LindowsOS.com Email Lists Collected For MS Suit 713
Over at the LindowsOS website is a message from company chief Michael Robertson, who advises readers that, in the course of discovery for the ongoing lawsuit instigated by Microsoft against Lindows.com, the company was "compelled to disclose your email address to Microsoft." The email addresses aren't just those who have submitted product names with a connection to "Windows", but rather "everyone who had
submitted their address asking to be signed up for the Lindows.com mailing
list since we turned on the website," according to email from Robertson. He adds: "The information which Microsoft
received in the list was name, email address and physical address. It was
not just people that posted to our forum, but basically every address for
every person that we had collected." (Note: If you'd like to contribute to the list of "Windows" products, it would be helpful to include more than just a product name photocopy -- e.g. a company name, URL, or photocopied manual.).Update by HeUnique: And here is Michael Robertson comment.
shiznisss (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Truth is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless there's prior permission given by the company, it's illegal...
I mean, after all, if a company came along calling itself Lisney, and had a character named Lickey Louse, there would definitely be concern. Perhaps we must think in a broader, more even-handed perspective in order to fully grasp the basic facts of the case.
Re:Before anyone goes out on a limb... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big precedent there. Maybe Lindows should "compel" the kettle to see whom it's calling black...
Soko
Bullfeathers! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like no one ever heard of X-Windows.
It's not like anyone ever looked out of a hole in a fucking wall that had glass in it, either.
Re:Big Brother.... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a difference between trying to innovate the commercial OS market and being slapped with a big, juicy subpoena. Don't blame the Lindows people here.
Re:NOTE FOR WA RESIDENTS (Score:2, Insightful)
X Window System (Score:5, Insightful)
But you forget about the special place for Microsoft under the law. It can use "Window" without infringing on "X Window System," it can even use "X" (for X-box) without infringing on "X Window System" or causing the slightest amount of confusion about what "X programming" is.
Meanwhile, it's nothing but piracy if any other company uses "Micro-", "-soft" or more than three consecutive letters out of "Windows."
We might think this shows the emotional maturity of a 2-year-old, but we're not billionaires.
Email Lists, yes....Spam no. (Score:2, Insightful)
Any self-respecting judge or attorney would not allow the subpoena of information in a trademark dispute case to be turned into undeserved financial gain. This doesn't make sense. If Microsoft uses the information improperly, obviously they will be reprimanded for it.
However, this doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be taken by Lindows counsel to make sure the lists are not established as part of the public record, in which case they would be free domain. Unfortunately, this is another issue altogether.
Re:The real problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
'Marks also may be abandoned unintentionally, through improper use. A mark may be abandoned "unintentionally," when the trademark owner fails to use it properly, or fails to monitor its use by others.'
So according to this definition, if MS feels that their trademark is being misused, they must sue in order to make sure it doesn't become "generic."
More info on trademarks:
http://www.ggmark.com/protect.html
Re:The real problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem. Discovery is great, and it can make you give up lots and lots of bits, but I'm curious why and how the discovery process could make them give up SO much, so fast. The Lindows people can still object. Especially on the grounds that MS is simply asking for too much. While MS might have a right ot know the number of folks signed up to the list, or perhaps their email I have a real hard time believing MS found that viable of a reason for getting everything without objection.
Especially because this is a TM case. It has absoloutely nothing to do with the folks who subscribed to the list, their personal bits or home location. I think the folks at Lindows are either caving early, or their lawyers suck.
Statistics lie (Score:5, Insightful)
1) That site you linked to clearly states that MS Windows was not released until late November, 1985, two years after the announcement. It may have been announced in 1983, but every Windows release has come out years late. Windows 95 was not originally called '95, and it barely made it. Same with Windows 2000.
2) MS Windows 1.0 followed the Microsoft tradition established by MS DOS 1.0. It was unusable crap that satisfied nobody but the lawyers. Did Microsoft release software in 1985? Sure. It was totally unusable on any real system, but it satisfied the terms of the contract and gave Microsoft some breathing room to try again.
And just like DOS, Windows did not become a viable package until the 3.x days.
(IIRC, Office followed the same pattern. Microsoft is nothing if not consistent.)
3) The first commercial release of X might have been in 1986, but that's completely irrelevant since X was developed in the academic world. The X Window System was out for years by this point.
4) For the same reason, X was a viable package by the time it was commercially released.
Put it all together, and you have the situation reported by many people here - the X Window System predates MS Windows by about a decade, and is roughly contemporary with the Lisa and Mac. Microsoft may have announced its windowing system at about the same time, but in practice *everyone* used their own or third-party graphics routines until Windows 3.1 came out... and suddenly Microsoft applications couldn't run on DR-DOS, etc.
Re: Privacy Statements (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy statements are not intended to protect your privacy. They are often marketing ploys specifically engineered to gain your trust so the company can exploit it.
Think about it -- would you really know if the Web site was not honoring its privacy statement? Are there any laws forcing the site to follow its stated policy? If so, are those laws enforcible?
In some cases (perhaps pertaining to certain bank or medical information) there are laws protecting you, but never assume you're protected simply because a "privacy statement" says you are.
For what reason? (Score:2, Insightful)
If Sears had a dispute with WalMart, they couldn't demand WalMart's customer list. These technophobic neanderthal judges need to be taught this.
Re: Privacy Statements (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth-in-advertising types of laws, implied contracts, ...
If so, are those laws enforcible?
If you have deep-enough pockets, then there's a good chance they're enforcable. Otherwise they can run roughshod over you, and there's nothing you can (afford to) do about it.
Re:Why is Washington State being excluded? (Score:1, Insightful)
Lindows defence is going to hinge on the fact
that they have not done any business in WA
therefore M$ cant sue them.
Re:NOTE FOR WA RESIDENTS (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Microsoft has been exceptionally reluctant to resort to law or politics. If Microsoft were more politically aware, the antitrust suit would probably not have happened. And Microsoft almost never sues for blatant ripoffs of their software with confusingingly similar names (staroffice, OpenOffice, abiword, etc.)
If they had made the slightest effort, they could have gotten some seriously damaging legislation passed against free software. Unlike the MPAA/RIAA, Microsoft seems to have put little thought into lobbying, at least until the antitrust suit.
Apple is much more litigious than Microsoft. They are constantly suing anyone who sells a product that looks or sounds like one of their products. They even gleefully attack free software such as the aqua-themed desktops.
If Microsoft vigorously sought and defended software patents, they could seriously impact Free Software. Whenever Microsoft announces a major intiative, somebody starts cloning it in the Free Software world. Microsoft has not used the patent system to lock up things like Plug-N-Play, COM and
I don't like Microsoft's software or business practices, but I am sick of the assumption that they are lawsuit-happy and eager for more legislation. Compared to the truly scummy companies of this industry, Microsoft is not an abuser of the courts and legislature.
Re:NOTE FOR WA RESIDENTS (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they're being pilloried! They could've sued Stac for their Stacker product, lest people confuse it with Microsoft's disk compressor software and they didn't. They could've sued Blue Mountain for their electronic greeting cards, so similar to Microsoft's, but they didn't. They could've sued Lotus for 1-2-3, which includes not one but three of the very same numbers that Excel works with, but they didn't.
</SARCASM>
You're some kind of lunatic if you think Microsoft owns definitive title to any software product with ``office'' or ``word'' in its name. The X Windowing System predates anything Microsoft ever did by a good many years, perhaps x.org should sue Microsoft for the use of the name?
OTOH, they've tried quite hard to lock up WMA, SMB and countless other things, including (IIRC) overlapping windows and the Start button concept. Why do you pick their few oversights and not their many, er, undersights?
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Information wants to be free.
Rent wants to be paid.
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Answers (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Read post
2) Activate brain
3) Read post again
4) Follow links properly
5) Write post
6) Submit
Please make sure to follow all those steps BEFORE posting.
Also, please check http://www.lindows.com/lindows_home_list.php for non Microsoft programs with Win(dows) in the name...
Re:Answers (Score:1, Insightful)
start a suit against MS. Wasn't the X Windows system around for a little while before MSW hit market ?
Or what about Xerox or Doug Engelbart going after
them for misuse of the names 'Windows' and 'mouse' ?
Truth is that windows is such a generic term it should never have been allowed to become a trademark.
Re:That's not up to you to decide. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they?
These people have already given their software out to the greater good. They've given up their ability to directly profit from it, and how is that bad? It's their decision.
As for price, let the markets decide if it's worth it. DOn't call anyone stupid for using the program, let them decide if it's worth it to them and trust in their own judgement. If Lindows fails then it fails and it's not skin off of anyone's back.
If it succeeds, though, it will help move linux out into the real world a lot more and in the end it will actually help the rest of the distributions. The people who wrote these programs will benefit in that indirect way. This is really what they signed up for in releasing their software under OS.
Hopefully Lindows will contribute improvements back to the main projects, but even if it doesn't it's still a good thing. I think you're completely offbase with this attack on Michael's project.
Re:Answers (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a customer that runs a local windows and doors business. We laughed a bit about this and he mentioned that he's not aware of any major window manufacturers who have been harassed by Microsoft. So to say that Microsoft claims that any use of "windows" is an infringement doesn't wash.
Maybe you mean that Microsoft only unleashes their dogs of war when the word is used in a computer software context?
Whatever. So your product name has stirred up some attention and publicity. That's a good thing, until the lawyers get involved. Now things get expensive and in that kind of game any idiot knows that Gates & Co. wins, you lose. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, he who has the most $ wins.
If it were my product (Lindows) I would choose this time to tell Microsoft that the name of the product will be changed if they will go away. If your product is any good then your company is about making a profit on that product and it won't matter too much what the name is. But if you continue to play this game with Microsoft people are going to get the idea that you're not in this for the product but in this to fight a silly battle with Big Bad Bill.
Which is it?
Re:NOTE FOR WA RESIDENTS (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, how would being "politically aware" have stopped the anti-trust suit? Please, cite some specific examples. In this case we had a re-elected president with a well known agenda. We also had a well established DoJ.
Microsoft's problem was that they refused to believe that they were answerable to the law. It has nothing to do with politics. ADDITIONALLY, they've been given numerous opportunities to settle the case (before, during *AND* after) and have refused each time to seriously approach the matter.
Next quote: "If they had made the slightest effort, they could have gotten some seriously damaging legislation passed against free software." Hmmm, read the UCITA? Microsoft is a major proponent of this steaming pile of dog by-product.
Software Patents. The items that the free software movement are "copying" aren't patented. Office and SMB have no patent protection. Neither does Windows. In all of these cases, the parties working in the free software arena are engaged in legal reverse-engineering. Microsoft has attempted to stop these groups through obfuscation, changing protocols and file formats, and even warping standards and trying to protect those changes by declaring them "Intellectual Property".
Also, the biggest additions of late are all second runs. IE came out long after Mosaic and Netscape. IIS was much later than NCSA HTTPD and Netscape (again). Media Player? Look at WinAmp and Real Player.
On the
Finally, Microsoft is an abuser of the courts. They've taken every legal advantage given to them and thumbed their noses at the courts and their proceedings. They've deliberately delayed, lied, and produced false testimony. They lobbied Congress to get the DoJ's budget decreased. And this latest suit (albeit justified) is an attempt to stop a "sound-alike" product.
Personally, I think they should call the product WinLinux (if they can get approval from Linus). Since there's ample evidence of products starting with WinXxxxxx being allowed on the market it would make Microsoft's position much more difficult. The current name is far to close to Windows and since it is an OS there needs to be more effort to differentiate. If the product *WASN'T* an OS, then I think the name would be acceptable.
Re:Answers (Score:5, Insightful)
One tiny difference:
WinAmp, WinZip, etc are applications
LindowsOS is an operating system
Windows is an operating system
Can you see why Microsoft care more about the use of their _OS_'s name in ANOTHER OS than they do about their _OS_'s name in an application that happens to run on their OS.
If Microsoft release an application called LinuxPassport that seems OK to me.
If they release a modified version of Windows with a few Cygnus things pre-installed and call it MSLinux, that might strike some of us as a little unreasonable, hmm?
X Windows?!!? (Score:0, Insightful)
MIT created the X Windows windowed operating environment in 1984. Doesn't that predate MS Windows by a few years?? Even if it doesn't, I've seen no reports that MS is suing MIT over trademark infringement.
Interesting Sidenote: Maybe MIT should sue MS over the term Xbox
Re:Answers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:That's not up to you to decide. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact Lindows contains "indows" of Windows, not just "dows" (I'm fascinated by how many people can't read here). The point being made by the previous poster is that the reason they chose "Lindows" over, say, "Leenex" is because they're making an alternative to "Windows" not a tissue
Re:Answers (Score:1, Insightful)
What other interventions are there?
Sooner or later Microsoft will fall but it should fall on its own and not because some court split it up.
Why not? We are not contemplating doing anything bad to Bill! He can keep his money and all... I wish him well. But the government sets the rules of the game for benefit and advancement of society and it has the right to change them any minute. Let me put it this way - we grow crops but control weeds. Very simple to undrstand. Imagine "free agriculture" without weed control or "totalitarian agriculrure" that suffocates anything green - both are different ways to kill the the stuff we need.
Do I want Bill Gates to control the computer industry right now or the US Government to do so
As I said, we don't care who the suffocator is and how the process is performed. If you think that there are only those two extremes - then you are an extremist Pay attention and you will see that people propose plenty of balanced measures.
I am an AC. Please, mod me up...
Re:Answers (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Answers (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember Standard Oil? Its breakup didn't result in a government oil monopoly. Quite the opposite; the point of anti-trust legislation is *to bring a market back into operation* when it has been effectively cornered by one monopolist.
Saying if you want government control move to Cuba is about as valid as me saying if you want unrestricted free enterprise try Haiti.
Fscking idiot... You're not a M$ astroturfer, are you?