“These are the family jewels,” says University of San Francisco law professor and trademark expert Tom McCarthy. “The Windows trademark is so important I don’t doubt that Bill Gates is going to hand the legal department a blank check to fight this on all fronts.” Read the story at NewsFactor and at TheRegister.
Lindows: Microsoft’s Latest Demand Impossible
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
First I thought that Lindows was a really stupid name. Well, I still do, but it was a pretty smart move, both in politics and marketing. Lindows has been given a lot of attention in the press because of this, and the ones who are actually looking stupid here are Microsoft.
This just shows how silly humans can get. I mean seriously, It’s just a bunch of letters thrown together into something we call a word. And that word resembles another word which is the name of a product that brings in a lot of money for the company Microsoft.
And all this comes from a company which just took a bunch of words from the english dictionary, converted them into names by making the first letter a capital, and trademarked them. If that isn’t theft then what is?
As far as I know, Microsoft has the trademark for Microsoft Windows. In other words “Steve’s Windows” should be ok to trademark as well, no matter if you are in the software business or the window business.
Lindows just did the same thing microsoft did years ago. They took a word that people are familiar with, in this case Windows, then changed the first letter and made a trademark out of it.
What’s the deal with M$? Rain, I thought you hit the nail right on the head. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, you shouldn’t be able to purchase a common word found in the english language and call it your own. From what I’ve been reading, Lindows just may well be the best selling linux desktop right now… I wonder if that’s the TRUE reason M$ is bullying them. I have yet to hear of ANYONE confusing LindowsOS with Microsoft Windows. M$ is soooo lame.
Which came first the Windows operating system or the X-Windows system?
Hi
X windows system came first i believe
Jess
There is no such thing as X-Windows. It’s called X Window System. And I believe that it came before Microsoft Windows.
http://www.x.org/X11.html
you shouldn’t be able to purchase a common word found in the english language and call it your own.
So then what do you do about Apple Macintosh, Red Hat (or Fedora), Adobe Premiere or any of the multitude of other common word trademarks in the computer industry and beyond?
You can’t compare the Apple or Red Hat trademark to the Windows trademark. The Apple trademark is valid for computer hardware and software, and the English word Apple has nothing to do with computer hardware or software. If “window” would only refer to real windows in buildings, then noone could prevent Microsoft from trademarking “Windows” for computer software. But that is not the case. Microsoft named Windows after the windows displayed on computer screens – and these windows were called windows long before Windows(TM) was released.
“There is no such thing as X-Windows. It’s called X Window System. And I believe that it came before Microsoft Windows.”
Yeah, but it’s been called X-Windows since the dawn of time itself. How often do you actually hear someone call it X Window System, and not simply X-Windows, or just X?
-Plague
So then what do you do about Apple Macintosh, Red Hat (or Fedora), Adobe Premiere or any of the multitude of
other common word trademarks in the computer industry and beyond?
I don’t think that it’s wrong to name your product or company using common words. It would be pretty hard to come up with new words and have people remember them.
But I think that MS is doing wrong when they behave like this. The same goes for that Mandrake The Magician comic or whatever its name was.
As I said, they have a trademark for Microsoft Windows as far as I know and if someone use that trademark then I might agree that they have something to argue about. But LindowsOS doesn’t come anywhere near it. MS is just trying to eliminate competition by childish acts once again.
“But LindowsOS doesn’t come anywhere near it. MS is just trying to eliminate competition by childish acts once again.”
So according to you if I started a company called aple or Filips or Phord or Soni or Pewlett-Hackard or compak or samsumg there wouldn’t be any problem?
I think that if you named something Pewlett-Hackard it would certainly cause some confusion but that’s totally different from Microsoft Windows and LindowsOS. They’re not as similiar as you’re trying to make them out to be. Microsoft is the COMPANY name and the PRODUCT is Windows. Lindows is the COMPANY name and LindowsOS is the product. So, when I say windows, I don’t mean M$ everytime…. but that’s not what M$ wants you to believe. M$ also wants you to believe that if you say anything even sounding like the word windows you’re referring to their product… how lame.
So according to you if I started a company called aple or Filips or Phord or Soni or Pewlett-Hackard or compak or
samsumg there wouldn’t be any problem?
Nope. No problem. Actually, there are plenty of such companies around. They usually make cheap products and use something that looks/sounds like a well respected trademark/logotype to market their product with. Very few of the companies who has the trademarks actually care about it. And most consumers just laugh. It’s not a big problem really, consumers know what they are buying.
Only that Microsoft always assume that the entire population is braindead so they probably see this as protecting their costumers or something. Don’t ask me.
*sigh*
But I think that MS is doing wrong when they behave like this.
MS is doing just what it intended to do in its original claim. If you’ll recall, when Lindows was first mooted, Michael Robertson made a big deal about how it was going to be an OS that could run Windows apps natively (through a rewrite and integration of WINE IIRC) without the need for Windows. The word Windows appeared on every page of the Lindows website, and I recall Robertson even saying in an interview somewhere that the name was created by combining Linux and Windows. This is called passing off, ie using a trademark without the owners permission.
As I said, they have a trademark for Microsoft Windows as far as I know…
Robertson tried to run this argument as well, but in fact Windows as a single word is trademarked by MS. Thus the current debate by Robertson and others that you should be able to trademark common words.
That should read “that you shouldn’t be able to trademark common words.
“So according to you if I started a company called aple or Filips or Phord or Soni or Pewlett-Hackard or compak or samsumg there wouldn’t be any problem?”
This is a moot issue. Lindows success so far is not due to its name but to its aggressive marketing, user friendliness and probably over slick packaging.
Exactly!
The word Windows appeared on every page of the Lindows website, and I recall Robertson even saying in an interview somewhere that the name
was created by combining Linux and Windows.
Ok, I won’t pretend that I know a lot about these laws. But I always thought that you could rightfully use someones trademark if you put a disclamer up where it sais who the trademark belongs to. It would be rather difficult for a magazine to write an article about a product without mentioning trademarks for example. But I might be wrong.
but in fact Windows as a single word is trademarked by MS
Are you sure? Well, I didn’t know that actually. I didn’t think that there were people stupid enough to approve such a trademark. Perhaps I should go and register Oil as my trademark and shut down the entire oil industry.
I always thought that you needed to couple at least two words if they are that common.
but in fact Windows as a single word is trademarked by MS
Yeah, that’s not true. The trademark is ‘Microsoft Windows’. ‘Windows’ is the previously established name for the rectangular regions used to display sections of data on a screen. They were called windows on Mac, and others prior to MS Windows creation.
For the same reason, ‘Microsoft Excel’ is the trademarked name. Excel was a previously trademarked software name by another company, and Microsoft was forced into the name change.
Early in its life Excel became the target of a copyright lawsuit by another company already selling a software package named “Excel.” As the result of the dispute Microsoft was required to refer to the program as “Microsoft Excel” in all of its formal press releases and legal documents. However, over time this practice has slipped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Excel
But I always thought that you could rightfully use someones trademark if you put a disclamer up where it sais who the trademark belongs to.
Yes that’s true but Lindows was doing something more than that (in MS’ view at least). It was trading on the name Windows to promote and sell its own product. That’s passing off.
Yeah, that’s not true. The trademark is ‘Microsoft Windows’.
Nope. You need to check the USPTO a bit more thourghly. You’ll find Windows (as a single word) is a registered trademark of MS. Otherwise why would you find Windows on its own bearing the registration mark? Bear in mind also that the recent decision in the Federal Court in Seattle dealt solely with the Windows trademark, not Microsoft Windows.
rain: First I thought that Lindows was a really stupid name. Well, I still do, but it was a pretty smart move, both in politics and marketing. Lindows has been given a lot of attention in the press because of this, and the ones who are actually looking stupid here are Microsoft.
Well, Lindows is still a stupid name, regardless of politics and marketing. On press coverage – try flipping through your local daily. The chances of you finding it is slim to none. Unless of course you find it in the computer section; which many hardly reads (or, if you’re living in Benelux, hidden somewhere in the business section).
The average Joe most likely still doesn’t know what Lindows is. The people that might raise an eyebrow is the corporate market – techies and their bosses investigating the possiblity of changing platforms. However, no sane corporation is going to switch platform to LindowsOS while Lindows.com and Microsoft are having an expensive slug-fest that would either end up Lindows guilty or bankrupted.
For such publicity, I think Lindows is better off buying ads, instead of finding for a lawsuit in one of the world’s richest companies. They aren’t doing themselves any favours.
And even if Microsoft ignores them, and they continue using the term Lindows for their company, it is still a marketing nightmare. People would *still* associate Lindows with Windows, and since Lindows is much newer, they would consider Lindows a branding knockoff. Ever wondered why Asian brands like “Niki” and “Abibas” never really met much market success outside of the lowest end of the market?
rain: This just shows how silly humans can get. I mean seriously, It’s just a bunch of letters thrown together into something we call a word. And that word resembles another word which is the name of a product that brings in a lot of money for the company Microsoft.
Most trademarks are based on dictionary words. Proof? Apple is a word from the dictionary, so is Macintosh (which is a Canadian type of apple). The thing about branding is that it depends on how Microsoft uses the dictionary word. The thing is that Microsoft never used Windows as a branding on any of products that fit the dictionary description.
Sure, they named Windows after windows in GUIs then, and that’s Lindows main claim. However, Microsoft is the first and only company that uses the word “windows” or derivatives. And when in the context of computers, mention “windows” and most of us would immediately think of the operating system. But one has to question what was Lindows motive at that time.
They came out claiming that they would run Windows applications. They said they would make a version of WINE (or at least fund it) that runs most business Windows apps. A huge amount of hype were generated. What name did they choose? Lindows.com whose product was LindowsOS. Only an idiot and someone still lying to themselves wouldn’t realize by now that Lindows was riding on Windows trademark.
Frank: The Apple trademark is valid for computer hardware and software, and the English word Apple has nothing to do with computer hardware or software.
Yes, true. However, try opening any company using the word Apple. Just “Apple”, no CrazyApple, AppleX, etc. Now, use an apple as a logo. Finance an heavy marketing campaign. Start placing bets till when Apple would sue your new company.
Frank: Microsoft named Windows after the windows displayed on computer screens – and these windows were called windows long before Windows(TM) was released.
True, however most major players in that market didn’t bothered to sue Microsoft for using this term, and couldn’t care less about Microsoft using this term. Heck, Apple sued Microsoft for many other things ranging from copyright infringement to patent violation, certainly throwing in a trademark lawsuit wouldn’t do any harm. The thing is that such a naming isn’t wrong.
Take for example, Staples. Named after staples, with is a product required by staplers. After many years and many lawsuits, Staple is managing along with its trademark in its hands. Why? Staple isn’t claiming trademark on staples, they are claiming trademark on a corporate logo. Their competitors can still call their staples as staples without fear of ligitation. Plus, staples have long been in used way before Staples as a corporation existed (Sam Slocum got a patent for it on 1841).
Greville: This is a moot issue. Lindows success so far is not due to its name but to its aggressive marketing, user friendliness and probably over slick packaging.
Most people meassure success in terms of profit made, and after millions of dollars in investment and lawyers, Lindows has yet to turn out a profit. And what grab people’s attention when Lindows first came out?
yeah, what he said 🙂
*my opinion*
lindows is a joke, I actually wrote an open letter to michaelr a couple of years ago, read it here: http://zerotrilogy.gotdns.com/jaysonblog/archive/2003/12/19/187.asp… IMHO this is why Lindows missed their mark by so much. anyone can write a good OS, but it’s damn hard to write a good platform that’s extensible for others.
“Most people meassure success in terms of profit made, and after millions of dollars in investment and lawyers, Lindows has yet to turn out a profit.”
And you know this how? But even supposing you’re right, how many of the distributors are actually turning a profit? Because once upon a time, I’d only heard the word Linux once…some vague operating system that nobody owned so I Googled it. Guess which distro was one of the first ones to come up. Which of the distros was in the news the most even before the lawsuit? But the lawsuit is heaven sent. Worst case they have to change the name, but now they’ve gotten lots more press coverage all over Europe.
“The average Joe most likely still doesn’t know what Lindows is.”
This applies to Linux and even OSS in general. So what? Do another Google search and see what distro is getting their name out there the most.
I agree that “windows” should never have been trademarkable in the firstplace and that by trying to say Lindows is infringeing it is actually saying that M$ owns “ndows”.
But it doesn’t matter anyway M$ doesn’t care if they win, they have the money to keep this in court forever what they are trying to do is smash Lindows because its the first OS on a consumer level other than Mac that can actually take some market share. – More anti-trust behavior iow.
That being said though I really wish Lindows would just drop it and change their name now because every dollar they have to put up in this stupid legal battle is a dollar taken away from profits and R&D.
jayson knight: IMHO this is why Lindows missed their mark by so much. anyone can write a good OS, but it’s damn hard to write a good platform that’s extensible for others.
It’s even harder writing a platform for a profitable niche you know would adopt your platform definately.
Not So Quiet Observer: And you know this how?
If they are posting profits, they would be quickly boasting about being the first consumer-centred distribution posting profits. Especially considering Lindows.com love of the limelight.
Not So Quiet Observer: But even supposing you’re right, how many of the distributors are actually turning a profit?
DIstributors posting money? Slackware and Red Hat. Desktop distributors posting money? None. Nyet. Nadda. Your point?
Not So Quiet Observer: This applies to Linux and even OSS in general. So what? Do another Google search and see what distro is getting their name out there the most.
Certainly not Lindows.
Not So Quiet Observer: This applies to Linux and even OSS in general. So what? Do another Google search and see what distro is getting their name out there the most.
You’d be suprised the amount of people that had heard of Linux.
Robo: I agree that “windows” should never have been trademarkable in the firstplace and that by trying to say Lindows is infringeing it is actually saying that M$ owns “ndows”.
You really don’t have much of idea how trademarks work, don’t you?
I don’t know how this portion escape by previous post, but here goes:
But it doesn’t matter anyway M$ doesn’t care if they win, they have the money to keep this in court forever what they are trying to do is smash Lindows because its the first OS on a consumer level other than Mac that can actually take some market share. – More anti-trust behavior iow.
Antitrust only covers business tactics – using the courts to indirectly bankrupt a competitor doesn’t come under its authority. But regardless, I am wondering, what statistics do you have where Lindows have taken a significant amount of market share in the desktop market? And even if that’s the case – so what?
Microsoft started the case around the time when LindowsOS 1.0 was released – unless by some miracle that somehow Lindows never bothered to boast about, they became a market success, Microsoft’s sole interests here is in its trademarks. If Microsoft doesn’t take down Lindows, it would open the door to other new competitors riding off Microsoft’s trademarks.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/otherunix.html
There has been a Unix brand of modular book shelving from the UK. Karri Kalpio sent a scan of this ad. I am especially taken by its observation that “Some people open all the windows; wise wives welcome spring by moving the UNIX…. UNIX make moving not pain but almost pleasure, and are easily moved from room to room, upstairs or down…. they’re not expensive, just hard to make.”
“Charles Waldman supplied a scan of a package of Unix Diapers. It came to him from as “something that’s been making the rounds via email, it was forwarded to me by a co-worker…” The box doesn’t discernably mention Pannolini, but the package says “By Drypers” and the Drypers site shows many distribution points outside continental US, including Puerto Rico, which could readily explain Spanish packaging.”
Let’s see, Unix is trademarked by the Open Group, Inc. And Linux is trademarked by Linus Torvalds.
There is a company in Finland – where else – marketing a Linux window cleaner. Spray on, wipe off, of course.
I think we are all agreed that Microsoft should let this go. Regardless of whether Microsoft trademark should stand up in court, you obviously can’t prevent people from using names which rhyme your trademark (except maybe if it were Whindows with a silent ‘h’).
BTW IMHO allowing a software company to trademark the name Windows for a graphical OS is akin to letting a glazier use the same trademark (so only one glazier can make Windows(TM)).
It’s LindowsOS and Lindows.com now, not Lindows, isn’t it?
It’s LindowsOS and Lindows.com now, not Lindows, isn’t it?
LindowsOS and Lindows.com are mere formal names that sometimes even Lindows.com don’t use. Proof? Look at the story’s title, “Lindows: Microsoft’s Latest Demand Impossible”. It’s almost like Sun vs. Sun Microsystem. If it is just plain Sun, Stamford may be able to sue. Both NewsFactor and The Register used “Lindows” instead of “Lindows.com”.
I’ve been using Debian since 1996, and since 1999 I am completely MS-free, but still, I think that one has to admit that a company that chooses “Lindows” as their name *is* intentionally trying to gain on MS’ popularity and brand recognision. Face the truth, guys.
on the other hand, there are plenty of such companies around. When I visited Taiwan, I was happy to notice they’ve got “7-11”. After a while I realized they’ve also got “8-12” and… yes, “9-13” !
Isn’t imitation the sincerest form of flattery? 😉 M$ should be happy!
You either live in a cave or don’t read the computer news if you don’t think Lindows is one of the talked about distros. Or maybe you’re just a Windows fanatic…whatever the case…Lindows laptops, Lindows pre installed on Seagate drives, Lindows on Walmart pcs, Lindows pushing the “Hack the X Box” thing, Lindows webstations, Lindows with a DVD player with actual legal codecs, Lindows helping you to collect damages from MS’s lawsuit…it goes on and on. You’re not seeing all this? You really need to either get out more or get online more.
Here’s a colorful link:
http://tryoutlinux.com/
I don’t even use Lindows, but when I go online I never have to go far to see their name in the news or in an ad.
So according to you if I started a company called aple or Filips or Phord or Soni or Pewlett-Hackard or compak or samsumg there wouldn’t be any problem?
One might ask the same question about Packard-Bell.
been a pain in the ass for Microsoft which is good, because they need some marketing competition, and maybe a small dose of the crap that they hand out to other companies. Lindows has also been a decent member of the Linux community. Many more people have heard of Linux because of it. Would I be caught dead using it…not in a million years. I’ll stick with Sid. Oh yeah DirectX seems a DirectRipoff of our X-Window name.