Is Microsoft Hoisting Its Own Copyright Petard? 491
dago writes "In the Lindows Vs. Microsoft case concerning the 'Windows' trademark PC World and others are reporting that Microsoft has to provide material concerning a 1992 case fought by Apple against Microsoft. This case was won by Microsoft and allowed them to use 'windows.' Will that be a nice boomerang effect ?"
hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
I had to look Petard up at dictionary.com [reference.com]. It has a note starting:
So, really, the headline could mean:
Is Microsoft Hoisting Its Own Copyright Fart?
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
So, petard='to blow oneself up with one's own bomb'=fart
I hereby designate Petard as my word of the day, which means I must use it in a sentence..
"*sniff*, phew! who Petarded?"
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Quite soon they were instructed instead to use the full company name in the greeting rather than the abbrieviated form!
If I have to be on-topic then I'll add that MS look as if they will blow themselves up with their own hot air. I rememeber the last time this story reached a crescendo some were saying "it's in MS's interest to jut drop it, or they might even _lose their trademark_". (As some, many in fact, have said that they had no right to it in the first place).
As you were.
YAW.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/hamlet/
Sorry - was just reading Hamlet recently.
More information here: http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-pet1.h
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
It's OK for you guys to laugh: what do you think it feels like for me to have a name which pretty much equate to "I fart" in French.
Still I suppose it could get me into a Monty Python film as a knight on top of a castle...
The stole it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The stole it (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention, had Apple won, they would have immediately been sued by and lost to Xerox.
Re:The[y] stole it (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, no. Apple bought the rights to go to Palo Alto and take whatever they wanted. It was a major coup, and it was mostly because the Xerox execs were clueless about what they had. I believe Xerox was very close to liquidating the Palo Alto team, and they saw Apple as a chance to make some quick cash out of the "losing investment".
Regardless, Apple was fully in the right basing some of their work off the Palo Alto team --- they bought the rights to it!
Re:The[y] stole it (Score:3)
Or weren't shallow enough to forsee a time of "one-click shopping" patents and other nonsense that's so prevalent today.
WRONG (Score:2)
TaLk about your long standing myths...
Apple paid Xerox, in stock, for the rights to do the GUI interface. so naturally Apple was pissed they paid for something Microsoft got for free.
Re:WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple paid a trivial price in the hopes of being legally recognized as the nigh-eternal owner of graphical user interfaces. Better Apple be pissed than have them own the licensing rights to GUIs either for 95 years (copyright) or forever (trademark, trade dress.) No X Window System, boys... we'd all be restricted to buying $5,000 Macs if we didn't want a CLI.
Re:The stole it (Score:5, Informative)
1) Apple *did* get much of the Mac concept from Xerox. However, they did not steal it -- Xerox had invested heavily in Apple at the time, and invited Steve J. in to take a look at the stuff at PARC, since they had already decided not to commercialize the stuff (unbeknownst to the developers), and they wanted to increase the value of their investment in Apple. Apple signed a license with Xerox and obtained the rights to use the GUI legally. Xerox was actually part of the lawsuit between Apple and Microsoft, but they did not support Apple, because they had pinned a lot of future revenue on the success of their PC's, which never actually materialized.
2) Other companies won "look and feel" lawsuits in the same timeframe -- most notably, Lotus won against Borland. Apple lost this case primarily because the judge had no understanding of technology, and knew it, so he decided to break the "look and feel" issue down to the individual elements of the GUI, as opposed to looking at it as a whole. He concluded, for example, that the Windows trashcan looked different enough from the Apple trashcan, so there was no infraction.
3) Microsoft actually licensed the "look and feel" from Apple! But what they licensed, according to Apple, was the Windows 2.0 look and feel, which explicitly did not include overlapping windows. When 3.0 came out, that was when Apple filed the suit. The whole overlapping thing was the basis of the suit -- that Microsoft was doing something outside of the agreement they had signed with Apple. IIRC, the "look and feel" thing came up as part of the counter-suit and counter-counter-suit arms race that followed the original filing.
"Stealing" is what Microsoft did.
Re:The stole it (Score:5, Interesting)
He concluded, for example, that the Windows trashcan looked different enough from the Apple trashcan, so there was no infraction.
I must be missing something here. The first "trashcan" Microsoft ever had was the recycle bin in Windows 95, which came out in late 1995. Apple systems had trashcans already as early as 1984, over ten years earlier (I remember using one at the time). How can there ever have been any dispute about the trashcan? There is no doubt who copied it from whom.
Re:The stole it (Score:4, Informative)
The lawsuit and all of the crossed T's and dotted I's was on-line at one time but I can't find it now otherwise I'd post a link directly to it. It was very interesting reading. Apple basically rolled over IMHO. I also remember reading some time back that Bill Gates considered that lawsuit one of the pivotal lawsuits which gave them full monopoly power over the Macintosh as not only could they create an OS based upon the MacOS but they also were allowed to sell it to whomever they wanted. Which is why, in the later lawsuit, Apple lost so badly. They (Apple) basically signed away all of their rights to Microsoft.
Ya know - if Apple were a human being they would be dead by now from all of the times they've shot themselves in the foot, arm, head, torso, etc.... Not that I don't like them (I've got several Macs as well as IBM PCs) - but they've always seemed like an idiot savant.
Re:The stole it (Score:3, Interesting)
Also because the FSF forbade porting GNU tools to Apple systems.
"Forbade" might be a strong word, but it was at least "strongly discouraged".
Re:The[y] stole it (Score:2)
On Mac OS X,
'ls' is a BSD utility.
'grep' is a BSD utility.
'vi' is a BSD utilty (nvi)
However, gcc, autotools, emacs and many other tools are part of GNU.
Thorough summary of GUI development history (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The stole it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The stole it (Score:5, Informative)
Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft must produce more evidence to support its trademark lawsuit.
Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service
Monday, March 03, 2003
A federal court has ordered Microsoft to produce more than 300 boxes of evidence to support its claims in a trademark suit against software startup Lindows.com, pushing back the jury trial in the case from April until December.
The delay, announced by Lindows Monday, comes as a welcome relief for the San Diego, California, company, which said in a statement that it is grateful for the extra time to prepare for the case.
Name Game
Lindows, which offers a low-cost Linux-based operating system that is compatible with popular Microsoft file formats, has been battling against the software giant for more than a year over the similarity between the Windows and Lindows names.
While Microsoft claims that "windows" is clearly a trademark, Lindows is arguing that windows is a generic term for a certain type of software interface that predates the Redmond, Washington, company's claim.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle has ordered Microsoft to produce evidence supporting its claims, including documents from Apple Computer's 1992 case against the software mammoth, Lindows said. In that case, Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement claiming that the Windows graphical user interface mirrored the look and feel of its Macintosh desktop. Apple lost the suit.
Looking Into Windows
Lindows claims, however, that the documents from the case contain evidence that the terms "windows," "icons," and "menus" are widely used in the computer business and are not property of any one company.
The boxes the court has ordered Microsoft to produce are expected to contain testimony from dozens of witnesses, court transcripts, and evidence that "windowing systems" were developed in the 1970s and 1980s before both Microsoft and Apple developed their own, Lindows lead counsel Daniel Harris said in a statement.
Microsoft originally filed suit against Lindows for trademark infringement in December of 2001. Despite efforts to obtain a preliminary injunction against the niche software maker, Microsoft's requests have been denied.
Now the jury trial, originally scheduled for April 7, 2003, has been pushed back to December 1.
Product Plans
While the companies have been locked in a legal duel, Lindows has been busily signing distribution deals. Walmart.com is selling low-cost PCs with the LindowsOS preloaded, as well as stand-alone versions of the software. Fry's Electronics' retail stores are also selling the LindowsOS.
While a court defeat could come as a marring blow to Lindows and company founder and Chief Executive Officer Michael Robertson, for now the company is banking on its low-cost business model. And Robertson, who also headed up MP3.com, said in a statement that he is confident that the new evidence will support Lindow's case.
No one from Microsoft was immediately available Monday to comment on the court order.
Re:Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article Text (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Article Text (Score:4, Insightful)
When you're on a daily deadline (and IDGNS staff turn copy around as quickly as possible) you'll often find yourself caught between simply repeating the official statements of the companies involved or not running a story at all.
As you'll see at the bottom of Scarlet's story, MS didn't comment in time - but they will by the next story and that's really what web publishing has become - radio reporting in writing. Reporters report what they can at the time and build the story up as it goes along. It's different to weekly newspaper reporting which we're more used to seeing online.
Yes, I work for IDG (in New Zealand). No, I don't know Scarlet.
How Press Releases Work (Score:5, Insightful)
You write them for busy/lazy journalists in exactly the form and style of a news piece - in particular, using the inverted pyramid form so it can be cut off at pretty much any point and still make sense - and hope that they'll make few if any changes before running it.
Certainly any quotes that are there can usefully be picked up without having to re-interview your CEO who's going say exactly the same thing anyway.
A good journalist will at least fact check, even on the busiest of days, but if you're a tight to deadline journo and there's space going unfilled, having the core of an article written for you is helpful.
If the facts check out, why re-invent the wheel?
Re:Article Text (Score:2)
A federal court has ordered Microsoft to produce more than 300 boxes of evidence to support its claims in a trademark suit against software startup Lindows.com, pushing back the jury trial in the case from April until December.
As a long-time observer of Microsoft's legal battles, this aspect looks tediously familiar.
Yes, I'm sure there's good reasons for pushing back the trial. There were good reasons, sometimes, for pushing back the anti-trust trial, too.
But once again, the operative word here is delay.
Re:Article Text (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the delay works to Lindows' economic favor, not MS.
Does it?
I could see that MS would like to kill Lindows early on.
OTOH, while this trial is up in the air, there's a degree of uncertainty about Lindows long term viability, which could affect both its sales and the ability to raise more investment capital to expand into larger markets.
I'm not sure whose getting more pain as a result, but I know that MS has far greater caseh reserves as well as a much more lucrative cash cow that typically thrives on preserving that status quo, by whatever means available.
Re:Article Text (Score:5, Insightful)
That means that all the while the trial is going on, people are buying their product, using it, etc. This means that even if they lose the case, they have a larger entrenched user base to draw on. A quick name change to something like LinOS, and they can keep right on going. If they were given an injunction, they would either have to change their name now and then change back if they won or stop producing a product until the issue was settled. Remember, they are only talking about the name of their product "LindowsOS" not the name of their company, Lindows.
Re:Article Text (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think this is as big of a deal as you say. In the (I believe unlikely) event that Lindows loses this case, the most likely remedy would simply be forcing them to change their name. Since Windows is a registered trademark, they would also be liable for any legal fees. Monetary damages are possible, but from what I understand, are not typical, and based on the strength of Lindows case, I would be surprised if they were awarded. Of course, IANAL, so caveat emptor. For more details, see Bitlaw. [bitlaw.com]
While a loss would certainly have a negative impact on Lindows, the amount of free publicity this case is getting (and will continue to get after a loss) would likely help make up for any loss in name recognition sustained in the name-change.
Lindows against Windows: Court battle retarded (Score:3, Funny)
Lindows against Windows: Court battle retarded
Microsoft must produce more proof, in order to support its registered trade mark process.
Scarlet Pruitt, IDG news service Monday, March 03, to support 2003
Federal High Court Microsoft ordered to produce more than 300 boxes proof around its requirements in a registered trade mark complaint against software start Lindows.com and in the case from one April to Decembers back pressed the jury attempt.
retarded, announced by Lindows Monday, comes as welcome discharge for San Diego, California, company, which said in a statement that it is during the extra time, for the case to prepare gratefully.
name play
Lindows, which offers an inexpensive Linux created operating system, which is compatible with popular Microsoft document formats, has against the software giant for more than one year over the similarity between the Windows and Lindows to names fought.
during Microsoft stated that "window" is obviously a registered registered trade mark, argues Lindows that window is a generic name for a certain kind program interface, those predates talking moon, Washington, Anspruch of the company.
United States the district court for the western district of Washington in Seattle Microsoft ordered to produce the proof that its requirements, including which 1992 against the software, which is giant, said Lindows supports documents from box of the Apple computer. In this case complained Apple Microsoft for the copyright infringement, which stated that the Windows reflected graphic user interface the view and the feeling of its Macintosh of desk. Apple lost the complaint.
schauen in Windows
Lindows of requirements however that the documents of the case proof contain that the designations "window," "icons are used," and "menus" generally in the computer business and not characteristic of any a company are.
ordered the boxes, the court Microsoft to produce, is expected, in order to contain certification by the dozens of witnesses, court copies, and proof, which "window representation systems" were developed in the seventies and eighties before Microsoft and Apple their developed, Lindows line advice Daniel Harris said in a statement.
Microsoft originally arranged complaint against Lindows for registered trade mark injury in the December of 2001. Despite the efforts to achieve a provisional order against the niche software producer requests Microsofts were refused.
was originally pressed now the jury attempt, fixed for April 7, 2003, back to December 1.
product Plans
during the companies in a certified Duel locked are, have Lindows employ distribution agreements signed. Walmart.com sells inexpensive PC with the LindowsOS preloaded, as well as unmarried versions of the software. Retail businesses of electronics roasted sell also the LindowsOS.
during a court defeat as damaging impact Lindows and to company-to founders and to the general manager Michael Robertson come could, because now, the company has model bank account on its inexpensive business. And Robertson, which precedes MP3.com also up, said in a statement that he is convinced that the new proof supports case Lindows.
anybody of Microsoft was not immediately existing Monday to commentate to the court order.
Standards? (Score:5, Funny)
no it's a legal strategy .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, Windows is a common term (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope that the court at least considers the case logically, if not idealistically. Either way, I reckon MS is in the wrong on this one.
Do you really think MS cares about winning? Startup companies notoriously don't have a lot of money, and they need every penny to get out of the red. By taking Lindows into court and making them spend their venture capital on a stupid court battle, Microsoft is effectively making them spend their investment capital on garbage, rather than producing a product. MS doesn't care about winning, they only care about the attritional effects a long and expensive court case will have on a startup.
This is just one of the ways they work to maintain their monopoly. If they win, great. If they lose, no loss for them. The important thing is that Lindows is screwed.
I don't actually know if Lindows is screwed or not, but I suspect that if they didn't think they could fight, win, and continue producing their product, then they would have just changed their name and settled. OTOH, it's entirely possible that the entire purpose of Lindows is to fight this court battle, and they created LindowsOS just for the sake of this fight. Why they would do it is unclear to me, but that someone would view it as a needed action is quite clear.
The missed point.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Providing a graphical interface to a computer shouldn't be a monopoly for one company. Apple was wrong to sue MS.
"Windows" is a generic name. "Lindows" is a stupid name.
Re:The missed point.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple wasn't trying to monopolize the gui, just certain aspects of it. To their credit, even back then Apple knew that the gui was absolutely "the way", and they made a desperate attempt at curbing Microsoft (not to mention getting royalties from them, imagine if they'd won, they'd be fat city right now).
Re:The missed point.... (Score:3, Funny)
Interestingly enough, Linux zealots still don't know this.
"Thats soooo EASY! Just write a quick shell script, load a cron job, and your GOLDEN!"
Re:The missed point.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right - "quick shell script" is an oxymoron if you have less than five years experience writing the damn things... And I'm finding out in my Perl class that Perl is not a hell of a lot better...
That's one of the silliest things I've seen posted recently. A few months of experience with scripts (including Perl) will show what a waste of time it is to build a GUI or compile a long-winded executable for every little task. Of course, if the only tool you have is a fourteen-function, programmable, rechargeable screwdriver, you probably won't use a simple nail to tack two boards together.
Re:The missed point.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it would be risky to try to point out Microsoft as a 'good guy' in any context here, but they've generally adopted a corporate strategy of winning in the marketplace, not the courtroom. The Lindows lawsuit is unusual for them.
Re:The missed point.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention that it's hard to argue that the name Lindows was intended to make it sound more like an existing product. Who'd think I was anything less than trying to rip off Slashdot for creating a user-submitted news site called Bashdot?
Re:The missed point.... (Score:4, Funny)
Oddly, you've missed the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Trademark 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows is a generic term for computing. There are numerous examples of the term being used prior to Microsoft's introduction of it's OS with the name (as is shown by Microsoft's own documentation). Since it is decidedly not unique for computing, it should never have been given. On the other hand, Windows would be a proper trademark for a brand of fruit.
Point missed, yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it was a unique and non-descriptive name of a computer company.
Why should any non-proper noun be allowed to be a trademark??
First, Apple is not a proper noun -- it's just a noun. Second, see answer to above. The key is that a trademark needs to be unique and non-descriptive.
The problem here is that Windows may be descriptive (that's what the Lindows case is trying to resolve), an idea that may be bolestered my Microsoft's own papers filed in the Apple case (arguing that "Windows" were generic UI elements, and hence that Apple had no claim on their "look and feel.").
Want to name your new cell phone product Peach? Congrats, you'll probably be able to register and protect that trademark. Want to name that same product "Cellphone"? Guess what? Even if you get a trademark (doubtful), you'll have a hell of time arguing that when "Lellphone" comes out. That's what this case is about.
Re:The missed point.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stupid or not, at least Lindows is a made-up name that stands a good chance of deserving trademark protection (not that anyone is likely to try to ride Lindows coat-tails any time soon). It's not like they tried to appropriate a description word from the English language and claim rights to it or something . .
The only thing newsworthy in today's story is that it took from December 2001 to now for Lindows to think of demanding the documents from the old Apple case.
Re:The missed point.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Please remember that at the time this was a totally unique way to interface with a computer. There is no reason why, at that time, rights shouldn't have been paid.
Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
You cannot allow companies to trademark common names or words, I don't want to have to pay royalties everytime I use the word pie.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2, Informative)
The only thing the trademark gives them is the right to stop other people from misusing the term. Obviously this hasn't been a big issue for Xerox or Kleenex, so the same might be the case for Microsoft and Windows.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they wouldn't HAVE to do it. However, it is a much simpler matter for people to abuse the Windows tm vs Xerox or Kleenex. A linux distro could call itself Windows 2004 and totally confuse the hell out of people (or Windows Professional, or Windows User, or Windows Light), this could be a headache and a half for Microsoft.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2)
I'd thought they were going to do that for a while. The past few months has brought about a decrease in the emphasis of the .NET terminology. (No doubt brought on in part by most people being confused about what the hell .NET was)
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:3, Informative)
Aspirin, bundt cake, cellophane, corn flakes, dry ice, escalator, harmonica, high octane, kerosene, lanolin, linoleum, milk of magnesia, mimeograph, nylon, raisin bran, shredded wheat, thermos, trampoline and yo-yo, to name a few.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2, Redundant)
I've noticed M$ has a habbit of thinking since they are a monopoly they get to use all the common names they want. For example, Office, Word, Access, FrontPage, (even though it sucks) SQL Server (this one gets me the most), Sever, Advanced Server, Publisher, Money...and I'm sure there are much more I have overlooked. But I think they should be forced to actually come up with names for their software. I've corrected many people when refering to SQL Server that if they don't through Microsoft in front of it they are wrong. I've actually got my boss trained to place "Microsoft" in front of SQL server now.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
He just does it around you so you'll shut the fuck up.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2)
Yeah...then we'll finally get a zip program called Winzip, and a media player called Winamp...
Maybe [tucows.com] even [tucows.com] a [tucows.com] few [tucows.com] that include the whole word!
IANAL, but don't you think that some of these would have been sued already if they had a copyright on Windows? Copyrights, like everything else, are domain specific. VERY domain specific. Also, I'm fairly certain they don't have a copyright on Windows, but rather a copyright on "Microsoft Windows."
If someone knows different and has a link, please let me know...
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2)
The name of the product is "Microsoft Windows", not just "Windows". And I don't think they would consider changing that at all.
On the other hand, if Lindows were to lose, MS could go on to claim trademarks on words like "Access", "Word", "Office", etc. thereby denying anyone the use of these terms in connection with software applications. These are, in every regard, generic terms and they should not be able to trademark them.
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
(According to this [aaxnet.com] anyway (and I think it makes sense)
I quote (well...I cut n paste)..
"Some expect the name Windows will be dropped completely. The antitrust agreement with the Bush DoJ specifically states "Microsoft Windows" throughout. By maintaining incompatibility (already planned due to design considerations), making it look different and calling it something else, Microsoft can free itself from antitrust oversight. "It's not Windows, it's a different product - the agreement doesn't apply."
So this may soon go away anyway...
Why does it alway work out this way?
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, let me give you an example you can wrap your thinker around:
Motel is a generic term. No one can trademark the word Motel and claim propriatary rights to it.
6 is a generic symbol. Similarly no one can trademark it and claim propriatary rights to it.
"Motel 6" is very much a legitimate trademark and woe betide anyone who trespasses upon it.
Starting to hang of this? Good.
Understanding this could make your life a lot easier later on when you get that cease and desist letter from some scumbag claiming your product named "Fred" violates the trademark of "Fred's Giant Hotdog Buns, Inc.", implying that since they have a trademark on the above they have a right to the exclusive use of the name "Fred."
They don't. They probably damned well know it too. But their scumbags, what can I tell you, and they know that you probably *don't* know that.
Now you do.
In this case the scumbag is Microsoft.
Go figure.
KFG
Re:Massive backfire for Microsoft? (Score:2)
Right, but what if I decide to produce my own Linux distro and decide to call it "Windows 2004", wouldn't that be confusing enough? And if Microsoft can't trademark Windows all by itself, then nothing stops me from doing so (unless of course they've already trademarked that, but you get my drift).
Piece 'a cake (Score:5, Funny)
A federal court has ordered Microsoft to produce more than 300 boxes of evidence to support its claims in a trademark suit
Shouldn't be too hard. I, myself, probably have 300 boxes of Windows sitting around.
A little too late? (Score:3, Informative)
Its been awhile.. (Score:2)
In a related story.. (Score:5, Funny)
In a related story, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates sues a man named Will Bates for having a similar name. Gates claims that when people hear the name of Mr. Bates they confuse the two names. Gates wants Bates to have his name legally changed or face a multimillion dollar law suit.
</sarcasm>
Say it with me... (Score:3, Informative)
TRADEMARK.
TRADEMARK.
The article even makes it clear.
Re:Say it with me... (Score:2)
What's at stake now is a trademark, not a copyright.
Microsoft should not fight this battle... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the world is Microsoft fighting this stupid battle? If they lose this case, then every operating system company and their mother is going to start calling their operating system "windows"-like. Microsoft would have been better off just buying the Lindows company and burying it.
This also reminds me of the "googling should not be in the dictionary" issue that was discussed here on slashdot a week or so ago.
Re:Microsoft should not fight this battle... (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft should not fight this battle... (Score:3, Informative)
Your right about MS losing this case too as they could lose a lot from it by having 'Windows' ruled too generic for a trademark (which happens to be true)
That said, this is nothing like the Google case. 'Google' is an alternate spelling of a word that isn't really in common usage. It makes sense to make it a trademark. And they aren't wrong to enforce it. In fact the
No judge in their right mind would rule 'Google' as being generic, even if it did go to trial.
here's meaning of petard (Score:4, Informative)
Hoist by its own petard (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, really. Aren't we supposed to be educated people?
Anyway, it's a Shakespeare idiom, from Hamlet. A petard was a bomb that you would lay against a castle wall to bring down the wall. Sadly, they weren't all that reliable: sometimes when you lit the fuse, it would just go boom instantly, throwing you high into the air.
Boom!
-fred
How DID they get that Trademark? (Score:5, Interesting)
But it would be sweet, sweet irony for them to lose the trademark based partially on their own legal filings.
Re:How DID they get that Trademark? (Score:2)
With 40 Billion in the back.... need you ask? :)
It's high time we leave Microsoft alone (Score:5, Insightful)
If we continue spending all out time worrying about what patent Microsoft is applying for next, or continuing a 20 year old argument about Microsoft stealing Apple's stealing Xerox's GUI interface, we won't get anyway.
Patents are important, yes. But to the average citizen, it doesn't matter. Things will sort themselves out.
So let's re-think our priorities and get back to improving GIMP, Mozilla, Emacs, Pine, and all the other applications that we use nearly every day.
Society, and the principles of right and wrong, are what will guide us.
"we won't get anyway" (Score:2)
I think we might get somewhere, possibly anywhere.
Plus, I'll leave Convicted Monopolist(tm) Microsoft alone when they leave us and our computers alone. We aren't the ones trying to institute hardware/sofware solutions that will require Microsoft's approval before we can run any software. We're not the one trying to lock down fair-use rips of purchased music. We're not the one trying to turn all computing into a subscription service ruled by the dark lord Bill and the OS of power, coded in the depths of Mount Doom, Redmond, Oregon.
This is relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
The Citizen and the Craftsman (Score:4, Insightful)
The average citizen is clueless.
Innovation and advancement in technology does not happen because the average citizen cares about it. Advancement in a field comes from those who have a specialized understanding of that field.
There are hackers who create for the sheer enjoyment of technology itself. There are businessmen who see that creation and understand its implication... or are simply in the right place at the right time. Sometimes the hacker and the businessman are the same. Often it is a process that involves a number of individuals. And even if each individual is not a techie, they bring some degree knowledge beyond what the average citizen tends to know or understand.
What matters to the average citizen is mostly a moot point. They are end users. Consumers. It is the techie who produces what they'll eventually consume.
Techies tend to be passionate about technology. It shouldn't be surprising. After all, we are craftsman at our trade. And a craftsman is often particular about their tools. A good tool that is comfortable in a craftsman's hands can do things at a much more efficient rate... and sometimes make possible what would be impossible without that tool. The often-stated comment that a particular piece of technology is "just a tool" and not worth getting excited over tends to miss this point.
The parent comment has a similar tone as "its just a tool." The poster assures everyone that Microsoft is not worth getting excited over. We should ignore them.
Of course, at the same time Microsoft will continue to do their best to alter the legal landscape to their favor. They will continue to market their solutions and attempt to eliminate any competitor or competing technology. They will seek out new markets to conquer.
While you sleep, Microsoft's lawyers and marketers will seek to remove your favored tools from your hands.
The parent comment does have one good point - we should not become obsessed with Microsoft. And, indeed, I'm sure there are more than a few who have fallen in to this pit. But the flip side to this caution is not to become ignorant of the very real threat Microsoft posses to anyone not using their products.
Good on lindows (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Apple vs. Microsoft court case was today (Score:3, Insightful)
instead of 15 years ago, Microsoft would have lost. Also, Apple would have been granted alot of patents for their windowing features (not that Xerox couldn't have also got patents).
petard? (Score:5, Informative)
Main Entry: petard
Pronunciation: p&-'tär(d)
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from peter to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from Latin peditum, from neuter of peditus, past participle of pedere to break wind; akin to Greek bdein to break wind
Date: 1598
1 : a case containing an explosive to break down a door or gate or breach a wall
2 : a firework that explodes with a loud report
so i am now clear on what this article is all about...
bill gates has gas
Re:petard? (Score:2)
To wit: it's from Shakespeare.
Re:petard? (Score:2)
As in, to give a political example, the US government hoisted itself up by its own petard when it had the CIA support Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in the 80s.
"Petard" is a word you're never likely to see unless it's prefixed by "hoised ___self by", which leads me to think that it's a literary reference of some kind, but I don't have a copy of the OED to go look up the etymology.
Windows vs. windows (Score:2, Interesting)
Now the issue becomes weather or not Lindows is too close to the trademarked product name of Windows. It can be argued that Microsoft should never been allowed to trademark Windows as its product name, but that's really water under the bridge at this point. It's done.
IMHO, Lindows choose the name to be confusingly similar to Microsoft Windows. I can just imagine my mom going to Wal-Mart and picking up a LindowsOS based PC getting it home and be unpleasantly surprised to find that it didn't have Microsoft Windows loaded on it.
I've been wrestling with my opinion on this matter for awhile now and have decided that I think Lindows.com should lose the case. Their name is too similar.
Mod me down as a troll if you must, but my opinion won't change.
Ouch. (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft already knows this (Score:4, Insightful)
that's not insightful, that's wrong (Score:5, Informative)
***Bzzt***, thanks for playing. In point of cold, hard fact, Microsoft has trademarked the term "Windows"; the details can be found here [uspto.gov].
Apples and Oranges and the question of Intent (Score:4, Insightful)
Lindows very well may be doing just that. They're targetting people who dont know any better than to think Lindows means "Lite Windows", or some such. Their website is deliberately designed to look like MS's marketing material, and is completely misleading as to what Lindows is, costs, and is capable of.
IMHO, Lindows is a sleazy company. I've had enough of get-rich-quick startups and scams, and could give a crap who their in court with. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I hope the judge rules that Lindows is in fault, because they are seeking to deliberately trick consumers into buying their product.
Pedentically speaking... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids these days...I'll tell ya....
M$'s Boomerang Collection (Score:5, Insightful)
Result: Gets bent over by IBM
2) Fights against anti-spam legislation
Result: Hotmail getting bent over by spam
and now...
3) Steals windows GUI from Apple
Result: Gets bent over by Lindows
Does anyong else get the feeling that M$ is so huge they are pulling in every direction at once and shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot?
Re:M$'s Boomerang Collection (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you mean IBM's success in taking over the desktop OS market by leveraging Linux?
2) Define "bent"
It's overrun by spam, but it was before the legislation even came to light, and do you even understand why Microsoft is opposing it?
3) Define "bent"
Do you mean Lindows won the case already? Wow. You must have one of those cats that brings you tomorrow's newspaper! Dat's kewl!
YHBT (Score:2)
It's kinda funny, actually. "Hey everyone! Look at what M$ is doing!!! [cue nasal chuckle] theyr'e sooo l^m3!!!1!!"
And of course, the lawyers working for Microsoft don't know what they're doing. Microsoft is known for hiring the worst possible legal teams. Because they have no money.
Next!
Hot off the presses (Score:5, Funny)
Says Old Names Were Pain In The Ass
Scarlet Pruitt, IDG News Service
Monday, March 03, 2003
Microsoft (MSFT) Corporation shocked the computer world Monday as it announced the sudden revoking of all Windows-branded products, to be replaced with a new moniker, Microsoft Portholes.
"It's a bold step, but a necessary one," said Craig Mundie, resident MS ho-ha. "We were just getting clobbered in court. Not that we mind that so much, really... but damn we were just tired of arguing. We've been in court for years. Also, Bill made us put little (R) stickers on every transparent surface in every employee's home."
Microsoft Portholes will work and behave exactly like their former operating system, with minor syntax changes. For example, file listings appear in a visual construct called a 'porthole'.
"That'll show 'em. Let's see Michael tell the judge that he commonly uses 'porthole' in everyday life. He can't! We're so smart it makes my teeth hurt", enthused Mundie.
He added, "Of course we can't do much about Lortholes. But still."
Microsoft also announced future rebranding efforts, beginning with Microsoft Menu, Microsoft Pointer, Microsoft Click, Microsoft Drag, Microsoft Scrollbar, and Microsoft Interface.
"Windows" shouldn't be a tradmark anyways! (Score:2, Insightful)
Same thing with "DOS"... how the hell did they get a trademark on that acronym?!? Apple's DOS 3.3 and 3.2 predate any such product from Microsoft! Microsoft BOUGHT QDOS (and renamed it) to licence it to IBM _AFTER_ IBM saw Apple making money in the personal computer market.
There are many more examples of big companies with big dollars trademarking generic terms that are already in common use... people above use "Kleenex" as an example, but that's a bad example, as it became a generic term BECAUSE the company existed, not the other way around.
Xerox myth (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple paid Xerox, in stock, for the complete rights to the GUI. it was not stolen.
please edumacate yourselves.
BS: Xerox myth (Score:3, Informative)
There is NO "boomerang effect" (Score:5, Informative)
The caveat "between the parties" is important -- res judicata does nothing to prevent another party from relitigating the same issue against someone. For example, assume that Apple as part of a court-approved settlement agreed that it would not contest "Windows" as a trademark. That only means that Apple can no longer contest it - anyone else is free to challenge the validity of M$'s claimed trademark in "Windows."
For those of you who have heard that third parties can indeed use res judicata against a party, that is partially correct. Res judicata can be applied offensively, but only AGAINST a party who has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and LOST ON THAT ISSUE. To the best of my knowledge, M$ has never lost a determination that "windows" is a generic term and not entitled to trademark protection.
That being said, maybe the Lindows litigation team will find a smoking gun in these addional 300 boxes of documents that M$ now has to provide. M$ fought to not have to hand those documents over for SOME reason ...
Lindows me want to go to Mexico (Score:3, Interesting)
The name is about as bad as any knock-off, when truly it isn't. You've got a potential Ferrari, but you name it a Hunda Civoc.
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Funny)
I have windows in my house, my car, etc, and they have nothing to do with Microsoft.
...yet.
Luv, BillG.