can't do what they just did.
On the other hand, MS probably has a couple floors full of lawyers with nothing else to do. They could send planefuls of them, to sue the poor guy in disparate jurisdictions and countries.
Given that scenario, is there any doubt who's gonna win, never mind the facts?
Watch your language.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Mmm... The Ardennes would be more correct ;-)
Will I get (-1, Correctness Nazi) or something?
I don't have a sig.
In the interest of not getting its creator, Christian Ghisler, into unnecessary trouble with MS, I did not raise a fuss when they forced him to stop calling it Windows Commander.
But still, years later, I continue to be very, very pissed off. Windows Commander is a Norton Commander workalike for Windows, so I think the name is highly apt. The product, which arguably stands head and shoulders over a number of similar, competing products, has been known under that name for years and provides significantly enhanced functionality over what Explorer does. I find that Windows Commander works around some major flaws and lacking functionality in Explorer, and that life without it is difficult and awkward. Instead of coming down on the guy, Microsoft should be thanking him for making their crappy product more useable.
I hope that when Bush leaves office (hopefully by impeachment), MS will be hit with an abuse-of-monopoly charge and resultant damages that they will never fully recover. I want to see the 300 lb gorilla chained and bound, then whittled down to size. That, I feel, would be justice.
For all those not familiar with it, Windows Commander is now known as Total Commander and can be found here. No, I'm not affiliated or anything, just a very satisfied user.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
Here's a different spin.
MS DOESN'T have a trademark on the term "Windows", and never has. They are fully aware of this.
In spite of this, they fraudulently misrepresented their ownership of said trademark in order to deprive this person of a valuable propert, that being his product name.
Ergo, Microsoft appears to have committed both fraud and extortion.
If anyone else behaved this way, the Justice Department might just step in under the RICO act and arrest the company executives involved and seize their assets.
However, it seems that this Justice Department is asleep at the switch, and wouldn't go after Microsoft if Windows CD's turned out to be made of the ground up bones of Microsoft business rivals killed by MS hitsquads.
Ergo, one could reasonably expect MS to become increasingly aggressive in their criminal misconduct.
Ergo, MS hitsquads may become a reality in our lifetime.
(Wait who's that kicking in my door....#%@$@&^%#$...loss of signal
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
-William Brendel
Yup, if they wan't something they just take it. It started with the term Windows, then the GUI they stole from Apple, they even can hold off the Justice Department from being broken up as the monopoly they are. Just goes to show you those with the Gold make the rules... Nothing has changed at all
Microsoft are also about kicking ass and taking names.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Microsoft takes name first, kicks butt later. What a company!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Bill Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
[Gates' lackeys trash the room.]
Homer: Hey, what the hell's going on!
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
[insane laughter]
This is something I don't get. A contract must have consideration for both parties. If Microsoft got the use of the name and the other guy got screwed, what legal basis does any "signing over" of the rights to the name have?
There must be more to this story than just that, because that's Amateur Legal Studies 101.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I shall now refer to my Andersons as "the transparent openings in my walls". I don't want the big bad wolf blowin' my house down.
From TFA:
Redmond startup Vista.com raised similar questions when Microsoft announced plans to call the next version of its operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft defended the choice by saying the combination of "Windows" and "Vista" would avoid confusion.
Logical conclusion: I can produce a product called "Word for Linux" and avoid confusion.
...but somehow, I don't think Microsoft would see it that way.
www.wavefront-av.com
According to this case:
For you kids out there, Defender was the hardest game in the pizza shop and viciously consumed many unsupecting quarters. See the screen shots for the copyright text.
More lies, huge legal bills and going bankrupt for nothing. That's what he would have gotten if he fought. M$ would have just used another name and no one would have known better.
What a nice way to treat your customers, Bill. Wouldn't it have been nicer to have used some of your money to, you know, make a deal and pay him for the name. No, you and your boys would rather threaten and steal from the people buying your software and making things for your crappy OS. What a beautiful ecosystem.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
http://www.logwindow.com/news.html
01-02-2003 Microsoft agrees to drop their legal action if we change the name of the program to "Log Window".
11-08-2002 SCO proposes to Microsoft that we change the name of the software program to Log Window if they will drop their legal challenge.
11-01-2002 C.S.S. cancels their contract with SCO to work on Log Windows. This is because of potential legal action from Microsoft over the alleged trademark infringement over our use of the word "Windows".
that gets exploited by Win32.Rommel
+1 fashionably cynical
This is what I don't get, too. Trademarks are basically there to stop someone passing off their product or service as someone else's. IMHO, this is entirely reasonable: someone doing so would be gaining from others' work at the expense of those others.
In this case, there is pretty much zero danger of someone mistaking a security product called "Windows Defender" from a small software outfit in Australia for the flagship full-scale operating system from the most famous software vendor in the world.
If this is allowed to stand, does that mean no-one can release "MySuperNovelProduct for Windows" because it uses the term Windows, despite the fact that this use is informative, accurate and non-deceptive?
If this is an open-and-shut case under Australian trademark law, then I suggest that the law needs amending so that it's clear that Microsoft has no claim. In fact, trademark law should be doing exactly the opposite here: protecting the small guy from having a big guy come along and take the name associated with his existing product for their own benefit. They aren't defending a legitimate right to preserve the integrity of the Windows name, they're abusing a legal technicality at the expense of a genuine product to further their own ends, and the law should punish such behaviour, not reward it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is a case of Microsoft defending its trademark. "Windows", being a generic word which is descriptive of the product, is not a strong mark, but "Windows Defender" as the name for an anti-spyware program that runs on Microsoft Windows is prime facie using the Microsoft trademark in its name. You can, of course, release a product called "Defender", and say in the blurb that it is "for Microsoft Windows". That is what the Australian guy should have done. But you are asking for trouble if you call it "Windows Defender". I think Microsoft was within its rights to defend its mark in this case. As a general rule, the only companies that can legally write software to run on Microsoft Windows and call it "Windows Whatever" are Microsoft and those that have permission from Microsoft. You cannot sell a Coca Cola additive and call it "Coca Cola Improver", either -- not unless you want to hear from Coca Cola's lawyers.
The story would be different if a company were selling windowing software called "Something Windows" that *competed* with Microsoft Windows, rather than layering on top of it. In fact, there were several "Windows" products for PC's and other platforms on the market in 1984 when Microsoft Windows Version 1 was released. Since Microsoft pulled its Windows product up alongside them, it can't claim (successfully) now to own the name "Windows" as a mark for windowing software. "X Windows", which preceded Microsoft Windows, is of course still the name of the dominant windowing system on Unix, without any fear of trademark infringement claims from Microsoft.
that under most trade mark laws that "Windows" bare and by itself, is not sufficiently distinctive to be a trade mark. Therefore we have "Microsoft Windows". However, IIRC it is possible for words to "acquire distinctiveness", and it is conceivable that should MS's strategy of acting as if they have a de facto trade mark on "Windows" might eventually succeed.
What is curious here, though, is that the situation isn't one covered by the usual layman's write-ups on trade marks. Oh, they cover distinctiveness, market classification, abandonment and genericide. But while it is clearly permissible to use a now invalid or abandoned trade mark, is it possible to claim it as your own?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I really dont see how this is news. I know the zealots need something to throw up here slamming MS everyday but this is really just business as usual for corporations in america. So much time spent trying to villify a company. Dont you folks have something productive you could do instead? It is a big world out there and you are wasting your time discussing such a trivial events. You might as well be talking about Britney's new baby or Brad Pitt's hair color.
"At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
Windows is not a trademark of Microsoft. Microsoft Windows is a trademark of Microsoft.
"Stained Glass protector", "windefendor" or something. After all, ANYTHING can compete with a name like "HijackThis", don't you think?
All of you rotten thieves that said Windows, I want your Names and Home Addresses so I can sue you for saying 'Windows' in public and infringing upon my awesomeness. Please forward the aforementioned information to bill@microsoft.com
kthxbye
From the Article:
"Redmond startup Vista.com raised similar questions when Microsoft announced plans to call the next version of its operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft defended the choice by saying the combination of "Windows" and "Vista" would avoid confusion."
How can Microsoft say that "Windows Vista" is not a voilation for using "Vista" , and at the same time say "Windows Defender" is a violaion for using "Windows"
oohh, that's right b/c they have more money.
Lyttle subsequently signed over rights to the name to Microsoft and was "shocked"
Man signs pact with devil. See how shocked he is when he realizes he's lost his soul! Film at 11!
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
This incident should very much emphasize to anybody who develops for, or wants to develop for Windows: When you play in Microsofts sandbox, they may take your toys. Not sure why this is news though. There is no level playing field. It's not like it's the first time, or even the second, that Microsoft has used its market dominance in way that appears, at least to me, to be totally unfair.
Developers can vote with their feet, if nothing else. MacOS and Linux are both smaller niches, but you get to keep what you earn, and have a chance to succeed wildly.
Shocked!, Shocked, I tell you!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Perhaps Williams Electronics should sue M$ for the name "Defender." Or whoever has the rights to the game at this point if they no longer exsist.
Cheers, McDoc
When M$ announced Windows Vista, a company named Vista already existed, does anyone know what they did to take that name too?
.. it's time for him to start developing a Windows Attacker
I fuse with Mercer every single day...
That was FUNNY!
Thx for the laugh
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Since windows is so popular, every "Windows" related pre- and postfix is being used by a third party tool, leave "Windows Kitchen Sink".
All the windows bitching aside, if they want to publish a tool based on their own name they have a right to.
Shafted
Um, IIRC "common words" cannot be trademarked (except that the M$ legal team and/or lobbying team pushed it through anyway), so his use of "Windows Defender" SHOULDN'T have been an issue. The phrase "Microsoft Windows" can clearly be trademarked, as can the word "Microsoft", but not the word "Windows".
For Examples: I have windows in my house. Windows keep the bugs out and my AC in. I have to clean my windows regularly so I can see out of them. I run Microsoft Windows(tm) as little as possible. See the difference? I could write an application, say, "Windows Business Tracker", and they might bitch about trademark, but the purpose of the software when seen is clearly in support of a window repair and replacement business. That trademark is ridiculous and invalid.
Also, the article clearly shows how M$ actively and forcefully defends their trademarks but blatantly ignores the trademarks of other companies.
FTA: Redmond startup Vista.com raised similar questions when Microsoft announced plans to call the next version of its operating system Windows Vista. Microsoft defended the choice by saying the combination of "Windows" and "Vista" would avoid confusion. It will not, it will weaken the validity of the name Vista as used by that company, and make it appear that Vista.com is attempting to "tag along" with a widely used Microsoft name that Vista.com had first. To be fair, it is still a dictionary word, but used much less commonly than "windows".
Finally, from the sounds of it, they did not leave any question as to the validity of their claim, the letters likely had a threatening tone, and were likely not even remotely polite, even though they were making legal threats internationally. Does their (invalid, IMHO) trademark actually hold in Australia?
Makes me wonder, from a purely PR standpoint, how they even manage to stay in business.
No conformist ever made history.
They've been doing this sort of thing for a long time, and not just with names. This is really just day to day business there and not terribly newsworthy. Next they will claim they invented this name too...
Sheesh.
Cheers
He said he contacted a law school friend. In the U.S., that is unauthorized practice of law, and his friend might end up finding it harder to be admitted to his state Bar. However, I'm not sure how it goes in Austrailia. As a U.S. law student, I've been warned enough times to keep my trap shut. Nothing beats the skill of an experienced attorney, and a law student is not.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Its a nice idea. I'm a Linux user myself and not generally in the habit of 'siding'. But lets be realistic. 1,000,000,000 users installing whatever software they like on any operating system, someone will find a way to take advantage of that. If it was Linux we'd just have 100 different solutions (down to special distro no doubt!) to fight the same problem with most of them being hobby-ware, and a few heavy guns. Just like about everything else in Linux.
Whoever the ghey naming probably wouldn't happen in Linux, unless it was maybe GNUfender or another looping acronym.
Remember, we just hit a milestone. First known virus in the wild. Vigilance is the responsibility of any savy computer user. Forget operating system.
Quack, quack.
proves corporations are evil. That's why everybody should have a lawyer, unfortunately. It's apparent mishap the owner took but I really couldn't take this kind of shit.
Seriously, what is the issue? (IANAL)
Microsoft has a trademark on the word Windows in this context. Trademark law is designed to let the trademark holder do exactly this kind of thing, and to my knowledge, doesn't require the holder to inform the infringer that they intend to expand the mark in any way.
So, do people really think that it would have been more acceptable for Microsoft to just say, "you can't call your product that" and then let it die there?
I'll stop when they fix it.
From YOUR LINK:
I'm a windows admin and noticed something really funny. When a virus comes out on e of the first pieces of information you get is which platforms are vulnerable and under what conditions. Look at the difference between a Linux worm and a windows one.
Linux:
Linux running webservers, *IF* the target server is running one of the vulnerable scripts, and *IF* it has a specific url, and *IF* it is configured to permit external shell commands, and *IF* it is set to remote file download in the PHP/CGI environment, *THEN MAYBE* a copy of the worm could be downloaded and executed.
Windows:
This virus affects Win 3.1, Win95A, Win95B, Win95C, Win98, Win98SE, Win2000.....
Funny, none of my production webservers were even vulnerable, though I did go and check, and none of my desktop Linux machines were vulnerable, as they aren't running webservers. WindowsNT thru XP are continually vulnerable to attacks because they rely heavily on RPC which cannot be shut off. This is an unacceptable, flawed concept, and security damaging practice, but I should stop bashing M$ for it? Tired is manually removing malware, spyware, Sony rootkits, and viruses. Windows bashing is necessary until they listen.
No conformist ever made history.
Hate to break it to everyone, but Microsoft does own the Windows trademark on a number of computer related products and services, any one of which, may have been enough to blast this guy into oblivion.
Check out Reg Nos. 2212784, 2463526, 2463526 and 2463510 (among others) on the Trademark search system (sorry, no direct link available).
-A
That's what you get for living in a corporate-fascist state like Australia or the US.
Well, it's all water under the bridge now... what he does need is a new name for his product, right? I vote for the subject... in that it still alludes to "that Redmond OS" and how he improves upon it. Any others?
This is what anyone gets for writting windows software and posting it on the internet with the word windows in the name. When will people learn?
Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window - Steve Wozniak
there's already a windows security software line called bit defender. that's the first thing i thought of when i saw the word 'defender' in the news w/ microsoft. i had thought ms bought them out or something.
http://www.bitdefender.com/
Windows defender ? I thought windows needed patches not defenders ...
He deserved to get screwed.
People who write software for M$ OSs get acquired one way or another.
Remember Stacker and Netscape?
If you write shrinwrap software for an M$ platform, in the long run you're going to get hosed.
I'm quite surprised M$ hasn't gone after Adobe.
If he'd tried to keep it he would have been sued into bankruptcy and then lost by default anyway. Isn't that how MS got hold of the "Internet Explorer" product name that was already copyrighted or trademarked by someone else? http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,13417,00 .html
If MSFT approached him with the intent to bully him into releasing a name they wanted for their own uses it might be argued they obtained his consent by fraud and the contract could be voidable. MSFT allowed that product to be distributed until they found it to be inconvenient. Their actions in reference to the individual in question were, at a minimum, self-serving. It really depends on how it went down. Had he the means to defend himself, there's a good chance he could have prevailed on the name issue. Provided he didn't put "Microsoft" anywhere in the name you could argue brand confusion but few of those stand up in court. Just ask Victor's Secret.
Even if they get away with it, and they probably will, it was both heavy-handed and ethically dubious. In other words, MSFT's true character.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Windows Defender, 1980. Defender signaled the beginning of a new type of video game. It was the first to include, what was in essence, a "virtual world", where events off of the main screen affected your gameplay. It was also one of the first games to include distinctive behaviors for different types of enemies and an amazing scrolling playfield with color graphics. Defender marked the first serious entry into the video game industry for Windows.
Hypocrites.
Blame the user, not the software.
Notice that unlike Google, MS can't even come out with a simple statement against doing Evil.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
He asked a friend for legal advice? He might as well asked for legal advice from Slashdot. ;-)
Think about it...you have a product that's designed to accomplish a specific task, and that specific task is based solely on its ability to enhance another product. So instead of being able to name it, "Windows Defender," I have to name it something like, "Well-Known Operating System Defender". Instead of being able to inform *MY* potential customers as to exactly what my software does, I have to feed them some obscure reference, and perhaps mention in the small print, that it works with "Microsoft Windows^TM".
You have been assimilated by the Gates Borg. Resistance is (always) futile......
If people would RTFA, they would see that:
... He said it's actually good, in some ways, to see the name of his discontinued product put to use by Microsoft in such a prominent way."
1. "he had stopped working on his Windows Defender program nearly a year before that point."
2. "he said in an interview Monday that he would have given the name to Microsoft just the same had he known the company wanted to use it.
3. "it's common for companies not to disclose that type of information in such cases."
Another sensationalist crap story on Slashdot.
Usually when a company wants a potential trademark infringer to stop, they will get their lawyers to send a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the infringer stop using the mark in question, and sometimes threatening litigation when such demands are not met. An assignment of rights is not standard in this situation.
In this case, the fact that Microsoft wanted an assignment of the whole term "Windows Defender" should have set off alarm bells in the kid's head, any trademark lawyer would have spotted Microsoft's tactic immediately. In his defense, it is hard to be aware of such intricacies unless one is an IP lawyer, or has had experience in these types of matters.
By the way, earlier comments about Microsoft's trademark rights in "Microsoft Windows" and not "Windows" are applicable as well, though this would require some familiarity with Microsoft's attempts to secure trademark protection for these terms. I would simply note that the relevant cases are in the U.S., and Microsoft's trademarks rights in Australia may not necessarily be congruent to its rights in the U.S.
...if Microsoft lawyers starting going after people who sew curtains and replace broken glass.
MadOgre.com
Before I came to my current job one of the techs had named the firewall maginot and our IDS ardens. It was funny until someone checked the firewall after he left and it had as one of the rules pass in quick on all.
Bloggy Goodness
Think about it...you have a product that's designed to accomplish a specific task, and that specific task is based solely on its ability to enhance another product.
Using the name of the other product in the name of your product is legally iffy. The product name should be "Defender". You can show how it works on "Microsoft Windows TM" in letters as big as the box. The name of the product is what this is about.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
In the absence of an ethics filter, perhaps legal should at least run stuff by PR to do a cost/benefit analysis on the overall effects of asshole behaviour. It wouldn't have killed them to throw a few bucks to the Windows Defender creator.
Loose lips lose spit.
A quick howto on dealing with such advances from Microsoft (or your favourite demonic corporate entity if that is different):
Of course if the lawyer tells you that you don't have a leg to stand on, you might want to think about settling before just going to the press.
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or maybe $sys$Win32.Rommel
Make love, not reality television.
CmdrTaco isn't goint ot be happy about this...
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I don't know how the laws are in Australia... but in Denmark the "loser" of the trial often has to pay the "winner"'s expenses in relation to the trial.
This is the price we have to (literally) pay for preventing USA-like conditions where lawsuits fly all over the place. It prevents "legal harassment" since you don't lose money if you have done nothing wrong.
What if I wrote a screensaver with lots of windows floating around and name it Windows Screensaver? Now is MS gonna sue me because I use the name "windows"?
No, not every system with a GUI has Windows. Every system with a GUI has windows.
See the difference?
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Seriously, this is just a countermeasure. As we have seen in the past, if MS decided to launch the product with that name, guys like Adam can take them to court and domain damages that are exponentially higher than the total value of his entire company. MS just got smart and started playing the game. If you don't like it, hate the game.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
You mean, wanting to use a name for a product, and asserting trademark infringement when someone else is already using that name are mutually exclusive?
What's there to be "shocked" at here?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Lost opportunity.
Much in the same way Benny, the prison inmate, takes a bitch?
Yes, dammit.
The US legal system isn't perfectly fair by any stretch of the imagination, but there have been plenty of cases of some nobody with no money to spend on the case, with some mediocre lawyer, getting millions of dollars from giant corporations, who spent millions on the best defense money can buy.
A room full of lawyers doesn't help if you are clearly in the wrong, and the other side is hell-bent on seeing the trial go through. However, the threat alone is good enough to stop most people from even trying, which is sad.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
More likely it went this way:
* He used name including the ( common ) word Windows.
* Microsoft decided to use the name "Windows Defender"
* Microsoft noticed the name was already used by this guy
* Microsoft decided to see if they could chase him off
* He relented and gave up the name
emt 377 emt 4
See: The Simpsons (February 15, 1998) (Season 9, Episode 5F11)
- Bill Gates comes to "buy" Homer Simpson's Internet company CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet.
for further details
He didn't need to "sign away" any rights. He had no rights in the first place. Microsoft has a trademark on Windows in almost every country in the world. When you own a trademark you own the rights to use the name in your product names. Nobody except Microsoft can name a product Windows FOO (where FOO is absolutely ANYTHING). This guy, if he had wanted to, would have been absolutely free to use the Windows trademark referentially - as in "Defender for Windows." This is no different than if someone wanted to use any other trademark. Should I be allowed to design a music player product and call it "Sony MP3 Player?" No, because Sony Corp owns the the trademark to word "Sony." This is a total non-issue. This guy had absolutely no rights in the first place. To top if off, Microsoft would have been operating recklessly if they DIDN'T stop the guy form using the Windows Defender name, even if they didn't want to use the same name for their own product. Move along.
I bet he feels like an idiot for not getting cash from the deal.
Maybe before you start making fun of a nation for military cowardice, you should keep in mind that they already had a longer and more prestigious military history than the US has currently long before those ineffective Canadians were burning down your White House.
I mean, I'm just sayin'.
are a total joke.
Come on.
'Windows', 'Money', 'Word', 'Project', 'DOS (Disk Operating System)', 'Digital Image', 'Publisher', 'Business Accounting'
Come on, are ANY of those terms NOT generic?
Not to mention that in the Lindows case, the U.S. case (not Australia, or Europe, or wherever), the Judge specifically told the Jury they were _only_ allowed to consider usage before the release of MS Windows in determining whether or not the term 'Windows' was generic.
Given that it could refer to X-Windows, or Windows on my House, or Windows on my Car, or Windows in Physics, I cannot imagine the term as non-generic.
Now, the phrase, "Microsoft Windows", this might be a different story. But in any court case that played out to the bitter end, I imagine that MS would be forced to disclaim any ownership of the term 'Windows' as it applies by itself.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
In school, you get sent to the office for this sort of thing.
Of course, the guy was a fool to use the word "Windows" in his product name, since sooner or later Bill would try to fuck him over for doing so.
The company that makes Windex had better watch out. Bill may want that name to brand his Ajax Web products.
Hmmm, I wonder if the Ajax (cleanser) people can sue over trademark infringement.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Bashing the French is so passé. Nowadays, you just set them on fire...
This didn't get nearly as much commentary yesterday. It's good it made it to the front page, though.
'Rommel' is a dutch (Belgium's most spoken language) word for junk, so this means Microsoft's main problem with their defenses is win32 junk?
Starting with Vista, Microsoft will give Vista away free.
Then will charge $229.00 for Microsoft Defender to secure it.
$Profit$
Gunillablue
Once you come to the realisation that all larger corporations (Microsoft, Sony, Boeing etc.) are sociopaths this sort of behaviour no longer comes as a surprise. There is no sense of fair play, no altruism, no community spirit, no ethics that are not overridden by the almighty {insert favourite currency here} ... nothing.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
...the French-Canadians stood up to and successfully fought off the U.S. in the War of 1812. Of course, they were doing so after having been conquered by the British in the Seven Years War 40 years or so earlier.
My other first post is car post.
Windows is inherently vulnerable. I consider that a fact.
I've recently had fully patched and up to date Windows systems (with an anti-virus package and firewall) get spyware loaded on them via Active X. Granted, spyware is not a virus or a worm, but it's a security breach.
In the past, I've had fully patched and up to date Windows systems (with an anti-virus package and firewall) get a virus before the my anti-virus vendor had a signature for the virus.
To say that it only happens to clueless people with unpatched machines is a lie. And no Microsoft fanboy is gonna change that.
Fenestration is a perfectly valid word, for windows, doors, etc.
I suggest that all Open software projects stop using the term 'Window' to describe areas in which applications display controls and content, and instead use the neutral term 'Fenestration'
Such as:
"X Window System" becomes "X Fenestration System"
"Window Manager" (WM) becomes "Fenestration Manager" (FM)
"TCP Window Size" becomes "TCP Fenestration Size"
"Rear Window" (Alfred Hitchcock) becomes "Rear Fenestration"
"Launch Window" (NASA) becomes "Launch Fenestration"
"Stained Glass Window" (Churches) becomes "Stained Glass Fenestration"
'wavelengths which pass through the atmosphere are said to "pass through a window."' (astronomy) becomes 'wavelengths which pass through the atmosphere are said to "pass through a Fenestration."'
Yes, but wouldn't they have broken the law by claiming rights to a name which they don't - in fact - have rights to. If the original "Windows Defender" was not, in fact, illegal, then by claiming ownership of the name would not MS have broken the law?
In Australia MS owns a registered trademark on the word "Windows", in the US they own the trademark "Microsoft Windows". ie: In this particular case Aussie law was on Microsoft's side.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He with the deepest pockets (most lawyers)wins!!
OK, I'm convinced. Why don't you just skip the supporting reasoning and save us both a few minutes next time?
What were you doing allowing ActiveX controls from untrusted sources to run in the first place? You had several chances to prevent that, and if you missed them all, you're unqualified to comment in this discussion.
Wow, that's amazing! A virus just installed itself on your system, with no help from you? What did you do, click where it said "pamelasbreasts.jpg.vbs" in the e-mail from "Your Friend"? Assuming we're talking about a recent and fully patched version of Windows, it's hard to see how else a virus could have found its way onto your system if you had even a basic firewall configured properly. Again, if you can't do that, you're unqualified to be in this discussion. (Of course, you could genuinely have been the victim of a new security flaw in an application you used, but that could happen on any platform with a connection to the outside world.)
It might not be 100% true; I can't possible know, and neither can you. However, it is 100% true among the examples I've seen in recent years.
If that makes you think I'm a Microsoft fanboy, that's really too bad. It's just an objective assessment of my own experience. As you can see from my numerous past posts about Microsoft, I'm just as happy to criticise them when they get something wrong, but in this case, I happen to think that a lot of the criticism they get is unfounded.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And during that war, they burned down the Whitehouse :)
:) They have a sense of humour!
That's why we keep them around
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Compare it to this from the same article:
If I interpret this correctly, then according to Microsoft's own representatives, Adam Lyttle would have been entitled to use the name "Windows Defender" because the combination of "Windows" and "Defender" would avoid confusion.
I think the lesson here is clear. If you get a legal-looking letter from some large corporation, speak to a lawyer, if possible one that specialises in the area of law in question.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
UPS, of the brown vans, has a service mark on "Brown." While sitting on an airline, a friend and I were talking about how ridiculous a copyright on silence was. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/ms g41561.html
At that point, I flipped the magazine page in my lap and saw a UPS ad. At the bottom it showed " Brown(SM) ". Yikes!
Maggot Defender.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
As was pointed out above, Microsoft owns a registered trademark on "Windows" in Australia. They fall under the following TM numbers (possibly there are others too):
576996 Class 9 (Computer systems software, computer systems software and programmers reference and users manuals sold as a unit) 576997 Class 16 (Books; computer documentation, namely, reference books, user and instructional manuals, data sheets, reference cards and templates; periodical and newsletters; all the foregoing featuring information about computer hardware and software and information about computer operating systems and environments) 837785 Classes 35, 41, 42 (35: Mail order and on-line distribution services in the fields of computer systems software and publications on computer system software; on-line retail store distributing computer systems software and publications on computer systems software; licensing computer systems software; arranging and conducting trade shows featuring information about computer systems software; 41: Providing information over computer networks and global communication networks in the fields of entertainment, music and interactive games; education services, namely on-line tutorials in the field of computers and computer software; publishing an on-line magazine in the field of computer systems software; 42: Computer services, namely providing technical support, information and consultation services in the field of computer systems software, all offered via computer networks and global communications networks; computer systems software testing services; providing computer systems software updates via computer networks and global communications networks; computerised search and retrieval services based on computer systems software)For more information, please visit the IP Australia trademarks area or do a search in the trademarks database.
"But everyone should know everything." -markab
Does "Windows Defender" infringe on "Microsoft Windows"... sounds like something for a court to decide. There's no "lie" in that... you're the liar liar pants on fire (and not the sharpest knife in the drawer either).
Complaining about US war crimes vs. Japan in WWII?
Now Google both "Shiro Ishii" and "Unit 731".
- AC
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll go ahead and post this rant anyway. (This is still /. right? Good, I can rant.) First of all, I must say I feel sorry for this guy, getting so thoroughly screwed by MS, if it happened like he said it did.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick to death of all these companies bickering over their trademark names. And it's every company in every type of business, it seems. They're always quivering in terror that someone is using their name. The only excuse they have is that it might generate confusion among their custoemrs. Bullshit. All it takes to prevent this confusion is a clear disclaimer that they are not afiliated with the company, as long as said disclaimer isn't buried in fine print. But nooooooo. They file lawsuits and waste everybody's time with this crap. All to protect us customers from confusion, based on the premise that we all have an average IQ of 10.
Now I'm going desecrate what is sacred to many geeks here. The Linux world is just as bad about trademark names as Microsoft! It's true. Debian won't let another distro use their name. Debian Pure is now Genie OS, even though all it seems to be is an alternate installer; otherwise it is Debian. Most laughably, the guy who developed Squiggle OS changed it to Squiggle from Freespire after a talk with people at Linspire, and the ink on their settlement with MS barely dry over the name Lindows. And I'm sure we all remember how RH was about their name before they put out Fedora; you could sell RH the regular distro, under the terms of the GPL, but you couldn't even list what you were selling as the distro it was. All we need is something like this:
Such & Such (product)
Independent & Not Associated with Such & Such, Inc.
So MS may be guilty yet again for screwing somebody over again. No surprise. They really need to get it through their heads that they can't own words they didn't invent (although the same could be said for Tolkien's estate and the word "hobbit" - no, he didnt' make that up). But every company in the world is apparently just as paranoid over the use of their name or anything even similar to their name. Soon enough you'll have to wait twenty days or longer to finsih the research on whether or not the name of your new company is even slightly similar to the name of another company. This does not earn my respect, in fact, I'm disgusted with the lot of them. It's very easy to think of them as bullies, protecting their names with lawyerly force against people who can't afford to fight back when they weren't really trying to deceive anyone to begin with. If they were trying to deceive people, I could understand it, but how often does someone who is doing that get sued or threatened by the company whose name they're using under false pretenses, in comparison to cases like this? 1 in 20? 1 in 100? That's likely not even in the ballpark.
There. Rant over. As you might have guessed, this is something that has been bugging me for a while. Thanks for reading.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Actually we Canadians burned down the American blue house. It was then rebuilt as the whitehouse.
Microsoft is behaving unethically by misleading people and using its power as a large company to get what it wants.. and this is news? How?!?
When MS asks you to give up a name, give up and leak the name all over the place.
Imagine when somebody predicted the correct name of a MS product months before any announcement.
What he probably should have done is agree that Microsoft has rights to the name EXCEPT in the context of software that protexts a user's Windows system from threats (or: "except for products with the same or similar functionality of his product". A good lawyer is required to choose the correct wording). A good contract would have a paragraph stating that the agreement becomes void in this case. Anyway, he should certainly have put a condition that the software he already created can keep its name. Now he might face a requirement from microsoft to rename it, or remove all references to it. At least, if he doesn't intend to work on it anymore, he needs protection from having to rename it retroactively (or risking having to act to stop its distribution under the original name by a third party if it was released with a license that allows redistribution).
MicroSoft had no rights in the name: what they market as "Windows" is a multi-purpose platform, and they do it with the intention that third parties would create products based on that platform. That alone means that htey intend that people make product whose name assert that they are "doing something related to Windows(R). An additional fact is that there are plenty of pruducts of this nature and MS does not go after them for including the name Windows(R) in the product's name.
The "poor guy" that lost the name of his product probably made the right decision because this was a closed chapter in his history: he didn't want to work on this project anymore. But from MS point of view, I think that they sould have offered something of value, even if he didn't ask for it. The cost in public image for them is probably higher than covering the Guy's expenses during Graduate school or something similar.
If you would get out of your mother's basement and into the corportate world you might understand why what you said is BS.
.vbs file because I've configured that file type to open with NotePad. A fully patched version of Windows is no defense against that virus.
Your comments have nothing to do with having a fully patched and up to date Windows systems (with an anti-virus package and firewall).
To prevent untrusted ActiveX controls from running requires non-default browser settings. And the settings are not lockable.
To prevent a virus from "pamelasbreasts.jpg.vbs" requires non-default file type settings. Which are also not lockable. No user of mine will get a virus from a
Yes, I have been a victim of a security flaw in an application. That application is Outlook. The security flaw is the preview pane. Why doesn't the Microsoft OS have code that says "Hmmm, why is this process, spawned from an email application, trying to muck with the registry...."
In summary: Windows is inherently vulnerable.
A fully patched and up to date Windows systems (with an anti-virus package and firewall) is not enough to secure a system.
And I still think that you're a Microsoft fanboy.
So set them up, and trust that any user competent enough to change them back knows not to run the offending control. You're looking for a technological solution to sociological problem, and despite the wishful thinking of many sysadmins, Edward's Law is pretty clearly winning right now.
Ditto.
So use a better e-mail client. There must be at least 20-30 commonly available ones for Windows that you could use instead. The fact that you choose to run dubious software without doing your homework isn't a flaw in Windows, it's a flaw with your choice of software.
Perhaps you could give us an example where another OS undermines the requests of another piece of software to access generic system data? If I run $MAIL_CLIENT on Linux, receive a mail with an executable attachment, and run that attachment, and the executable then forwards my entire e-mail archive to everyone in my address book, is that Linux's problem?
I didn't say it was. Having a clue how computers work and doing a little basic homework before connecting expensive equipment to external sources is kinda fundamental too. Until you realise that, your systems will be vulnerable no matter what OS they run.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So set them up, and trust that any user competent enough to change them back knows not to run the offending control.
A single click on "Default Level" is all it takes to wipe out secure browser settings. User competence has nothing to do with it. The MS browser is insecure by default. And an "offending control" is not a easy determination (until it's too late). Many innocent looking web sites are sponsored by adware vendors.
So use a better e-mail client...
Refer to my comment on entering the corporate world.
Perhaps you could give us an example where another OS undermines the requests of another piece of software to access generic system data?
Most OS's do not allow generic system data to be altered by a process spawned by a user account. Even without Admin rights, the MS OS gives far too much access to the registry.
Isn't it considered extortion to threaten to sue someone?
Especially considering that they did not in fact have a trademark on the word "Windows"?
I am not a lawyer, but I am taking a class in contract law right now. (Community college, no big deal, just the basics but still.) Some of the things that can invalidate a contract is Duress and Adhesion.
Now this took place in Australia, so it is possible the laws regarding this are different, but this is pretty basic stuff.
I think that Adam Lyttle may have a decent chance of having this contract void.
Which would make it ironic considering....
You lose your rights to a trademark if you do not continue using it and/or you do not defend it.
So if Microsoft had just gone ahead and used the name they might have gotten away with it. But now they have not only brought this to Mr. Lyttle's attention, but pissed him off as well.
It might be worth it to him to challenge this.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
I am sick and tired of that French bashing because they surrendered to the Germans in WW2. The United States would not exists if the French (Remember Lafayette ?) wouldn't have supported them against the british in the American War of independance. Take that for gratitude...
The same thing happened to myself as well. I received emails from attorney's representing Microsoft for a toolset of utilities I had been building on/off (1-2 updates a year) since 1995-1996 named:
"APK Windows Tools 2000++"
It existed with that name for a GOOD 3-5 year stretch with no hassles from MS coming my way, until around the year 2001-2002 (that's when they got a 5-5 star rating over @ ZDNet & CNET downloads.com websites family), iirc.
Then, that is when I received that email & called the contact number on it to verify it being fact.
I did, the firm who wrote me was legit, & they advised me rename it to:
"APK System Tools for Windows 2002++"
(With the stipulation/request from their end to emphasize the 'for Windows' part of the new name)
I avoided any hassles as I am not an attorney in patent law etc. & realize I do NOT have the finances to go @ it with Microsoft in a court of law. They would just "lean" on me until I caved in I assumed & it's not worth that.
Yes, it was a pain to recompile all the string resources in 20 of 33 or so applications in it, but it's done now (for 2-3 years) with the new name on it.
MS went on a "binge" doing this a few years back & apparently are still at it.
If the material folks here are posting is accurate, then apparently, I did not have to change it!
However, what's done is done, no biggie.
The hassle of the changes thru all the titlebars, tooltips, etc./et all (as to any other resources such as 'about boxes' etc.) once done, was not that big of a deal to deal with anyways.
APK