| 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: Don't let Windows shut us down | |
|
||
| Time: 10:18 EST/15:18 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Upstart operating system company Lindows is hoping to deal a final death blow to the suit brought against it by Microsoft. The company said Tuesday that it has asked a judge to toss out the suit, which claims Lindows is violating Microsoft's trademark on the word "windows." Lindows also urged the judge, who's already ruled twice in its favor, to find that Microsoft's trademark is invalid because "windows" is a generic term. indows' summary judgment filing, which opens with a cartoon poking fun at the origin of the Windows name, requests that the judge dismiss once and for all Microsoft's claims and its attempts to get the site shut down. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:45:08 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 9549 (63.88.169.2) at 10/10/2002 11:21:25 AM |
| It has been ruled in favor of Lindows twice already. They are going to lose it because they try too hard to get this case over with, incinuating that it is too close and hoping they can get a ruling before someone realizes it by all the public opinon on the matter. |
| #2 By 432 (216.94.119.133) at 10/10/2002 11:58:56 AM |
|
Sometimes I can't believe how MS biased this page is, but whatever. Here's my two sense and for the record I like Microsoft product and use all the time, even on my iMAC at work I use all MS apps, but Lindows is in their rights...I Microsoft can't stop people from using words, just because they sound like their trademark, and I don't think MS should be allowed to claim the words windows. Tey can claim the logo look if they like but not the word...I mean I know there are alot of *glass* windows manufacturers out that must be pissed that they can't own/trademark windows.com or anything with windows in the term...would microsoft be upset if Lindows, spelt it LINdowz??? I man it sounds the same, just not spelt the same. But come on when does it end...the logo for Lindows looks nothing like Windows and if costomers get that easily confused or manipulated, then they didn't do their research...whereas I agree with #1, if they are dumb enough to buy a piece of crap $200 computer with "fake" Windows on it, then they get what they deserve. I think I am going to start buying names that sound like other big companies and then try and swoon costomers to buy my knockoff products..i didn't think their were that many stupid people in the world that would fall for such crap, but if it warrents a lawsuit, I might make some cash at it..
Go get 'em Lindows..and for once, why don't you just back down Microsoft, and instead of wasting money and time on meaningless lawsuits, fix the bugs that plauge your Lindows...err I mean Windows products. |
| #3 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 10/10/2002 3:40:10 PM |
| SidX: no, because wimdows 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. |
| #4 By 3339 (67.116.255.26) at 10/10/2002 8:06:00 PM |
|
If you can't restrain the bias, can people at least restrain the idiocy and learn a little bit about trademark law. You are all throwing around "generic" as if that's the standard. But the question is whether or not a mark for a product (a company also, but much moreso a product) is a name generic to that product's purpose, type, or market.
The reason this is a standard for valid trademarks is to prevent two things: 1. that the particular trademark become ubiquitous, or a "generic" name, for such a product... and 2. that other products within the market are denied the use of generic words that can be used to describe their products. Examples like Shell, Apple, Sun, CircuitCity, etc. just make you sound like a moron because they are entirely irrelevent. Also, just because Microsoft has the trademark now and just because they've had it for... (what? I'm not sure, 9 years?, that's right, not that long, '93, I think...) doesn't mean a thing if it is invalid... which it probably is. They used it for many years while it wasn't a mark, they were denied twice, they've used it inconsistently, they've used the tactic for other products, they've protected it inconsistently, etc... If it's invalid, there is no question of Lindows's right to use their name. "The two rulings in favor of Lindows so far are really of no concern. Microsoft filed for an injunction to stop Lindows from using the name during the suit. The judge ruled in favor of Lindows and allowed them to continue using the name until proven guilty. This does not mean that the court is in favor of Lindows; all if means is that they are not 100% sure Microsoft is correct." "It has been ruled in favor of Lindows twice already. They are going to lose it because they try too hard to get this case over with, incinuating that it is too close and hoping they can get a ruling before someone realizes it by all the public opinion on the matter." In some respects, it's true to say it's not over, but "of no concern"?, you're hoping for too much, specker. It's actually standard practice to rule in favor of a trademark holder for an injunction to prevent a dilutive and infringing mark to get on the market. Basically, even if Microsoft gets to the point where they get to say: "we have a valid mark," the judge has already said, "it's weak enough that I'm not going to let you protect it, and it will be diluted more. Your argument doesn't impress me." cto, public opinion has nothing to do with this case. I've never heard anything more pathetically over-optimistic as "they're trying too hard"--yeah, trying hard usually doesn't work in the Courts!! Right. If anything, I couldn't imagine another case more ripe for summary judgment. The judge has ruled twice that Microsoft can't act to protect its mark, he's stated that Microsoft's own evidence in some instances supports the invalid mark claim, and the many reasons already mentioned above. But anyway, Microsoft may still have an argument. Just, you guys ain't arguing for them very well. Hint: I would argue that even though its an invalid mark, Lindows's claim is a bad one--that wouldn't stop Microsoft from losing the Windows trademark, but at least you'd sound smarter and could make Lindows look bad. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, October 10, 2002 at 20:33. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2002 9:03:10 PM |
|
Oh, I don't know. I already argued the point that it was irrelevant whether or not there were other things in the computing world called Windows... the point was that the Lindows name was chosen solely to cause confusion with Windows.
Anyway, Realist is right that this is going to give Linux a lot of bad press, but that bad press was fairly inevitable anyway. |
| #6 By 3339 (67.116.255.26) at 10/10/2002 9:38:08 PM |
|
"I already argued the point that it was irrelevant whether or not there were other things in the computing world called Windows... the point was that the Lindows name was chossen solely to cause confusion with Windows."
Bully for you for arguing that, but that is completely wrong. Our laws, Courts, and a federal judge has decided that before he will consider a case of trademark infringement, there will be a case to determine whether or not it's a valid trademark in the first place... whether it be a jury trial or a summary judgment. If it ain't valid, Microsoft has no case. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/10/2002 10:56:17 PM |
|
Does anybody else get the feeling that sodajerk doesn't really know what point he's arguing?
|
| #8 By 3339 (67.116.255.26) at 10/11/2002 1:12:51 AM |
|
What's so confusing? I've said that in my opinion it's an invalid trademark. I've said the judge will need to determine this issue before he begins to hear evidence of trademark infringement because you can't infringe an invalid trademark. Lindows has asked for a summary judgment because the bulk of the evidence supports their claim. You all keep coming up with pathetic arguments for how Lindows infringes on a trademark, which most likely is going to be thrown out before Microsoft has an attempt to defend that claim.
You're the idiot who tried to parallel this with a patent claim by Apple, right? Uh huh. And I don't know what I'm talking about. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 11, 2002 at 01:13. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/11/2002 2:31:01 AM |
| that shouldn't surprise us, though, should it sodablue? |
| #10 By 432 (216.94.119.133) at 10/11/2002 1:56:46 PM |
|
OK, let's refrase biased..it should be read as "I can't believe how ....hate linux, love MS this site is." I realize it is a Windows site, thus why I visit it, but that dosen't mean that everything *nix is bad and should go out of business. I say the same thing on /. "I can't believe how anti-MS you guys are..blahblah" All I am saying is that this is a double edge sword...and for all you guys bashing about the *glass* trademark thing...I dare any glass compnay out there to go and battle MS for windows.com What if they trademarked windows in their market..they still can't have to domain or anything like it.
James - I work in a publishing house..so yes, here in the real world..NOT EVERYONE USES PC's. Especially in GFX and layout. and Snoop...if you read my comment you would see..I run MS apps and OS at home..I love MS products..I do everything in them..even on the mac..I am not MS hater...gawd...read ppl read. Either way I stand by my comments.... |
| #11 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/11/2002 6:34:13 PM |
| Speaking of windows.com, it seems to have converted to ASP.NET. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/11/2002 6:35:54 PM |
|
Speaking of windows.com again, check this out http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=www.windows.com
What's with the FreeBSD server? |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/11/2002 6:43:01 PM |
| That's the one doing all the work and the rest are a decoy. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/11/2002 6:43:09 PM |
|
Sucks to see that no matter what MS needs to get the job done with another platform, huh? This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, October 11, 2002 at 18:44. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:45:08 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
