On/. we take the piss out of normal people that get duped by fake UI's, but when the guy at McDonalds wipes the Big Mac beef patty on his ass and serves it to us, we get pissed off. Why? We see a Big Mac and we assume it's edible
To be fair, is the wiped Big Mac any less edible than than a standard non-wiped one?
Infact they take [SCO is] further saying that Unix is the basis of all modern OS's and in that respect that can go after anyone including presumably MS.
Ummm, no, the collaborator Microsoft already has bought their ticket to this ride.
They are now sipping margaritas in their Safe Haven.
But "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU" is a descriptive phrase, not a former trademark. (OTOH, you could buy a box of cigars marked "Corona" and not think you're getting parts for a certain model of Toyota.) And see
Dennis Ritchies "other UNIX" page for a collection of commercial "UNIX" items that aren't operating systems (hence the use of the mark is allowable).
Funny link! However, not really related to my point. None of those items are trying to mislead a customer about whether they *are* a Unix operating system
Perhaps a better analogy is whether someone could say that a drug is aspirin (former trademark) when it really is ibuprofin and saying 'aspirin' does in fact mislead the customer about this former trademark that still retains *meaning* even though it's a non-branded meaning.
(Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)
I already said in my previous post that I agree that we (the consumers) run that risk of people abusing the usage. But, honestly, aren't we *already* in that place in history? Aren't we already at a point where 50% of reputable newspapers and 50% of/. folks can't agree on the minimum claims of what it means to say "That product ____ is based on UNIX." ?
I don't like Microsoft either, but that's not a reason to ignore the law on this issue. Trademarks require strict laws and vigalent enforcement. It seems like The Open Group (and its predecessors) have been lax about enforcing the usage with respect to BSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and lots of other usages for many years. The question is: will a court agree?
Personally, I hope that Apple wins its original lawsuit with the Open Group so that Apple can say "based on BSD UNIX technologies" or "derived from BSD, an unlicensed variant of UNIX"... which is the truth.
I'm totally fine with WHOEVER winning the countersuit (re: the generic trademark), but who wins should be based on real-world usage, like ever other similar case. When it plays out fully, the court may in fact define what kind of "thing" Unix is a generic for. If it's based on significant feature set or genetic Unix standards, that will reduce fraud.
And if MS breaks the law, so be it. It's not like they're NOT gonna break the law anyway, right?:-) And seriously, they now have a license to UNIX-related technologies from SCO. Don't think they're not going to find a way to use the U word someway in their marketing materials already. We are already at a place of confusion in the marketplace on what Unix means.
If Unix becomes a generic term, Microsoft could call Windows a Unix (it's bad enough that OS/390 can call itself a UNIX, but at least it passes the certification testing). Unix then becomes a generic term for operating system.
Um, I don't think that's true. There are still anti-fraud laws.
I mean you can't buy a box of cigars and market them as a "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU".
There are still deceptive advertising laws and fraud laws.
Yes, if goes generic, there will be some bad usage of "UNIX" that makes our heads hurt, but your post is highly misleading.
If it goes generic, Apple will claim it is generic for an OS with a certain set of features AND/OR an operating system with a certain code-base heritage.
I was listening with glee just this week about an FTC lawsuit against a deceptive advertiser. They are seizing all his personal assets, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, is the wiped Big Mac any less edible than than a standard non-wiped one?
Ummm, no, the collaborator Microsoft already has bought their ticket to this ride.
They are now sipping margaritas in their Safe Haven.
Funny link! However, not really related to my point. None of those items are trying to mislead a customer about whether they *are* a Unix operating system
Perhaps a better analogy is whether someone could say that a drug is aspirin (former trademark) when it really is ibuprofin and saying 'aspirin' does in fact mislead the customer about this former trademark that still retains *meaning* even though it's a non-branded meaning.
(Hell, nobody has come after them for false advertising for claiming their software does a lot of things that it really sucks at, why should calling it a unix be any different?)
I already said in my previous post that I agree that we (the consumers) run that risk of people abusing the usage. But, honestly, aren't we *already* in that place in history? Aren't we already at a point where 50% of reputable newspapers and 50% of /. folks can't agree on the minimum claims of what it means to say "That product ____ is based on UNIX." ?
I don't like Microsoft either, but that's not a reason to ignore the law on this issue. Trademarks require strict laws and vigalent enforcement. It seems like The Open Group (and its predecessors) have been lax about enforcing the usage with respect to BSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and lots of other usages for many years. The question is: will a court agree?
Personally, I hope that Apple wins its original lawsuit with the Open Group so that Apple can say "based on BSD UNIX technologies" or "derived from BSD, an unlicensed variant of UNIX" ... which is the truth.
I'm totally fine with WHOEVER winning the countersuit (re: the generic trademark), but who wins should be based on real-world usage, like ever other similar case. When it plays out fully, the court may in fact define what kind of "thing" Unix is a generic for. If it's based on significant feature set or genetic Unix standards, that will reduce fraud.
And if MS breaks the law, so be it. It's not like they're NOT gonna break the law anyway, right? :-) And seriously, they now have a license to UNIX-related technologies from SCO. Don't think they're not going to find a way to use the U word someway in their marketing materials already. We are already at a place of confusion in the marketplace on what Unix means.
Um, I don't think that's true. There are still anti-fraud laws.
I mean you can't buy a box of cigars and market them as a "high performance tower computer with 100 MHz CPU".
There are still deceptive advertising laws and fraud laws. Yes, if goes generic, there will be some bad usage of "UNIX" that makes our heads hurt, but your post is highly misleading. If it goes generic, Apple will claim it is generic for an OS with a certain set of features AND/OR an operating system with a certain code-base heritage. I was listening with glee just this week about an FTC lawsuit against a deceptive advertiser. They are seizing all his personal assets, etc...
This just in! As reported on Slashdot, SCO has accused the Linus Torvalds regime with posessing weapons of mass destruction!
And, um, they say that don't need to provide proof, either.
"Regime change begins at home..."