Bank robbers are not caught using serial numbers. They are convicted with serial numbers. When I was a teller (many years ago now so it may have changed) they used to have a stack of 100's that we kept logged in our drawer. If we were robbed the log of numbers went to the cops to aid in conviction. There are far too many places to pass off bills for it to be an effective way to actually catch anybody.
That may or may not be true but you bring up a good point. Saddam had to stay in Iraq to lead his people. If he ran away then he would have lost control and respect and probably in his mind honor. Osama has no home country and can move throughout the Muslim world and be helped and hidden.
There is also a strong feeling among many Muslims that Saddam brought undo focus on the Muslim world even back early in his regime. They were just powerless to do anything about it. While they would never want the US in there instead they, for the most part, would never protect him either.
I put a summary of my ideas in another thread here. I am just trying to consolidate threads so I don't repeat myself (plus I put a good amount research into instead of doing work so I hope somebody will read it).
Spend half an hour doing research and typing things up and then forget to close a freaking tag. Typical. Of course, I could use the excuse that I really should be doing work now.
This isn't specific to you but I am going to make one more post to clear up all of my threads and you happen to be the latest one. Here is my complete analysis:
Trademarks server two purposes - to protect a company's "Brand Image" and to protect customers from confusing product selection.
First, I want to state that it is not at issue whether a company can use a dictionary word for a trademark. That is allowable under the law and you are not going to reverse that anytime soon. There are thousands of companies that use common terms as their name and I have listed out many in other posts. I am not debating the theoretical "rightness" of this.
In 1983 when Microsoft announced Windows 1.0 it appears (but is difficult to prove legally) that a window represented an area of information with a graphical interface*.
The patent that I could find (74090419) that related specifically to the OS was dated August 20, 1990. There are others but that is the one at issue. The question is whether Microsoft should be allowed to trademark a term that was supposedly industry standard at the time.
Title 15 Section 1052 (e) states that no trademark shall be issue " when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them." That is the issue here. Is Windows a description of what an operating system is? It would at least seem that it is part of an operatin g system.
Why did the lawyers not bring that up? Why did the judge say that Microsoft took a risk by trademarking the term? Well he is right. They did take a risk but it paid off. The trademark was issued and based on what I said above it is valid. Notice that the judge never said that Microsoft's trademark was not valid. He only said that Lindows is taking the same risk that Microsoft did. By preventing an injunction he did not rule against Microsoft trademark but allowed Lindows to continue using the name until the case went to trial in March of next year.
Having established that I think Microsoft will keep its trademark - what will happen in this case. This gets back to the two purposes of trademarks. Is the name so similar as to be deceptive to potential buyers? On this site it is easy for everybody to say no but having experienced first hand the average user I can tell you that I am not sure. I can't tell you how many times I have asked people what version of Office they have and they say 98. Now Office 98 did exist but only for the Mac. They confused Office with Windows and those two terms aren't even similar. If I am an average person going into a store and seeing a computer that is cheap and quickly glancing at what it has would I catch the distinction of Windows vs Lindows? Would I know to look for the distinctive Window symbol?
This is a tough case. It is hard for me to say because I know the difference. I would never confused the two but when I can see someone like my mother buying her first computer and not really knowing even what Windows is saying to herself "Was it Windows or Lindows?" and then asking a 16 yr old snotty clerk who wouldn't know the difference. The good thing is that it is up to 1 jury of average people who will get to hear all of
a) - Did you even look - Apple has several trademarks on just the word Apple - 74660120, 74527910, 73201697, and 73120444.
b) I made no comment on Macintosh so I am not sure why you brought it up. Apple does have 3 trademarks on just the word Macintosh and several on Mac (including.Mac).
There are two links I recommend. TESS which allows you to search trademarks and Basic facts about trademarks. Trademarking telephone would be fine as long as it is for a specific purpose (and not selling telephones obviously since American Telephone & Telegraph would have a fit). You can also not sell travel or insurance since there is already a trademark for Telephone issued to a travel agency in Wisconsin (78201645) that also sells insurance (78201637).
I hope that clears thing up and I hope I don't sound condescending. Trademarks are very confusing and I am just trying to make it a little easier.
The first version of Windows was announced in 1983 (which obviously predates X-Windows). You say it was apparently a generic term but noone seems to be able to provide any evidence. I also hardly think that window describes an operating system. I see nothing here that reminds me of a window. To me a window is something I can look through. Why not call everything frames or boxes or pages. You have to ask yourself whether Windows really is all that generic or if after 20 years it just seems that way.
I should also point out that I provide a reference to a part of trademark law that says that after 5 years of operating under that name the name becomes distinctive. I don't think you are going to invalidate Windows as a trademark and the whole case (both in the US and Finland) will come down to whether it is confusing or not and that will be decided by a jury in the US in March.
Think about what you said. Judges are no more impartial than you or I. There is no such thing as an impartial human being - that is why decisions are called opinions. Also, based on my experience, judges are also hardly the most intelligent people in the world.
An injunction is hardly a win or loss for either side really because the lawyers don't pull out all the stops.
Whether MIcrosoft was right or wrong in 1983 really doesn't matter anymore. According to section 2.4.1 - Proof of distinctiveness
"...the mark is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made."
Since the trademark was issued in 1991 and Windows had existed since 1983 and since no one has seriously challenged Microsoft in that time it has now become distinctive. The judge used his opinion to block the injunction but his decision is his own. Either way, this case will not invalidate Microsofts trademark on Windows. Windows has become a distinctive mark of Microsoft.
I would also point out that Microsoft has lost the first couple of rounds of the Lindows case in the US but in March it will go to trial in front of a jury.
No one seems to be able to prove to me that the term is older than 1983 (when the first Windows came to be). Even if it was it was hardly "mainstream" because most Americans had no clue about computers at all at that point.
You picked a few names that sounded ok but that is hardly as easy as it sounds. And whether you like it or not that is the way trademarks work. Even if you can get congress to change it you still would have to grandfather in existing names.
First of all, do you have any support for that statement or did you make it up?
Second of all, what does Windows describe exactly? When I think of a window I think of an opening in a wall that I can look out not an operating system.
It is a good argument but it is pretty hard to prove one way or the other. Proving in a court of law that "windows" was common lingo before 1983 (when it was first used in commerce according to the trademark - even though the trademark wasn't awarded until 1990) is a difficult task. To say that anything before that was mainstream (when computers weren't even mainstream) is a tough argument to make.
Nope. You are wrong. Take a trip over to uspto.gov and use TESS to search on some common words. If you are lazy then perhaps you can tell me what is qualified about Apple, Ford, Oracle, Shell, Target, Dell, Fox, Discover (take your pick on this one), etc. Everyone of them has a copyright on just the name alone.
At least you qualified your statements with IANAL and AFAIK. Most people on slashdot spout things as gospel without everything looking it up.
You shouldn't be able to trademark words in the dictionary
Do you realize how many companies names are words in the dictionary? I don't have exact numbers but it is safe to assume that a vast majority of trademarks in the US are plain English words. Do you want every company to be named Xyrtwes? Trademarks are specific to a particular use. That is why one company can be Sun and make computers and another can make dishwashing detergent. I'll tell you what. Why don't you protest any company that has a dictionary word as part of their name or one of their products.
Sorry. You're wrong (and not insightful). It is quite within their ability to trademark a common word. After all - Ford is a common word. So is Apple and Dell. Microsoft's actual trademark is for "Windows" and is serial number 74090419 for: "computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers."
They also own about 9 other active trademarks all on the word Windows relating to other areas.
How is windows used to describe all similar products? I typically refer to them as operating systems. Most trademarks are common words. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they apply to a specific purpose.
Where is hoover in the dictionary? The only listings I got was for people. What accepted wisdow are you talking about? Accepted in your mind I would guess. I personally never refer to a vacuum cleaner as a hoover. Now band-aid is a better example but they still hold their trademark. There are dozens of others that have become common words. How silly it would be that by becoming popular you would lose (notice the spelling please) your trademark.
I can't go on. I am not sure why I even bothered in the first place.
Have you ever heard the phrase "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary"? As long as Lindows is still around they are loving this exposure. Do you think we would even talk about just another Linux distribution if it weren't for these lawsuits?
Looking at the earliest of the patents (1995) you can see that the granted patent was based on a modification to an earlier application file in 1993. Since the 1993 application is not an actual patent you can't see what it looked like but I am guessing that it is a continuation of an even earlier applications and so on back to the original invention. Someone mentioned they add "the internet" but there is a lot of stuff that has changed in that time - including filename length which is what it seems these patents all talk about.
The recent blackout really proved this point. Most cell phones couldn't make calls and cordless phones had no power. Only regular phones on landlines were able to make calls.
This reminds me of the signs telling you whether the Whitestone or Throgs Neck is the fastest route to the Bronx. I always choose the opposite because obviously everybody else is going to go the way it tells them. It is yet to fail me. GWB has something like that but the advice is to always take the local instead of the express. The express always gets backed up first because it has no exits and only two lanes.
Of course, now that I revealed my routes will be forever slashdotted.
If this becomes redundant please be considerate because it took me 3 tries to get it posted. Nice to see that slashdot has fixed this two week old problem.
While the lower courts can rule a law unconstitutional it only sticks when it gets to the Supreme Court. I'd be very interested in any case where a ruling hasn't been appealed to the Supreme Court. This is especially true of federal law.
Slashdot Mirror
why should they support a bloated, overpriced labor market?
But they aren't outsourcing the bloated overpriced jobs. They are outsourcing the barely over minimum wage jobs.
Bank robbers are not caught using serial numbers. They are convicted with serial numbers. When I was a teller (many years ago now so it may have changed) they used to have a stack of 100's that we kept logged in our drawer. If we were robbed the log of numbers went to the cops to aid in conviction. There are far too many places to pass off bills for it to be an effective way to actually catch anybody.
That may or may not be true but you bring up a good point. Saddam had to stay in Iraq to lead his people. If he ran away then he would have lost control and respect and probably in his mind honor. Osama has no home country and can move throughout the Muslim world and be helped and hidden.
There is also a strong feeling among many Muslims that Saddam brought undo focus on the Muslim world even back early in his regime. They were just powerless to do anything about it. While they would never want the US in there instead they, for the most part, would never protect him either.
I put a summary of my ideas in another thread here. I am just trying to consolidate threads so I don't repeat myself (plus I put a good amount research into instead of doing work so I hope somebody will read it).
Spend half an hour doing research and typing things up and then forget to close a freaking tag. Typical. Of course, I could use the excuse that I really should be doing work now.
This isn't specific to you but I am going to make one more post to clear up all of my threads and you happen to be the latest one. Here is my complete analysis:
Trademarks server two purposes - to protect a company's "Brand Image" and to protect customers from confusing product selection.
First, I want to state that it is not at issue whether a company can use a dictionary word for a trademark. That is allowable under the law and you are not going to reverse that anytime soon. There are thousands of companies that use common terms as their name and I have listed out many in other posts. I am not debating the theoretical "rightness" of this.
In 1983 when Microsoft announced Windows 1.0 it appears (but is difficult to prove legally) that a window represented an area of information with a graphical interface*.
The patent that I could find (74090419) that related specifically to the OS was dated August 20, 1990. There are others but that is the one at issue. The question is whether Microsoft should be allowed to trademark a term that was supposedly industry standard at the time.
Title 15 Section 1052 (e) states that no trademark shall be issue " when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them." That is the issue here. Is Windows a description of what an operating system is? It would at least seem that it is part of an operatin g system.
However, the law was amended to specify that a "...mark which would be unregistrable by reason of 2(e) of the Act" can be registered if it "is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made." In 1990 when the trademark was issued was the term Windows distinctive to Microsoft's product when referring to operating systems? I am not sure how anybody could argue against that. Based on that amendment it would seem that USPTO was right to grant Microsoft its trademark.
Why did the lawyers not bring that up? Why did the judge say that Microsoft took a risk by trademarking the term? Well he is right. They did take a risk but it paid off. The trademark was issued and based on what I said above it is valid. Notice that the judge never said that Microsoft's trademark was not valid. He only said that Lindows is taking the same risk that Microsoft did. By preventing an injunction he did not rule against Microsoft trademark but allowed Lindows to continue using the name until the case went to trial in March of next year.
Having established that I think Microsoft will keep its trademark - what will happen in this case. This gets back to the two purposes of trademarks. Is the name so similar as to be deceptive to potential buyers? On this site it is easy for everybody to say no but having experienced first hand the average user I can tell you that I am not sure. I can't tell you how many times I have asked people what version of Office they have and they say 98. Now Office 98 did exist but only for the Mac. They confused Office with Windows and those two terms aren't even similar. If I am an average person going into a store and seeing a computer that is cheap and quickly glancing at what it has would I catch the distinction of Windows vs Lindows? Would I know to look for the distinctive Window symbol?
This is a tough case. It is hard for me to say because I know the difference. I would never confused the two but when I can see someone like my mother buying her first computer and not really knowing even what Windows is saying to herself "Was it Windows or Lindows?" and then asking a 16 yr old snotty clerk who wouldn't know the difference. The good thing is that it is up to 1 jury of average people who will get to hear all of
Microsoft Windows actually predates X Window by one year (1983 vs 1984). Lisa was out before then but did anybody actually buy it?
It also is not just a matter of whether the industry remembers it being a common term but whether it can be proved in a court of law.
a) - Did you even look - Apple has several trademarks on just the word Apple - 74660120, 74527910, 73201697, and 73120444.
.Mac).
b) I made no comment on Macintosh so I am not sure why you brought it up. Apple does have 3 trademarks on just the word Macintosh and several on Mac (including
There are two links I recommend. TESS which allows you to search trademarks and Basic facts about trademarks. Trademarking telephone would be fine as long as it is for a specific purpose (and not selling telephones obviously since American Telephone & Telegraph would have a fit). You can also not sell travel or insurance since there is already a trademark for Telephone issued to a travel agency in Wisconsin (78201645) that also sells insurance (78201637).
I hope that clears thing up and I hope I don't sound condescending. Trademarks are very confusing and I am just trying to make it a little easier.
The first version of Windows was announced in 1983 (which obviously predates X-Windows). You say it was apparently a generic term but noone seems to be able to provide any evidence. I also hardly think that window describes an operating system. I see nothing here that reminds me of a window. To me a window is something I can look through. Why not call everything frames or boxes or pages. You have to ask yourself whether Windows really is all that generic or if after 20 years it just seems that way.
I should also point out that I provide a reference to a part of trademark law that says that after 5 years of operating under that name the name becomes distinctive. I don't think you are going to invalidate Windows as a trademark and the whole case (both in the US and Finland) will come down to whether it is confusing or not and that will be decided by a jury in the US in March.
Think about what you said. Judges are no more impartial than you or I. There is no such thing as an impartial human being - that is why decisions are called opinions. Also, based on my experience, judges are also hardly the most intelligent people in the world.
An injunction is hardly a win or loss for either side really because the lawyers don't pull out all the stops.
Whether MIcrosoft was right or wrong in 1983 really doesn't matter anymore. According to section 2.4.1 - Proof of distinctiveness
"...the mark is said to have become distinctive of applicant's goods by reason of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce thereof by applicant for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made."
Since the trademark was issued in 1991 and Windows had existed since 1983 and since no one has seriously challenged Microsoft in that time it has now become distinctive. The judge used his opinion to block the injunction but his decision is his own. Either way, this case will not invalidate Microsofts trademark on Windows. Windows has become a distinctive mark of Microsoft.
I would also point out that Microsoft has lost the first couple of rounds of the Lindows case in the US but in March it will go to trial in front of a jury.
No one seems to be able to prove to me that the term is older than 1983 (when the first Windows came to be). Even if it was it was hardly "mainstream" because most Americans had no clue about computers at all at that point.
You picked a few names that sounded ok but that is hardly as easy as it sounds. And whether you like it or not that is the way trademarks work. Even if you can get congress to change it you still would have to grandfather in existing names.
First of all, do you have any support for that statement or did you make it up?
Second of all, what does Windows describe exactly? When I think of a window I think of an opening in a wall that I can look out not an operating system.
It is a good argument but it is pretty hard to prove one way or the other. Proving in a court of law that "windows" was common lingo before 1983 (when it was first used in commerce according to the trademark - even though the trademark wasn't awarded until 1990) is a difficult task. To say that anything before that was mainstream (when computers weren't even mainstream) is a tough argument to make.
Dell: a secluded hollow or small valley usually covered with trees or turf.
Are we saying that it is ok to trademark words that you don't know? That would seem to open up a world of options.
Nope. You are wrong. Take a trip over to uspto.gov and use TESS to search on some common words. If you are lazy then perhaps you can tell me what is qualified about Apple, Ford, Oracle, Shell, Target, Dell, Fox, Discover (take your pick on this one), etc. Everyone of them has a copyright on just the name alone.
At least you qualified your statements with IANAL and AFAIK. Most people on slashdot spout things as gospel without everything looking it up.
You shouldn't be able to trademark words in the dictionary
Do you realize how many companies names are words in the dictionary? I don't have exact numbers but it is safe to assume that a vast majority of trademarks in the US are plain English words. Do you want every company to be named Xyrtwes? Trademarks are specific to a particular use. That is why one company can be Sun and make computers and another can make dishwashing detergent. I'll tell you what. Why don't you protest any company that has a dictionary word as part of their name or one of their products.
Sorry. You're wrong (and not insightful). It is quite within their ability to trademark a common word. After all - Ford is a common word. So is Apple and Dell. Microsoft's actual trademark is for "Windows" and is serial number 74090419 for: "computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; namely, graphical operating environment programs for microcomputers."
They also own about 9 other active trademarks all on the word Windows relating to other areas.
You can only be a troll but here it goes:
How is windows used to describe all similar products? I typically refer to them as operating systems. Most trademarks are common words. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they apply to a specific purpose.
Where is hoover in the dictionary? The only listings I got was for people. What accepted wisdow are you talking about? Accepted in your mind I would guess. I personally never refer to a vacuum cleaner as a hoover. Now band-aid is a better example but they still hold their trademark. There are dozens of others that have become common words. How silly it would be that by becoming popular you would lose (notice the spelling please) your trademark.
I can't go on. I am not sure why I even bothered in the first place.
Have you ever heard the phrase "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary"? As long as Lindows is still around they are loving this exposure. Do you think we would even talk about just another Linux distribution if it weren't for these lawsuits?
Looking at the earliest of the patents (1995) you can see that the granted patent was based on a modification to an earlier application file in 1993. Since the 1993 application is not an actual patent you can't see what it looked like but I am guessing that it is a continuation of an even earlier applications and so on back to the original invention. Someone mentioned they add "the internet" but there is a lot of stuff that has changed in that time - including filename length which is what it seems these patents all talk about.
The recent blackout really proved this point. Most cell phones couldn't make calls and cordless phones had no power. Only regular phones on landlines were able to make calls.
This reminds me of the signs telling you whether the Whitestone or Throgs Neck is the fastest route to the Bronx. I always choose the opposite because obviously everybody else is going to go the way it tells them. It is yet to fail me. GWB has something like that but the advice is to always take the local instead of the express. The express always gets backed up first because it has no exits and only two lanes.
Of course, now that I revealed my routes will be forever slashdotted.
If this becomes redundant please be considerate because it took me 3 tries to get it posted. Nice to see that slashdot has fixed this two week old problem.
While the lower courts can rule a law unconstitutional it only sticks when it gets to the Supreme Court. I'd be very interested in any case where a ruling hasn't been appealed to the Supreme Court. This is especially true of federal law.