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. "
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 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
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.
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
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.
You don't sign a contract until a lawyer has looked at it. Of course MS will give themselves the upper hand.. Silly Wabbit.
"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?
" ... I don't know - I'm not a lawyer. ... are words from the dictionary trademarkable? ..."
And even if you were, you'd need one.
Dictionary words can describe products. Some dictionary words are associated with well known products. And here's the part where even if you were a lawyer, you would want to hire another one:
You can trademark or trade-name dictionary words. That seems obvious.
What can you do with that? Here's where your lawyer will probably hire a small firm to assist him.
Sometimes nothing. Transmission? Right now, consumers associate the word transmission with transmissions. Seems pretty straightforward. Lots of companies have transmission in their names, the names of products, etc. Nobody's suing anyone else. How can this be? Isn't there one big, faceless, avaricious company that can sue all the little companies back into the stone age?
Well, we kind of answered our own question here. Because transmission isn't automatically associated with any one company or product (right now), anyone can use it, pretty much as they see fit.
Coke? Seems straightforward as well. Instruct your lawyer to fire those other lawyers, this one we can figure out ourselves. Or can we?
Coke is an industrial product; it's a specific byproduct of smelting metal. If you were in the business of dealing with this industrial product, you could probably name your company "American Coke" if you wanted. Now, it would be a good time to hire those lawyers again; but you might win. It's a bona fide name for you and what you do with what. The Coca-Cola company's lawyers are going to visit you, maybe. You might end up spending a lot of money defending your name, if they take it that far. But you might win. Or not. Who knows?
Coca-Cola's lawyers are going to have to prove that "American Coke" is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers with the soft drink "Coke", which they do have an intellectual property interest in. Sometimes people name things deliberately, and they intend to ride on the other product's coat tails. Usually, the courts take a dim view of that.
But sometimes it's a perfectly reasonable name for a company, perhaps a company in the coke business; and people who are in the business of knowing coke sometimes comes from a blast furnace instead of a 7-11 would not be in the least confused between American Coke and the Coca Cola Company and their respective products. American Coke would do well to listen to the huge law firm the smaller law firm hired by the lawyer, when they suggest they not take the founder's suggestion of a red-and-white corporate logo, and instead make it blue and black. Stuff like that helps sway the court in your favor.
"Windows" can be part of a company that actually makes, sells, fixes or otherwise deals with transparent stuff we use as building materials. Microsoft can do little about it; the "dictionary word" thing is partly at play here. But, if you're in the computer software business, now we have a potential confusion with your "Windows" and Microsoft's "Windows"; could consumers be confused that one was associated with the other? Probably, yes. Your lawyers will tell you if you won this one or not, but I'd settle, myself.
Note: I'm not going to argue any of this with anyone. It's just a hypothetical example. Get over it. We'd both end up needing lawyers to figure it out anyway.
Back on topic
The poor kid; MS played dirty pool here. Had his first instinct been to just renamed his product "Desktop Defender", he would probably be the one in position to sue MS since his product was there first and was in a similar market (broadly, computer software for MS Windows OS computers). As it was, they played a standard "Art of War" tactic on him by making him assume it was "Windows" they were in a huff about.
Microsoft didn't "deceive" anybody.
Whether they had a valid trademark infringement case or not is better left to lawyers. What Microsoft intended to do with the name has no bearing on whether or not this guy was infringing on a Microsoft trademark.
This guy could have covered his ass and consulted a lawyer before signing away his rights to the name. That he didn't isn't Microsoft's fault.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
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.
The problem is, the vast majority of Windows-based attacks exploit vulnerabilities for which a patch has been available for a long time but not installed. A fully-patched Windows system, running basic security software like an anti-virus package and firewall, is also not vulnerable to these worms and viruses we keep hearing about. My home PC runs Windows, has done for years, and yet has never (to my knowledge) had any sort of virus, worm, spyware or other crap on it. How did that happen, if Windows is so inherently vulnerable?
The answer, of course, is that I have a clue how to set up and use a computer securely. It doesn't really matter whether it's Windows, Linux, OS X or otherwise. Equally, someone who doesn't patch their system regularly (if only by following Microsoft's recommended practices and allowing auto-update to do it for you, for those not knowledgeable enough to handle it themselves) is going to get screwed whether they're using Windows, Linux, OS X, or whatever, because they'll be the people running the vulnerable Linux configuration you cited.
Windows isn't great, and yes it certainly does have some daft security practices, but it's hardly the automatic suicide bid that Microsoft bashers make it out to be, nor are other operating systems and their associated cultures immune (despite half the Linux fanboys around here apparently believing that because they don't run everything as root, they're immune to all attacks).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.