Questions over the Windows Trademark 399
TTop writes "As part of the Lindows lawsuit, the judge has preliminarily ruled that there are 'serious questions regarding whether "Windows" is a non-generic name and thus eligible for the protections of federal trademark law.'"
I've always been bothered by Microsoft's habit of naming things using common
words (Then again, my history of naming things includes confusing and bizarre
names like 'Slashdot' and 'AnimeFu'
so what do I know? :)
X-Windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:X-Windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the term "prior art" only has relevance in the world of patent law. Prior art (the existence of an invention materially identical to the patented invention) can result in a ruling against a patent in a court of law. However, in the case of trademark law, the only relevant question is whether a word has become generic, or part of the common usage. There are common rules to avoid this happening - a company should NEVER refer to a product as "Windows" because they are then referring to a product by a very generic common English term. The product should always be called "Microsoft Windows" or even better yet "Microsoft Windows Operating System" if you expect to ever prove later on that you had a legitimately trademarked name for your product. There are other rules for marketing folks about this, like only using the trademark in the adjectival as in "Kelloggs brand cereals" or (if they had been smarter) "Xerox brand copying machines".
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2)
Well since everyone I know calls it X-Windows, can we say that the word "X-Windows" officially exists?
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2)
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is older, but is not named X-windows. From the man-page (formatting changed due to posting rules):
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
The license tells a bit about its age:
The X Window System standard was originally developed at the Laboratory for Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and all rights thereto were assigned to the X Consortium on January 1, 1994.
X Consortium, Inc. closed its doors on December 31, 1996.
All rights to the X Window System have been assigned to the Open Software Foundation.
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2)
According to this page [computerhope.com], Microsoft Windows 1.0 was released November 1985. It was announced in November 1983, clearly as a response to Apple's Macintosh OS.
However, according to the Wikipedia [wikipedia.com], Xerox Parc codified the WIMP paradigm (where the W stands for Windows) for their Xerox Star system released in 1981.
So, depending on how you slice it, the concept of 'windows' clearly predates MS's work on Windows and the term X-Windows refers to a product which was virtually the same age as the MS product.
That's all I got from googling around for 20 minutes. I Am Not A Historian.
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2)
More in response to the forgotten Apple Lisa which also used a GUI. The Mac didn't come out until early 1984 (hence the famous "down with Big Brother" Mac ad)
Re:X-Windows? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there are 5 approved names, as listed in X(7):
And no, it apparently doesn't predate MS Windows either. X was born in May 1984, although W (on which it was based) dates from summer 1983. The article claims that MS has been using Windows since 1983. Can that be right? I thought Windows 1.0 came much later than that. The Mac didn't even appear until 1984 (although the Lisa had been out since 1983, IIRC), and I find it hard to believe that MS had even thought of windowing systems before that. Anyone have any data to back up the claim?
Re:X-Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:X-Windows? (Score:3, Informative)
And before someone brings it up. No, the user interface of Motif was actually a copy of Microsoft Windows. Not the other way around.
Microsoft was part of the consortium, and licensed their UI for use in Motif.
Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Informative)
The X Window System was part of the Athena Project at MIT, and it was used internally and at other academic sites long before it was first commercialized. But it's that first commercial release which is always used as the "birthdate," cause thousands of users at academic or clued-in industial sites don't count.
It's also "X version 11" for a reason - when I first learned it there were still a large number of references in the documentation to an earlier "X version 10." I think I once read a history that said that X versions 1-7 were developmental versions that refined the API, and versions 8 and 9 were only used at MIT. Version 10 was the first one widely used. I've been expected an announcement of Version 12 for some time now, to reflect the tremendous improvements in graphics hardware, but for now everyone seems to be satisfied with the extensions mechanism.
In a world full of Gates, the date of first commercial release is the only thing that matters. But in the real world I suspect there were more users of X than MS Windows until Windows 3.1 was released in the early 90s.
And this brings up the second point. Bill announced Windows 1.0 in 1983. So what, talk is cheap. Windows 1.0 wasn't actually available until 1985, and it was totally unusable. Even with the fastest available CPUs and far more memory (at thousands of dollars) than the average system, performance was a dog and nobody was developing for it because of the incredible overhead.
MS Windows 2.0 was a bit better.
But MS Windows was not a viable system until 3.1, and some individuals make strong arguments that this was only because other companies were entering the same market with much leaner APIs. This was the early 90s (92?), and it was nothing but an application running under DOS. Same thing with MS Windows 95, although the relationship was hidden by then. That's why there's still some controversy (possibly even ongoing litigation) whether MS deliberately crippled MS Windows to fail with an unspecified "system error" if it detected DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS.
The bottom line is that there's just enough there for a lawyer to make these claims, but they don't stand up to even cursory examination. If you're cynical, you might even suspect that Bill made the announcement and first releases just to confuse the issue a decade or two later.
Re:X-Windows? (Score:2)
Wrong. Look up "Intent To Use".
-Martin
Wait a second.. (Score:3, Funny)
language back in like, 1995?
Re:Wait a second.. (Score:2)
Re:Wayt uh scond.. (Score:5, Funny)
Heureusement, je puis employer le français. Je trouve ceci beaucoup meilleur marché, parce que l'Acadamy m'ont donné non-pour-profiter-emploient le permis.
Re:Wayt uh scond.. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry, sir, but "aboot" is a registered trademark of Canada.
Yeah yeah yeah. (Score:2)
A-EOM The Audio English Object Model.
Ouch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone in Redmond is kicking themselves in the ass right now...
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
Basically, never bet against the money in a case like this.
Re:Ouch... (Score:5, Informative)
As a serious baseball fan, I feel compelled to correct the mistake in this statement. Baseball's antitrust exemption was created by judicial, not legislative, fiat. In Federal Baseball, MLB's lawyers argued that baseball was not interstate commerce, per se, because all of the commercial activity took place locally. Their argument used a precident that travelling vaudville actors were not engaged in interstate commerce even if their tours traveled across state lines. Simply carrying the tools of their trade across state lines to perform essentially local exhibitions was not viewed as being sufficient to constitute interstate commerce. Since it wasn't interestate commerce, the federal government didn't have the power to regulate it, including applying antitrust law. The Supreme Court accepted the argument and ruled in favor of MLB.
The truly odd thing about the ruling is what happened later in the process. When the ruling was later challenged, the Supreme Court upheld it on the principle of not changing old rulings even though they agreed that the old ruling made no sense. In essence they said that the ruling was stupid, they were going to let it stand anyway, but Congress was free to write new legislation to include baseball in federal antitrust law. The exemption was partially removed recently, but it's hardly Congress's fault for writing the law badly.
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
It always annoyed me that they used generic words to describe things. I have no problem with "Microsoft Word" being trademarked, or "Microsoft Windows", but trademarking "Word" or "Windows" is silly, and even sillier is going after some alteration of it. It's not "Licrosoft Lindows" for pete's sake...
Re:Ouch... (Score:4, Insightful)
1- "Windows", whether or not it's trademarkable is seldom called "Microsoft Windows" in the common household. It is "Windows" plain and simple. While this is MS's fault for choosing something that would *obviously* be shortened to "Windows" and thus be un-trademarkable, the public still associates "Windows" with MS.
2- Lindows is an operating system designed to take place of Windows by allowing you to run Windows apps without running Windows.
3- Lindows is an obvious play on the name "Windows", and it's unlikely that it was 'accidental' or based on something else such as "LinuxwINDOWSystem" or somesuch. Based on it's goal : Offer users the ability to run Windows apps in a Linux environment... Sorry, it's unlikely that they were NOT aware of it.
Normally I'd say that the whole idea of trademarking a common name was absurd, but seeing as Lindows' target is *The MS Windows User*, I have to admit that using "Lindows" was both asking for trouble and attempting to profit off of the established image of another company whether or not the word used was trademarked by said company or not.
-Sara
Re:Ouch... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right about this, in my opinion. What's more, my company is trying to learn from MS's mistake. We are soon going to release a product with the name "XYZ Genericword." (Obviously that's not the real name, but it's a generic nontrademarkable word preceeded by a trademarked three-letter acronym.)
During the last couple of months, we've gotten lazy and started referring to the product by the generic word only, leaving out the acronym. This sent our marketing people in orbit. Now they're on a crusade. Every time somebody uses the generic name alone in an email, or even verbally, they get corrected, loudly and publicly. Because we all know that if our product name gets reduced to that single generic word, we're up a creek as far as trademark protection goes.
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
While I quite agree with you that Lindows named its product to connote an association with Windows, I do not believe they do so in such a way as to dilute the Windows trademark and create confusion in people's minds. I don't anybody, given the word 'Lindows' would assume it was a Microsoft product, or that it was Microsoft Windows.
I believe that's the legal standard for deciding whether or not a trademark is being infringed. I actually believe that, for the consumer, allowing Lindows to be called Lindows is a help. It associates it with the product it tries to emulate while being distinct enough to not be confused with the product it tries to emulate.
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
If your company has "Product A", and another company attempts to create "Product B" to replace your product you're not going to be happy. If they name it with a name that is so similar to the name you use and you realize that most of your userbase (most people) are morons who are easy to confuse, and that "Product B" is going to market itself as being more stable than your product, yadda yadda yadda-- you're not going to want them to have a name that is similar to your product name because you've spent years branding it and you don't think Product B should come along and be able to take advantage of that.
Of course, you/we probably wouldn't be so stupid as to name it something generic. =]
-Sara
Re:Ouch... (Score:3, Insightful)
And if MS somehow wins on that, to claim infringement they also have to claim that Lindows as marketed is likely to be mistaken for their own product. (Like a "Bolex" watch.) That shouldn't fly either, because Lindows whole marketing pitch is that it _isn't_ Windows.
Re:Ouch... (Score:3, Informative)
However, many people call it "X Windows" (or X/Windows or X-Windows) just like many people call "Microsoft Windows" just "Windows".
I usually call it just X in speech and X11 in written.
Multics, Unix, Minix, HP/UX, AIX, Linux (Score:3, Informative)
In the begining was Multics.
Then came Unix, a pun on Multics.
Then came commercial puns such as HP/UX and AIX. And non-commercial educational puns like Minix. All careful to avoid the letters U-N-I-X to avoid AT&T lawyers. But it's important to remember that U-N-I-X is a meaningless word - the only thing remotely close to it is eunichs, itself a bad pun on the social life of most programmers but not a generic term in any way.
In this environment, it's natural that some punsters started referring to Linus's pet project as Linux. He didn't name it that, others did.
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
What you realy be funnies is if Linus joined the suit with Microsoft, and asked for half of any damages because of Linux® being his trademark!
What about Adobe Illustrator? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about Adobe Illustrator? (Score:2)
And the irony here is the second post on the topic.
"According to this mail, they have trademark on "Adobe Illustrator". I would bet that Illustrator is too general word to be trademarked. For example Microsoft hasn't been able to trademark "Windows"."
Copyright of generic words (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft Windows = Coca Cola? (Score:3, Informative)
A full house (Score:4, Funny)
little guy can win these things... (Score:5, Interesting)
McDonalds took Yu Kwan Yuen, a chinese retaurant owner to court for naming his restaurant "McChina". The judge was quite correct in ruling that McDonalds could not monopolise the prefix "Mc". It means "son of" in scottish, and Yuen had been living in scotland for some time and adopted "McChina" to indicate "Son of China".
But would he have named his restaurant McChina if McDonalds didnt exist?
This is a similar case to the Lindows situation. Although they are deriving their name from a generic source, they are (to some extent) stepping on somebody else's turf. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but certainly in the McChina case I think it wsa the correct outcome.
Re:little guy can win these things... (Score:5, Funny)
I see a problem with your logic. (Score:2)
In the case you mention, the man proved that the Mc- prefix actually meant something in a language that he knew well, and that it made sense to name a restaurant McChina because of the meaning of the prefix. Therefore, there was reasonable doubt that he was capitalizing off of McDonalds' success.
However, in the Lindows case, there is no doubt that the product would have been named Lindows if there was not already a product named Windows that was created by Microsoft. Indeed, if you look at Lindows' about page [lindows.com], it is obvious that the name is a mixture of Windows and Linux, and doesn't derive from another language.
I, too, think the McChina case had the correct outcome, but Lindows doesn't have that luxury. IMO, Lindows will lose.
And I see a problem with yours... (Score:3, Insightful)
MS-Windows is called Windows because of that research, Apple Macs have "windows" into which you type. GEM had "windows", EVERY GUI on planet earth calls them "windows". Its a generic term.
Re:little guy can win these things... (Score:2)
Quite a few previous rulings against "McDonalds" in the UK, especially in Scotland. The Scots don't take too kindly to a US fast food company using the name of this highland clan.
Trademark law (Score:2, Interesting)
But, he also said other people can trademerk the same name as long as the two products do not belong in same category (such as software) and do not fool consumers. Therefore, it would be perfectly leagl to start a Microsoft clothing line (or windows clothing line). As for Lindows, it may be considered confusing to the lay consumer to have a Windows and Lindows OS in same market. But IANAL so don't quote me in court if MS tries to clean your clock when you sell Microsoft brand T-shirts.
Re:Trademark law (Score:2)
A product with a trademark name its buyers can't remember if any there was..
Re:Trademark law (Score:2)
Eben Moglen, to be specific.
Daniel, who heard the same report and was startled to recognize the lawyer's name.
Re:Trademark law (Score:2)
This is questionable, given that Microsoft is a brand name recognized almost universially, not only in the software market. But you might be interested in the fact that there exists (existed, at least) a beer in russia called "Windows 99." Try searching Google for "Windows 99" beer [google.com] to find some articles about it.
Re:Trademark law (Score:2)
A trademark should be used as such, which one could argue MS hasn't been doing. (keep in mind the enforcement stuff.) To TRULY be a trademark, MS needs to always refer to it as "Windows operating system" (OR MS Windows operating system) as it describes the OS (don't get technical nit picky here, I realize that the Windows itself isn't an OS... some don't..)
MS has been pretty good in their own materials as saying Windows operating system, IIRC. I know I've seen them do it, I don't know if they're consistent. But the fact is they've let us, the public get away with calling it just "Windows" for so long. This reminds me a lot of the Xerox issues mentioned- they don't want people saying "xeroxed". (notice the lack of capitalization.) So they enforce it. Microsoft has been allowing us to call it windows for too long.
So, as I see it, windows is 1. a generic term, and 2. Has been so misused over time that it now refers to any windows system (even X, although we're all smart enough to refer to it as X or XWindows or XWindows system or...).
Am I missing an argument here??
Oh, and you can have two trademarks the same if it's not in the same field as you pointed out.. But with Mac OS and their Windows version (stupid people call it windows.. really stupid people, obviously.) and XWindows, this is in the same field, and so... ugliness as above pursues!
.
Correction: ADJECTIVE not pronoun (Score:2)
We need to keep in mind, as Hormel pointed out, that a trademark is a "Proper Pronoun."
Wrong. According to Hormel's page [spam.com], "a trademark is a formal adjective and as such, should always be followed by a noun.".According to Apple's page [apple.com], "Trademarks are adjectives used to modify nouns; the noun is the generic name of a product or service." For example: Windows operating system, Linux kernel, Disney movies, Alpine stereo, SPAM luncheon meat, Macintosh computer, etc.
Re:Correction: ADJECTIVE not pronoun (Score:2)
/me removes head from ass to remind self to proofread before posting. pronoun.. adjective.. yeah, that was dumb.
Adjective is what I meant.. I hope you can figure that out by the rest of my mini-rant. Thanks yerricde, for pointing that out!
Trademarks and "Slashdot" and "Windows" (Score:4, Interesting)
However, naming something Windows was a bad idea [viennapat.com] (again, for trademark law)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Common name = greater product recognition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft product names. (Score:5, Interesting)
Word & Chart, were the first to be name generically. What isnt commonly known is that Gates had to be argued and cajoled into using Windows, he wanted to call it "Interface Manager"
Incidentally, Hanson was among the first to throw software samples into magazines (freebie demo disks). Given his past experience, it was a small leap from throwing perfume samples in Cosmo, to program samples in PC Week.
My $0.02
MSFT protecting the Win-compatible o/s market (Score:2)
This brings to mind one of the antitrust lawsuits against IBM, brought by DOJ in 1969 to challenge the monopoly IBM had on the mainframe hardware and software market. IBM was bundling its operating software with the hardware, and would not make it available as separate product. This was intended to prevent rival hardware manufacturers (scroll down a bit) [michaelmoser.org] from getting into the IBM-compatible mainframe business.
IBM's business model was classic lock-in [linuxjournal.com]. If the software were available to all comers, there'd be no more reason to buy big iron from IBM, except of course FUD ("nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...")
So, although it looks on the surface like a trademark dispute, my gut sez MSFT is out to keep Lindows off the desktop.
Maybe _not_ such a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line? Is 'Red Hat' too common? 'Dell'? 'Ford'?
Of course, some due diligence is always required anyway: Honda apparently tried to name [www.dn.se]one of their models 'Honda Fitta', but found out what it meant in Swedish in time... With slogans like "Small outside but large when you're in it" or "It's a daily pleasure" it could have become a very real embarrassment for Honda.
/Janne
Re:Maybe _not_ such a good thing (Score:2)
I liked how the Chevy Nova wasn't selling in South America. Eventually they figured out what "No Va" means in Spanish.
Intent? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize that MS might not have as open-and-shut case as they want, but I doubt they'll lose this, simply because of the intent of the Lindows guy.
He's selling a directly competing product, with a name that differs from Windows by only one letter. This is perfectly analogous to trying to sell a competing cola called "Loca Cola", or some such. He's clearly trying to derive benifit from the "Microsoft Windows" trademark.
Re:Intent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Final point: Microsoft has given them more publicity than they could ever buy with the meager funding of a post-dot-com startup. It's kinda funny, really.
MS has a brilliant mktg dept (Score:2, Insightful)
They give the impression that their software is accessible to the masses (which, to a large degree, it is).
The best way to make your product a household name is to derive it from a household name.
Words that people are already accustomed to using are non-threatening. (Think about all the weirdass company names that you can never remember how to pronounce, let alone spell.)
If Microsoft had picked a unique name besides "Windows", and another company ripped off the first letter and changed it to an "L", then perhaps Microsoft would have a leg to stand on.
Re:MS has a brilliant mktg dept (Score:2)
The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:4, Insightful)
The most interesting part of that article is the following quote:
"'There's no evidence Windows is generic and strong evidence it's not,' responded Karl Quackenbush, an attorney arguing for Microsoft. He said Microsoft has spent more than a billion dollars promoting and protecting the name Windows. That includes sending letters to hundreds of infringers warning them not to use the name, he said.
In any case, he said, names such as Amazon.com and Apple -- two other generic words -- have been adjudged valid trademarks because they've acquired a 'secondary meaning' through their strong association to products."
So, even though Microsoft might not win the preliminary injunction, it is likely to win the case. After all, if Apple and Amazon were both held up as trademarks in court, it's likely that the ubiquitous "Windows" will be as well.
I, for one, will be glad if "Lindows" loses in court simply because it is confusing to say out loud. Try saying this out loud: "I'd like some help with configuring Lindows, please." I fully support anyone's right to create a new OS, but I don't support naming a product in a confusing manner (and playing off the name of a more popular product), which is exactly what Lindows is doing. This sort of infringement is what trademark law was designed to protect, and I think Microsoft will win this one in the end.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2)
IF Lindows loses, they should turn around and immediately call their product "Windows Linux" or something that STILL incorporates "windows" in it but clearly delineates itself from M$ Windoze. M$ may have fits but in the end they WILL lose in trying to prevent the use of the common word "windows" in a non-M$ os product.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem here is that Microsoft's "Windows" is not a secondary meaning to "thing you look through", but the same generic "subpart of display" which is used by X, Mac, libcurses, and others.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2)
I doubt a grocer would be able to trademark the term "apple", and a jungle-tourism outfit probably would have only a weak claim on "amazon".
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon hasn't sued Brazil for naming their river after their company. And one doesn't order books from the Amazon river.
Point is, the word "windows" in connection with GUI's indicates that the graphical shell draws little boxes in which program output is displayed, more or less. Now, trademarking "Microsoft Windows" is valid. But maintaining that the word "windows", in connection with a GUI product, is proprietary? Insane. GEM had windows, the Mac OS uses windows, yadda yadda.
Not to say a stupid judge can't ignore sanity. For insance, there was an old family restaurant in the Chicago burbs named McDonald's. It existed years before Krock created his cerealburger stand. But, McDonalds the corporation actually took the poor restaurant owner to court and found him guilty of trademark infringement!
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2)
It's more complicated than the MS argument ("Amazon and Apple") makes it appear. In particular, "Amazon" and "Apple" are not terms of art in their respective fields (books and computers or music). There's a rule of trademark law that says that I can't trademark the term "car" for my brand of automobiles, even though it is a perfectly legitimate tradmark for my brand of apparel or somesuch.
The term "window" was used by the Xerox PARC folks to describe their rectangular onscreen viewports well before Microsoft had any thoughts of trademarking it. The X Window System folks made a big deal of not calling their system "X Windows" back in the day to avoid getting sued by MS: they certainly would have called it that otherwise. In fact, there were T-shirts printed back in the day with the slogan "It's a window system called X, not a system called X Windows" precisely for this reason.
X Windows System, others (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody expects to eat an Apple computer.
Nobody hopes to have wild monkey sex with an Amazon website.
But "windowing" graphical user interfaces is a term of art that has been incorporated into countless products, many predating the first commercial release of Windows. (And to answer the inevitiable point, MIT was working on the X Window System long before the first vaporware announcement of Windows 1.0, and it was released outside of the Athena project many years before the first practical release of MS Windows (3.1)).
Even the first releases of MS Windows was called just that - Microsoft Windows. I have no problem with MS enforcing a trademark on "Microsoft Windows," but over time they (and others) have abbreviated that to just "Windows" and now Microsoft is trying to claim that the unadorned word is not a generic. Well, tough, it is.
I should also reiterate my earlier point about the envitable confusion about what "X programming" is. "X" is also fairly generic, but there are billions of lines of code written to use the X Window System, and it's been commonly abbrievated to just "X" for close to two decades. Yet I'm already seeing indicators that "X programming" may refer to development for the very limited market, proprietary Microsoft X-Box.
So it shouldn't be hard to predict what I hope the judge will rule: "Microsoft Windows" can be trademarked, not "windows" alone. Ditto "Microsoft Word" vs "word," "Microsoft Office" vs "office," etc.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2)
The thing is that "Apple" and "Amazon" are generic words used completly outside their usual context. Which puts them just below completly madeup words on the tradmark protection scale, making them strong trademarks. "Windows" is more of a generic description. Since "Window" as meaning part of a computer GUI predates Microsoft's product. Generic terms used in context or as simple descriptions of a product tend to be considered weak trademarks.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's one aspect of Apple vs Windows that is pretty different, though. "Apple" had no special meaning within the computer setting, wasn't a computer-specific term, etc. until that company entered the business. "Windows" was an increasingly commonly used word with special meaning within the computer setting, before Microsoft introduced that product. Their calling a product Windows was no less stupid than if I introduce a product called "RAM" or "disk" or "pointer" and then claimed I had a trademark on the word.
Actually, I did once write a [pretty crappy and dubiously useful] C64 program called "Sloppy Disk". If I had sold it, and spent a lot of money marketing it, would we now be living in a world where people have to say "Disk is a registered trademark of the Sloppy."? No way.
Re:The issue of "secondary meaning"... (Score:2)
And Apple Records tried to sue Apple Computer over Trademark infringement.
M$ Names Its Stuff for OS Dilittantes (Score:2, Insightful)
- Internet Explorer - a browser.
- Word - a word-processor.
- Media Player - a media player!
- Windows - a windows-based OS.
etc...Making everything easy-to-understand is the brilliance of marketing and also shows how well M$ knows its customer base. Apparently they are the type who are easily confused... the perfect customers for M$.
Re:M$ Names Its Stuff for OS Dilittantes (Score:2)
Re:M$ Names Its Stuff for OS Dilittantes (Score:2)
Re:M$ Names Its Stuff for OS Dilittantes (Score:3, Funny)
It all makes perfect sense now.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Funny)
One is that you picked up on the fact that the parent poster inexplicably switched his style of sarcasm - the "Outlook" and "FrontPage" examples were ones which would follow from the idea of choosing names that make sense, but which weren't true, while on the other hand the "Start button" example is true but wouldn't follow from that idea, and decided to comment on this in an indirect way.
The other is that you just failed to grasp that there was any sarcasm at all before posting a smartass reply. Given that this is Slashdot, I find this more likely.
Then what's "Outlook"? (Score:2)
Linux ... projects are given names ... that you would NEVER guess what the programs do unless you ALREADY KNEW what they did.
How is this different from "Office", "PowerPoint", "Outlook", "Excel", and "DirectX"? Try explaining "Outlook": it's called that way because the O and L superimposed make up the faces of a clock, WTF?
Its generally not a very smart idea if you in any way want to attract new users, who by definition *don't* just happen to know (or have been born with the knowledge) that "Pine Is Not Elm".
In the IE 3.0 days, before Outlook Express was called "Outlook Express", it was called "Microsoft Internet Mail and News". (The program is still msimn.exe.) This name strikes me as similar to PINE, a "Program for Internet News and E-mail". (Many of the initial-named apps explain themselves adequately in their about box.)
Huh? (Score:2)
Windows in South Korea (Score:2)
But this was some time ago and maybe Microsoft has bought out the other small company?
Check out the tradmarks with windows in them. (Score:2, Interesting)
It looks like there are a lot of Windows(tm) out there.
MS Windows, not only Windows (Score:2)
You can't copyrigth an English word, but it seems that their armies of lawyers have come around this problem. Same for Explorer, Word, and a few others.
What makes their claim valid is that they always prepend the MS trademark in front of the other words. However, lately I have seen documents from the Beast where the simple Word followed by TM was just mentioned. I did a double jump when I saw that, because this is the end of the English language as we know it if they can argue about this in court.
PPA, the girl next door.
Generic names (Score:2)
A few examples - there's Microsoft:
On the other hand, there's a few ones they seemed to have pulled out of their backside, like any other software company:
I'm sure there are lots of other examples in both categories.
When you think about it, the amount of arrogance displayed by use some of those product names is quite astounding... I mean: "SQL Server" ??? All they did was take Sybase and pervert it a bit....
I really don't know which of their products are trademarked as "Microsoft + $name" and which are just "$name", but it's still a good example of their "Elite Marketing Skillz"...
Re:Generic names (Score:2)
where did Windows come from ? (Score:2, Insightful)
So windows was / is a generic term even in the world of windowing systems which makes it even harder to protect. Had microsoft invented the term window it would have been easier for them to protect.
It's entirely possible to trademark a name in a particular market that would ordinarily sound like a regular word provided that the name wouldn't be a generic term in that market. e.g. making a medicine called Windows or a truck called a Ram. However naming a truck Truck would give you no protection.
So it seems that windows is a very weak trademark because it is derived from windowing systems which were around and called windowing systems before windows.
Microsoft have a long history of these kind of poor trademark choices - look at MS-DOS - ok you can't produce a product called MS-DOS - but DOS itself is a generic term.
Re:where did Windows come from ? (Score:2)
In one of the numerous books I've read about Microsoft, one of their marketing people indeed said the name "Windows" was chosen in a deliberate attempt to co-opt the generic. They do this whenever possible, like "Flight Simulator," "Network," "XBox," "Money," "Internet Explorer," etc.
~Philly
trademarks and freedom of expression (Score:2)
Ah, the sweet irony (Score:4, Informative)
A little background. In 1994, a little-known Chicago area company called SyNet started distributing a web browser, called "internet explorer". Then, in 1995 Microsoft came out with its own "internet explorer". The Chicago company sued, and went bankrupt fighting the behemoth. Eventually, in 1998 Microsoft agreed to pay $5mil to settle the case (after SyNet had gone bankrupt, so they basically accepted anything that they could).
Ironic turn of events (Score:2, Informative)
Sort of like when Henry Ford was sued about patents on the Automobile shortly after the Model T. (Business of Armerica by John Steele Gordon) He argued that the Automobile was a "Social" device and should therefore not be applicable to a patents. Of course I am sure that he then went about patenting everything about the Model T once the patent lawsuits were over.
Should Dante's Inferno be revised to include not only the Popes in hell but also businessmen who have behaved in such a double standard manner.
It is not sour grapes when the dishonest win but a feeling that civilization has suffered a damage that will be harder to repair each time.
Common Name Trademarks are dumb (Score:2, Funny)
Company B: Lindows, producer of a linux "?distro?"
Company A owns trademark "Windows(R)",
company B uses name 'Lindows',
Company A says "I don't like you, you are based off Linux, not windows!! you are in voiolation of our trademark, give it up!"
Company B "Trademark? are you retarded?"
Company A "you will get people confused, they will think Lindows is Windows"
Company B "How many people confuse 'Loser' with Woser'?"
Company A "Shutup or I shall taunt you a second time."
Company B "Bite me foot boy"
Thankyou Taco (Score:2, Funny)
This is huge . . . (Score:3, Informative)
But the difference between a straightforward trademark claim, and one where a serious challenge will be mounted to a mission-critical asset (such as the WINDOWS mark), makes a responsible company far more interested in reaching a settlement or accomodation. But this is Microsoft, who isn't even afraid of the United States Government.
Re:Slashdot? AnimeFu? (Score:2)
http-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-org
AnimeFu - no idea... I assume it has something to do with using the word Kungfu as the "magic" that a hacker uses to control systems... just a guess tho
Re:Hmm, are you guys thinking what I am? (Score:2, Insightful)
No Correct (Score:2)
This is completely inaccurate.
Please see the link http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/april/990419/b
In part, the article says:
"The suit involves Apple Corp., a record company founded by all four Beatles in 1968. Apple Corp sued Apple Computer and agreed to settle the case as long as Apple stayed out of the music business. According to the article, an appeals court ordered Apple Computer to pay the record company US$26.4 million."
There's more on the net about it, look up "Apple Computers Beatles" on any search engine for more information.
Re:No Correct (Score:2)
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2)
See:
http://www.macobserver.com/news/99/april/990419
Re:What about Apple? (Score:2)
Re:How did they ever get away with Bob? (Score:2)
Re:LindowsOS is not a choice... (Score:2)
Judge the target audience is the moral of the story here. For people that want the most compatability, windows is the choice, and will be. For people who don't know better and can't find a warez site, lindows is the way to go.
Which actually brings up an interesting point: How compatablie is Lindows? To illustrate: the other day, I tried to install command and conquer on a windows 2000 instalation. It wouldn't install, citing that it needed "Windows version 95 or later" and i was running "Windows version 5" of course meaning windows 2000, or NT5. Will this happen on lindows? Will software that is supposed to check compatability before install prevent you from installing it? If office checks for the string VERSION: Microsoft Windows, Lindows can't possibly put that string in their registry, how can you install office?
~z
LindowsOS bundled apps are a choice (Score:2)
As long as the applications that people want to run (office, quicken, etc.) REQUIRE windows to be installed
They want to run office, but do they need to run Microsoft Office® brand office as opposed to OpenOffice.org brand office [openoffice.org]? They want to run personal finance, but do they need to run Quicken® brand personal finance as opposed to GnuCash brand personal finance [gnucash.org]?
The choice is not adding another operating system to my computer. The choice is choosing NOT to buy a second operating system.
Well, LindowsOS ($100) is less than one-third the price of Windows XP Professional retail ($300), which is important to those building PCs for their friends and family either from parts or from a $400 naked PC from Wal*Mart [walmart.com].
You're mixing up business names & product name (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)