Lindows Ordered To Stop Using Lindows Name 922
TheSpoom writes "InfoWorld reports that Lindows, a distribution of Linux and other software designed to emulate Windows, has been ordered to drop their name after Microsoft won a preliminary injunction yesterday from judges in Finland and Sweden."
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
See, See! It's NOT just stupid Americans! (Score:3, Insightful)
'Nuff said.
Copyright/Trademark Extension? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong impression (Score:5, Insightful)
They should concentrate on marketing their product as a decent OS and not a cheap and inferior copy of windows.
More FUD from M$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Good (Score:0, Insightful)
Invalidate WINDOWS first. (Score:3, Insightful)
BN
Quite Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
comprehensible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal or not, the name was indeed choose to be phonetically similar to Windows.
People often confuse similar sounding names, and tend to associate them together. My guess is, any average Windows user, would be much more comfortable with a suggestion such as Lindows, rather than say something like Knoppix.
Re:Quite Correct (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is a good thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it's just a name! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Sorry. I have far more important things in life to worry about than corporate squabbles over names. Also, I tend to date women who are smart enough to not be fooled by a similar sounding product name.
Letter differences frustrating (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Letter differences frustrating (Score:3, Insightful)
Both the words hammer and windows are mere descriptions and cannot be enforced as trademarks. That's why Microsoft lost in its attempt to obtain an injunction in the US.
I have no idea why they are winning in Europe. It appears they have different standards. Maybe I should start selling my Hammer there!
Re:Doesn't stop them (Score:5, Insightful)
You're looking at it the wrong way round. Which could Microsoft lose more from, being deprived of licences in Europe or deprived of licences in the US?
Current population of the US = 270m-ish. Current population of Europe = 730m. And Europe has a relatively low rate of piracy.
Factor in that the EU has shown (in the Windows Media Player case) that it's quite prepared to crack down hard on MS - in contrast to the US government - and it's no surprise that Microsoft is more concerned about European investments than American ones right now, and doing whatever it can to attack competitors' interests.
No, the sky isn't falling, but if you think that events in Europe can't affect those in America and it can't possibly affect you what Microsoft does over here, I suggest you talk to those people who narrowly avoided having their businesses crushed by a massive trade war over steel tariffs the other week.
Not to sound too nationalistic, but Europe is much bigger than the US - it's just more disorganised, and hamstrung by the French. ;-)
Protection against blatant clones (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a for example a look at the products of Sanex [cap.com.cy], and the blatant clone Sanicur [sanicur.com] (same sounding name, same colour scheme).
I would guess that Sanex would be more than happy to sue the other company into oblivion, but they are apparently not able to do so.
Re:+5, Ironic (Score:1, Insightful)
What if Microsoft's next product would be Microsoft(R) Linuz(TM)?
Re:The rest of the story: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have trouble imagining _any_ political viewpoint where the most pressing use for $100 is to fund Michael Robertson's quest to prove how deeply he can infringe on a Microsoft trademark with and get away with it.
Honestly, even if I thought favorably of Lindows and its company (I don't) and didn't think Robertson was being a twit about the name (I do) I'd still have trouble imagining funding this.
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright/Trademark Extension? (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe you should get out of your ivory tower sometime and join the real world. Do you really think that billy joe bob buying a computer at Walmart is going to notice the difference between Lindows and Windows? Do you think that even the 16 yr old sales clerk knows the difference?
I am also curious why Microsoft shouldn't have been allowed to trademark Windows as it related to operating systems? Trademarking common words is quite acceptable to you, I assume, when those words are Apple, Sun, or Oracle?
Donate money to help!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Lindows.com Chief Executive Officer Michael Robertson in a statement issued in response to the Swedish injunction, lashed out against Microsoft's legal pursuit of his company, accusing Microsoft of using lawsuits "as a battering ram to smash Linux."
Anyone who says that the name "Lindows" doesnt violate the trademark of "Windows" is a real hypocrite. If MS came out with a program called Winix, you guys would be going apeshit.
Even funnier is this Robertson idiot making this case out to be some kind of assult on Linux, rather than an attempt to get him to rename product.
European Legal System (Score:5, Insightful)
copycats (Score:2, Insightful)
now lindows wants ppl to know that its a good operating system and some windows apps run on it.
so Linux + windows doesnt sound abnormal or cheap
but the "windows" in lndows is actualy a reference to micro$oft windows.
what i dont understand is how worse is this from any prodcuts which have the word windows incorporated in them to convey to the user that they are compatible with M$windows ?
so whats next? windowmaker?
oh and by the way i own http://lingows.com and http://lingows.net.
i bougth the domains so i could host some services for multiple language support for linux;
i wanted a name to rhyme with lingos
and found this interesting;
now this is only a one letter change from lindows.com but i dont think thats a big problem;
infact i would be glad to carry any advertisements of lndows non english versions for free:) along with any other distros which have decent non-english language support
copyright vs copyleft
Re:In Other News... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, of course, that Microsoft is attempting to trademark a common word. Windows is not trademarkable, while Microsoft Windows is. Is this a new direction of embrace and extend?
Now, be honest. Do you make a xerox copy, or do you use a Xerox (tm) machine to make a photocopy?
Re:Donate money to help!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with "Windows" as a trademark is that it's a generic term. Microsoft should not have an exclusive rights to the word "Windows". Even in software "Windows" is a generic term used in every graphical operating system. That was the basis of the (so far successful) defense in the US.
Now, if Robertson was trying to sell something named "MSLindows", then I think Microsoft would have a claim that I would understand/defend/support.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
MS-Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
But at least we now know it was the Norweigan's who had the Swedish jokes right, and not the versa vice.
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Insightful)
They also own about 9 other active trademarks all on the word Windows relating to other areas.
Re:Donate money to help!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
A pox on Michael Robertson and "Lindows": may you blow your entire "fortune" in litigation and whither-away into oblivion.
ScottKin
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In Other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:comprehensible? (Score:3, Insightful)
In non-English-speaking countries, the term is no longer generic - it becomes "fanciful", and therefore protectable, and Microsoft might win in those countries, though given the scrutiny they're under in the EU, this is not a given. Lindows.com isn't big enough to sell the same product under too different names, and will have to change.
Therefore, even though Microsoft will lose the battle in the US, they're likely to win the war overall.
What I think Robertson will do is what he did in the MP3.com situation - fight until the very end just to keep the company in the news, then concede in a flurry of press releases just before it could actually result in a big payout to Microsoft.
Microsoft is hinting that they'll ask for damages - this is, of course, absurd. It will be impossible to show any loss of sales of Microsoft's product in any of those countries, since it's unlikely Lindows.com has sold more than a couple of dozen units there, and you could interview *every one* of those customers to find out if they were confused.
It's funny (Score:2, Insightful)
if some company tried to piggy back off of the beloved Red Hat Linux with their own Head Rat Linux everyone would be up in arms. What about Soose Linux? Or Debbie N Linux? Is that ok? As long as the offender is on MS's back everyone think's it fair and ok.
Lindows sounds silly anyway, like a parody. I use linux, and the first time I saw "Lindows" I rolled my eyes.
Why not just call it mp3.com linux? oh yeah, nevermind.
Re:European Legal System (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh? People shouldn't expect a court system to 'stand up for the little guy'. Courts should impartially apply the laws of the land. If by so doing, the 'little guy' wins, then so be it.
If this court has correctly applied the law (and come on, people, it's not that big a stretch to see that the name Lindows might have been deliberately chosen to be readily associated with Windows) then that's the way that I suspect most people expect the European courts to work. One should also note that trademark laws in Europe versus trademark laws in the United States though similar are not identical. That court cases on different sides of the ocean produced different outcomes may be a consequence of those legal differences.
Note also that trademark law is not uniform across Europe. Microsoft may have deliberately chosen Finnish and Swedish courts to pursue these claims first, because they felt the laws would be most amenable in those jurisdictions. (I don't know anything about Finnish law--this is a hypothesis.)
Finally, this is a preliminary injunction. Microsoft has asserted that Lindows is doing them harm, and until those claims are fully tested in court, Lindows has been temporarily barred from the use of their name. If it is later determined that they are not diluting Microsoft's trademarks, Lindows can sue MS for damages associated with the injunction.
Re:Lindows in bed with SCO anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides - what "punitive action" are *you* taking, or are you "in bed" with them too?
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
window is a generic word. windows is the plural of a generic word. what's the difference? should microsoft be able to copyright such a word?
Obvious Next Name (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Donate money to help!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
But like another poster did a must better job at explaining than me, "Windows" is an especially bad offender considering that the word has a meaning in the computer industry, and that meaning predates MS-Windows. In fact, that has been the basis of Lindows' defense in the US. That defense has been successful so far in the various injunction hearings they've had on the case.
Re:Donate money to help!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh? Hello? Minix, Linux. Let's think about this for just a second.... Hmmm.... Linux was made to be like minix, which coincidentally rhymes. Hmmmm... No, I think I'd be the hypocrite if I got mad at Lindows when I use an OS whose name ryhmes with what it was modeled after.
(Long Live Linux!)
Windows isn't like Xerox; it's like windows. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't that "Windows" is a generic term used to describe any graphical operating system. The problem is that "windows" is the name of the graphical thingies that comprise any graphical operating system, and has been for longer that Microsoft has been using the term to describe their own operating system which uses windows. It's more than just a generic name for something in computers, it is the name for the very thing which Windows and all other GUI OSs I'm aware of use.
Consider Kleenex -- I use "kleenex" as a generic term for "facial tissue". Now, what if instead of "Kleenex", Kimberly-Clark decided to call their product Facial Tissues(tm)? This is essentially what Microsoft did -- name the product after what it is. Which is fine, until you start telling other people they can't use that term or terms that evoke the same idea anymore.
Of course Lindows is supposed to conjure an association with Windows. It is undoubtedly meant to imply a product that is similar to Windows, which is indeed what Lindows wants to be. However it is highly unlikely that this would actually cause confusion. "What is a Fudge Cram pickup truck? Sounds a lot like 'Dodge Ram'... must be the same thing!"
Here's a somewhat related note on trademarks and common words. There was a box of some generic ginger snaps, and on the box in big letters it said "Made with Real Ginger!" With a tiny little (tm). "Real Ginger" was their trademarked name for whatever it was they put in their "ginger" snaps that was most certainly not ginger. Which is basically being able to shout blatant lies to people, as long as you say "just kidding" in a whispering voice that someone might hear. I can feel my cynicism congealing just thinking about it.
Re:In Other News... (Score:3, Insightful)
I do see the distinction you, and the law make on this. But on the other hand, I also maintain that a person would have to be either very gullible, or very stupid to have any more likelihood of mistaking the two explorers and windows/lindows.
Gullible or stupid? That's exactly the type of person Lindows is marketing to.
Re:In Other News... (Score:3, Insightful)
have become part of the American lexicon
Near ubiquity has arguably moved Microsoft's products into the popular lexicon more rapidly than the brand names for other products.
Brand protection is important in a competitive marketplace to help distinguish products.
Most computer users think of "Word", "Outlook" and "Explorer" as basic ingredients of their computer. If pressed, they might remember the "MS" prefix that seems to prepend those application names. Many people are only vaguely aware of "Windows", considering it along the same lines as the hardware it's always bundled with, something dreary and essential like a utility. If you asked them what competing brand applications existed for each of Word, Explorer, Outlook, they'd have a hard time. Some of them might well come up with fictitious competitors like "Apple Word", "Netscape Explorer", prefixing a company name to something they regard as basic functionality. Only a small minority of people use carefully couched terms like "word processing" "WWW HTML browser" or "mail user agent". Arguably fewer people understand the correct generic terminology than the terminology based on Microsoft's branding.
The speed with which Microsoft gets its products into overwhelmingly dominant market positions is IMHO reason to speed the transition of those names into a less protection. New product names like .NET, etc. deserve strong protection so consumers aren't misled; misspelled plays on old products names like Lindows will only cause potential buyers to think someone is trying foist upon them a cheaper and shoddier Windows wannabee.
In some sense, existence of ersatz Windows elevates the brand value of Windows, as any consumers disappointed with Lindows will be sure to tell people to make sure and get the real thing.
OTOH, if Lindows quality is acceptable...then there could be a problem, just as if my Lercedes automobile line were to be reasonably well-built instead of like a Yugo.
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well of course. MS isn't going to sue Pella over the use of "windows" in their product names. "Lindows" is marketed as a replacement for Windows (the product website is peppered with references to Windows), the UI looks like Windows (fairly generic to be sure, but some things came from MS, such as the "Start" button in the lower left hand corner), and certainly when the name "Lindows" was coined it wasn't with the generic "windows" usage in mind.
Lindows is clearly trafficking on the Windows product name and not the generic term - their whole business model is built on replacing Windows. I think the court ruled correctly in this instance.
Re:The rest of the story: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't donate to companies that intentionally waste that donation on frivilous lawsuits. Calling it Lindows was really stupid. They had every expectation they'd be sued for it. And now they're acting like the big evil company is swooping down on them. This isn't about trying to right some wrong, it's about attacking Microsoft. Sorry, but any donations I make are going towards changing the DMCA, not towards some idiot CEO picking battles he has no need to win.
Re:Quite Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
If a friend said to you, "I bought this program but I have to return it because it only runs on Windows," would you have even the slightest doubt about what he meant? Of course not. Everyone knows, in the computing field, what Windows means. The reason Lindows is "winning" in the US isn't because the name Windows is generic. It's not. The reason is because in the 1980s, when MS named the program Windows, the name was generic.
Re:Copyright/Trademark Extension? MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3, Insightful)
WRONG! MS has many trademarks on the word Windows alone. Here is one of them [uspto.gov].
American Courts (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarity to Coca-/Pepsi-Cola (Win-/Lin-dows) (Score:2, Insightful)
Cola is a generic term used in the industry but it is part of Coke's brand identity. It's part of a trademarked name (as is "dows").
Win is the abbreviation of Windows and its all around. I don't see dows32 programs being written. Lindows simply replaced the specific portion of a generic word.
It's a good thing Ford didn't name his product the Ford Car. If we talked about someone's "car", we'd have to be corrected that its an "automobile" or "horseless-carriage".
And what about Mazda changing the name of the B-series pickup to the "Mazda Truck". Hopefully they won't decide to trademark the name... especially in Finland or something. My god! They could take Ford out of business!
Winux would infringe another trademark... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Winux would infringe another trademark... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just so it's clear, I'm not defending Microsoft here. I'm attacking this hypocritical behaviour. It's okay for Linus to defend his trademark, but Microsoft can't? This type of behaviour, besides being childish "boo hiss I hate Microsoft" it also will backfire against the Open Source Community. Fair is fair. If you guys can't demonstrate fairness and at least some objectivity, then don't expect your warnings about how 'evil' Microsoft is to be heard.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like those arrogant, fundamentalist-endowed leaders in that other country (starts with a U, and it ain't Ukraine) who seem to think they have the right to do exactly this all over the world... and are presently doing it.
This is like some fundamentalist judge in Iran ordering the entire alchool industry in the world to shut down because it is forbidden by the Koran, and actually being taken seriously in areas outside the range of his private army.
Hmmm... like some other puritanical government teetering on the edge of tyranny, bullying sovereign governments all over the world into conducting raids and arresting their own citizens even when their own local laws allow their citizens the exact behavior they are being persecuted for...
We're all shedding tears (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:+5, Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
That just doesn't make sense. One of the main points of contention is that "Windows" is a generic term and "Linux" is not. You cannot generally trademark generic words on their own [1]. You cannot violate a claimed trademark that's a generic word. If you are trying to point out the hypocrisy, this does not qualify.
[1] Trademark laws and language constraints in different countries probably vary.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is brand recognition.
Someone says "windows" with reference to a computer and MSFT Windows springs to mind. Admit that and we can go on. Deny it and ignore the rest of the post, you're just being awkward.
If Lindows is bringing a system to market that imitates the function of MSFT Windows and uses a name similar, they are trading on the brand recognition of the MSFT product.
This is wrong because they didn't create the brand recognition, yet if they produce an inferior (scuse me, I'm just pissing my pants laffing at the thought of anyone doing it worse) product, they could harm the brand perception of MSFT Windows.
Lindows could harm Windows, and therefore should not be allowed to trade off the name. I hate MSFT as much as the next guy, but rules are rules, breaking them won't make the product better.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademarks: Lindows vs. Microsoft Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
The defense is not that Lindows is causing confusion, but whether "Windows" can be a trademark in the software domain. "Microsoft Windows" can be trademarked, because it is a generic term used in conjuction with an identifier. And if someone tried to trademark "Macrosift Windows", Microsoft would have a case.
But the generic term "windows" had already been in use in the software domain for several years before Microsoft applied for the trademark. Research how Microsoft gained the trademark. Several other companies were using "windows" in other software trademarks. Microsoft bought several of those companies to remove the patent and trademark office's objections.
If "windows" is a generic software term, then Microsoft cannot object to companies using similiar trademarks. The US courts seem to agree, and may take the generic trademark from Microsoft.
---
As far as "Winux" being confused with "Linux":
Visually, there is only a 20% difference in letters, but it is the most significant character. But "W" sounds much like "L", so Linus would have a good case based on the similarity of pronunciation. He would not have much of a case against "Dinux", "Kinux", "Pinux", "Sinux", "Tinux", or "Zinux".
(I am currently fighting a trademark case where both the words and audial identifiers are similar. We are arguing that they are distinct enough not to cause confusion in the mind of any consumer.)