Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Your Rights Online

Fox Lawyers Try To Shut Down The "Why Files" 39

Posted by michael from the look-out-dragonball-Z dept.
MarchingAnts writes: "According to this article on eSchoolNews.com, Fox lawyers are demanding that the University of Wisconsin close down its immensely popular science website "The Why Files" (which has been online for nearly five years) because it supposedly infriges on its trademark of "The X-Files" and could confuse viewers of the television show. An offer made by Fox to license "The Why Files" name to the University for an undisclosed fee has been rejected, and lawyers have now said they will start legal action seeking to cancel "The Why Files.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fox Lawyers Try To Shut Down The "Why Files" More

Fox Lawyers Try To Shut Down The "Why Files"

Comments Filter:
  • Their trademark is "The X Files". Now, does that cover "The*[Ff]iles"? If I have a cofee stand called "The Z Cofee", do I have the right to sue anybody called "The Best Cofee" or "The Genuine Colombian Cofee"?
  • Homer: Look, daddy is buying stocks online...
    Lisa: Dad! That's FOX!
    Homer: SELL! SELL!

    --
  • If UW already has "The Why Files" trademarked (which I think they do), then tough titty for Fox unless they already trademarked "The [a-Az-Z] Files." Which they didn't.

    But of course, Fox has to whine like little babies since they aren't getting their way.

    "WAAAH!!! I WANT UW'S DOMAIN NAME!"

    Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
  • First off Fox owns the "X-files" name and all derivations of it. Period. The law is the law and you must obey it at all times even if it is a law that you think was "bought" by special interests.

    hmm, xfm, the x-file-manager was Copyrighted in 1993 by Ove Kalkan - all rights reserved. http://man-pages.net/linux/man1/xfilemanager.1.htm l [man-pages.net]
    Does this constitute "prior art" ?
  • Let's simplify every damn copryight/domain/competition dispute since the past 2-3 years :

    "EvilCorp tries to buy out LittleBiz, LittleBiz refuses, so EvilCorp just plain steals LittleBiz from the grips of their owners."

    Sounds a hell of a lot like organised crime. If you don't shut up and take the money, _they_ shut you up and keep the money. Last I heard, gangsterism was still illegal, why should corporate gangsterism be any different ? Instead of sending armed thugs to your home, they send legal threats. The vehicles of destruction may be different, but the modus operandi are one and the same. Once again, I hope Fox eventually gets gang-raped by the little guys they crushed and swallowed. They're no better than Microsoft, in fact they're much sloppier than Gates' legal henchmen.
  • X-windows?
    The X-Box?
    Windows XP File Manager?
    Watch out Microsoft, Fox has your number.

  • With the declining ratins of the X-Files within the past 2 years, this may be just a ploy by Fox in order to boost the X-Files ratings via a publicity based case of Fox vs. "X Files Fan Club" or something.

    One of the things to keep in mind is any unauthorized used of X Files (copywritten) items such as logo's, graphics, etc., may be in full violation if you don't have the prior consent of the owners. Its sort of like that warning message that comes up when you play a DVD or VHS movie, which we all ignore.

    Sure it sounds as petty as all heck, but there has to be a bit more for the reasoning of Fox going after a school based fan club site which is not mentioned anywhere.

    SpeedyGrl Files [speedygrl.com]
  • ...copying something from this whole Napster suit. Yea, I'm sure that the lawyers for Metallicops could find a reason to sue Fox for taking their idea.

    Heh. Or not.

  • http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI/ [xenu.net]

    Welcome to The H-Files, an archive of documents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to L. Ron Hubbard and the Dianetics and Scientology movements which he founded. There are 638 pages ranging from 1940 to 1983. They are being transcribed now and will be included continuously.

    Looks like the scientologists at FOX are going to have to sue xenu.net too!
  • The way I read the article, they offered to stop bothering the Why files site if the university paid money to FOX, not the other way around. Of course to me that shows they're completely in it for the loot--if they were willing to allow the whyfiles name to be used at all, they're not worried that it will confuse viewers into thinking it's related to the X files.

  • Re:Well folks, this isn't an easy issue. (Score:3)

    by Sodium Attack ( 194559 ) on Friday March 16, 2001 @11:14AM (#363070)
    "Prior art" applies to patent law, not trademark law.

    It's a common mistake among /.ers to assume that what applies to one type of intellectual property law applies to all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    More generally, scientists and engineers often make the mistake of thinking that you can look at specific laws and make generalizations from them to similar cases. This works fine in science and engineering. It's what science is all about, in fact. But it's not how law works.

    There are no general principles in law, only the specifics of individual laws. Oh, sure, the motivations of lawmakers may cause different laws to seem to be based on the same principle, but you can't extrapolate from one law to another.

    More directly relavant to IP law, patents != trademarks != copyrights != patents.

    To take one simple example, trademarks cannot be selectively enforced. If you let some people get away with infringing your trademark (and I'm talking here about bona fide trademark infringements, and not the bogus type seen here in the Fox vs. UW case), you may find that you no longer have a trademark, against your will.

    People often try to extrapolate, and thus reason that patents and copyrights also cannot be selectively enforced, but this is not so. Patents and copyrights can and are selectively enforced, and the fact that you did not enforce your patent or copyright against one infringer does not weaken it in the least.

    Why should selective enforcement be allowed for patents and copyrights, but not for trademarks? No reason, as far as I can tell. There are no general principles at work here, only specific laws, which allow for selective enforcement of patents and copyrights, but not trademarks. QED.

    Sorry to ramble on for so long, but it's a common mistake on /.

  • Re:Yawn. (Score:3)

    by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Thursday March 15, 2001 @11:11AM (#363071) Homepage Journal
    Well, Fox wouldn't exist without the Simpsons. It would have tanked around 1990 but for that one show. I think the show does have the network by the short hairs (or used to).

  • It is listed as "dead", but "S-Files" [uspto.gov] was filed for trademark status on February 27, 1986 with a priority date of August 28, 1985. That's almost 9 years before the first "X-Files" [uspto.gov] trademark filed July 7, 1994.

    See the list of "-Files" trademarks here [uspto.gov].

  • It's stories like this that push the argument for mandatory death penalties against greedy bastards. Think about it: one of the FOX lawyers is sitting in his office, getting ready for a lunch meeting...maybe thinking about what he's going to do this weekend, when someone from the government steps in with a syringe. "Sorry sir." is the last thing he hears.

    For the record, and to give backing to the claim that FOX are blood sucking pigdogs - the production company that produces The Simpsons (Gracie Films) want as little to do with FOX as possible. Their wars are well-known in the industry.
  • While your second statement is *technically* correct, it only happened in one much-maligned U.S. Supreme Court case and that doctrine has *never* been applied in the First Amendment context. Do some research before you spout off, because you're certainly NAL.

    --J
  • Trademarks are directly related to the owner of the the trademarks. A trademark says I am responsible for this type of thing. You can't claim you're responsible in one case but not others.

    A copyright says I worked on this thing. I can do whatever the hell I want with it.

    A patent says I thought about this thing I'll tell you about it if you don't make any of these, but feel free to improve on it.

  • Zilog, the company that invented the Z-80 microprocessor, went through a phase of suing anyone who used the letter Z in their product name.
  • separate patent for infernal combustion engines.

    You could make a good deal of money with that idea. I can picture your slogan: Travel with the power of the underworld!


    "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto"
    (I am a man: nothing human is alien to me)

  • First off, it's not even a fan site. It's an entirely unrelated site that is all about science. I thought you couldn't enforce trademarks if they were in another realm of commerce?

    Second, it's whyfiles.org [whyfiles.org]. Not Y-Files.com. Not even whyfiles.com. Would anyone in his right mind think that this dilutes the X-Files trademark?

    I don't know what Fox is smoking (apparently the cheap stuff), but I sincerely hope they don't manage to win this legal battle. That would be a sad day indeed.


    Dlugar

  • FOX has done this sort of thing many times before. They've tried to shut down all fan sites for The Simpsons, The X-Files, Millenium, and other shows they air. In many cases they go after sites that contain no infringing materials; sites that contain the name of a TV program, a list of characters, and an episode guide! While the government purports to offer it's citizens freedom of expression, corporate america is clearly of the opinion that no discussion can occur on any topic without their express permission.

  • Yawn. (Score:3)

    by Kasreyn ( 233624 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2001 @02:27PM (#363080) Homepage
    Didn't really need /. just to tell me Fox are a bunch of slimeballs. This has been common knowledge for the past, oh, decade...

    Lord only knows how a good show like The Simpsons managed to stay on Fox for so long... IIRC they even had an episode blasting Fox the way they attack everything else... I guess Fox is just asleep at the switch, either that or their legions of Simpsons fans have them by the short hairs. ;-P

    -Kasreyn

  • Freedom of speech. (Score:3)

    by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2001 @02:27PM (#363081) Homepage
    People think that the first amendment only applies to government actions.

    It has been found that private actors (individuals and companies) using the courts become government actions.

    It would be nice if they had posted the letters, but I would guess that they are using the dilution act. Given that, the claim must fail since it's not a commercial site. There is not even banner advertising.

  • homer. (Score:3)

    by thopo ( 315128 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2001 @03:02PM (#363082)
    As long as i get my weekly dosis of The Simpsons i don't care, really.

  • Mark Info (Score:3)

    by krch ( 159033 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2001 @04:31PM (#363083) Homepage
    Given that the mark in question was granted a trademark June 9, 1998, and was published for opposition March 17, 1998, one cannot help but question Fox Studio's intentions.

    See the USPTO's page for information regarding the mark in question:

    http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=70 1a4n.2.1

  • You've sold your soul to Corporate America? Your freedom of speech (or mine for that matter) is worth less to you than cheap mindless entertainment?

    Reminds me of the episode where Bart sells his soul to to Millhouse. (Yes, I too have at times fallen to the demons)

    I may not like what you have to say, but will defend with my life your right to say it.

    Doesn't ring true any more, for most Americans, does it?

  • Fox offered some money for the site name. It was refused and there is a valid site with users at the address currently. This is probably not a case of domain name squatting.

    Therefore Fox decides to sue anyways.

    Ummmm.... No.
  • . . . they're sending the land sharks after:

    Whois Results for thexxxfiles.com

    The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network
    Solutions for information purposes, and to assist persons in obtaining
    information about or related to a domain name registration record.
    Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
    WHOIS query, you agree that you will use this Data only for lawful
    purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this Data to:
    (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
    unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail
    (spam); or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
    that apply to Network Solutions (or its systems). Network Solutions
    reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
    this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

    Registrant:
    Artel Resources (THEXXXFILES-DOM)
    111 Verona Avenue
    Goleta, CA 93117

    Domain Name: thexxxfiles.com

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
    Lux Lucis Administrator (LLA-ORG
    admin@LUXLUCIS.COM
    Lux Lucis Communications
    PO BOX 650
    Cupertino, CA 95015
    US
    805-897-3336Fax- 805-897-3337
    Fax- - 805-897-3337

    Record last updated on 19-Oct-2000.
    Record expires on 05-Oct-2001.
    Record created on 04-Oct-1996.
    Database last updated on 14-Mar-2001 21:13:59 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.LUXLUCIS.COM 216.33.187.70
    NS2.LUXLUCIS.COM 216.33.187.71

  • ... when it's clearly a long-established brand name of the X Consortium?

    Does this mean I have to delete all the "X-Files" from my disk? xclock, xlogo, xcalc ...


    --

  • Doesn't this remind you a bit of Peanuts? Good ol' Charlie Brown, boy of common sense, has straight forward views on life, but is essentially bullied into doing whatever Lucy says (be it kicking a football or paying her 5 cent psychiatrist fee) through excessive child mumbo-jumbo/jargon. Lucy should be working for Fox, apparently.
  • There have been so many ?-files since the X-Files started that a claim of trademark dilution for anything other than X-Files might be accepted. There have been any number of Sci-Files, [A-W]-files and probably a few Y-files kicking about. You have to defend your trademark.
  • If I recall, it is possible to have independent patents on similar products using dissimilar technology.

    For example a patent on a horsless carriage might not be enough. You could patent a specific steam powered technology, vs a separate patent for infernal combustion engines.

    Thus it is possible for someone else to to develop an independant system separate from the first system, and accomplish the same goals.

    A famous case had to do with the reverse enginnering of the IBM Bios, which led to the first 100% IBM compatible PCs. the engineers only had a spec of what the inputs and outputs were, with no other data, and designed a bit of hardware the duplicated the result exactly. IBM sued, and lost.

    Given that, i somehow doubt that NCR would have much success vs someone with a similar idea, 14 years after the fact, and sitting on their hands all the while.

    It isn't like it was a secret.

    BTW, IANAL, etc.

  • Trademarks are so *incredibly* silly, you know?

    One of these days I'm going to trademark every letter in the English alphabet... ;)
  • wrong topic area, too many windows
  • Then what will you do when I patent the process of combining letters into words, sentences, and paragraphs?


    "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

  • They do send armed thugs and even hitmen after you. Except the difference is these thugs and hitmen are paid for by your tax dollars. They make a decision, get the courts to rubber stamp it and then send gov't agents to enforce it, by any means necessary. Government can and does use force, even lethal force, when people don't play by its rules - which often include obeying the judgement of a court which is just rubber stamping a corporate edict.

    It is the more "civilized" type of gangsterism.

  • Almost all of Fox's shows have anti-Fox jokes at one point or another. The Simpsons has just had more because it's supposed to be a comedy.

    Homer: And you made us stop watching Fox because of those chemical plants they own in Libya.

  • You can't, I already have a patent on patenting prior arts!

  • The problem is, it would take quite a bit more than that to move this apathetic nation to revolution. We'll whine for a bit, but in the end, we'll settle back into our day-to-day shackles.

    I'd be almost happy if there were some monstrosity committed to force us into open rebellion, but as time goes on and on, I fear more and more than even a monstrosity (more so than already committed, I mean) would still be ignored by the populace.

    A sad day indeed.


    Dlugar
  • I think that Fox is suing over that name because they plan to release a sequel to "X Files", with the name "Y Files" or "Why Files"!!! Think about it, could that be possible?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close