MS drags Linspire back to court (Register) [LWN.net]

Trademark scope

Posted May 13, 2004 18:31 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

I don't know much about trademark law in general and nothing about Dutch trademark law. However, it would seem unreasonable to hold that "a company formerly known as Lindows Inc." with "a product formerly known as Lindows" could not have any reference to these facts in the publications.

So long as they are not using the disputed term in promotion of their products and in a way that is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace et cetera, ad nauseum.

Of course Lindows was an "in your face" affront to Microsoft's MS Windows.
I won't venture an opinion as to whether there was legal merit to Microsoft's persecution of them for that. [The best analogy I can think of is a memory of some little five year old that ran up to me when I was in my twenties and punched me as hard as he could. I was just sitting in front of the library and had never seen this kid before. In that case "as hard as he could" was less then a fly swat and he could only reach about halfway up my thigh. Microsoft seeking a desist order in the U.S. is akin to asking "mom" to keep her kids in line; litigating again in every country is maybe slapping the kid around; litigating AGAIN after the name has been changed is akin to shoving the crying child to the ground and stomping him into oblivion].

Trademark scope

Posted May 13, 2004 19:06 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your punching analogy but I
think it has serious flaws. Annoying Microsoft is not a crime. The
question is if it is trademark infringement. In the US it would appear
the answer is no, but in other countries it seems to be yes. That could
very well be because "windows" is an English word and technical term so it
has fewer protections in countries where it would be recognized as such as
well as a product.

Analogy

Posted May 13, 2004 20:21 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

The point of the analogy was that Lindows never represented a credible threat to Microsoft. For them to try to protect their trademark in the U.S. was reasonable. When they lost that here and started a campaign of litigation around the world then it became bullying (few companies can afford even the most groundless litigation in multiple countries just as few individuals can afford to defend themselves in any litigation at all).

One problem with modern legal processes is that litigation can be used punitively by the deep pocketed plaintiff even with only the barest wisp of foundation.

JimD

Analogy

Posted May 13, 2004 20:57 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I see your point. But I think Lindows was more of a threat than Microsoft
wishes to admit, otherwise they would have needed to file so many lawsuits
against them. It was also one more example of Microsoft's preference for
lawsuits and market control rather than innovation. I don't see how it
could have been positive exposure for them after so many losses and
settlements on other monopoly issues and on the other hand it provided
significant amounts of exposure for a tiny Linux company. I'm not sure
that the loss of the Lindows name will be a significant setback.

Analogy

Posted May 14, 2004 5:56 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

I tell You what, the good news is, that Estonia(one of the new EU states near the Baltic Sea)relatively reasently legislated a law,
that enables citizens, who can't afford to hire a lawyer by themselves, to have a lawyer by the state, without paying a dime. This way everyone can have protecion against unjustified litigation.
Of cource, in order to get that kind of support, one has to prove it's bad financial situation and no selfrespecting citizen wants to do that, hopefully. Unfortunately I as an estonian must admit, that generally I really like the Finns, as they generally tend to have much higher ethics than an average estonian has, but let's hope, that estonians will catch up with them.

Analogy

Posted May 14, 2004 12:43 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

Great, that way any jerk can sue anyone for anything at no cost! (I'm not
trying to denigrate Estonians, it will happen anywhere.)

Analogy

Posted May 15, 2004 21:44 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Luckily, the the free option is not eligible for sueing!!!
It's for defending only. By the way, there is a big
cultural difference between an average EU citizen and an average
US citizen:
average EU citizen's do not sue eachother even halve as much as
it's done by average US citizens.

In Estonia, sueing is seen as very extreme and bad case
and I haven't yet heared,
that anybody(excluding lawyers) would considere sueing as a
way of doing business in Estonia.

For instance, in one case, a local
security firm infringed a copyright of a local software firm. The
issue got in to the news, but it was solved outside of the court, just by
simply paying the license fees. Practically, BSA(read: M$) is the main
firm, that sues others. I guess, that BSA was also the main lobbyer of
the local IP laws, that consider copyright infrigement a huge crime, resulting 30000EUR in fines(to the state, not to the software company, so
no "damages" can be seaked) + up to 3 years of imprisonment for the CEO or
CIO.

So, although there are many things in Estonia, that an intelligent Estoian feels ashame of(like a lieing, authoritarian and indirectly corrupt mayor of the Estonian capital, Tallinn), Estonia is not a suers heaven.

Analogy

Posted May 18, 2004 17:30 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

I think you need to keep in mind that what you hear in the media is NOT IN
ANY WAY an indication of the cultural bent of the "average US citizen".
Remember that you ONLY hear bad things about the US, good news doesn't
sell is the standard excuse.

Analogy

Posted May 15, 2004 21:56 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Oh, I forgot to reemphasize:

The "jerk" has to prove his/her bad financial position in order
to be eligible for the free representation. So, the firms or
otherwise citizens with appropriate financial means will have to
hire their representation by themselves. Practically it means, that
one can't pick a poor citizen and blackmail his/her IP, or what ever
else, without a real, community serving, reason.

I don't see Microsoft-* in this ancient word

Posted May 13, 2004 20:53 UTC (Thu) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link]

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=windows&x=24&y=6

One entry found for window.
Main Entry: win·dow
Pronunciation: 'win-(")dO
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English windowe, from Old Norse vindauga, from vindr wind (akin to Old English wind) + auga eye; akin to Old English Eage eye -- more at EYE
1 a : an opening especially in the wall of a building for admission of light and air that is usually closed by casements or sashes containing transparent material (as glass) and capable of being opened and shut b : WINDOWPANE c : a space behind a window of a retail store containing displayed merchandise d : an opening in a partition or wall through which business is conducted <a bank teller's window>
2 : a means of entrance or access; especially : a means of obtaining information <a window on history>
3 : an opening (as a shutter, slot, or valve) that resembles or suggests a window
4 : the transparent panel or opening of a window envelope
5 : the framework (as a shutter or sash with its fittings) that closes a window opening
6 : CHAFF 4
7 : a range of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum to which a planet's atmosphere is transparent
8 a : an interval of time within which a rocket or spacecraft must be launched to accomplish a particular mission b : an interval of time during which certain conditions or an opportunity exists <a window of vulnerability>
9 : an area at the limits of the earth's sensible atmosphere through which a spacecraft must pass for successful reentry
10 : any of the areas into which a computer display may be divided and on which distinctly different types of information are displayed

be patient

Posted May 13, 2004 23:41 UTC (Thu) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link]

don't worry, in due time MS will be suing Meriam Webster. remember the (non-)verb "xerox"? (and a lot of good it did that company.)

I don't see Microsoft-* in this ancient word

Posted May 14, 2004 7:03 UTC (Fri) by jwharmanny (guest, #971) [Link]

You probably didn't know that English is not the native tongue in the Netherlands. Using an English dictionary to prove that "windows" is a normal word in a Dutch court case doesn't make much sense to me.
In the Dutch language, "windows" doesn't exist as a 'normal' word. That's why MS has every right to defend this trademark, in Dutch-speaking countries.

I don't see Microsoft-* in this ancient word

Posted May 14, 2004 14:25 UTC (Fri) by aotheoverlord (guest, #3993) [Link]

Ok, so what _do_ the Dutch call "any of the areas into which a computer display may be divided and on which distinctly different types of information are displayed" ?

I don't see Microsoft-* in this ancient word

Posted May 14, 2004 18:33 UTC (Fri) by dokhebi (guest, #14023) [Link]

If Microsoft gets away with a trademark of an English word in a non-English speaking nation. What is there to stop other companies from getting trademarks of words from languages in countries where that language is not the native language.

For example: Tokyo Pop (an US based company that translates Japanese comics, called "manga," for the US and Canada) trademarks the word "manga" in the US so all of the other publishers (Viz, Dark Horse, etc.) now have to pay royalties to them or stop using the word "manga" in their advertisements, and the book stores have to create new name plates for the section headers, etc.

It becomes chaos for the market place world wide. And once again, only the lawyers win in the long run. Maybe Shakespeare was right...

MS drags Linspire back to court (Register)

Posted May 20, 2004 22:59 UTC (Thu) by DaSilvor (guest, #21722) [Link]

I don't like what Microsoft is doing in the courts to protect it's monopoly position, but at the same time I have to admire them.

They have been giving the courts the run around for years, and even if they lose a case they appeal and appeal until the penalty is so small it is meaningless. Their legal bill is probably larger than the penalty.

By clever management and growth, they are now so large that even the judgement in Europe hardly scratches the surface.

However, now they have now done something which, to my knowledge, has never been done before. They have made the courts of America irrelevent.

By filing abroad they have bypassed the American Legal system and made it second to Microsofts will. Even if the courts decide that Microsoft was wrong to go abroad, and decide that the foreign rullings are unenforceable in the US, it is too late, the damage has been done. They have forced another company to submit to their will against the will of the Courts of America.

I suspect that before this case is settled they will force Linspire to shut down completely and the case will be dropped. Why else would they continue to target Linspire? To drive it to the wall, of course. No final ruling means there is nothing to stop them doing it again to any other company or individual who attracts their attention. They don't want that final ruling.

Film makers have been portaying the future where large companies control or replace governments for years.

Welcome to the United States of Microsoft

Got a bit of a ring to it, don't you think.

Get used to it people, it is now becoming reality.