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. This legal battle, though separate from SCO’s recent claim that Linux uses copyrighted Unix source code, adds further fire to the debate over the custody of Unix–the 30 plus-year old OS originally developed by AT&T.
UNIX’s Courtroom Adventures Continue
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Thank God no one registered the trademark “Human Being”. This way I can still call myself a human without getting sued for it.
“Do you remember the story of an old lady who wanted to dry her pet in the microwave oven?”
or the people that eat fast food, get fat & sue McDonalds, etc.. or the people who smoke cigarettes, get cancer & sue the tobaco companies.. or hmm.. that idiot in California who wanted to ban OREO cookies.. so kids couldn’t buy them! LoL
I agree.. the people here have gone insane.
not all of them thank God.
is needed in the US
And that is to enforce standards. Sure being a UNIX ™ product is mostly a coveted status symbol, but without the efforts put in by vendors to pass the standards tests of the OpenGroup, Unixen (and Unix-like OSen) would be the incompatible mess they were in the 80’s. I’m not sure about Linux, but I know that FreeBSD has a project to improve compatibilty with the UNIX standards. It improves portability of software and makes maintenance less of a headache.
$110,000 US might be a scrape for most of the free Unix-like OSen but a drop in the bucket for Apple if they were to bother.
Apple clearly states UNIX all over this page:
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
I guess they now have to get ready to lose a lot of money
same as above
Apple, don’t be cheap! Why not become a true UNIX and paste it all over your web site?! This might be a good thing to do to separate yourself from Linux. Becoming a true UNIX might make it easier to port software! Become part of the “IN” crowd.
#1 This is not just about the FEE, $110,000 is less then the lawyer fees for this
#2 If they go back to Unix 98 spec, then they are going to break OSX and make as ugly as all the other Unixes
Yea just what we need another Unix 98 clone. Lets make OSX as fugly as Solaris or AIX.
Apple doesn’t need to become just another Unix 98 standard.
Sorry, we need something better and waiting for the Open Group is not going to do it.
Apple alrady put the word out that OSX uses technology based on Unix, Pull all the Unix references from the website and advertising.
And while Apple does it so should all the others that do so as well.
I agree completely with Torrey about the “loser pays” lawsuits. And also those who posted “Sad, sad, sad”. These lawsuits have become a disease in our society.
I still think Apple should get a license if that’s the right thing to do. But, it is ironic. Back when Unix was invented, people were sharing everything with each other (at least the type of people who created Unix). Lawsuits were the furthest thing from their minds.
“Show me an Apple product with UNIX in its name. Please. What product produced by Apple is blankety-blnak UNIX? ”
In it’s name, no, welllllll almost.
——————–8<——————–
http://www.applefritter.com/ui/aux/index.html
A/UX is based on AT&T Unix System V.2.2 with numerous extensions from V.3, V.4
(such as streams) and BSD 4.2/4.3 (such as networking, the Fast File System,
job control, lpr, NFS with Yellow Pages, SCCS and sendmail 5.64). It also
provides full POSIX compliance. A/UX provides SYSV, BSD and POSIX compatiblity
switches and libraries. A/UX is fully compiant with the System V Interface
Definition (SVID).
A bit dense, but overall a decent description of the system.
***********(slap your forehead here)
A/UX is a real and genuine UNIX, based on the same code base as other industrial-strength UNIXes such as Solaris, HP/UX, Irix, SCO Unix, and AIX.
***********(that’s enough)
It conforms to most standards in place at the time, although nowadays it’s dated enough that certain aspects of it, such as its POSIX compatability, are a bit quirky.
A/UX, unlike a certain newer MacOS/UNIX hybrid that shall remain nameless, really goes to great lengths to embrace both sides of its family tree. The standard user shell is actually a modified version of the Macintosh Finder that runs on top of the UNIX underpinnings. It runs normal 32-bit-clean Macintosh programs within its ‘virtual machine’, allows access to pure UNIX programs using the CommandShell and MacX (for graphical X11 applications), and even runs hybrid UNIX programs which use a subset of the Macintosh Toolbox for their user interface while letting their guts take advantage of the pure multitasking core.
——————–8<——————–
All the above aside, Apple knows better.
UNIX is a brand.
Real simple, pay the man.
These unix guys have nothing to do except to “bash” at each others property. Well, Bill gates is enjoying every bit of this nonsense.
Every UNIX reference Apple makes is made by other UNIX-like systems. Stop looking at the same Apple page and check out the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD sites. THey use the same terminaology but have not been sued despite using this terminology for years.
Everyone saying Apple should just purchase a license–read: Apple has no use for such a license. It would require altering their kernel, their directory structure, etc… Yes, they want and work to make UNIX apps comaptible with their system, but they don’t want the kludginess of the true UNIX spec. Why should they pay for something that is undesirable to their product and not desired by their customers?
hylas, yes, I know of AUX. It’s no longer a supported product and was properly licensed so I don’t see what your point is. It does illustrate an important point–Apple isn’t simply disrespecting IP rights. When it’s appropriate, they acquire licenses.
However, OS X isn’t their (I’m including NeXT) UNIX-based OS. NeXTStep also made references to UNIX without being sued. So Apple already has a history of providing a properly, licensed true UNIX and a UNIX-based, never before sued, UNIX-like system. There are numerous sytems available that describe themselves as UNIX-based or -like or based on UNIX or supporting UNIX strength foundations.
Clear yet?
They are saying Mac OS is “UNIX based” so they are being sued yet BSD refers to itself as “UNIX-like” and that’s ok? I agree with the above. I think Apple has a fair case, personally. Mac OS is UNIX based in the terms of the principles behind it. Being based on BSD UNIX I feel it is in there rights to call it UNIX based and why all the stink right now? What about Nextstep? Openstep? Rhapsody? This is BS.
I think the UNIX community is out of control personally. There is so much debate over who even owns the rights to UNIX IP and trademark I feel it *proves* the term UNIX is fairly generic and noone really agrees on it.
Maybe I’m paranoid but it seems like there is a smear campaign against a variety of “Unix-Like” operating systems and I’m beginning to become fairly suspicious about it why it’s happening and why it’s happening right now.
<grin>
In Iran, people don’t use diapers they use “pampers”. Anyways, when my wife asks for the pampers… I know she wants the Huggies 😉
This is an issue for the lawyers to decide… and it might well end up like thermos.
Honestly…. WTF is wrong with Apple (cash reserves in the billions) spending $110,0000 (max cost for license) for a license. Maybe $2 – $4 million for certification…
<grin>
They can charge it to the marketing department. Honestly, I believe when you add it up… its peanuts. The X/Open group just wants some more press, methinks… and so does Apple.
Quack! Quack!
That was $110,000 not $110,0000
Unix, or you can call me Younix or you can call me linux or you can call me YAWNIX or you can call me OSNIX or you can
call me POSIX or you can call me Ultrix or you can call me… ta ta Free/BSD
i call it MacOSX! and i like it…..
I’ve only had to go to the command line twice in 2 years of daily use to get something done. Oh the horror.
I can just double click and install any program. Pointlessly user friendly.
I snapped in my airport card this weekend, checked the airport box on my network panel and wham bam thank you ma’am, it found my netgear router/wireless box and away we went. Setting up the ethernet from by G4 to the router was equally simple once I told the router what my MAC adress was. And here I had set aside the rest of my day to make this work … I actually had to go and have a social life.
I can run Pshop, Xpress, In Design, Word (not that I do, I actually use Open Office), easily span monitors, import and edit video with, iMovie, FCP, Avid, Premere, or Shake. The leading printers and scanners are also supported with the right drivers easily obtainable from the manufacturer’s website if I need to update. Oh, the indignity.
The drivers I need to connect my digital camera are preinstalled or easily obtainable from the manufacturer. My photos show up in iPhoto. Damn that convenience!
I can play DVDs without installing any additional software; I can burn them with the easy to use iDVD. Snif! Sob!
I can exercise all of my admin privlidges via a convenient graphical control panel. I’ve never needed to enable my root account to get anything done. How loathsome!
Now, yes, I realize that by the establised Unix/Linux standards of maximum user frustration, needlessly difficult software/hardware configuration and installation, desktop uselessness, unclear or non-existant help menus, and almost no official support from hardare/software vendors, OS X misses the mark entirely.
But, if that’s what being a “successful” and “correctly writen” OS means in the *nix world, then I hope OS X continues being such a disaster.
—
But back on to strict target, Apple really should have TM’d UNIX. Advertising isn’t journalism or a technical description, and if you use TM’d name to promote your product, you need to get square with the TM holders.
I thought OS X, had a FreeBSD core, not a unix core. Who is getting tired of this crap? I am.
This is really stupid because everyone used the Unix name it seems, isn’t it an opensource name?
“Maybe I’m paranoid but it seems like there is a smear campaign against a variety of “Unix-Like” operating systems and I’m beginning to become fairly suspicious about it why it’s happening and why it’s happening right now.”
I don’t think you are paranoid. Its all happening at once and that is just too much of a conincidence. I wouldn’t doubt that MS is behind this somehow. Either way, MS is clearly concerned. the monopoly is showing signs of weakness.
A number of people, Eugenia included, are playing up the analogy between coke, hoover, etc. and the Unix issue, but the analogy doesn’t necessarily hold. Take hoover, for example, a hoover refers to a specific product — a vacuum — built by a specific company, Hoover. Unix is a reference to multiple products that conform to a particular standard administered by a particular company.
While this distinction might seem trivial, it could, in fact, be the crux of the issue for Apple. Consider that if Apple can prove that there is a generally accepted industry standard for what constitutes Unix, then it seems they would have a very good case, as Unix name does not refer to any one specific product. Interestingly, people refer to the BSD’s, LInux, etc. as Unix-like, but, in point of fact, they’re all essentially Unix in their makeup and construction. In other words, the BSD’s and Linux conform to a generally accepted industry standard regarding what constitutes Unix, and, in that respect, should qualify as such, despite the fact that they don’t have a license from the Open Group.
Hmm…so, if Apple has an OS, which is based on essentially the same technological foundation as that of the BSD’s, which is generally considered to be Unix by the ‘industry,’ then there is a logical case to be made. Of course, there’s one more point to be made to fully connect the argument: Those unices (BSD’s, Linux) are neither controlled nor registered by the Open Group.
Of course, IANAL, but from what I understand about trademark/copyright law, there seems to be a case. Additionally, I think it’s important to note that Apple does not generally engage in frivolous lawsuits; they know when to pick and choose their battles. Say what you want about suing the computer company that was making, essentially, iMac ripoffs, but since Apple differentiates itself by making computers with a distinct style, their IP is tied up in their hardware design, and they had a real case to be made, especially if consumers are being misled or confused (I don’t remember if that was part of the claim or not).
The analogy between Hoover/Coca-Cola and Unix is spot on. Just as the words coke and vacuum exist to describe the functionality of the object, the words: unix-like, operating system exist to describe the functionality of MacOS X. These words clearly show the functionality of the product but make it clear that it is a generic product that isn’t certified. Imagine if Microsoft started marketing their OS as ‘Unified Unix’ or ‘Unix for the People’? What really constitutes what OS is Unix and what isn’t? Is it a console being loaded at the begining of boot up? Is it being able to compile an application source without any modifications? There is really a thin line between what OS can be considered Unix and which one can’t, and I say it is best to let the Open Group decide. Otherwise, the word will end up meaning nothing but just an advertisement blitz.
used by the BSD people?
pepsi used to be called pepsi cola, but no more, now it’s just pepsi, the fact that people use them (“coke, hoover, etc.”) as a generic term does nothing to their trademarks. you cant brand a new type of Coke or Coca-Cola, i dont think the analogy fits.
also there’s a difference in being Unix-like/UNIX-like and Unix-based/UNIX-based, the former being something cooked up to resemble a UNIX system, the later a work derived from one.
Unix (unix? UNIX?) was created in such a cloud of confusion over its trademark standing, has had so many owners and developers (who’s next on the SCO list – the U. of Berkeley?), and has sprawled out into being a standard for so many classes of operating system, that no-one should have no claim to it. Let language move on, let unix become a generic term, let no-one try to own an idea rather than a specific product. I mean, can even SCO define exactly what they own? Which distribution? Which release? Which copy/clone/redesign? What trademark?
And on the issue of preserving a trademark, here’s a wonderful passage from a great book:
“To preserve a brand name involves a certain fussy attention to linguistic and orthogrpahic details. To begin with, the name is normally expected to be treated not as a noun but as a proper adjective – that is, the name should be followed by an explanation of what it does: Kleenex facial tissues, Q-Tip cotton swabs, Jell-O brand gelatin desert, Sanka brand decaffeinated coffee. [My note: when have you ever seen ‘UNIX computer operating system’?] Some types of products – notably cars – are granted an exception, which explains why General Motors does not have to advertise ‘Cadillac self-driving automobiles’ or the like. In all cases, the name may not explicitly describe the product’s function, though it may hint at what it does. Thus Coppertone is acceptable; Coppertan would not be.
[…]
Before trademark law was calrified, advertisers positively encouraged the public to treat their poducts as generics. Kodak invited consumers to “Kodak as you go”, turning the brand name into a dangerously ambiguous verb. It would never do that now. The American Thermos Product Company went so far as to boast ‘Thermos is a household word’, to its considerable cost. Donald F. Duncan, Inc., the original manufacturer of the Yo-Yo, lost its trademark protection partly because it was amazingly casual about capitalization in its own promotional literature. ‘In case you don’t know what a yo-yo is..’ one of its advertisements ran, suggesting that in commercial terms Duncan did not. Duncan also made the elemental error of declaring, ‘If It Isn’t A Duncan, It Isn’t A Yo-Yo’, which on the face of it would seem a reasonable claim, but was in fact held by the courts to be inviting the reader to consider the product generic. Kodak has long since stopped saying ‘If it isn’t an Eastman, it isn’t a Kodak.’
Beacuse of the confusion, and occasional lack of fastidiousness on the part of their owners, many dozens of products have lost their trademark protection, among them aspirin, linoluem, yo-yo, thermos, cellophane, milk of magnesia, mimeograph, lanolin, celluloid, dry ice, escalator, shredded wheat, kerosene, and zipper. All were once proudly capitalized and worth a fortune.” – Bill Bryson, ‘Made in America’ [a superbly interesting book BTW]
UNIX 98 complience would not make OS X “fugly” as al pettit claims. UNIX 98 is mainly about making sure the underlying OS exposes certain APIs in a compatible manner. Besides, if you’re even comparing AIX and OS X, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Hint: Many AIX users don’t even have a GUI installed!
As for UNIX-based vs Unix-like, they’re two different connotations. UNIX-based implies that your OS is based on something which is infact a UNIX. Since BSD is not a certified UNIX, it is not proper to say that OS X is UNIX based. Unix-like implies only that your OS is like UNIX, which is certainly true for the *BSDs.
Consider…
You are saying “UNIX-like” is acceptable, yes? But why? Is this a generic reference or a specific reference to the trademarked product?
If it is a specific reference to a properly trademarked system (which I don’t think it is), wouldn’t it constitute a trademark violation?
I cannot say, “Our new cola is Coca-Cola-like,” now can I?
Also note in the trademark guide, TOG says that UNIX-like is improper usage for a trademark licensee.
So… it must be a generic reference. A safer reference than saying “-based,” yes, but at the same time it is still generic. If TOG allows generic usage of UNIX, they cannot say one usage is acceptable because it sounds MORE generic than the OTHER generic usage.
The BSDs are playing it safer, but they are still stating that UNIX-like is a generic reference to what has come to be commonly known as the UNIX architecture.
Apple is using the same generic reference. If it’s a generic reference, neither “-like” or “-based” can be deemed more precise or closer to infringement than the other.
“Many AIX users don’t even have a GUI installed! ”
Yea I used SMIT too, to quote Colonel Kurtz “The Horror”
Lets get real, Mac users use GUIs and the Unix 98 spec GUI is CDE and CDE is fugly
Anyway IBM is forced to ship with fugly X and fugly CDE to stay to spec. Apple would have to do the same, ship with X and conform to CDE.
Sorry, I am no fan of X and no fan of CDE.
Also Apple’s directory structure is quite different.
Lets be honest 90% of Apples are desktop boxes and CDE is way too bad to be used as a desktop.
There are many people complaining that Linux is not ready for the desktop and you want Apple to go back to Unix 98 to use that wonderfull Unix trademark?
Apple is shipping Mac OSX, NOT Mac UNIX.
It is based on Unix but it is NOT Unix.
>MacOS X is a walking disaster of an OS from the internals point of view. >There have been much better OS designs floating around the net for a >long time now.
You’re just making anti-Mac OS X comments withouth any facts. Just tell me one better OS design? Linux? Don’t make me laugh! A crappy kernel designed by a school kid. Windows NT/2000/XP? Just a plain DEC VMS warm-up!
Many Linux users a switching to Mac OS X which is clearly superior compared to “just a hobby” kernel called Linux. Linux is NOT operating system, it’s kernel.
“I agree.. the people here have gone insane.
not all of them thank God.”
You’re right, the majority of Ameriacans are sensible and intelligent people. I didn’t mean to offend anybody. I reckon i should pay more attention not to generalize.
Unfortunatly there are people who go over dead bodies for a quick buck; not only in the US
“Everyone saying Apple should just purchase a license–read: Apple has no use for such a license.”
Correct.
Apple is selling a “unix-like, Unix-like, UNIX®-like OS.
UNIX
vs
UNIX ®
vs
Unix
vs
unix
Read carefully here:
http://www.unix.org/trademark.html
http://www.unix.org/tmug2.pdf
“There is a simple guide to using the trademarks correctly below. In short, use the ® symbol on the trademark, use the ownership acknowledgement ‘UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries.’ in all printed materials, get it on your web site …”
© The Open Group
Lowercase, upperlowercase or with a “®”
As in:
A Macintosh®-like OS that runs your toaster.
?, Apple®, Macintosh®, are brands.
So is UNIX®.
I love Apple™. I don’t believe it was malicious.
Apple© has sued others in kind.
http://www.apple.com/legal/appletmlist.html
The following is a list of Apple’s trademarks and service marks.
When using the marks in publications that will be distributed only in the United States, include the appropriate TM, SM, or ® symbol on first use.
Infringment.
Apple®, pay the man.