Lindows.com

[Garry Anderson]

People (like myself) that were into programming before MS Windows will remember that the term 'windows' refered to the window that the program ran in - whatever company wrote the programming language.

Arrogant Micro$oft decided to take over that word - nobody else could use it.

Quote:

The US District Court in Seattle has ruled in favour of Lindows.com on key legal issues in the company's dispute with Microsoft. Lindows.com will be able to keep its trademark until the final decision in the case is made....

"Essentially, the Court's ruling confirms that a company, no matter how much money it spends, cannot buy a word out of the English language," said Daniel Harris, Lindows.com's lead trial counsel, in a statement yesterday.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/35479.html

*****

Fact: Corrupt UN WIPO and ICANN aid and abet big business to buy words and initials out of the English language.

[namedropper]

Originally posted by Garry Anderson
People (like myself) that were into programming before MS Windows will remember that the term 'windows' refered to the window that the program ran in - whatever company wrote the programming language.

Arrogant Micro$oft decided to take over that word - nobody else could use it.

Well, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case, your slant on it is obviously wrong.

Macintosh computers regularly call the windows that pop up on the screen "windows." There are "Window" menu items with statements like "Minimize All Windows" and "Cycle Through Windows." The manuals all refer to windows. Other operating systems refer to those things as windows too. Thus your claim that Microsoft prevents other people from using the word is completely false.

You (yet again -- you're like a broken record) fail to differentiate between using a word in its generic sense and using the same word as a trademark. All your yammering about corruption and so forth in meaningless because you fail to understand the basic concepts involved in the laws.

"Cursor" or "icon" (or pick something similar) are also generic computer words, but either of those could also become a trademark for an operating system if someone so desired. If someone later came along and tried to market an OS they called "Kursor" or "Ikon" they could be (and probably should be) shut down for trademark violation.

[Garry Anderson]

Dan> Thus your claim that Microsoft prevents other people from using the word is completely false.

You are intelligent person, so I think you deliberately misinterpretted the statement - although you could have done so in error.

I refered to the fact that M$oft have taken a word that everybody uses for their own personal use as trademark.

e.g. No Macintosh Windows, IBM Windows, Lindows, My Windows, Your Windows etc.

I seem to understand a LOT more about the basic concepts involved in trademark laws than you do - although am always ready to be proven wrong.

The UK Patent Office say they will object to anything that:

describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them (for example, marks which show the quality, quantity, purpose, value or geographical origin of your goods or services); have become customary in your line of trade;

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/info/applying.pdf

This mark should obviously not been allowed - as it is clearly characteristic in M$ line of trade.

I hope that was not too difficult for you to understand Dan ;-)

So - "like a broken record", am I?

Perhaps you should have listened more carefully.

[namedropper]

You are intelligent person, so I think you deliberately misinterpretted the statement - although you could have done so in error.

No, I know what you are saying, but the problem is that you are dead wrong.

I refered to the fact that M$oft have taken a word that everybody uses for their own personal use as trademark.

Most trademarks are words that everyone uses. There's nothing wrong with this.

e.g. No Macintosh Windows, IBM Windows, Lindows, My Windows, Your Windows etc.

Of course people can't sell Macintosh Windows, IBM Windows, etc. Because Windows is a trademark. That's how trademarks work.

What people can't do, however, is trademark a generic descriptive word or phrase that describes the exact class the trademark is for. If Microsoft had tried to TM "Operating System" for their operating system or "Graphical User Interface" for their graphical user interface, that'd be a problem. But they didn't trademark the word "Windows" for windows appearing onscreen (as the other companies can all freely use the word), they trademarked it for an operating system name.

I seem to understand a LOT more about the basic concepts involved in trademark laws than you do

ROTFLMFAO! Oh God, that's the funniest thing I've heard you say out of lots of absurd statements.

But then any day now a real trademark attorney or two will show up to point out for the bazillionth time that you pretend to know more a lot more than you actually do.

[Garry Anderson]

...they trademarked it for an operating system name.

I see that you left out where it was spelt out for you:

The UK Patent Office say they will object to anything that:

describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them (for example, marks which show the quality, quantity, purpose, value or geographical origin of your goods or services); have become customary in your line of trade;

http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/info/applying.pdf

This mark should obviously not been allowed - as it is clearly characteristic in M$ line of trade - ANYBODY CREATING A WINDOWS ENVIRONMENT OPERATING SYSTEM.

WINDOWS ARE A CHARACTERISTIC.

For flips sake man - Xerox had used windows type operating system in the 1970's.

[Garry Anderson]

Incidentally - you have fell for a common misconception.

M$ Windows was a GUI program that RAN on the operating system (MS-DOS).

[namedropper]

Originally Posted by Garry Anderson

This mark should obviously not been allowed - as it is clearly characteristic in M$ line of trade - ANYBODY CREATING A WINDOWS ENVIRONMENT OPERATING SYSTEM.

WINDOWS ARE A CHARACTERISTIC.

For flips sake man - Xerox had used windows type operating system in the 1970's.

I don't know that it counts as a characteristic for the purposes of deciding if something should be a trademark or not. You appear to be using an overly broad definition.

The characteristic in question is "graphical user interface." Nobody called it a "windows environment operating system" until after Windows became the full name for the Microsoft software interface.

If you insist upon stretching the word "characteristic" to its widest possible meaning, then there are tons of long-standing trademarks that also would be invalid. International Business Machines, Post-It Note, American Airlines, USBank, Superglue, Staples, and so forth and so on. Maybe in your head these are all invalid and the system is corrupt and blah blah blah, but we're talking about the real world here, not your little anti-corporate crusade.

And Xerox, for the record, only had working concepts, not an actual operating system, not that it makes any difference in this argument. Apple was the first to make an actual graphical user interface operating system, and they paid Xerox for the inspiration.

[Garry Anderson]

Methinks you clutch at straws

It is an operating system in which WINDOWS are a primary "characteristic" - true or false?

Just exactly how is that stretching the word "characteristic" to its widest possible meaning?

[Garry Anderson]

Incidentally - you know that "American Airlines" admit they have no exclusive right to "Airlines" don't you?

And "Post-It Note" would have no exclusive right to "Note" if they had "Post-It Note", which they do not (they have "Post-It").

And any other trademark will not be able to stop others selling product with that word glue - bank - staples etc.

I hate corporate abuse of power - but despite your petty attempt of a put-down ("little anti-corporate crusade") - I have no crusade - other than to getting to the truth ;-)

[jberryhill]

"Incidentally - you know that "American Airlines" admit they have no exclusive right to "Airlines" don't you?"

And you know that they operate airlines in America. Your point?

"Coca-Cola" is a descriptive term, as the beverage contains a non-narcotic coca plant extract, along with a cola nut extract. But the bottom line is consumer perception. There are plenty of perfectly legal non-MS associated uses of the term "windows", and that is not what the Lindows/MS suit is about. The question is whether consumers, when they are referring to an operating system called "Windows" are or are not referring to the MS product. What Xerox PARC or Apple were doing at some point in time is completely irrelevant to what the average consumer understands "Windows", used as the name of an operating system, to indicate.

"I have no crusade - other than to getting to the truth"

...and calling those who point out your ignorance to be "corrupt".

Is it a "primary characteristic" of toilet bowl cleaners to make stains "VANISH"?

If I use suntan oil, will I obtain a "COPPERTONE" to my skin?

What do you think are the ingredients of "RAISIN BRAN"?

What will you find people doing with their coffee at "DUNKIN' DONUTS"?

[Garry Anderson]

J> And you know that they operate airlines in America. Your point?

Dan raised it as example of trademark. I simply pointed out that they COULD NOT STOP others using this word independantly.

> "Coca-Cola" is a descriptive term, as the beverage contains a non-narcotic coca plant extract, along with a cola nut extract.

Firstly, we know that Pepsi AND Coke can BOTH use the word COLA. They cannot stop others using this word independantly.

I have heard the phrase "descriptive term can acquire secondary meaning, while a generic term cannot".

So - why can descriptive term acquire secondary meaning?

Why is it not an abuse - the same as using generic term?

It seems just as bad an abuse to me.

J> But the bottom line is consumer perception.

Which is why USPTO should not have allowed the mark.

G> "I have no crusade - other than to getting to the truth"

J> ...and calling those who point out your ignorance to be "corrupt".

You are most WRONG - show any statement on this or any forum when I have called a person corrupt purely for calling me ignorant.

I will always admit when I make mistake or am ignorant of facts - only a fool says they know everything and never make mistakes.

I remember admitting to you when I have on at least two seperate occasions.

The WORD "Vanish" is US trademark for toilet bowl FRESHENER - so it makes the smells VANISH

However, in UK it is for cleaning preparations with special circumstances: Advertised before acceptance. Section 18(1) (Proviso). I would like to know what process went on there before making any decision.

I thought you knew that suntan oil does NOT colour the skin - it protects it.

Quote from trademark KELLOGG'S RAISIN BRAN: "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "RAISIN BRAN" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN"

"DUNKIN' DONUTS" trademark is for the Restaurant Services.

They can only get the DESIGN or STYLIZED FORM for Coated and Filled Fried Cakes.

Why are you so afraid to admit that the US Registered Trademark System can best be described as Zip Code lottery?

;-)