Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns The Linux Trademark?
An anonymous reader writes "In an addendum to the recent noises by Microsoft about Linux, InformationWeek blogger Alexander Wolfe has turned up an interesting list of who owns U.S. trademarks on the word "Linux." Yes, Linus Torvalds does indeed have the trademark as far as software is concerned. But Swiss company Rosch owns "Linux" for use with laundry detergents. Interestingly, both Pogo Linux and United Linux have abandoned their trademarks (Wolfe speculates that's because of Linus's lawyers). But Finite State Machines of New Mexico owns RTLinux and Linux Networx Inc. owns "Linux Supercomputing." You can also read the full list of all 204 Linux trademarks"
Much like the ideas behind F/Oss.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
... who will own Linux in the future:
1) Bill Gates and/or Microsoft
2) Steve Jobs and/or Apple
3) Rupert Murdock and/or MySpace
4) SCO (via litigation from Linus, Gates, Jobs or Murdock)
5) IBM (via litigation from SCO or cash from Linus)
6) Cowboy Neal (via high bid on eBay)
Does it really matter? This seems to be more of a discussion on trademarks rather than copyright/ownership issues. This is about the name "Linux", rather than what Linux actually IS. Even if the Linux trademark WAS what Microsoft was having disputes with (which it's not), it'd just be a "rose by any other name" scenario. Kinda like the way Gaim just changed its name to Pidgin. It's still Gaim, and it doesnt seem to me that people have had much trouble accepting the name change.
Im not saying this is completely uninteresting. But I think it's a little strong to tie it to the "noise by Microsoft about Linux".
Not sure who owns the logo, but if I was a penguin and that was my portrait, I'd be fucking PISSED.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
There are many. many more -- this is only a list of Linux-based trademarks in the United States.
For instance, this list is the one for Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
OTOH, MS's defence might be that they *are* involved in the enema industry, since the public has been taking it up the ass from them for years...
No Bill Gates (TM) douche for similar reasons.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
A trademark isn't exclusive right to use a word (or symbol, or other "mark") in every context to represent just anything. Trademarks are justified only by their purpose: to identify a distinct product or service to people in its market. The entire test of a trademark's validity is whether it creates or resolves confusion in the market.
If someone (reasonable) sees a mark, do they think it represents the thing offered in trade, or do they think it represents a competitor?
Trademark law requires that mark registrants "vigorously defend from dilution" their mark: actively find others offering under their registered mark competing products, then instruct the competitor to stop using the mark fraudulently or without authorization. If the mark registrant doesn't "vigorously defend" their mark, the market can become confused, diluting the exclusive meaning of the mark, and the registrant can lose their registration, making it available to the competitor (who's then got the same responsibility, if they reregister it themself).
Reasonable people are expected to distinguish between a computer OS and a soap. The Trademark Office registers marks in specific industries (with a fee for each industry in which it's registered). But courts sometimes have difficult questions in defining distinctions, especially in new industries like software.
Trademark is probably the most reasonable "intellectual property" law in the US. Because it's defined in service of the consumer, to ensure the clear flow of info between the mark holder and the consumer.
--
make install -not war
Obligatory...
. jpg
http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/linux-detergent
And yes, it is a real photo!
I'll probably be modded down for this...
1. What does Xenix have to do with anything?
2. Xenix was not (to my knowledge) "written for the US Government". You're probably thinking of BSD.
3. Did you copy and paste part of that from Wikipedia? I swear, your line about Microsoft licensing is exactly the same.
4. Linux was not "based on" Minix. It was always its own kernel. (Which is obvious from its monolithic rather than microkernel design.) What it lacked was a userspace, which Minix had when Linus started. So users had make use of certain Minix programs and modules to make a usable system out of Linux.
5. Linus did not "find he had created a new kernel". (Again, you seem to be confusing BSD history in there.) He was reliant on some parts of Minix until the GNU tools became available to replace the userland with something a bit more available than Tanenbaum's research OS.
6. I'm not sure where you got the "freex" idea from. Linux was always called Linux. There is nothing in the historical usenet archives (which are still available) to suggest that Linux was considering any other name.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The same name can be trademarked by multiple companies as long as they don't have the same type of business.
Exmaple of similar trademarked companys:
Apple Records (the ones the Beatles owned)
Apple Computers (the one that Jobs owns)
Apple Vacations
Remember there was a big legal stink between Apple Records and Apple Computers when the former released a sound card in their computer. Apple Records said that meant they were getting into the music business and then latter with iTunes.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Linux because it was too egotistical. What was the name I reserved
for any eventual release? Freax. (Get it? Freaks with the requisite
X.) In fact, some of the early make files --the files that describe
how to compile the sources-- included the word "Freax" for about
half a year. But it really didn't matter. At that point I didn't need a
name for it because I wasn't releasing it to anybody.
And Ari Lemke, who insured that it made its way to the ftp
site, hated the name Freax. He preferred the other working name I
admit that I didn't put up much of a fight. But it was his doing. So
I can honestly say I wasn't egotistical, or half-honestly say I wasn't
egotistical. But I thought okay, that's a good name, and I can
always blame somebody else for it, which I'm doing now.
-- Linus Torvalds p84 and p88 "Just for fun"
In the United States, there's something called the Trademark Anti-dilution Act, which is sort of a winner-take-all rule for trademarks. It says that if you have a "famous" mark, you can shut down competing users regardles of whether or not they are in the same field. So it's not always true that a trademark is only valid within an industry.
The anti-dilution act is evil and should be repealed in its entirety, but that ain't gonna happen. It has been watered down somewhat by the courts.