ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Apple in court dispute over Unix

Time: 09:10 EST/14:10 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim

Apple Computer is being sued by The Open Group, the San Francisco company that claims ownership of the Unix trademark, for using the term Unix in conjunction with its Mac OS X operating system without a license. Apple has countersued, asking a judge to declare that the trademark is invalid, because the term Unix has become generic.

Though initiated nearly 18 months ago, the case has not yet gone to trial. According to a motion filed with the court Tuesday, both companies want to have an exchange of factual documents completed by August, with a trial sought for February.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 311
Last | Next

The time now is 4:23:21 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/12/2003 10:51:18 AM

Ok, what's the sodajerk spin on this one?

It doesn't have to do with Microsoft, so it's ok to have a trademark.

But it involves Apple, and they are always right.

So do we just flip a coin? :)

#2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/12/2003 1:53:33 PM

Spin? No need for spin...

Simply check out:
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.netbsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
(or this for a bit of a joke: http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/call-it-a-duck.html)

There are numerous others. You will see that they use the exact same marketing text as does Apple here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html

In fact, you will notice that Apple is only using UNIX as a descriptor much in the same way as they legally do with Windows here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/compatibility.html

Apple has been here before. AUX was a fully licensed and trademarked UNIX. (http://www.applefritter.com/ui/aux/index.html)

NeXTStep/OpenStep were not but sported similar marketing text (UNIX-like, UNIX-base, based on a foundation of UNIX technologies). NeXT was not sued. None of the BSDs have been sued despite not seeking out UNIX specification and licensing.

Apple has no reason to license the trademark. Because in order to license the mark, they must comply with the UNIX 98 specifications. (They do conform to one part (which is the bulk of the spec) but the other portions are undesirable (API spec). See: http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html#platform) Apple would have to alter the kernel, force users to use the unintuitive UNIX directory structure, and numerous other changes which would make Mac OS X less usable when it already has the advantages of UNIX compatibility (with necessary changes through various porting projects).

So, becker, UNIX certification doesn't help marketing, it hurts usability and performance. Yes, they could pay and, yes, they could meet the spec -- they have done so in the past. Apple respects IP rights and issues.

But they have also done what they are doing now without being sued (as NeXT Computers). Numerous others have done so as well. So, yes, I see TOG as in the wrong. They are selectively prosecuting Apple.

I think it is likely that TOG could lose the trademark. They should maintain a spec process (though its becoming more and more irrelevent because porting projects overcome system to system incompatibilities anyway...) but they themselves seem to be aware of the generic application of the word -- hence, their lack of prosecution of numerous other organizations/systems.

Do you disagree with that, soda? Find that this opinion is overly-biased?

This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 12, 2003 at 13:59.

#3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/12/2003 2:43:11 PM

By the way, soda, what is your (naturally) unbiased opinion?

#4 By 2960 (68.100.231.92) at 6/12/2003 3:24:18 PM

Good post #3 :)

TL

#5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/12/2003 3:35:04 PM

Whew! At least you answered my question by coming down in favor of Apple over trademark law! I was worried I was going to have to flip that coin.

Explain this to me...

On this page that you referred to:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/unix.html

Apple is advertising MacOSX with the tagline:

'The Power of UNIX'

Do you think that might not be what the Open Group is referring to? I mean it seems pretty blatant to me, but I don't have your propensity for believing Apple is always right.

#6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 6/12/2003 4:07:25 PM

BSD: "UNIX-like OS"

Apple: "Power of UNIX", "UNIX-based"

UNIX-like an UNIX-based are two completely different things.

Also, when Apple compares itself or lists compatability with Windows, that's fair use and it's considered a critique or review of a product, there are no trade-mark restrictions on that.

HOwever, saying that you are, or based on, another company's trademark without their permission, that's a trademark violation.

Apple is definately in the wrong here and their argument that Unix is now a generic term is bogus.

Many people say that all tissues are "Kleenex", or they're drinking "Kool-aid" with any flavored water beverage, but that doesn't mean they're generic terms. They're very much trademarked.

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/12/2003 4:48:31 PM

I didn't come out in favor of Apple OVER trademark law, soda. Why do you always have to make things so black-and-white when I can support more than one idea at a time.

I came out in favor of Apple exactly because I BELIEVE in trademark law. I did not start by believing Apple--I started by looking at the evidence.

#8 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 6/12/2003 5:54:56 PM

#9: It's going to be a hard sell. I would say that Windows is more diluted than Unix is. Most people think of Unix as Unix, as opposed to Aspirin, Xerox, Escalator, Cellophane, etc. There aren't many Unixes, and the ones that are in existance are either proper Unixes or identify themselves as Unix-like. There is very little confusion between Linux and Unix, from what I've seen.

The use of the term Unix is certainly not as ubiquitos as the afforementioned terms. I don't hear people saying, "Well, just Unix it over there" or "Slap it on the unix terminal" (in reference to any computer). Unix is unix and it's a specific thing.

The only argument Apple might take is that The Open Group is not actively defending it's trademark to the term UNIX and so therefore has given up it's common-law right to the term. That would be the only reasonable argument. The "generic term" argument is a huge, huge stretch here.

#9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/12/2003 6:11:30 PM

sodajerk - "Why do you always have to make things so black-and-white when I can support more than one idea at a time. "

Because as long as you are sodajerk, it is my job to needle you.

"I came out in favor of Apple exactly because I BELIEVE in trademark law. I did not start by believing Apple--I started by looking at the evidence. "

Ok, now about that 'The Power of UNIX' thing they have in their advertising...

:-)

#10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/12/2003 6:14:52 PM

BTW, I do think the word Unix has lost it's meaning. Is that the same as being generic?

#11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/12/2003 6:25:50 PM

daz, I think you are misunderstanding the generic argument. It doesn't have to do with ubiquity across all communities. It has to do with whether or not it is accpetable as a generic term within the market for something other than the specific product. This is certainly true.

For example: "Is that OS built around the UNIX architecture?" This isn't referring to only those OSes certified. It also applies to BSDs, BeOS, and, yes, Linux. UNIX represents a general architectural philosophy. It is also used as an adjective to describe many applications, services, processes, and designs which are not controlled under the "UNIX" mark.

I would also say this is incorrect: "UNIX-like an UNIX-based are two completely different things." I understand that you are thinking that "like" means resembles therefore it is not saying it is based on or is leeching from the product name whereas "based" suggest a direct relationship.

But this is the wrong way of looking at it. If "UNIX-like" was referring to the trademarked product name and not a generic term, it would be a violation of the mark. (For example, I can't say my OS is Windows-like without infringing MS's (current) rights (that's just as damaging to the mark as saying WIndows-based). And according to the trademark requirements of TOG, you are not allowed to say UNIX-like as a license holder. So...)

Your argument is dependent on saying "UNIX-like" is not a generic usage--that is, it's not the same as "UNIX-based" and doesn't support a generic argument. But even if it sounds "more acceptable," it is still a generic usage. It's a usage that requires no trademark licensing. One generic usage is the same as the next, no matter what hairs you can split between the meaning of "like" and "based." If "UNIX-like" is a generic reference than "UNIX-based" can be used genericly as well. A trademark holder cannot mandate the usage of a generic term. If UNIX-like is an acceptable generic term, so is UNIX-based.

So you can either treat "UNIX-like" as a specific reference to a trademarked product and its a violation. Or you can treat it as a generic reference, in which case you've accepted that UNIX has a generic meaning, and the trademark holder cannot determine how the word is used in a generic context.

#12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/12/2003 6:28:06 PM

soda, I'll answer your question when you directly answer the question I asked you first:

Is Apple in the right or TOG?

You've made suggestions about it, I think I know, but I also think you are avoiding a direct response to, as you say, needle me.

So... I'm happy to answer your questions if you can only extend me the same courtesy.

#13 By 2459 (69.22.78.116) at 6/12/2003 6:55:13 PM

I have no opinion one way or the other on this, but Steve Jobs has made claims of Apple being the largest UNIX distributor in the past (especially at the last few MacWorlds).

Quickly looking at Apple.com, I found these items of interest:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/mar/21osxstore.html
Mac OS X is the world�s most advanced operating system, combining the power and openness of UNIX with the legendary ease of use and broad applications base of Macintosh�.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2001/05/wwdc/keynote.html
Apple will be the largest Unix supplier in the world by the end of the year.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17jaguar.html
�Jaguar is light years ahead of Windows XP. There�s never been a better time to switch to Mac,� said Steve Jobs, Apple�s CEO. �With Unix at its core, and the most advanced object-oriented environment ever, Mac OS X is delivering more software innovation than our industry has seen in a decade.�

#14 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/12/2003 9:32:37 PM

sodajerk - Well I think the term Unix means a very specific thing, so I clearly think The Open Group has the right to defend that trademark.

#15 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 5:48:07 AM