The parent post does not seem to relate to the grandparent at all.
It is correct, but the grandparent never mentioned registration. Who modded this up?
(BTW, registration also helps by turning round the burden of proof to some extent too which is handy if for instance you got your trademark by bribing the patent office--not that I can think of any company who would do that, of course.)
You cannot do that if a Gateway is a registered TM as you are still using it in a tradename. (Using the name without a modifier would probably be passing off anyway and illegal even if there was no trademark.)
Not that I know of, but maybe this is true in US. (I'm in UK.) AFAIK, there is a spectrum but not of protectability; protectability is binary depending on a certain cut-off point along said spectrum.
With respect to spreadsheets, "Excel" is not generic at all, but may become so
AFAICC, this would be the current situation with regard to windows (as MS have continually ignored concurrent use since their trademark application (1992/1993)) if it were not for the fact that (as the MS v. Lindows judge implied) MS's trademark is technically invalid anyway due to it being a generic term and ~50 years of prior art.
Regarding the last paragraph: It is normal for trademarks to be registered on the same word in different fields (as trademarks only apply to a pretty narrow field). Also, deliberately confusing customers would be illegal anyway (even if not even an unregistered trademark was involved), so trademarks (esp. registered) offer slightly more protection than that (where, for example, I think the defendant is assumed to be violating and must prove otherwise and where any usage of the trademark in a tradename is a violation even if tradename uses additional text to make it clear to customers they are different products--however describing the prduct as like another would of course be OK because that would not be using it as a tradename.)
It has been known as XWindows prior to the registration of the trademark by Microsoft, so the grandparent's argument still stands. Also, there were other operating systems predating MS called Windows (e.g.: DECWindows) and the term had been used generically (e.g.: "windows system") in the industry since at least the 1950's (e.g.: original Emacs).
>>I do, even though I know its trademarked name, which is clumsy<<
I would not describe it as clumsy. You can call it what you like unless you are trading (in which case you have to bare in mind TMs that may conflict with tradenames you use*) and X-Windows is the normal name used by people.
* not that MS's TM is valid anyway.
Re: Aspirin. You may be right, but a TM _can_ be lost through lack of protection (as would be the case with "windows" if MS did not technically have the TM in the first place because of the prior art and it being a generic term).
Oh ye, and also, as a news site where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, there is no inconsistency in different opinions within the/. crowd....
I know...don't feed them, but...
1. They are not violating the GPL; they are violating copyright law.
2. We *do* have a right to download anything we want from P2P networks (with the copyright holder's permission (and in some cases without as specified by your local laws)). Do you want to live in some kind of fascist society where books are burned...
Yes, the "windows" trademark is technically invalid becuase it is a generic term and there is loads of prior art (DECWindows, original Emacs, &c). Microsoft have almost admitted this and the judge implied it in MS v. Lindows (which is why MS payed Lindows lots to get off their backs). Even if this was not true Microsoft have technically lost the trademark through lack of enforcement.
(Actually it is worse than that because the highest court of appeal for trademarks in the US declared that "windows" is and always will be unregisterable then the US gov and Microsoft did something which has been censored in Lindows's evidence by the judge resulting in it being registered.)
Incidentally, until recently (I don't think now) the UK patent office listed on their w3s the _specific_ field that the the trademark holder wished to register for and "windows" was listed as been registered to MS in the generic category window(ing) systems.
I agree with you, but I think the reason that people are jumping to the conclusion that it is not as DNA wished is that DNA had spent many years negotiating with them and there was stalemate because they wouldn't do what he wanted*. When he was dead they started going to go ahead with the film--I assume because he was no longer there to peer over their shoulder. In fact, arguably, the stress of the film negotiations was responsible for his death.
* of course, I'm not saying that what authors want is _always_ the right thing for a film either--history as shown they can be _too_ protective.
Anyone can trademark a word in the dictionary in a certain field of trade as long as that word does not describe a type of product in that field (in which case case it is a generic term). In most jurisdictions, if a word is or ever has been a generic term in any language it can never be registered (unless you bribe the patent office--see "windows" below).
"Excel" is not a generic term because it does not describe the type of product. "Excel" has nothing to do with spreadsheets.
"Word" has a lot to do with word processors; "office" has a lot to do with office suites and "windows" has a lot to do with windows systems.
Yes, but that example is not really GoogleBombing as such as TSG did not intitiate it (obviously) so no one is trying to get an unfair advantage. On the contrary, it just means that WWW authors are using link text as it was intended by W3C & al, to describe that linked to, and that is how most WWW users who know TSG would describe them.
I don't see what this achieves except a quick buck for the company concerned as Unicode has supported canadian syllabalics for ages. One can view Inuktitut pages fine if you install an appropriate font. (It must be a slow news day on/.--or maybe/. gets brown envelopes for these company press-release/ad stories)
Also how much do these guys know about character sets? The Attavik website uses "latin1" (a non existent charset--should be "ISO-8859-1"--and why not UTF-8 so they don't need images) and is content-free giving no one any real idea what they do. From what it says I think they sell proprietary software to Inuktitut organisations (that they probs don't need) though.
Don't worry...I'll get my own (karma) back by posting a troll on the next story that comes along (with troll in the subject) and get +5 Insightful. 'Tis the way of/....
...which is sensible. However, also in the UK, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime (see grandparent) which is fairer--not that our (UK) legal system is that great--just better than US and most of the bad bits come from across the pond.
When I wrote my post the binaries (for GNU, MSW and MacOS) where available at the FTP server on the URI I gave in my post (and they still are). (As I say in my post, I cannot find non-en-US ones yet, though.)
Google News has over 700 stories from the last few weeks about Firefox (and how it is gaining on IE) <shock>including ~30 from this morning</shock>
This can only mean one thing....
Hmmmmm....may be that m/b/Mozilla Browser/Phoenix/Firebird/Mozilla Firebird/Firebird Browser/(Mozilla) Firefox is an evil conspiracy to take over the world...uuhhh...by using consecutive name chages to wear us down until we all cry for no more....muhehhawwwwwhhawwwwwiuughhhh. Hmmmm...
Slashdot Mirror
...which is precisely the reason why it is untrademarkable.
It can be patented anyway and as Microsoft has patented zeroes and ones, all your base are belong to Microsoft (quite literally) ;-) .
and some people seem to troll...
Since the existence of the word (because it does not refer to a specific field of products and is subjective).
The parent post does not seem to relate to the grandparent at all.
It is correct, but the grandparent never mentioned registration. Who modded this up?
(BTW, registration also helps by turning round the burden of proof to some extent too which is handy if for instance you got your trademark by bribing the patent office--not that I can think of any company who would do that, of course.)
You cannot do that if a Gateway is a registered TM as you are still using it in a tradename. (Using the name without a modifier would probably be passing off anyway and illegal even if there was no trademark.)
Regarding the last paragraph: It is normal for trademarks to be registered on the same word in different fields (as trademarks only apply to a pretty narrow field). Also, deliberately confusing customers would be illegal anyway (even if not even an unregistered trademark was involved), so trademarks (esp. registered) offer slightly more protection than that (where, for example, I think the defendant is assumed to be violating and must prove otherwise and where any usage of the trademark in a tradename is a violation even if tradename uses additional text to make it clear to customers they are different products--however describing the prduct as like another would of course be OK because that would not be using it as a tradename.)
It has been known as XWindows prior to the registration of the trademark by Microsoft, so the grandparent's argument still stands. Also, there were other operating systems predating MS called Windows (e.g.: DECWindows) and the term had been used generically (e.g.: "windows system") in the industry since at least the 1950's (e.g.: original Emacs).
>>I do, even though I know its trademarked name, which is clumsy<<
I would not describe it as clumsy. You can call it what you like unless you are trading (in which case you have to bare in mind TMs that may conflict with tradenames you use*) and X-Windows is the normal name used by people.
* not that MS's TM is valid anyway.
Re: Aspirin. You may be right, but a TM _can_ be lost through lack of protection (as would be the case with "windows" if MS did not technically have the TM in the first place because of the prior art and it being a generic term).
(If at any point in history a term has been generic it is always generic, in the eyes opf the law, forever.)
Also, the word "windows" is still used in a generic sense.
Oh ye, and also, as a news site where everyone is allowed to voice their opinions, there is no inconsistency in different opinions within the /. crowd....
I know...don't feed them, but... 1. They are not violating the GPL; they are violating copyright law. 2. We *do* have a right to download anything we want from P2P networks (with the copyright holder's permission (and in some cases without as specified by your local laws)). Do you want to live in some kind of fascist society where books are burned...
Yes, the "windows" trademark is technically invalid becuase it is a generic term and there is loads of prior art (DECWindows, original Emacs, &c). Microsoft have almost admitted this and the judge implied it in MS v. Lindows (which is why MS payed Lindows lots to get off their backs). Even if this was not true Microsoft have technically lost the trademark through lack of enforcement.
(Actually it is worse than that because the highest court of appeal for trademarks in the US declared that "windows" is and always will be unregisterable then the US gov and Microsoft did something which has been censored in Lindows's evidence by the judge resulting in it being registered.)
Incidentally, until recently (I don't think now) the UK patent office listed on their w3s the _specific_ field that the the trademark holder wished to register for and "windows" was listed as been registered to MS in the generic category window(ing) systems.
Yes (in all jurisdictions).
I agree with you, but I think the reason that people are jumping to the conclusion that it is not as DNA wished is that DNA had spent many years negotiating with them and there was stalemate because they wouldn't do what he wanted*. When he was dead they started going to go ahead with the film--I assume because he was no longer there to peer over their shoulder. In fact, arguably, the stress of the film negotiations was responsible for his death. * of course, I'm not saying that what authors want is _always_ the right thing for a film either--history as shown they can be _too_ protective.
Anyone can trademark a word in the dictionary in a certain field of trade as long as that word does not describe a type of product in that field (in which case case it is a generic term). In most jurisdictions, if a word is or ever has been a generic term in any language it can never be registered (unless you bribe the patent office--see "windows" below).
"Excel" is not a generic term because it does not describe the type of product. "Excel" has nothing to do with spreadsheets.
"Word" has a lot to do with word processors; "office" has a lot to do with office suites and "windows" has a lot to do with windows systems.
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/chatzill a
Yes, but that example is not really GoogleBombing as such as TSG did not intitiate it (obviously) so no one is trying to get an unfair advantage. On the contrary, it just means that WWW authors are using link text as it was intended by W3C & al, to describe that linked to, and that is how most WWW users who know TSG would describe them.
Also how much do these guys know about character sets? The Attavik website uses "latin1" (a non existent charset--should be "ISO-8859-1"--and why not UTF-8 so they don't need images) and is content-free giving no one any real idea what they do. From what it says I think they sell proprietary software to Inuktitut organisations (that they probs don't need) though.
Also, the companies homepage (which sucks) doesn't have a charset (and is not UTF-8/ASCII) and is very invalid even when you do work the charset out.
Just re-opened my ancient hotmail a/c and it works fine for me with RC2. (Why do you us hotmail anyway?)
Give the guy a break (unless you could do better--have you been to Mars?). He's just a geek and he designed most of it in his shed on a meagre budget.
Don't worry...I'll get my own (karma) back by posting a troll on the next story that comes along (with troll in the subject) and get +5 Insightful. 'Tis the way of /. ...
...which is sensible. However, also in the UK, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime (see grandparent) which is fairer--not that our (UK) legal system is that great--just better than US and most of the bad bits come from across the pond.
When I wrote my post the binaries (for GNU, MSW and MacOS) where available at the FTP server on the URI I gave in my post (and they still are). (As I say in my post, I cannot find non-en-US ones yet, though.)
Nooooo...and now they've changed its name to Firefax (see grandparent post)...I give in...I really do...
This can only mean one thing....
Hmmmmm....may be that m/b/Mozilla Browser/Phoenix/Firebird/Mozilla Firebird/Firebird Browser/(Mozilla) Firefox is an evil conspiracy to take over the world...uuhhh...by using consecutive name chages to wear us down until we all cry for no more....muhehhawwwwwhhawwwwwiuughhhh. Hmmmm...