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
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
Well, what rubs me the wrong way is that "Windows" is trademarked. Does Coke have the trademark on "One" or on "Coke One"? (I honestly don't know). I don't know about you, but when I think Windows, I think of those big glass things in the wall.
What if he had made that blast retardant stuff for glass windows. The stuff that keeps the windows from shattering in an explosion. Would that still have left him needing to give up the name? Now, if he had called it Microsoft Windows Defender that'd be another story.
In the end, its probably still not worth the legal fees.
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.
Before you get your panties in a bunch, you need to realize a couple things.
1) Microsoft has a trademark on "Microsoft Windows" and this mark is used in connection with computer software.
2) A computer software developer using the name "Windows Defender" voluntarily handed over the name to Microsoft.
So apparantly Microsoft was able to convince the guy that his case for using "Windows Defender" was weak, and they got him to sign it over.
"Windows Defender" could be argued to generate confusion in the market because when it comes to the word "Windows" with respect to computer software, most of the market (ie. John Q Citizen) is going to assume that it is a Microsoft product. This is the purpose of a trademark.
A vendor who makes a "Windows Defender" that is a laminate to put on your windows to stormproof them, would face absolutely _no_threat_ whatsoever from Microsoft. This is because they are using "Windows" outside of the computer software market. Any attorney worth their retainer would get this thrown out extremely quickly.
This is a non-issue.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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.