Lindows.com wins one
Posted Feb 11, 2004 14:19 UTC (Wed)
by csigler (subscriber, #1224)
[Link]
This decision, if upheld, should mean that MS can't take to court anyone who uses or calls something on a computer a "window" any more, regardless of the OS or computing method. From my (meager) understanding of the law, the first decision is far and away the most important. Decisions are infrequently overturned on appeal, and if they are they can be reversed yet again. But I'm not sure if this is a general rule of thumb, or if it mainly applies to criminal trials. I'd be interested in hearing what the Groklaw folks have to say about this :^) Clemmitt
Posted Feb 11, 2004 15:48 UTC (Wed)
by Yukinoroh (guest, #19369)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2004 16:19 UTC (Wed)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2004 18:20 UTC (Wed)
by Yukinoroh (guest, #19369)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 14, 2004 21:35 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
The lesson marketers learned was that you must have and promote both a generic term and a brand name in order to maintain a brand.
So I don't think Microsoft is trying to control the use of terms like "media player." It knows better.
Posted Feb 12, 2004 15:51 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2004 15:56 UTC (Wed)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Now, when are we going to get back the over 1 million songs we contributed to MP3.COM, many of which may be gone forever from the community to which they were contributed. It's really nice that Robertson is spending his time convincing a judge that "windows" is an everyday word. So, all that supposedly freely-contributed music is just collateral damage?
Posted Feb 11, 2004 18:39 UTC (Wed)
by alexp (guest, #10320)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Feb 11, 2004 20:19 UTC (Wed)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
It just seems like the studio is trying to grab some cash from a successful company by a convenient technicality. That seems to be a pandemic these days...
Posted Feb 14, 2004 21:17 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
fooling consumer into thinking it's somehow related or
equivalent to a well established brand based on it's name, look, etc is
wrong.
Well, that's not trademark law. Trademark law is that it's wrong to fool someone into thinking that it is a well established brand.
Related to or equivalent to are just fine.
In this case, Lindows.com is trying to make the point that the operating system is equivalent to -- a replacement for -- MS Windows. And that's great. It makes would-be Windows users' options clear to them. What would be wrong is (what Microsoft is claiming) if people would believe that LindowsOS comes from Microsoft.
Posted Feb 12, 2004 7:02 UTC (Thu)
by Linegod (guest, #201)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 12, 2004 9:03 UTC (Thu)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted Feb 12, 2004 8:52 UTC (Thu)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link]
This seems to me like a pretty big win, less so for Lindows than for the software community in general. I used a windowing OS before MS Windows became "the" standard, and everyone called those things that popped up on the screen "windows." So I have no doubt that, even in the context of computing, this term is generic.Lindows.com wins one
And just when will Microsoft get scolded for marketing the word "Word" ?
Lindows.com wins one
As far as I know, Microsoft is not sueing Corel for WordPerfect and AbiSource for AbiWord, even in the countries where "word" is not a word.
Microsoft is not enforcing this one
My point is about Microsoft's habit for their product names to use common words that directly and only use their base concept, some kind of attempt at monopolizing them maybe ? Just think about Messenger, Explorer, Media Player... I mean, I could try selling cereal that are called "Wheat" and computer speakers that are called "Sound", but then, suppose a competitor wants to call his product Wheatabix, or SoundBlaster ? At least WordPerfect has "perfect" in it, which adds some difficulty for other companies to legally use the name. (And besides, I might be wrong, but I think Corel licensed the name before Microsoft licensed Word.)
Microsoft is not enforcing this one
That doesn't work even if you make up a brand new word. Think of kleenex and aspirin. Kimberley Clark and Bayer lost the exclusive right to those words, which they made up specifically for their products, in some countries. They are now such English words that "can't be bought out of the English language."
Microsoft is not enforcing this one
Microsoft was forced to give up claims for a trademark on the word "Word", in the US anyway, long ago. Now they assert (as they may) trademarks on "Microsoft Word" and "MSWord". Anybody can market any software as "Word" without restriction, as long as it doesn't say "Microsoft Word" anywhere.
Word not a trademark
That's nice.Lindows.com wins one
But it's not a matter of whether a given tm is a dictionary word. It's Lindows.com wins one
just wrong to mimic an established tm, while competing in essentially
same business. A product should be allowed to compete only based on it's
own merits; fooling consumer into thinking it's somehow related or
equivalent to a well established brand based on it's name, look, etc is
wrong. Lindows, while a clever name, is still a rip off. When Apple Comp
were sued by Apple recording studios, they were allowed to keep the name
as long as they do not compete in music business. That suite haunts them
to this day..
Wouldn't the point be that the trademark is damaged because the competitor's product or service could reasonably be confused with the trademark owner's product or service? I doubt seriously that anybody would confuse Apple the studio with Apple the computer company, even if they do both happen to have something to do with music (so at most they are only faintly related--the studio makes music and the computer company distributes it).Lindows.com wins one
Lindows.com wins one
Maybe it's me, but it doesn't appear that Lindows are the 'good guys' here. If I market a distro based on Mandrake, but runs on Sun Boxes called 'Molaris' , I know what I'm getting into....
Lindows.com wins one
You and the post above didn't get the point. There is no trademark called "windows". I could start selling boxes called "Windows" right away (in the US, sadly not in Sweden and Holland) and it would not be a proplem. There is a trademark called "Microsoft Windows". If Mr Robertson starts calling it "Michaelsoft Windows", then he is in trouble, but "Lindows" cannot be a problem, because even if you think it's the same as "Windows", it would still not be a problem.
Lindows.com wins one
I used to work for a company that Gold Partner or romething with Microsoft. Every once in a while we would get emails reminding us, that the names of their products are "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft Word" etc... and not "Windows", "Word"... or "MS Windows" or whatever. Of course we always neglected that advice most of the time (I think brochures and other marketing followed it). Point is, Microsoft has known this all along, and now we know it too.
henrik
And about time too ..!!! It has always amased me how someone could get Lindows.com wins one
away with trying to claim rights to a word like windows .
I mean after all said and done aint we all got Houses full of WINDOWS .
Next thing they wiil be trying to claim doors and floors and cielings are
all M$ trade marks .. and yes whne will they be challenged over "Word "
we all speak and write words all day the dictionary is full of Words every
thing we read is full of Words come on courts youre getting a little slack
here . Like another contributer i read i have also been using Windowing
OS'es well before M$ made there claim on the idea which they probably
stole any way lie most other things they get .
Pete .