| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Lindows.com Asks for Victory in Microsoft Case | |
|
||
| Time: 12:04 EST/17:04 GMT | News Source: Internet News | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Lindows.com last week filed for a summary judgment in defense of the patent infringement suit filed by Microsoft nearly a year ago over Lindows.com's use of the term "lindows" in its products and branding. The San Diego computing startup is hoping the U.S. District Court in Washington finds in its favor, claiming that Microsoft has no iron-clad claim to the "windows" term. Over the past year, Lindows.com has spent its time trying to sway presiding Judge John C. Coughenour with its argument that graphical user interfaces that feature the use of "windows" have been referred to as "windows programs," "windowing interfaces," "windowing systems," and "window managers" since the late '70s. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 176 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:38:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6253 (12.237.219.240) at 10/8/2002 12:41:05 PM |
|
Psst buddy, wanna buy a genuine Rolecks watch?
There's nothing illegal in naming a product Rolecks, but if it happens to be a watch and you happen to be marketing it in a way which targets Rolex's potential customers, then that's illegal. Lindows is selling an x86-based operating system for personal computers. They knew damn well that the Lindows name was an attempt to trade on the reputation of Microsoft Windows. Next, they're going to claim that the "L" in their name really came from Larry, their pizza delivery guy. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/8/2002 12:53:38 PM |
|
Well actually Microsoft had a very difficult time getting Windows trademarked to begin with. They submitted it numerous times and had it rejected. Then they submmited it one last time and got lucky.
So it isn't a particularly strong trademark like say a name like Pepsi which is a made up word. That being said, Lindows position is pretty weak since it's quite obvious that they aren't just calling their system a OS with a Windows interfaces, but a name which has only one purpose and that is to cause confusion with the product named Windows. If they called it the "Razzle Dazzle Windows System", they'd probably be in a safer legal position. Microsoft has to defend this one, per trademark law. But I think Lindows will probably lose in the long run just from all the bad press they'll get trying to defraud consumers. |
| #3 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/8/2002 1:16:43 PM |
|
#3 - Larry Ellison's delivering pizzas now? :-)
Sorry, couldn't resist. |
| #4 By 1295 (216.84.211.58) at 10/8/2002 1:30:29 PM |
|
Microsoft will most likely win this battle simply because the law is on its side.
Though MS can't blanket trademark the "windows" name they can protect their trademark when it causes confusion in the same product category etc. "Lindows" could very well cause that confusion because some not so competent computer purchaser could think that they are getting a cheap version of windows or a very good substitute. It is very obvious that Lindows was chosen to do just that and I think that they are the ones, not MS, who are acting childish. I would expect this type of action from a 4th grader, not a start-up software company. And #3 Roledex could very easily go after companies that do do that. But rather they probably just weighed the cost (both legal and lost sales) and realized it was a waste of time to do so. MS on the other hand could be very threatened by Lindows (trust me not because the product is good) but because consumers will most likely not know what they are getting themselves into. |
| #5 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 10/8/2002 1:58:27 PM |
|
"Maybe Lindows should focus on creating a product that works before they go crying to the courts."
That never stopped Ellison or McNealy! |
| #6 By 1845 (12.255.20.249) at 10/8/2002 2:16:31 PM |
|
Mr. Humpty (#6)
"I would expect this type of action from a 4th grader, not a start-up software company." This is just the type of thing to expect from Mr. Michael Robertson. |
| #7 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/8/2002 2:57:55 PM |
|
The problem is, #1, if Microsoft wins then I have 14 violations in my house.
And they all have glass in them... TL |
| #8 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/8/2002 4:15:20 PM |
| Tech, no, because a) They aren't the name of a specific product, rather, a description of a type of product (ie, glass/plexiglass/any transparent/translucent object used to inclose an area), b) because it's not in the same market, and c) the name Lindows is OBVIOUSLY used in order to bank off of the Windows name. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/8/2002 4:36:16 PM |
|
"but this is a dangerous president." No, that's George W. Bush.
This is a stupid case in which Microsoft should never have been able to trademark the generic term, in which they were rejected twice, and finally succeeded after the third time because they had paid off people who opposed it, they simply gave up, or had gone out of business. |
| #10 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 10/8/2002 4:40:42 PM |
|
SodaJerk - "This is a stupid case in which Microsoft should never have been able to trademark the generic term"
I guess the term "Apple" isn't generic? Of course it is. I guess the term "Sun" isn't generic? Of course it is. I would argue that "sun" and "apple" are more generic than "window". And ALL are worthy of trademarks by those companies. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/8/2002 4:47:23 PM |
|
"Sodajerk celebrates 50 year career"
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Central/10/07/offbeat.soda.jerk.ap/index.html Wow, I didn't know you'd been trolling that long. :) mooresa56 - Oh hell, Apple even patented Macintosh, despite there already having been numerous items using the name McIntosh. |
| #12 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 10/8/2002 5:34:48 PM |
| It should be "Microsoft Windows" rather than "Windows," as it has become known. For that reason, and for the reason that the term "windows" has been around a long time, I think Lindows should be allowed to use the name they chose. It's not like a rational person will confuse them, and it's not like the Lindows logo is a direct rip-off of Microsoft's logos. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/8/2002 6:37:52 PM |
|
mooresa, this is a nuanced issue, but you show No sense of understanding anything related to this issue. The question is whether or not it's a generic term related to the product. A lot of companies have generic terms applied to different products--this is actually encouraged and strongly enforceable. Are Ford's Mustangs, Pintos, etc.. generic terms? Yes. Are they (the horsey names) related to cars? No. Does an Apple have anything to do with computers? No. Does the Sun have anything to do with computers? No. So of course you can have Apple Computers, Apple Records, Apple Dildos if you want. If you don't get that, there's no helping you. After all, it was a joke in the first place; just making fun of becker's poor spelling. If you don't get that, I wouldn't EVER expect anyone to take you seriously on such TM issues.
And, soda, patented the Mac? No crap! What does that have to do with naming or trademark? Let's toss the ignorance around like it was seed for the wittle burds, you know! A patent has nothing to do with the name of the product; hell, the name of the patent has nothing to do with the patent! Yes, Apple patented an all-in-one highly integrated computer with equally integrated graphical user interface, with a distinct look-and-feel defined by their design principles, etc., etc., etc... What does that have to do with anything? Oh, it doesn't, and you don't know what you are talking about either. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 21:33. |
| #14 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 10/8/2002 9:35:45 PM |
| lol |
| #15 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/8/2002 9:50:34 PM |
| Don't we hate Nazis? |
| #16 By 3339 (64.175.42.217) at 10/8/2002 10:10:17 PM |
|
Bob, why in the hell do you always try to speak for everyone?
I like this one... though I see no need for language nazism when you can simply be an ignorance nazi... Case in point: Mr. Humpty. "Microsoft will most likely win this battle simply because the law is on its side." You know the law, huh, Hump? Why are you completely wrong then? "Though MS can't blanket trademark the "windows" name they can protect their trademark when it causes confusion in the same product category etc." Actually they tried to protect their trademark before Lindows came out, didn't they? Guess what: the judge said they can't protect the trademark because he is concerned that it's invalid. Even if you didn't know that, which must be damn near impossible--we've all read the stories, we know Lindows is on the market, not being removed from shelves, etc...--read the freakin' article before blathering a bunch of nonsense. Hell, just a little bit of logic would reveal to you how warped such a comment is. How the hell do you earn the right to protect a trademark which is invalid, huh? You don't really believe that MS has a case against Lindows if they don't have a trademark, do you? If MS doesn't have a valid trademark, they can prevent Lindows from having a similar name, huh? Please. You are an idiot. (Oh, oh, I'm sorry, don't want to offend the delicate...) You are an idiot on this matter. Don't say things like "the law is on its side" when you cannot read, reason, or pay attention. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 at 22:17. |
| #17 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/9/2002 12:44:54 AM |
| I'm fostering a sense of community, jerk. Besides, as far as the majority goes, I'm sure most agree that they'd rather hear me than hear you. |
| #18 By 3339 (64.175.42.217) at 10/9/2002 11:18:47 AM |
| Whatever, maybe that'll be the next poll. |
| #19 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 10/9/2002 12:47:40 PM |
|
Better yet, how about a poll on whether or not sodajerk is
1) under 200 lbs 2) over 200 lbs 3) over 300 lbs 4) over 400 lbs I'm betting #3, based on his obvious feelings of inadequacy and subsequent need to shout everyone else down. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/9/2002 3:08:57 PM |
|
Brilliant rebuttal, moron... and you couldn't be further off.
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!! Eeeediot! |
| #21 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 10/9/2002 4:05:40 PM |
|
Perhaps this one is better...
1) white as snow 2) whiter than snow 3) glowing white 4) tranparent, veins apparent OR 1) saw a woman one time 2) saw a woman and ran the other way 3) saw a man one time and ran toward him 4) lives with his parents |
| #22 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/9/2002 9:06:55 PM |
|
So you are admitting you are a complete freaking idiot with no understanding of trademark law!! That's what I thought.
I am pretty pale, but the chicks seem to like it. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 at 21:07. |
| #23 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 10/10/2002 9:58:53 AM |
| LOL, I bet they do. Hope you temper that potty mouth and horrible attitude when near these "chicks". Oh, and they really love it when you call them "chicks". Even your reply indicates your unfamiliarity with the stronger sex. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 176 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:38:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
