Garrett: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs

If board vendor X happens to use Microsoft's copyrighted code without permission, and you tell Microsoft and they don't do anything about it, that changes nothing, you're no closer to being allowed to use that code. Likewise if the board vendor uses Microsoft's patented algorithm and you tell Microsoft and they don't do anything about it, that again changes nothing and you're no closer to being allowed to use the patented algorithm.

But if a board vendor burns Microsoft's trademark "Windows" into stuff and you tell Microsoft about it but they choose to take no action, that's evidence of abandonment. The mark's protected status is harmed albeit slightly, obviously one board from one vendor that goes a few months without getting a slap won't tumble the whole edifice, but if this becomes a trend and you don't see Microsoft lawyers out in force demanding it stop then yes I think you have an abandonment argument; Windows becomes available for anyone to use in this context.

The other thought is that yes, the way the courts have acted previously suggests something like this might trigger an interoperability exemption that would have the effect that you could legally fill out the UEFI OS label with "Windows" if that's the only way to get your OS to boot. I think if the arguments are brought before a court, the judge is going to ask the Microsoft lawyer (since Microsoft are the only people with standing) why they're suing /you/ the poor innocent trying to achieve interoperability and thus driving market innovation, rather than the chip/board/PC maker who started the ball rolling by abusing Microsoft's trademark.