Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux Trademark Under Attack Again 75

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-sounds-familiar dept.
Rares Marian sent us linkage to an article running over at LinuxToday. Apparently someone else has tried to trademark Linux. This time its in Korea. Now there is no way that this can hold up, so I find this amusing, but it does actually have to be addressed. Very frusterating. It bothers me that there are so many people who are willing to pull this sort of stuff.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Trademark Under Attack Again More

Linux Trademark Under Attack Again

Comments Filter:

  • Hrm (Score:1)

    by Medieval ( 41719 )
    Didn't we just see this story?

  • I don't see much reason to kvetch about idiots trying to grab trademarks they have no prayer of keeping. A single credible example of Linux being used prior to the registration date is sufficient to torpedo the proposed trademark. If the guy wants to support the Korean government by paying a non-returnable trademark registration fee, I think that's admirable. ;-).

  • Frustrating, but at the same time, ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's kind of refreshing to see that such ballsy idiocy isn't limited only to these grand ole United States, you know...

  • Darn (Score:3)

    by Coward, Anonymous ( 55185 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @08:48AM (#1718332)
    If only I'd patented the concept of attempting to trademark Linux, I could have sued him.
  • So, they _didn't_ know that Linux was an existing operating system? hmmm.. slow news, i suppose. Then again, maybe not.

    But what I'm wondering is, did they think they invented Linux themselves? Who are they kidding? (or what were they trying to trademark Linux as, if not for/as the OS?)
  • Formed to protect intellecutal property. Now used to give ulcers to the true intellecutal property owners. I think it's time we got rid of trademarks and patents.
    --
  • They wanted to do what they tried to do now....They wanted to try to make money off someone elses ideas/products by registering the name prior to it becoming popular...
  • That was the funniest thing I'd read this week.

    Note: There isn't even a HOWTO for setting up Linux for Korean folk. The Portuguese would have a much better chance at this claim...
  • Just pick up two copies of OS/2.
  • Idea.......Linus should just get the trademark for Linux, and then allow everyone to use it. that would keep all these morons from trying to profit on it. Is this workable though? (i dont know how trademarks really work)

    -sloth
  • Actually it's already been done. Linus owns the trademark on linux. Originally he didn't register it because he didn't like the idea of anyone owning it. The some shmuck registered it and sent letters to a bunch of american book publishing companies and redhat and the likes saying he wanted their money. After a brief legal fight the trademark was transfered to Linus and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

  • Linux® trademark defense (Score:4)

    by DHartung ( 13689 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @10:22AM (#1718342) Homepage
    Here's a link to the e-mail record of the defense of the Linux® trademark [linuxmall.com] in the US.
  • I do believe, at least according to the article at linux today itself, that the article on slashdot is incorrect, or at least not comprehensive. Yongtae Kwon did in fact succesfully register a trademark for the word linux in Korea. He did probably try as the slashdot article says, but it neglects to say that he succeeded. And there is a way that this thing can hold up and that is, at least according to the patent office in Korea, if the existence of linux in Korea in 1995 cannot be proved. Correct me if i'm wrong, because thats what i am doing to you.
    --Isaac
  • Time for a big ole' rant, I think. This is pretty much the same sort of thing I've been expecting for over a year now, and it's finally happening on a big scale.

    Is this whole trademark thing a dirty and stupid trick? Heck yeah... but it's just a sign of the trends that are occurring right now. Don't react with surprise or anything because someone is trying to get down, dirty, and commercial with Linux. The OSS fanatics have been talking world domination for years. Well, it's starting to happen. But the whole OSS happy let's-all-share attitude ain't gonna be adopted by the vultures just because this is the Open Source world... they're going try and make money off everything they can, including stupid trademarks if they can get them, no matter what you say.

    Sure, there will be rants. There will be features posted on Slashdot and other places and huge cries of outrage because someone is muddying the waters and diluting the movement with the evil force known as capitalism. Well, tough... the perpetrators of that evil force aren't going to listen, because they don't care what the purists think. They care about the opinions of the people who *buy* the stuff... and for the most part, *those* people don't care what the purists think either.

    It's been happening the whole time. The commercialization of various OSS programs/companies. IPO's of Linux distributors, meaning they now have to worry more about what shareholders think than the people who *make* the OS. Stupid, inaccurate stories on C-Net, and so on. Linux is hot, there's a potload of money to be made, and it's all going blatantly commercial under everyone's noses. In a few years people will wake up and realize that Linux is now just as messed up as Windows - at least in the political sense, if not others; the one-OS-many-distributors model might not hold up so well in that world. This is not to say that money can't be made with OSS, or Linux can't work in the real world, etc, etc. That's a completely different argument. But if there's money to be made (and there is) then the whole scene is going to change radically in the process, whether for the good or for the bad.

    Sorry for the doomsday scenario, but this is as good a time as any to say it, I guess. I doubt there's too much anyone can do about the Corporatization of Linux - the whole OSS model sort of facilitates it, in a way. But just don't act surprised when stuff like this happens.

    Slarty
  • By trademarking this in country X, he is probably trying to sue companies using the trademark in the country X and get rich... Just some greedy guy behind that. What he hasn't realised though is that it would never hold in court unless he has some product with a name that can be trademarked.
  • >But what I'm wondering is, did they think they invented Linux themselves?

    Not them, but the bureocrats accepting the trademark didn't know that Linux was the name of an existing OS, that's why it succeeded back then.
  • Okay, some of these moderators should RTFMG (RTF Moderator Guidelines). The above post was _NOT_ "Offtopic".
    --------
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • If the point of a business is to make profits, then creating artificial scarcity is an obvious tactic. This can be seen in arenas such as the consumers diamond market which is actually over-supplied for the average wedding ring wannabe (just try reselling it to get an idea of its real value). Gaining sole ownership of a trademark is part of that strategy of limiting consumer choices as the brand (and associated perceived quality) will create a distinction with competitors.

    One of the fundamental driving forces behind OpenSource which ESR didn't mention in his Magic Cauldron paper is the transition of software from a scarce item (requiring teams of highly trained mainframe programmers) to a commodity form (scripts/visual languages, etc). Prices are then determined by gross supply and demand which, with limitless digital replication, leads to infinite supply and thus theoretically zero price. In this market awash with junk mixed with gems, the problem is to stand out, hence it is easier to use software as a loss-leader for other non-portable services (e.g. AOL) than it is selling it as a distinct manufactured product. There are some software categories which do lead themselves to natural scarcity (e.g. highly specialised physics problems) but the economic payoff is so diffuse that there is no financial incentive to accelerate the time to market (but then science always thinks long-term as well as shoe-string).

    In the long-term, trademarks are going to be a problem as it is so easy to create new ones. Hence the interest of big firms to buy up fast growing competitors and absorb their "name" before the wider public gains permanent "mindshare" and dilutes their purchasing draw (notice how one not-so-well-loved company brands every single product under their name?). While the "technical merits" of a piece of software may be obvious to the digital cognosti (ie. engineering geeks with too much time on their hands), the average public is not exposed to a wide range of implementations and therefore has no comparative point of reference to make an informed choice (plus the good-enough motive applies here). Trademarks is just one weapon in creating non-obvious barriers to pure competition which in a capitalistic society equates to near zero profits (anathema to a growing share price). Hence the desire of corporations not to sell software (perish the thought of the unwashed masses getting their hands on their pristine intellectual property :-) ), but to painstakingly dole out limited (and thus scarce and controllable) rights of use to maximise revenue streams. It's not the software but the control that companies are seeking.

    OpenSource software developers have to understand the corporate mindset no matter how non-intuitive it appears because it has to coexist with the wider business ecosystem. No matter how desirable, free beer just does not magically appear.

    LL
  • (I just got to play with moderator access for the first time, and I'm not sure if that will prevent me from posting this... I hope I don't type all this out for nothing.)

    I haven't been following the whole Linux trademark scene too closely, but my understanding of it is that everyone is terrified that someone will successfully trademark it, and then prevent all those open source products from using it. (Thus pretty well destroying Linux.)

    Well, it seems to me there's a perfect long-term solution: Why doesn't somebody in Washington amend IP law to allow someone to register an anti-trademark, or an anti-copyright, or an anti-patent?

    To register an "anti-trademark", you'd have to prove your claim to the mark just the same as you would for a normal trademark. However, instead of granting you exclusive rights to the mark, an "anti-trademark" would ensuring that the mark remains in public domain, with the force of U.S. law guaranteeing that no individual could ever claim it.

    The concept could be extended to copyrights and patents... Essentially, you'd end up with a standardized, easily enforceable BSD-style license. (Of course, it wouldn't be compatible with the GPL, which ironically relies heavily on traditional copyrights.)

    This is just a pipe dream... It would take years to be made into law, and I have no idea what you'd have to go through to get it recognized internationally. But could it work?

  • Re:Editors (Score:3)

    by Roblimo ( 357 ) on Sunday August 29, 1999 @01:54PM (#1718356) Homepage Journal
    Oh, come on. Rob Malda's, um, "linguistic inconsistencies" are part of his folksy charm. Think of his unique approach to the English language as a feature, not a bug. Sure, I could clean up Rob's spelling and grammatical errors, and then I could go through all my old blues, country, and rock 'n roll albums and publish the "corrected" lyrics. Do you really want me to do this?

    I'd rather leave Rob Malda (and Muddy Waters) alone, and I'm the Official Boss Editor for all of Andover's Linux-related sites and you're not, so deal with it. bucko. ;-)

    - Robin "roblimo" Miller

    PS - Every single /. comment I've seen -- including yours -- that criticizes Rob Malda's writing contains at least one glaring grammatical or spelling error. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."




  • You are confused -> A trademark and a copyright differ.

    You are deluded -> If you think that the USA would let the WTO screw around with somthing like the Linux trademark.

  • being a joke, I'll end this on a happy note:

    When the revolution comes I'll be the guy with the assault rifle aiming for ties!

    ObMotto: I'll have 'patent this!' written on my helmet.

  • Only Japanese mix "L" and "R". And this kind of thing happens all the time in Korea.

  • from A Coward to A Coward... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Liten up dude... If youve a serious complaent - take it up with the editers. Its raelly getting old lisening to you English majers with notin bettor to do than show everone how much you can whine about the okasionel grametical eror. Wining on de forum is just childesh... If you're joking - ha ha ha. Ha, ha ha, ha and a little more... (wiping tears from my eyes and holding my sides)
    Mike (not anonymous - just too stupid to register...)
  • Yeah, well, I've got a copyright on the phrase, "patent the concept of attempting to trademark Linux." Erase your post or I sue.

  • You're making an awfully big assumption about this not standing up in court in Korea. Do you Have any idea what trademark law is like in Korea? (This is an honest question, I certainly don't know.)


    I just took a look at the press release about the settlement of trademark dispute in the United States. The guy who tried to trademark Linux here at least had his filing fees returned, and since the rest of the details of the settlement were not disclosed, he may even have earned some cash on the whole deal.

  • 'We don't know the reason and purpose that made him apply for the special right in the name of "Linux", and why he broke the silence after four years to claim his rights regarding others' using his patented name, "Linux": at first he attacked the publishers of publishing the Linux-related books.' a quote from this [kldp.org] page. It seems to have a bit more information than the article, and was linked to from there.
  • Actually, the reason why mature dog is tough and stringy is not because of the eating of other animals (snake is pretty good), but because it is old. Older animals have old muscles, meaning that the muscle fibers aren't growing, and aren't as flexible as those of a younger animal. Since when you're eating meat, you're eating muscle, tougher, less flexible muscles translates to tougher, stringier meat. This is why lamb (young sheep) tastes so much different than mutton (old sheep), why we eat pullets (young chickens) and not old chickens, and why veal (young cow) tastes SO good...

    Incidentally, another factor that affects how meat tastes is Testosterone. Testosterone gives a funny (bad) taste to meat, as well as affecting the texture by making it tougher and stringier. This is male meat animals, like sheep, pigs, and cows, are castrated at an early age.
  • Immigrants to the US speak will speak with a distinct accent if they come to this country after a certain age. Linguists have studied this and have concluded that one's accent (e.g., pronounciation of various words) is controlled by one's early training.

    Yellow? I won't comment on this except to say that I once had to fill out a US Gov. document (security clearance form, IIRC), that asked me what was my ethnic identity; yellow was one of the options.

    Henry Kissinger had a horrible non-US accent. IIRC, he was the Secretary of State and the head of the National Security Council (National Security Advisor).

    Style over substance. Let's all pay attention to how someone says something as oppose to what they have to say. Some of them Europeans really speak funny. You know what I mean; those people from England and even worse, Ireland. They are idiotsas they can't even speak proper English.

    I'm of Asian ancestry. My great grandparents immigrated to the US over a 100 yrs ago. The Asian in the US are doing okay (too bad they have a quota on the number of Asians attending UCB).

  • There's no HOWTO in Korean? Well, there's the Korean Linux Documentation Project [kldp.org], of course. Linux is quite successfull in Korea, actually.
  • I do not know if this line of vacuum cleaners is superior to the "VAX" line of vacuum cleaners, whose manufacturer unsuccessfully tried to sue Digital for copyright infringement in the mid-1980s.

    Off topic, but the story as far I as I knew was that Dec held the trademark in the US, and The Vax Vacuum company held it in the UK. And then they got together and agreed they could still use the same name in each other's countries.

    Didn't think there was much of a challenge over it at all.

  • It's already doable... all one has to do is trademark it normally, then issue irrovacable rights to use the trademark, just has already been done.

    What do you think the copyleft (GPL) is ?
  • OH? And here I was, thinking the topic was about Korean trademarks... silly me :)
  • Since we're being non-PC Boy, that joke was so lame it oughta be in a wheel chair.
  • the english speak english with a funny accent? hmm.. with a non-american accent maybe.. probably.. definately. But why's the language called english rather than american?
  • In my opinion the Linux trademark must be protected. The catch with trademarks is that if you don't protect them you will end up loosing them. And we wouldn't want that would we?
    Imagine what it would be like if just anyone could sell you an operating system and call it "Linux".

    I think that there should be extremely hard requirements for what you should be allowed to call linux. For example:some filesystems must be supported on every linux distrubution. And no filesystem should be favored in terms of userfriendlyness.

    A good way of protecting the linux os from fragmentation i think.
  • and that means they can't be flamed? ;)


    --
  • I don't think making fun of the language of a particular group quite rises to the level of non-PC. That's something THEY DO, versus something THEY ARE. After all, nobody thinks anything of making fun of a German accent and mispronunciations, or Italian, or Brooklyn for that matter.
  • Language is learned two different ways: early childhood learning, and anything after that. The first language you learn is imprinted into your brain like many other instincts you learn at that time. Languages you learn later are committed to long term memory, but never become part of your instincts. There are studies of brain damage that have demonstrated people reverting back to the first language they learned, after portions of long term memory were destroyed that contained languages learned later.

    I only learned English at 17, having grown up with German. While most people can't tell I'm not a native speaker--well, native Australian anyway, since that's were I learned it--and I'm conversationally much more fluid in English nowadays than in German, English still isn't reflexive with me. Sometimes, particularaly when I'm tired, even the simplest terms can elude me--I look at the sky, but for the life of me I can't think of the word "cloud", and yet immediately the word "Wolke" comes to mind. These kinds of glitches remind me that English is an acquired language.

    Still, I disagree with the substance over style argument. Too many people use it as a copout from having to learn the language properly. My father has successfully used that argument, always getting annoyed when we corrected him, retorting with the standard "but you understand what I'm trying to say, yes?" Which hasn't helped him speak better English.
  • Not correct. The Hangul letter riul sometimes sounds like "r", sometimes sounds like "l" depending on the Korean word. And Koreans speaking English often pronounce r's and l's in ways that are hard to distinguish one from the other. I hear that every day.
  • Yep, the same thought just dawned on me a few hours ago.

    However, although I know how the GPL works in theory, I'm not sure how well it holds up in reality. Granting someone the irrevocable right to license something from you is easy, but I'm not sure that it's possible to irrevocably grant someone the right to sub-license that product, which is what the GPL attempts to do. (This is what prevents a corporation from doing what AOL has tried to do with Tik: release it under the GPL, then change your mind and try to squash it. Since at least one person out there downloaded Tik under the terms of the GPL, he should be able to distribute it under those terms regardless of what AOL thinks. In theory...)

    Besides, even if a license like the GPL holds up, it may yet spark lots of messy court battles. It would be nice to be able to accomplish the same thing with an unimpeachable, rubber-stamp process.

    (By the way, I know that I have distorted the Tik situation somewhat... consider it a hypothetical example.)
  • I know I am late, but...

    OS/9 has been around a lot longer than that - I remember you could get it for the Radio Shack Color Computer 2 back in 1986 - a real, multi-tasking, multi-user OS for an 8-bit CPU (6809)!
  • And this is why we fight back with tools designed to keep the OS open for the users, licenses like the GPL, tactics like keeping up with proprietary extensions, etc.

    If we sit and watch, people will take what we collectively have made and use it for their own purposes. This is not 'bad' but it can hurt us if we don't watch out and if we let it happen, we'd deserve it.

    We need to fight tooth and nail against anyone who uses laws against us, by trying to trademarks names of our products, or patent processes that they use. And we should use every means at our disposal to fight these predators. Use what little legal protection we have (without being able to afford lawyers) like the GPL, mass lobbying of politicians, etc. We should also use other methods, boycotting companies like this, bringing out products similar to theirs specifically to remove their markets where they are attacking us, etc.

    As long as our goal is always to keep the software free and open for the users then we should feel justified about throwing their own predatory tactics back at them.

    But, probably the best weapon is simply making them depend on us. For example, unless Redhat decided to rewrite all of GNU/Linux without the GPL they need us. Companies that use the OS also need us in the same way that other companies need MS. And the companies that use Linux have a vested interest in keeping it free for users because that also means free for them. We need to set up these symbiotic relationships whenever possible and destroy with any means availble any parasitic relationships.
  • You're not really dictating the terms of the sublicenses, you're offering a contract to someone provided that they dictate the terms of their license in such a way.

    Each person is only the copyright owner of the work they produce and as such is only able to dictate the terms of usage of that work. But, they can offer a contract which gives the right to use the work provided the joint author licenses it in a certain way.

    The GPL is Stallman's greatest work. The compiler and the utils, etc are good, but it's only the GPL which made them as usable and perpetually free as they are. He is as much the father of what we think of as Linux as Torvalds is. Stallman made it possible for Torvalds to write Linux in a free environment.
  • Actually, pigs of either sex can be aggressive. Sometimes a pig will get mean, and you really have to be careful around it.

    But the fact remains that testosterone gives a bad taste to meat, which is why they are castrated.

    Oh, and about the fat content in beef... That is... bull . It is in the best interest of a meat producer to have more muscle, since muscle is denser than fat, and you can put more weight on an animal. On the other hand, you want fat in the meat because it makes the meat taste better.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close