Apple already got their ass kicked for attempting to litigate over "look and feel". It's unlikely they care, expscially when the only result of making a big deal about it is shoveling money to lawyers and giving Robertson yet more PR.
Curiously, Microsoft never claimed that the mark had a secondary meaning - in their filings with the USPTO, they repeatedly claimed that the term "windows" had no generic meaning whatsoever, and that the term was exclusively associated with their product.
Also, in 1993, they were not the sole user of the word "windows" in a product name. There were several objections to their applications from such companies as Borland, IBM, Novell, and others, many of which had the term in their product names.
It would be interesting to interview the person responsible for ultimately granting the trademark after rejecting it three times on the basis of genericness.
I think you missed my point - Microsoft is delaying the trial - again. I agree that Microsoft should attempt to defend its trademarks, but on the other hand, they appear to be unwilling to actually let the thing get in front of a jury. It's been over two years since they filed it, and this appeal on the pretrial ruling could take more years, then if they lose, they'll appeal again.
I was pointing out that in some European countries, where Lindows.com hasn't even shipped more than a couple of units, they've been claiming that Lindows.com is such an imminent and destructive threat to the core of their business that they have been asking for preliminary injunctions without any prior notification to Lindows.com.
I happen to think those two behaviors are in conflict.
More interesting, does Windows come under prior art protection from infringing on the valid Lindows trademark
Probably not - there is no such word as "lindows", let alone a generic term, so the mark falls under the category of "fanciful", and is therefore defensible. Oddly, if Lindows.com prevails, they're in a better position to complain about marks which sound similar but do not contain the word "windows". In other words, if you came out with a product called "rindows", then Lindows.com might actually have a case, since you've created another fanciful name with a similarity to their fanciful "lindows" mark.
The primary weakness in Microsoft's position does not come from the similarity of the names, but rather the genericness of their mark.
For what? Even Microsoft is not claiming that Lindows.com has damaged them in any way - but that they have the potential to damage them in the future through their alleged misappropriation of the Windows mark.
You can't ask for damages where no damage has occured. Microsoft filed this lawsuit within days of the formation of Lindows.com as a corporation - they hadn't even shipped their first product.
A word that is merely descriptive is not a mark and therefore cannot be Trademarked. However, if a descriptive word becomes distinctive it can attain a secondary meaning. meaning that although the mark is descriptive, it has customer recognition value for a single product/etc. The way a descriptive word gains this second level of meaning is tyhrough advertising and long use.
Yes,but...
The mark has to have the secondary meaning at the time the mark is granted, not afterward. Lindows is saying that, yes, the mark may have secondary meaning now, but that's only because Microsoft has had exclusive use of the term as a result of the incorrectly granted trademark - nobody else was allowed to use it. Lindows primary defense is that the trademark never should have been granted, and has apparently convinced the judge that the important timeframe to consider this is when the trademark was granted, not the present day. Microsoft is unwilling to take the substantial risk in having to prove that "windows" had a secondary meaning exclusively associated with their product prior to their shipping it.
No-one disputes that 'windows' was a generic computing term before the introduction of MS Windows.
Believe it or not, Microsoft *does* dispute that in their filings, but is not willing to actually take the gamble in court - which is why they're appealing the ruling.
If you read the initial complaint, you will find that Microsoft indeed has a trademark on the individual word "Windows", in addition to the combination "Microsoft Windows", and this is the basis of their litigation with Lindows.com.
They were turned down three times by the PTO, but after they bought out anyone who was objecting, they were granted the trademark mainly due to lack of objections.
The problems you listed are not with Javascript, but rather with the particular implementation of Javascript embedded as a scripting language in a browser. I would hazard that *any* language embedded in that environment would equally suffer.
Take a look at how Javascript/ECMAScript is used in Flash 5 and later, or better yet, take a look at how it's embedded in KDE 3.2 to see the potential of the language *as* a language. I've used SpiderMonkey (Mozilla's ECMAScript implementation) as a scripting subsystem for a couple of specialized applications and it works really well.
I've downloaded some of the code, and neither the web site nor the source code itself seems to indicate under what license this code is being released.
Let me add that when India's standard of living inevitably rises and is no longer competitive with other countries, the US will very likely drop it and move on to the next cheap source of labor. This can't be good for India in the long run - what other country is going to want to use all those built-out call centers? All those people are being trained for something that produces absolutely nothing of long-term value.
It all depends upon where the blocking is taking place. Clearly some people are responding to spams, so there appears to be some incentive for the spammers to get their message through.
Obviously, if an individual has gone to some trouble to set up spam filters, then she doesn't want to be bothered and the spam is pointless. However, the vast bulk of these filters are set up by the ISPs, and there's some value to the spammer to get through them to the idiot on the other side who apparently might actually respond to the spam.
OK, now I understand the source of your confusion - the rest of us actually read the article, and you didn't. In fact, it doesn't even look like you read the summary.
Summary: SCO claimed others stole SCO IP and put it in Linux without their permission is threatening to sue end users and companies. Groklaw claims to have evidence that SCO put the IP in there themselves, the management changed hands, and the new management is claiming theft.
Do you see how your revision with the clerk
knowingly putting the cookies into the containers...seems to break down just a little?
Did you see where I said "inadvertantly", not "knowingly"? In you don't know the word, you can find it in any dictionary.
In the start of this thread, the customer was the one inadvertantly putting the cookies in the box, which could be argued to be shoplifting even if accidental, and a similar position by SCO might have some merit. According to Groklaw, in the actual case, SCO put the code in, therefore my use of the clerk.
It's closer to a store clerk inadvertantly putting cookies in boxes, and passing out the boxes for free, then accusing the recipients of stealing the cookies.
The patent only applied to *external* plugins. Microsoft could build their proprietary ActiveX controls into the browser, which means that only third-party (and potentially competitive) plugins (Java, Flash, QuickTime, etc) would be presented with the dialog.
There *were* other operating systems with "windows" in the name, both prior to, and during the early history of Microsoft Windows. If you read the legal papers posted at the Lindows.com's website, you'll see lists of such products. Apparently Microsoft bought most of them out, or ran them out of business, *then* registered the standalone "windows" trademark once they had been eliminated. It will be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with this during the trial in March.
Note also that for most of its existence, Microsoft Windows was itself "just a component" - an optional window manager on top of DOS, just like X Windows on UNIX.
Lindows changed their strategy about Windows binary compatibility - there's an article on OSNews where the president of the company explains why.
Companies change their minds all the time - how many Microsoft products and strategies have never seen the light of day? How many times have Apple developers had the rug pulled out from under them?
It's part of business - Robertson may have been overly optimistic with his initial goal, but once he realized that it was unachievable and, more importantly, unecessary given the current state of Mozilla and StarOffice, he changed his mind.
Microsoft didn't ram "Bob" down our throats when that idea was doomed either.
Basing your opinion of version 1 when they're up to version 4.5 seems a little uninformed to me. Perhaps you should consider taking another look.
I use Mandrake 9.2 as my primary Linux box, but have another machine with LindowsOS 4.5 on it. LindowsOS installed quicker and had better support for various media types and embedded browser players, and the so-called "CNR" warehouse is superior for installation of new items. Patches install automatically. On the other hand, Mandrake 9.2 is much easier to find other packages for, and I prefer it for development.
If I were to recommend a non-MS, non-Apple OS for a newbie who I don't want to constantly babysit, I'd likely steer them to LindowsOS.
Sorry, this article smells too much like post-facto justification for Apple's pricing. I would have been far more impressed if someone had predicted the introduction of this capacity/price point *before* the thing was announced.
I'm of the opinion that Apple would really like to have a player like the mini at $99 - they'd more than make up for the price difference in volume, with the added side effect of iTMS and Mac revenue. I think they couldn't do it because of the component costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple already got their ass kicked for attempting to litigate over "look and feel". It's unlikely they care, expscially when the only result of making a big deal about it is shoveling money to lawyers and giving Robertson yet more PR.
Also, in 1993, they were not the sole user of the word "windows" in a product name. There were several objections to their applications from such companies as Borland, IBM, Novell, and others, many of which had the term in their product names.
It would be interesting to interview the person responsible for ultimately granting the trademark after rejecting it three times on the basis of genericness.
I was pointing out that in some European countries, where Lindows.com hasn't even shipped more than a couple of units, they've been claiming that Lindows.com is such an imminent and destructive threat to the core of their business that they have been asking for preliminary injunctions without any prior notification to Lindows.com.
I happen to think those two behaviors are in conflict.
The primary weakness in Microsoft's position does not come from the similarity of the names, but rather the genericness of their mark.
You can't ask for damages where no damage has occured. Microsoft filed this lawsuit within days of the formation of Lindows.com as a corporation - they hadn't even shipped their first product.
The mark has to have the secondary meaning at the time the mark is granted, not afterward. Lindows is saying that, yes, the mark may have secondary meaning now, but that's only because Microsoft has had exclusive use of the term as a result of the incorrectly granted trademark - nobody else was allowed to use it. Lindows primary defense is that the trademark never should have been granted, and has apparently convinced the judge that the important timeframe to consider this is when the trademark was granted, not the present day. Microsoft is unwilling to take the substantial risk in having to prove that "windows" had a secondary meaning exclusively associated with their product prior to their shipping it.
They were turned down three times by the PTO, but after they bought out anyone who was objecting, they were granted the trademark mainly due to lack of objections.
Take a look at how Javascript/ECMAScript is used in Flash 5 and later, or better yet, take a look at how it's embedded in KDE 3.2 to see the potential of the language *as* a language. I've used SpiderMonkey (Mozilla's ECMAScript implementation) as a scripting subsystem for a couple of specialized applications and it works really well.
Public Domain? GPL? BSD?
What are we allowed to do with it?
To quote Theo, 'it is just a wardrobe malfunction.'"
Just this last week, Lindows.com started officially distributing their "live" CD ISOs over P2P networks.
Let me add that when India's standard of living inevitably rises and is no longer competitive with other countries, the US will very likely drop it and move on to the next cheap source of labor. This can't be good for India in the long run - what other country is going to want to use all those built-out call centers? All those people are being trained for something that produces absolutely nothing of long-term value.
Obviously, if an individual has gone to some trouble to set up spam filters, then she doesn't want to be bothered and the spam is pointless. However, the vast bulk of these filters are set up by the ISPs, and there's some value to the spammer to get through them to the idiot on the other side who apparently might actually respond to the spam.
Summary: SCO claimed others stole SCO IP and put it in Linux without their permission is threatening to sue end users and companies. Groklaw claims to have evidence that SCO put the IP in there themselves, the management changed hands, and the new management is claiming theft.
In the start of this thread, the customer was the one inadvertantly putting the cookies in the box, which could be argued to be shoplifting even if accidental, and a similar position by SCO might have some merit. According to Groklaw, in the actual case, SCO put the code in, therefore my use of the clerk.
I'm well aware this is all just claims.
It's closer to a store clerk inadvertantly putting cookies in boxes, and passing out the boxes for free, then accusing the recipients of stealing the cookies.
Doug Englebart's NLS (1960s)? Xerox Star (1981)? Visicorp VisiOn (1982)? Apple Lisa (1983)? Apple Macintosh (1984)?
The patent only applied to *external* plugins. Microsoft could build their proprietary ActiveX controls into the browser, which means that only third-party (and potentially competitive) plugins (Java, Flash, QuickTime, etc) would be presented with the dialog.
Note also that for most of its existence, Microsoft Windows was itself "just a component" - an optional window manager on top of DOS, just like X Windows on UNIX.
Companies change their minds all the time - how many Microsoft products and strategies have never seen the light of day? How many times have Apple developers had the rug pulled out from under them?
It's part of business - Robertson may have been overly optimistic with his initial goal, but once he realized that it was unachievable and, more importantly, unecessary given the current state of Mozilla and StarOffice, he changed his mind.
Microsoft didn't ram "Bob" down our throats when that idea was doomed either.
I use Mandrake 9.2 as my primary Linux box, but have another machine with LindowsOS 4.5 on it. LindowsOS installed quicker and had better support for various media types and embedded browser players, and the so-called "CNR" warehouse is superior for installation of new items. Patches install automatically. On the other hand, Mandrake 9.2 is much easier to find other packages for, and I prefer it for development.
If I were to recommend a non-MS, non-Apple OS for a newbie who I don't want to constantly babysit, I'd likely steer them to LindowsOS.
Please wait to give us all the benefits of your wisdom on the topic when you can tell the difference between trademarks and copyrights.
Perhaps Darl can join OJ Simpson on the golf course to look for the "real" virus writer.
I'm of the opinion that Apple would really like to have a player like the mini at $99 - they'd more than make up for the price difference in volume, with the added side effect of iTMS and Mac revenue. I think they couldn't do it because of the component costs.