EU Throws out Microsoft's Vista Font Trademark 82
vitaly.friedman writes "Microsoft has lost another round at the EU though this time it has nothing to do with the antitrust case. This time the dispute is over fonts; specifically Segoe, one of the typefaces Microsoft wants to use in Vista. Microsoft filed its "registered community design" for the font back in January of 2004, paid the required fee, and everything was great until December." A copy of the decision is also available.
Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
But only if they find someone to contest the patent...
Re:Quick! (Score:1)
You mean immortality? I'm down.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Naturally no one should be able to register an IP that is identical to someone else's.
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
Re:Quick! (Score:1)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
Of course, Microsoft's argument is shaky at best, but you would think the creators of "Frutiger Next" would have a version of the font saved from before 2005.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
As they should do with any company.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, bright spark, it is just you. Frutiger (and its close relative Frutiger Next) is an extremely famous typeface and one that's existed since the 1960s [wikipedia.org]. Microsoft then makes a copy of this font (have a look yourself—it's that obvious) then tries to register it as its own and you think it's unfair that this application was denied?
Give me a break.
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
I think that the "big" antitrust trial with MS has showed EU officials that MS had decided not to play smoothly with European justice. So now, logically, they put under heavy scrutiny the actions of the Redmond's giant.
If by "heavy scrutiny" you mean they deny an application after the company they copied it from complains and sends them examples of prior art from forty years ago through the present and MS (while attempting to defend their application) admits that their font is identical to the prior art,
In case you didn't know (Score:5, Informative)
So, it's naturally really hard to get a trademark on a typeface that you previously said was identical to Frutiger Next.
At the bottom of the wiki page, they have a comparison of the two, the biggest different is the capital Q, where the tail is shifted slightly, and that's all. Oh, the numeral 1 also looks different. Everything else is identical.
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, I don't know if Linotype have any reasonable grounds to sue MS over this, that's how screwed up typeface issues are.
The big things come down to, fundamentally, every typeface is going to look similar, if the didn't they wouldn't be readable. So, dealing with all that is just a big pain in the butt.
Apple chose to include their Apple logo in the fonts, this is partly so they can use it in random applications,
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:2)
You do bring up a good point about typeface issues. Readability studies have been going on since a little after the printing press became popular. That data would influence all typefacs to appear somewhat homogenous. I mean, its not like serif/sans serif = apples/oranges.
All sans fonts are equal, but some... (Score:2)
Not really. They're both sans-serif fonts with similar characteristics and overall appearance, but any trained typographer could tell you several differences between them.
<doubleplusgeek> In general, Helvetica is squarer at the ends of its lines: look at glyphs like 't', 'f', 'r', 'j', 'c', 's', 'Q' and '&'. It's also rounder in general: 'o' is almost circular, unlike Arial, and this also shows up in things like the '%' glyph. Finally, Helvetica has completely diff
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:1)
Linotype seems to have issues (and probably with good cause) with the fonts that Microsoft includes in it's products. All of these fonts came from AGFA Monotype. Has Linotype gone after AGFA?
Segoe (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to PRINT the thing to read it.
Is a DISASTER on screen - anti-aliased or not. I'm not kidding. If I could include screen caps I would. Unreadable to the point of physical injury.
SegoeUI was created at MS to use in Titlebars and Menus. This is OK with ClearType enabled. It is still unreadable in Vista's tilebars -which arbitrarily use transparency under AeroGl
Re:Segoe (Score:1)
That reminds me of the Analog Rights Management that I had to deal with many years ago. A big chip vendor we were working with would send out pre-release design specs printed in black ink on dark red paper stock. I guess the idea was to prevent photocopying, but the main effect of their scheme was to make my eyes bleed by the end of the day.
Re:Segoe (Score:3, Informative)
I have it set as Firefox's default font. I use it in my Winamp Playlist. It's my font for AIM. Looks great in titlebars. Creates very smooth looking tect on icons and the such. In fact' I'd recommend it for just about anything. All you have to do is turn on ClearType and tweak it. Bam. Good to go. I dunno how it looks to you, but it looks smooth to me.
Here's a couple screenies I took for ya. Agree or disagree; I still like it.
http://darkfiles2.servebeer.com/im [servebeer.com]
Re:Segoe (Score:1)
It's documents in Segoe, SegoeBold, etc. Ouch.
Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:4, Interesting)
Linotype seems to own the font fair and square. Why try to cheat them out of their millimeter of green for it?
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:2)
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:2, Interesting)
What "Helvetica"? If you're referring to Arial, then it's by no means a stolen Helvetica; they're totally different designs, and anyone who knows anything about type can tell them apart at a glance. People get annoyed about Arial because it's ugly, not because it's "stolen".
And what "Palatino"? Book Antiqua? Ancient history. Mic
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
What "Helvetica"? If you're referring to Arial, then it's by no means a stolen Helvetica
Uh, yes, it absolutely is. It's a third-rate clone of Helvetica done by a company called Monotype so Microsoft didn't have to pay license fees. I guess you have no idea of history, so here, I'll educate you--read this called The Scourge of Arial [ms-studio.com] where its dubious history is discussed. It's a "shameless imposter" of Helvetica thrust upon the world.
; they're tota
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:3, Funny)
Helvetica is not like Arial (Score:2)
Arial is much nicer. You could use it for titles and headings on something intended to be respectable, like a resume.
Helvetica barely more respectable than Comic Sans.
Re:Helvetica is not like Arial (Score:3, Informative)
The "Grotesque" font, Arial's other ancestor, looks rather nice as well. I guess that was the attractive parent.
Pictures:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html [ms-studio.com]
Re:Helvetica is not like Arial (Score:2)
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:4, Interesting)
To Microsoft, its not about how much it costs MS; its about how much its costs YOU.
They're willing to spend $1,000 to for your company to spend $10, because MS has tons of cash. This is standard Microsoft fare; look at Caldera, Stacker, and many other companies that were blatantly ripped off by MS. MS does settle; just after their opponent is dead (or crippled).
Re:Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:1, Flamebait)
In this case it really does seem to me that they have a case. While the two typefaces are very similar, there are more differences than the ones pointed out (i.e. the Q and the 1). In general, Segoe seems to be more rounded and broader. I agree that the two are very similar, but, as someone else said, it is by necessity that many typefaces look the same - you wouldn't be able to read them otherwise. The
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, their attorney said it infront of the board of inquiry.
Their defense was not, "The Fonts are Different".
Their defense was, "The Fonts are the same, but they have no proof they sold it first, because although the invoice they show you is from 2000, the CD they presented was pressed in 2005."
That's a goofy defense.
Re:In case you didn't know (Score:4, Informative)
Frutiger Next is an upgrade of Frutiger.
Adrian Frutiger [wikipedia.org] created the Frutiger typeface by updating the typeface he created for Orly Airport [wikipedia.org].
See for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:See for yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:See for yourself (Score:3)
Re:See for yourself (Score:3)
Overall though, I do think the differences are more subtle than between most fonts.
Re:See for yourself (Score:2)
So when you copy(steal) a font, you need to change a couple of things before you claim it as original work. And, I think that if you go in, change the 1, 8, and a couple of letters, this should not be considered proof of original work.
Now, I think that "some ratios" being the same is not valid "proof" of the fonts being identical. I could decide that I like some of the proportions in frutiger, and use th
Re:See for yourself (Score:2)
Re:See for yourself (Score:1)
Re:See for yourself (Score:2)
Dear God, why does anyone use JPGs for screen caps of high-contrast line art? The amount of artifacting is painful.
Re:Well there Vista goes... (Score:2)
Re:Well there Vista goes... (Score:2)
Woo-hoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Next week I think I'll register a few new fonts:
You know, font development isn't easy -- it's much harder than it first appears to build a font that is attractive, easily readable, and infinitely scalable. Using Microsoft's new font-development technique, even a yutz like me can produce attractive fonts in minutes. Maybe Microsoft should patent the technique of "stealing from others" -- they've used it enough they might be able to get trademark protection on it as well.
So . . . (Score:1)
Does that mean I can take the Mona Lisa, sign it, give it a new frame, call it "the smile" and then claim it as my masterpiece?
Re:So . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So . . . (Score:2)
Nothing new here (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm repeating myself by posting musch the same response as I did to this at Digg, but here goes anyway (my apologies to those who read it there). This kind of thing happens all the time in the world of fonts -- I used to collect them. I don't know how many virtually identical fonts I've seen, all of which were copyrighted by some company or other. Not similar, truly identical. And then there's many, many fonts that are copied from another source, such as typeface you've seen from popular movies. And these are all copyrighted too; I'm pretty sure that most of those wouldn't hold up in court. (Has anyone else noticed that it's so difficult to do nothing illegal nowadays becauses of patents and copyrights that it comes down to a matter of whether it would hold up in court? But I digress.)
Not only that, but many of these fonts are DRMed to the hilt, which the true type font format is set up for. Imagine, you recognize where they got the font from and you can't even use it to write a document to print out because it's DRMed so that the only purpose it serves on your system is so you can read web pages made with that font. So that violates fair usage too. In short, they basically get away with murder when it comes to fonts because no one is going to sue them.... or at least, hasn't so far.
One glaring example of both that springs to mind is a font that is a copy of Jimi's Hendrix's handwriting. And the maker of the font copyrighted and DRMed it. Imagine how Janie Hendrix might react if she got hold of that font and found out she couldn't even use it. How would you like it if someone copied your dead brother's handwriting to make a font and then DRMed it? (Yeah, yeah, I realize people familiar with my posts are probably Hendrixed out by now, but this a good example.) Or better still, if they copied the writing style from you?
Re:Nothing new here (Score:1, Interesting)
Stop using "typeface" and "font" as synonyms; they are not.
A typeface is the abstract appearance of the symbols: proportions, relative sizes, relative location of serifs and other features, and so forth. As an abstract idea, it is not subject to copyright or other protection.
A font is a tangible set of instruction
Re:Nothing new here (Score:1)
The only way anybody would be dumb enough to try it with my handwriting would to use it as encryption
Microsoft versus society (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't we go one day without Microsoft doing something immoral or illegal?
Wingdings (Score:2)
Segoe vs. Frutiger Next (Score:1)
{pffftwh} (Score:3, Funny)
I illustrated my point with a fart to signify that the I.T world is rapidly becoming a very smelly place to conduct business. Small companies follow the examples of larger successful companies and paranoia is highly contageous - beginning to show. How many non disclosure agreements have YOU signed this month?
I can't believe they tried to patent something so
If MS was truly concerned about covering their ass they would write more secure operating systems. They don't do that, they patent everything they possibly can to try to squeeze every last cent out of the junk they produce and have turned suing small companies into a cottage industry over stupid technicalities. This was aimed to get their 'digs' into the EU so they could snuff out anyone who stole the font they already stole.
Will each Vista PC come with an attached penis that pops out of the top and urinates "BILL WAS HERE" on your wall? If they hope to keep *any* of the market share they've enjoyed gouging over the past decades they need to do a complete about face and focus on serving the needs of their customers.
I wish I could make neat cartoons in flash. I see willy wonka's chocolate factory making fonts as secret as the ever-lasting-gob-stopper for Microsoft.
Mr Gates, You have my permission to use my newly patented {pffftwh} to blow your HEAD out of your ASS so you can actually RELEASE something useful.
Re:{pffftwh} (Score:1)
I have never before heard the words "fart" and "intellectual" used in the same sentence.
Hey go patent that!
semantics (Score:1)
Don't believe me? Look at the Segoe "1"
Character fonts patenting? (Score:2)
A picture alone can make sense, that is carries some information.
Character fonts make sense when used to write words, sentences or simply character strings. So the fonts themselves don't carry any information. They could, but don't.
A better idea for people working in Redmond would instead be to patent words printed with a certain font as if they were pictures. Normal people calls these things "logos".
Re:Character fonts patenting? (Score:2)
Patented - no. Copyrighted - yes.
You probably don't realize how much skill and effort it takes to design perfectly proportional, legible font and hinting it for on-screen rendering.
Re:Character fonts patenting? (Score:2)
And also you'd know how much skill and effort it takes to think about phrases, locutions and sentences that fits perfectly your expression needs. Nonetheless you cannot patent phrases, locutions and sentences!
While under some circumstances you can copyrigth them.
Re:Character fonts patenting? (Score:2)
Fonts aren't copyrightable in the US.
Stupid issue for Microsoft to bother with... (Score:2)
They sell an OS and an office productivity suite geared toward Mom 'n Pop and boring suit-clad businessmen.
Microsoft really shouldn't bother getting into multi-million dollar pissing contests over where the stroke on a majuscule "Q" goes - They really only need two fonts: Arial and Lucida Co