Maybe so, but you're supposed to have at least some evidence (hoping to find more, maybe) before filing a lawsuit. As of right now (as if we didn't know) they have absolutely no case and pretty much admitted that much.
I liked you letter up to the point where you refered him to the slashdot discussion. Don't get me wrong - I like slashdot very much - but to direct such an individual to this forum is probably not a good idea: slashdot discussion are often anything but rational.
But what you failed to answer in your "view" is the bit about the fact that the 3 years service included was printed on the box AND inside on a piece of paper - there simply is no arguing about that fact. It's not like the retailer mistakenly stuck a sticker on them or something. That's not a "loophole" - that was plainly what was advertised (and if you read the article, this "loophole" was confirmed by DNNA)
And no, I am sorry, most people would NOT know about the (not so) recent pricing change or what they should have expected to pay for this device. Most people don't have a clue about what components (harddrive, etc) cost.
That's an easy. All they have to say is that it was imcomplete. That's happened to me once, and of course, that was the one time I took a chance and sent it in without photocopying everything before sending it.
Dictionary.com has an entry for Google as a proper noun (talking about Google the search engine of course). Webster doesn't. You're probably thinking about Googol.
I don't hate Microsoft (nor do I particularly like Linux), and the point I was going after in my original post is that this is only a MS vs Linux if you make it, which is what YOU (and Robertson) are doing, not me. Regardless of the motivations of Robertson, he has a case.
Some people actually care about issues such the DMCA, silly patents, ridiculous trademarks, etc. on their merit.
That's perhaps why I put the word "supposedly" twice in the same sentence (although I certainly don't think it's as bad as you hinted). However, I still think that this decision/opinion is a pretty clear indication (the outcome being uncertain) that this case is not as clear cut in terms of the MS owning of a valid trademark as you seem to think. if it was even half as certain as you're thinking MS would have won the injunction and we would not hear about Lindows anymore.
I remember reading about the arguments put forth at the time and (although IANAL) I found them convincing. A judge (who is a lawyer) did too. It's hard to ignore, and I don't think MS will.
I understand that once a jury is involved it's basically impossible to predict the outcome. But the fact that a judge (who is presumably trained at the law, and presumably impartial) found the argument and testimonies as convincing as he did, I think, is pretty significant validation (moral, if not legal). Let me put it this way, MS did not get even close to winning an injunction in the US.
Computer may not have been mainstream before 1983, but for those that had a computer before 1983 the word "windows" already had a meaning. That's really all that has to be shown. I have no idea how hard it would be to prove in a court of law (I guess we'll find out) but that doesn't really negates the merit of the argument...
It's not that hard to make up a trademark that does roll off the tongue and does not exist in the dictionary (yet): Google, Accenture, Verizon, Netscape, etc etc. But if you're unable to do that, that's fine you can combine a dictionary word with something else: PalmOS, PocketPC, T-Mobile - even MS-Windows is OK.
But like another poster did a must better job at explaining than me, "Windows" is an especially bad offender considering that the word has a meaning in the computer industry, and that meaning predates MS-Windows. In fact, that has been the basis of Lindows' defense in the US. That defense has been successful so far in the various injunction hearings they've had on the case.
You're still missing the point. What I am saying is that I am questioning any trademark that MS may or may not have in the US for the word "Windows" on the basis that it's a generic term (both in "real life" and in computer talk). The fact that the trademark owner is Microsoft is irrelevant - this should not be a MS vs Linux holy war (eventhough Robertson would like it to make it one).
You shouldn't be able to trademark words in the dictionary (which is why companies like Google for example object when words like "Googling" make appearances in dictionaries as it did recently).
Now as someone pointed out in another post, in other countries (where the word "windows" is not in that language's vocabulary) I think MS is in the right.
I doubt anyone would care about something called Winix, but you're missing the point anyway. Believe it or not (and regarless of what Robertson claims) this is not really a Linux vs Microsoft fight.
The problem with "Windows" as a trademark is that it's a generic term. Microsoft should not have an exclusive rights to the word "Windows". Even in software "Windows" is a generic term used in every graphical operating system. That was the basis of the (so far successful) defense in the US.
Now, if Robertson was trying to sell something named "MSLindows", then I think Microsoft would have a claim that I would understand/defend/support.
If it's illegal under the US constitution then it's illegal period. States don't get to pick and choose which parts of the US constitution they like and don't like.
Every Toyota has a GPS unit? Do you have any reference for that information? I am reasonably sure you are incorrect and that you are the one spreading FUD.
It's worth noting that aside from the only 5 CAL your Windows xxxx Server license comes with, it also doesn't come with support (at least not with a SLA). That's extra, and not cheap. The $799/year from RH is the support contract, the software is free. Yes, I understand it might appear to be a bit of a technicality.
To answer your question, legally speaking, nobody. But then again, legally speaking, if you read your MS EULA you'll notice that they legally have no responsibility whatsoever to do anything, and have no responsibility if anything bad happens to you as a result of using their products. Of course, I suppose you could sue MS in case of problems (good luck with that).
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy that the "regular" RHL went away, I will miss it, and I will change to another Linux distributor, both at home and at work. I was just addressing the technicality. RHEL is still GPL, and is therefore still free. The fact that this project exists illustrate the point.
But again, I was originally just addressing your rant about RHN and the free entitlement.
I was talking about the RedHat Linux (soon to be defunct) product line, which it seems is what you were complaining about (the fact that changing your one free entitlement around was sooo tiring).
However, it still hold true for the RHEL. They just don't make ISOs available to you. They'll send you a CD with your first year subscription. If you get a copy of the CD from someone else, good for you. You can install and use it and won't be breaking any laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe so, but you're supposed to have at least some evidence (hoping to find more, maybe) before filing a lawsuit. As of right now (as if we didn't know) they have absolutely no case and pretty much admitted that much.
J.R.R. Tolkien was not an American, and neither is his estate. This is not corporate america.
I liked you letter up to the point where you refered him to the slashdot discussion. Don't get me wrong - I like slashdot very much - but to direct such an individual to this forum is probably not a good idea: slashdot discussion are often anything but rational.
But what you failed to answer in your "view" is the bit about the fact that the 3 years service included was printed on the box AND inside on a piece of paper - there simply is no arguing about that fact. It's not like the retailer mistakenly stuck a sticker on them or something. That's not a "loophole" - that was plainly what was advertised (and if you read the article, this "loophole" was confirmed by DNNA)
And no, I am sorry, most people would NOT know about the (not so) recent pricing change or what they should have expected to pay for this device. Most people don't have a clue about what components (harddrive, etc) cost.
That's an easy. All they have to say is that it was imcomplete. That's happened to me once, and of course, that was the one time I took a chance and sent it in without photocopying everything before sending it.
If you read your own link you would know that the mathematical term is "Googol".
Google is not a word in any dictionary.
Dictionary.com has an entry for Google as a proper noun (talking about Google the search engine of course). Webster doesn't. You're probably thinking about Googol.
I don't hate Microsoft (nor do I particularly like Linux), and the point I was going after in my original post is that this is only a MS vs Linux if you make it, which is what YOU (and Robertson) are doing, not me. Regardless of the motivations of Robertson, he has a case.
Some people actually care about issues such the DMCA, silly patents, ridiculous trademarks, etc. on their merit.
That's perhaps why I put the word "supposedly" twice in the same sentence (although I certainly don't think it's as bad as you hinted). However, I still think that this decision/opinion is a pretty clear indication (the outcome being uncertain) that this case is not as clear cut in terms of the MS owning of a valid trademark as you seem to think. if it was even half as certain as you're thinking MS would have won the injunction and we would not hear about Lindows anymore.
I remember reading about the arguments put forth at the time and (although IANAL) I found them convincing. A judge (who is a lawyer) did too. It's hard to ignore, and I don't think MS will.
No, that's a "googol".
I understand that once a jury is involved it's basically impossible to predict the outcome. But the fact that a judge (who is presumably trained at the law, and presumably impartial) found the argument and testimonies as convincing as he did, I think, is pretty significant validation (moral, if not legal). Let me put it this way, MS did not get even close to winning an injunction in the US.
Computer may not have been mainstream before 1983, but for those that had a computer before 1983 the word "windows" already had a meaning. That's really all that has to be shown. I have no idea how hard it would be to prove in a court of law (I guess we'll find out) but that doesn't really negates the merit of the argument...
It's not that hard to make up a trademark that does roll off the tongue and does not exist in the dictionary (yet): Google, Accenture, Verizon, Netscape, etc etc. But if you're unable to do that, that's fine you can combine a dictionary word with something else: PalmOS, PocketPC, T-Mobile - even MS-Windows is OK.
But like another poster did a must better job at explaining than me, "Windows" is an especially bad offender considering that the word has a meaning in the computer industry, and that meaning predates MS-Windows. In fact, that has been the basis of Lindows' defense in the US. That defense has been successful so far in the various injunction hearings they've had on the case.
You're still missing the point. What I am saying is that I am questioning any trademark that MS may or may not have in the US for the word "Windows" on the basis that it's a generic term (both in "real life" and in computer talk). The fact that the trademark owner is Microsoft is irrelevant - this should not be a MS vs Linux holy war (eventhough Robertson would like it to make it one).
You shouldn't be able to trademark words in the dictionary (which is why companies like Google for example object when words like "Googling" make appearances in dictionaries as it did recently).
Now as someone pointed out in another post, in other countries (where the word "windows" is not in that language's vocabulary) I think MS is in the right.
As far as I know it is not (my finnish and swedish is a bit rusty), and that's probably why MS won over there.
I doubt anyone would care about something called Winix, but you're missing the point anyway. Believe it or not (and regarless of what Robertson claims) this is not really a Linux vs Microsoft fight.
The problem with "Windows" as a trademark is that it's a generic term. Microsoft should not have an exclusive rights to the word "Windows". Even in software "Windows" is a generic term used in every graphical operating system. That was the basis of the (so far successful) defense in the US.
Now, if Robertson was trying to sell something named "MSLindows", then I think Microsoft would have a claim that I would understand/defend/support.
Oh the good old "republic" is not a "democracy" post. I'll bite.
Let's look up the dictionary.com definition for "democracy"
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
yep. republic is a democracy.
If it's illegal under the US constitution then it's illegal period. States don't get to pick and choose which parts of the US constitution they like and don't like.
Every Toyota has a GPS unit? Do you have any reference for that information? I am reasonably sure you are incorrect and that you are the one spreading FUD.
You're misunderstanding him.
Darl (not Linus) said that "Copyright law should be interpreted to promote financial gain" - which everybody pretty knows to be false.
Linus is saying that - even by McBride's standard - the GPL is fine, because of the definition of financial is broader than McBride thinks.
Because Caldera is SCO. Caldera changed their name to SCO. Slashdot apparently never changed it in their preference, they probably should.
Not to nitpick, but I believe none of the music was done in NZ. All in London. Composer is also not from NZ.
Other than you're essentially right. Since I consider music to be a major part of a movie, I thought I'd point it out.
Also you can get RHEL ES for $349 if you don't need the phone and web support. You get the updates and the RHN subscription.
I know, it's more than free. But I thought I'd set you straight anyway.
It's worth noting that aside from the only 5 CAL your Windows xxxx Server license comes with, it also doesn't come with support (at least not with a SLA). That's extra, and not cheap. The $799/year from RH is the support contract, the software is free. Yes, I understand it might appear to be a bit of a technicality.
To answer your question, legally speaking, nobody. But then again, legally speaking, if you read your MS EULA you'll notice that they legally have no responsibility whatsoever to do anything, and have no responsibility if anything bad happens to you as a result of using their products. Of course, I suppose you could sue MS in case of problems (good luck with that).
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy that the "regular" RHL went away, I will miss it, and I will change to another Linux distributor, both at home and at work. I was just addressing the technicality. RHEL is still GPL, and is therefore still free. The fact that this project exists illustrate the point.
But again, I was originally just addressing your rant about RHN and the free entitlement.
I was talking about the RedHat Linux (soon to be defunct) product line, which it seems is what you were complaining about (the fact that changing your one free entitlement around was sooo tiring).
However, it still hold true for the RHEL. They just don't make ISOs available to you. They'll send you a CD with your first year subscription. If you get a copy of the CD from someone else, good for you. You can install and use it and won't be breaking any laws.