According to this New York Times article, Lindows.com, Inc. is suing Microsoft over the Windows trademark. Says Lindows.com attorney Clifford Chance, “No company, no matter how powerful, no matter how much money it has spent, should be able to gain a commercial monopoly on words in the English language.” Read more at nytimes.com.
Windows Name Is Challenged
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive o Web Developer o Father o Foodie o Music Snob o OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Let’s not forget the Apple.
Does that mean Apple’s trademark is gone merely because it is in the English dictionary?
Besides, guys at Lindows, if you are reading this, why did you name your company Lindows? the only thing I can think of is to ride Windows’ wave…
Wow… The technical innovation being displayed here is just breathtaking. All this heavy software engineering R&D prowess will put linux just light years ahead.
Lindows: L-O-S-E-R-S
SGI (silicon, in the dictionary, graphics too and also incorporated)
IBM (international is a common word, same with business and machines)
Or how about Jaguar’s trademark…
Or Land-Rover (both land and rover is a trademark)
How about Red Hat (both red and hat is a generic English word)
How about Mercury (do they still make cars? haven’t heard from them in a while). It is a generic English word.
What about Be Inc.? be is a generic English word (guess OBOS don’t really have to change their name after all, cause Lindows.com would come to their rescue)
What about “Shell”, isn’ shell a generic English word?
The list goes on and on…
But we don’t see Laguars or Land-Lovers or Lhell or Lercury or Lnternational Lusiness Lachines or Lilicon Lhaphics Lnc. or others around, now do we?
LOL…That was a great post rajan r! This is a bad move for Lindows.
-G
I heard that they successfully sued companies which have similar names. Slashdot had some posts related with this issue.
it’s all about the benjamins! Don’t you forget that! Lindows is after MS money, not the great rights of the people…
Sad, very sad…
M A Murcek, if only techical innovation guaranteed success.
“No company, no matter how powerful, no matter how much money it has spent, should be able to gain a commercial monopoly on words in the English language.”
Read closely. It does not say that it is wrong or that companies should be sued for using “generic” names.
It says that “No company…should be able to gain a commercial MONOPOLY on words in the English language”
The word “monopoly”, in the Websters dictionary says that a monopoly is the “EXCLUSIVE control by one group…”.
good call, we should have all read it more closely. So what it is saying is that microsoft has a monopoly over the word windows. I heard that MS forced the site activewindows.net (or something) to change its name to ActiveWin (and they were even an MS fansite!!!)
What i have never understood is why they dont force XFree86 to stop referring to itself as the XWindows System….or does anyone really do that anymore?
OSAlert rocks
This is a PR stunt to attract attention to Lindows. Its better to be known, even if you are despised, than to be ignored completely.
The difference is that Apple took a word common in the English language, but uncommon in the computer industry, “apple”, and used it as part of their name and trademark. No problem.
However, MS is trying to take a word common in the Engligh language, but *also common in the computer industry*, “windows” (as in “windowing environment”) and trying to trademark it.
If it’s already being used in your industry, then you can’t trademark it. But, if you invent a word, or use a common English word in a new way, like Apple did, then you can trademark it.
I have no idea if Lindows will will, but it’s a valid legal distinction.
I meant “I have no idea if Lindows will win…”
I guess Lindows.com with its “Click n Run” is not getting the revenue they hoped for. So lets just sue somebody and make some money with something else. They will get lots of attention, but it doesn’t make me want to buy their product.
Why dosen’t Universal Pictures just sue Microsoft for using the word “windows”. For thoes who don’t know, windows is the name of a character in John Carprnters 1982 remake of The Thing…
A long shot but oh well…
I’m not sure I should applaud the Lindows guys or not. They are doing something similar to what MS is doing to companies who use “Windows” in their name for their products. I.E. sending them nasty letters to change the name from “Windows [product name]” to “[product name] for Windows”. Tit for tat.
I like Lindows now. I didn’t at first because of their EULAs and typical corporate play, but this move proves their hearts and money is in the right place. It doesn’t matter if they win, what matters is they try. We know Microsoft has been abusing its power for years, but no corporation has the balls to stand up to them and tell them and everyone else, “This is not ok”
Bravo!
Did you read the article before say your opinion?
First read the article and then say your opinion…
Read “imaginereno” entry in this forum:)
During the “MS has to ship Java” thread, I mentioned that I liked the decision more for the comic value than anything else.
I love the fact that Lindows is suing Microsoft over the Windows trademark for exactly the same reason. I never knew corporate law could be so entertaining. Yay lawyers!
Besides, guys at Lindows, if you are reading this, why did you name your company Lindows? the only thing I can think of is to ride Windows’ wave…
It wasn’t to ride the Windows wave. It was to give Microsoft the finger.
What i have never understood is why they dont force XFree86 to stop referring to itself as the XWindows System….or does anyone really do that anymore?
Again, it’s NOT called XWindows. It’s called:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
If you come up with a new word, i.e. TQRETADFDSFEWRFDWindows then maybe you should be able to copyright it. However if you chose a common English/Spanish/German/…. word to name your product, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT IT!!! It is a common word and someone else invented it, and now it belongs to all of us. Too bad for you big mega corporation…. but if I come up with a product and I wish to call it windows, I should… no matter what the big corporation thinks. Somehow we are starting that some people have a “better” right to the English language?
The same with the nonsense of companies trying to patent genes… geez, now I will have to pay royalties for my own body! WTF???? Enough…..
I suggest change Window’s name to MSucks, MSux, Microsux, Gatesux, Winblows …
And Apple will have to change your name also …
I just got a letter from MS lawyers telling me to stop referring to my poo as “Microsoft”. I swear it was the other way around!
You’re getting things a little bit confuzzled with your trademark ideas.
Check things out again; IBM has trademarked the “Big Blue IBM” Logo – which they have every right to do. Apple has trademarked their logo too. Jaguar has their little cat on top of the name, etc. All distinguish the trademarked logo from the word.
I used to work as an MYOB consultant; during this time, I knew of people who got their fingers smacked for using the MYOB logo without appropriate permission.
The workaround; register their own business name “Master Your Own Book-keeping” for example, and make your own “MYOB” logo. This was pushing their luck, however…
Similarly, IBM wouldn’t be too upset if I set up a business called International Banana Milk and made my own IBM logo. Why? Because they cannot monopolise the english language and as long as I’m not in it to hurt them (which, if I was selling banana flavoured milk, I obviously wouldn’t be!), then it is none of their business.
Now… If I made a nice logo made from blue lines… Well… That’d be a different story…
Apple is actually Apple Computer, Inc. I don’t believe they have trademarked the word “Apple”.
Actually, although I do think it’s a publicity stunt, Lindows is correct. I think, legally, a company that uses a word that is a common word, and that is the only word used (“Windows”, “Apple”) cannot use it exclusively. In fact, Lindows is the only one that uses a “new” word.
Microsoft is just getting what it reaps.
For instance . . .
WordPerfect was once the defacto standard in word processing. So why do you think MS named its word processor WORD? Gee what a coincidence. NOT. I cant begin to tell you the number of people that I have met (in the past) that didn’t have a clue that the word processor on their new computer was MS Word and not WordPerfect.
Trademark and IP law gets a little tricky…
Someone above said it’s actually Apple Computer, Inc. and that’s true. And that is a trademarked name. So is Microsoft, Inc. But that’s not the issue here.
Someone else said, Lindows is the only one unique but while that is true, that’s not really the issue either.
The issue IS the use of common words in the context of trying to trademark or copyright the name and/or image of a product.
Here’s a better example:
The word “macintosh” is actually a real word that has nothing to do with computers. It’s a type of apple (the kind that you eat, hehe). Now, the product called Apple Macintosh *is* trademarked because it is the inventive use of a common word in an area (computers) in which it is not normally associated. Before the Apple Macintosh, no one in the world would have ever associated the word “macintosh” with computers.
Now comes Microsoft and their use of the words “Windows” in the context of the product called “Microsoft Windows.” Lindows is arguing, and I think they have a pretty strong argument, that, unlike in the case of the Macintosh, the word “windows” DID have some meaning in the computing world long before the actual OS called Microsoft Windows was invented. Ergo, the term “Windows” or “Microsoft Windows” cannot be trademarked. So, Microsoft can’t sue Lindows for copyright or trademark infringement if there is no trademark in the first place.
I’m a corporate securities attorney, not IP, but this is the gist of what my IP bretheren have told me. So, rajan’s examples of Shell, Apple, Red Hat etc. are bad examples because before Shell Oil the word “shell” had no connotation in the oil industry. So, it was fine for them to create a company called “Shell Oil” and trademark it.
The name of McDonald’s “hamburger” that sells for 79 cents or whatever is not trademarked for the same reason that Windows shouldn’t be. (But, of course, McDonalds could certainly trademark or copyright their ingredients in their hamburger, but that’s another story…)
Oh no! I just used it.
Microsoft isn’t going to sue me.
They don’t have a monopoly on the word ‘Windows’.
I believe MS sued Lindows becuase it could cause confusion.
If Lindows was a brand of toilet paper, I doubt MS would care as much. Grandma Ida could go to the store and pick up the new version of Lindows for her grandson, who really wanted the new version of Windows. But she isn’t going to buy him toilet paper.
(By the way – I hope Lindows loses.)
“No company, no matter how powerful, no matter how much money it has spent, should be able to gain a commercial monopoly on words in the English language”
In other words, the vast majority of American companies need to change their name if the name of the company can be found in the dictionary?
This is a frivolous lawsuit. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the word “Windows”. They only can only claim a trademark violation if another company (such as Lindows) produces a product where consumer confusion is likely if the product has the same name.
This is why Microsoft can’t sue Anderson Windows, and why Washington Apples can’t sue Apple Computer. Because the products are different enough that no confusion is likely to result.
This is a frivolous lawsuit and a stupid move on Lindows part. Lindows is walking a tightrope as it is that borders on copyright infringment. Suing Microsoft for them is antagonizing a sleeping lion. Lindows is going to get bit if they piss Microsoft off. Even if Microsoft can’t win a lawsuit against Lindows, they can play the frivolous lawsuit game too. And they have a hell of a lot more money to play it with. In fact, they have enough money to cause Lindows to go out of business just because of legal fees and court costs.
Can eat it, no one confuses Lindows with Windows
Hey Jethro, kan ye fix me Linders?
Yeah, whatever
Some people have said that Apple has not trademarked the word, “Apple”. This is incorrect: http://www.apple.com/legal/appletmlist.html
Apple does have some comments on what constitutes valid use of a trademark (“Remember that trademarks are adjectives, and cannot be made plural or possessive.”)
Apple Computer Inc was sued be Apple Record Label of the Beatles shorty after Apple became known for the Apple 1. They settled because the comp company promised not to ever enter the music biz area, although recent iMacs must be messing all over that.
They learnt their lesson, and for the Macintosh, they had a consent from the Macintosh garment people & the MacDonald food company I think before the ever Macs went on sale.
As for Lindows, well I hope they both lose if thats possible!!!
so when other GUI developers/users say windowing are they violating the windows tm ????
I think that what people aren’t understanding is that this will in no way force Microsoft to change the name of the operating system from Windows to something else. All it does is makes it so that the name cannot be copyrighted (e.g., some glass store in Wyoming can call their business “Windows” if they’d like). I’m sure Microsoft isn’t going to give up the name just ’cause they can’t have it all to themselves.
Well, any idiot should understand that a book should be copyright protected. There is just too many people using too few words to copyright one or a few words.
I actually agree with what Lindows is saying from a legal perspective. At the time (circa 1983) “windows” was a generally accepted term for point and click GUIs with little windows.
If we were to rewind back to 1983 and ask ourselves should this small company microsoft be able to claim trademark for a generic term, then I would say no, just as I couldn’t create a company called “Television Inc” that manufactures televisions.
Just because a historical wrong was committed a long time ago, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t count any more. That is why indiginous people are able to claim for land rights in countries such as Australia etc.
I don’t know if Lindows will win, but they should based on the merits of the argument.
If Lindows wins, then it will be an enormous benefit to linux, and for that you guys should be thankful. Imagine the following available in the stores:
Mandrake Windows
Xandros Windows
Redhat Windows
HP Windows
IBM Windows
I say good luck to Lindows.
Read the whole story.
Should Delta Airlines be the only airline to be able to use the word “Airline?”
It has to be a generic word FROM THE INDUSTRY. All the silly examples here that others have given about other trademarks don’t apply here.
Should Heinze have exclusive use of the word Katchup?
Should Hertz have exclusive use of the word Rental?
There were many “windows” products when MS stole this word from the trade.
Right on to Lindows for having the balls to stand up to MS. All the other Linux pussies don’t dare.
Mark
They have a subscription model, where you pay a yearly rent to access already freely available programs. Their business plan is actually despicable.
“SGI” isn’t in the dictionary.
“IBM” isn’t in the dictionary.
wthell is wrong with you?!?!?
“window(s)” *IS* in the dictionary.
with companies you can get away with using common things. if i say my car is a jaguar you know it’s made by jaguar and not a Ford jaguar(made up, it doesn’t exist! or maybe it does, i don’t know)
however this isn’t the case with “windows” because MS is the company. i can say “i have a windows app” X or MS? who knows, we need to remove “windows” from ms’s grasp >_<
“They have a subscription model, where you pay a yearly rent to access already freely available programs. Their business plan is actually despicable.”
They have a subscription model for a service that makes it brain dead easy to install a large variety of programs. This was missing in linux land, hence their business model.
I can’t wait for Mandrake et al to establish their software houses of free software. Moreover, I wish they would charge for it so that I know they will be around next year.
I don’t know what you want is OS land but I want strong competition with heaps of viable vendors. I don’t see Lindows destroying volunteer efforts such as Debian so what is the big deal? The more money they make, the more marketing they can do, the less entrenched microsoft is and the more competition there is, the bigger the pie is for other operating systems, the less I feel like a slave to Microsoft. Don’t be so ideological.
Will they sue for Windows or Word?
Windows is their OS
Word is their application
Microssoft’s choice of names does involve common nouns that were common to the field before they came along. I was opening windows on a Mac and in X before MS Windows existed. I really do think that the Lindows team chose ‘Lindows’ as as fusion of ‘Linux’ and ‘Windows’.
I don’t think there are too many people that will confuse ‘Windows’ with the made up word ‘Lindows’. I don’t find too many people that can’t distingush between a ‘line’ and a ‘wine’ for example. Thus, it seem implausable that they are trying to confuse customers. It does seem likely that they are trying to make an association in customers minds between Windows and Lindows. In this way, they could be exploiting the ‘Windows’ brand.
The Lindows people could claim that Lindows combines Linux and windows.(http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_lindowsos.php)
Given their color scheme and Logo, I’m inclined to think about the upper-case Window. Still, I think the worst you can say about Lindows is that they are exploiting the association with Windows. But even that can have a more subtle interpretation. If ‘Windows’ is colors & logos, its more like ‘window dressing’. In that case, why not at least try a similar ‘window dressing’ on that new fangled Linux that pops up in the IBM ads? (from a Joe User standpoint)
———————————————–
With projects like LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Project), I’m glad the X-Windows has all that ‘cruft’ to seperate the server from the client. It may slow me down in the margins, but I gain a lot of flexibility.
of course this is PR stunt. lindows couldn’t possibly imagine they would win. but it’s cheaper to hire lawyers and file lawsuits, and then get free publicity, rather than spend hundreds of thousands buying ad space in magazines.
all these PR stunts nowadays make me sick. we don’t even know what’s “real” anymore… have you guys watched “Wag the Dog”?
imaginereno: Read closely. It does not say that it is wrong or that companies should be sued for using “generic” names.
Can you use “Laguar” for a car company and expect NOT to get sued by Ford? Jaguar, for example, is a trademark, same with “SGI”, “IBM”, “Land-Rover” etc. Heck, IIRC, Mac OS X 10.2 in Australia didn’t use the word “Jaguar” in their promotional items because of it.
matt: What i have never understood is why they dont force XFree86 to stop referring to itself as the XWindows System….or does anyone really do that anymore?
Because they know that XFree86 does not use the name to show a connection between Windows and XFree86 (Besides, it is X Window System, singular, not plural).
Anonymous: However, MS is trying to take a word common in the Engligh language, but *also common in the computer industry*, “windows” (as in “windowing environment”) and trying to trademark it.
What about SGI, trademarking “SGI” (and its logo)? Isn’ silicon and graphics directly connected? Besides, tell me, where is “windows” or “windowing” used in technical discussions? GUIs of course. Windows (and Lindows) is far more than a windowing system.
If Windows was just a windowing system, I would support Lindows in this case, cause trademarking “windows” in this case would be like Apple trademarking “menus”.
Anonymous: If it’s already being used in your industry, then you can’t trademark it.
Well, thanks to the DOJ, Windows, after the antitrust suit, is in relatively in its market of its own. (desktop x86 OS).
Anonymous: Why dosen’t Universal Pictures just sue Microsoft for using the word “windows”.
Did they have it trademarked?
FireBase: Did you read the article before say your opinion?
I don’t know about Sergio, but me yes.
Ironoclast: It wasn’t to ride the Windows wave. It was to give Microsoft the finger.
If that’s the whole big idea, what’s the whole point? What does Michael have against Microsoft? Isn’t he better off creating Livendi Luniversal?
javi: YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT IT!!!
I wonder what gave you the idea that “Windows” is copyrighted. It is a trademark, and trademark laws is very very very very very very very very very very very very different from copyright laws. At least American trademark laws.
javi: geez, now I will have to pay royalties for my own body! WTF????
Again, you don’t understand the patents and patent laws in general. What the patents does is to give the acedemics exclusive rights over their studies. In other words, if a aspiring researcher wants to do something with the study on human genes, he would have to comply with the patent holder’s conditions.
Antarius: Check things out again; IBM has trademarked the “Big Blue IBM” Logo
IBM has also trademarks over the word “IBM”. I’m not sure about SGI though.
http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=s5n5n8.4.10
Antarius: Apple has trademarked their logo too.
Notice the logo is rather generic (a apple, bitten, and having a leaf… man, that is sooooo generic).
Antarius: Jaguar has their little cat on top of the name, etc.
This I’m very sure of. “Jaguar” is a trademark by Ford.
http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=s5n5n8.5.5
Antarius: Similarly, IBM wouldn’t be too upset if I set up a business called International Banana Milk and made my own IBM logo.
How mad would they be if I made a company called Linternational Business Machines? And target their main target markets?
Pilou: Apple is actually Apple Computer, Inc. I don’t believe they have trademarked the word “Apple”.
http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=s5n5n8.2.23
cer: WordPerfect was once the defacto standard in word processing.
Notice a combination of words was used in WordPerfect, and Word was pretty much on its own? Plus, didn’t WordPerfect copied from WordStar? And isn’t Word not a trademark?
Anonymous: the word “windows” DID have some meaning in the computing world long before the actual OS called Microsoft Windows was invented.
However, the word “windows” was never used to name a operating system before Microsoft Windows (not 1.0, 2.0 etc, whom weren’t operating systems).
Aitivo: Can eat it, no one confuses Lindows with Windows
How sure are you? The only proof that Lindows.com have is that all of their mailing list members said they aren’t confused between the two. But the very fact that they are in that mailing list shows that they aren’t consumers…
ashley: If we were to rewind back to 1983 and ask ourselves should this small company microsoft be able to claim trademark for a generic term, then I would say no, just as I couldn’t create a company called “Television Inc” that manufactures televisions.
You can make Televisions Inc, as long you don’t plan to trademark “televisions”. Besides, read the article, the trademark was only given in 1995, when Windows was truly a OS, and Borland had to back out. In 1983, Windows as a window manager for DOS.
ashley: If Lindows wins, then it will be an enormous benefit to linux
I’m a huge Linux fan, and personally I don’t see why “LindowsOS” and “Lindows.com” would benefit Linux. If they change their name to another word, I’m sure they would be just as successful if their business plan doesn’t depend on “Windows”.
ashley: Mandrake Windows
Xandros Windows
Redhat Windows
HP Windows
IBM Windows
Maybe Xandros, but I don’t think any other company you mentioned would create a product named “Windows”, especially Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM.
Mark: Should Delta Airlines be the only airline to be able to use the word “Airline?”
If Microsoft trademarked the term “OS” and sued everyone else for using it, I can understand what you mean. But before Windows, the word was never used for a OS.
tv-casualty: “SGI” isn’t in the dictionary.
Silicon Graphics is in the dictionary. Do you think SGI would be the happiest company on earth if I start up a company call LGI (Lilicon Graphics Inc.) and target SGI’s markets?
tv-casualty: “IBM” isn’t in the dictionary.
Like I said, International and Business is in it. However, I must take back this example, the trademark over “IBM” has died in the US for some time. (it was only the end of June when IBM abandon it).
tv-casualty: if i say my car is a jaguar you know it’s made by jaguar and not a Ford jaguar(made up, it doesn’t exist! or maybe it does, i don’t know)
Ford owns Jaguar. If I made a car company named Laguar and target the high market like Jaguar did, would Jaguar just ignore it?
Rajan,
” Maybe Xandros, but I don’t think any other company you mentioned would create a product named “Windows”, especially Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM. ”
Take a hypothetical scenario. If Redhat could make MORE money by releasing a desktop aimed at Grandma called Redhat Windows would they?
If they didn’t then they deserve to go bankrupt. The term “windows” in my mind refers to a simple point and click affair. It is much less intimidating than GUI or other geek terms.If Grandma sees “Redhat Windows”, she might just think- heck why not, how different could it be?
I don’t think businesses should be run on fuzzy pride. Windows is a generic term, and I see nothing wrong with Redhat releasing a product called Redhat Windows.
Lets not be ideological here, otherwise you may as well strap yourself to explosives and blow yourself up in Redmond.
Competition is the name of the game, and putting the term windows back in the public domain lowers the barriers to entry for other desktop OS makers.
Quote:
In his order last March, Judge Coughenour denied Microsoft’s request for a preliminary injunction in a 29-page order indicating that the little-known defendant had scored some points.
“Although Lindows.com certainly made a conscious decision to play with fire by choosing a product and company name that differs by only one letter from the world’s leading computer software program,” the judge wrote, “one could just as easily conclude that in 1983 Microsoft made an equally risky decision to name its product after a term commonly used in the trade to indicate the windowing capability of a G.U.I.”
Pretty much sums it up. It’s worth mentioning as well that trademark ownership is not the final word. A company CAN lose trademark if their name becomes generified to describe the product, such as Kleenex or Q-tip.
As for the Ford analogy: remember the Le Car? Does that mean that all the other car companies have to stop calling their products cars?
By the way – for those that think this is a frivilous lawsuit: remember that MS fired the first shot. It’s not uncommon for a countersuit to be filed when one is being sued, and this is just that. And apparently the judge quoted above doesn’t think it’s so easily dismissable as frivilous.
Rajan
You missed the point about Word Perfect entirely. MS didn’t take the name Word by mistake. They took the name Word because they knew it would confuse the consumer. And it did.
Nothing like the wolf crying wolf, poor, poor ms . . .
BTW, I dont think for a minute that the consumer will confuse Windows with Lindows.
Some kid hit a baseball clear through my Lindow! Damn kids!
Do you really think they called it Word to confuse users. Common!
WordPerfect didn’t have a decent GUI product for the longest time… it was all based on the $#^$^# function keys. Microsoft Word was a Macintosh product… it wasn’t competing with WordPerfect… rather MacWrite and WriteNow! (the ‘original’ MacWrite ;-).
WordStar started the whole “Word” this and that. Before that… everything was “<something>Writer”.
BankStreetWriter
BeagleWriter
AppleWriter
Anyway…. with Windows 3.1…. most people were still running WordPerfect in DOS and Lotus 1-2-3. Win95 brought on the (Macintosh originated) products of MS Word and Excel. Basically…. it was Win95 that killed WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3.
Naturally, Microsoft was first to have GUI office apps ready for Windows and they just maintained their head start.
Quack! Quack! Quack!
cer: You missed the point about Word Perfect entirely. MS didn’t take the name Word by mistake. They took the name Word because they knew it would confuse the consumer. And it did.
If there is anyone confused between Word and WordPerfect, which has 7 alphabethical difference, they are truly stupid. Not forgeting to mention that the fact that Word then was package with Excel under the name Office and Microsoft pushed Office far more than stand-alone Word. Most of Microsoft’s adveritising and marketing buck went to promoting Office, not Word.
Besides, in the early versions, MS Office was a Mac-only app (or maybe they had a OS/2 version, can’t be too sure), while WordPerfect and WordStar were after the DOS market. MS Word was pitted against mainly WriteNow (spelling?). It was only later had Microsoft port its version of Office to Windows, later dropped the Mac version, and then later on begin a port back to the Mac again in 1997.
I think if there is anybody who claim that the success of Word is based on the similarity of the name with WordPerfect, they are totally stupid, not to mention idiot and a troll.
Take a hypothetical scenario. If Redhat could make MORE money by releasing a desktop aimed at Grandma called Redhat Windows would they?
Well, that indeed is possible, but I doubt Red Hat would. if they do, they don’t deserve to be called businessmen. Just say grandma, at the store, thought Red Hat Windows and Microsoft Windows wouldn’t be all that different buys the prior because it is cheaper, goes home only to find all the software and all her hardware can’t work, and she can’t just do a simple update.
It would cause too much confusion, and RedHat would get hitted by a lot of bad press and negative consumer reaction.
Besides, their target market is the corporate, at such a small company changing focus to the consumer market would only serve to harm them.
If they didn’t then they deserve to go bankrupt.
If they do, they probably go bankrupt.
Competition is the name of the game, and putting the term windows back in the public domain lowers the barriers to entry for other desktop OS makers.
If everyone start naming their product Windows, it would only serve to replace the term “OS”, but I doubt it would get rid of Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps maybe keep it there. People associate Windows with Microsoft Windows. If I sell a Linux distribution as Windows, they would expect it to be similar to Windows and when their expectations has not come true…
Rajan: (in response to me, regarding IBM)
“How mad would they be if I made a company called Linternational Business Machines? And target their main target markets?”
They would be outraged and try to squash you – as they have every right to.
The thing that you’re missing is that they are not trademarking each individual word. I can safely make a product, in the mainframe arena, called “International XYZ” or “Suchandsuch Business” without fear of litigation from Big Blue.
If I wanted to make “Antarius Windows” as a desktop OS, however, with the “Windows” trademark in place, that’d be bloody stupid!
Simba:
“In other words, the vast majority of American companies need to change their name if the name of the company can be found in the dictionary?”
No, no, no. Read further, and read again. Perhaps read the anonymous post about Intellectual Property & Trademark law, then go research a little trademark law…
“This is a frivolous lawsuit and a stupid move on Lindows part.”
*splutter*
Yes, I’m impressed that you can use big words like “frivolous” twice in your post, but I would like some clarification of that statement.
Are you actually inferring that the lawsuit was initiated by Lindows.com?! If yes, please go directly to the article (which seems to be a repeat of one from a couple of months ago). Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
If you are inferring that the tactics being employed by Lindows.com, regarding MS’s shaky trademark (which was originally rejected but then given a second chance – did money change hands?), then perhaps you should have a look at the court case.
Microsoft took Lindows.com to court, not vice versa. They are claiming that Lindows.com is infringing on their trademark with their LindowsOS product.
If Lindows.com can prove that the “Windows(tm)” Trademark is invalid, the case is thrown out on its ear. Microsoft loses their long-standing, unsubstantiated trademark and the court case at the same time.
Rajan:
“If there is anyone confused between Word and WordPerfect, which has 7 alphabethical difference, they are truly stupid.”
Ah, so you’re saying that Microsoft shouldn’t be going after Lindows.com? After all, their company is Lindows.com, which has 5 alphanumeric differences (including punctuation) with Windows, and their desktop product “LindowsOS 3” has 2 alphanumeric differences in the main name.
Their versioning is similar, of course. So lets hope we don’t get a LindowsOS 3.1, LindowsOS 3.11, LindowsOS for Workgroups 3.1 (& 3.11), or a laughingly silly LindowsOS 95!
I think that Blind Freddy would see that the whole “Lindows*” concept was to appear similar to Windows. But by stating that people would be stupid to get Word & WordPerfect confused, is saying that the whole LindowsOS target market is stupid and…
Wait. Where was I going there?
with companies you can get away with using common things. if i say my car is a jaguar you know it’s made by jaguar and not a Ford jaguar(made up, it doesn’t exist! or maybe it does, i don’t know)
Jaguar is owned by Ford nowadays and the x-type
is pretty close to one, unlike the beautiful XK
and their desktop product “LindowsOS 3” has 2 alphanumeric differences in the main name.
LindowsOS actually have 3 alphanumerical differences. Besides, most articles in the mainstream press (the ones that would confuse users) call it Lindows, which has one alphanumerical difference.
So lets hope we don’t get a LindowsOS 3.1, LindowsOS 3.11, LindowsOS for Workgroups 3.1 (& 3.11), or a laughingly silly LindowsOS 95!
LOL I can just imagine a LindowsOS 95 :-).
I think that Blind Freddy would see that the whole “Lindows*” concept was to appear similar to Windows
Ah hah! You used Lindows instead of Lindows.com/LindowsOS! One alphanumerical difference.
is saying that the whole LindowsOS target market is stupid and…
Well, if they are stupid enough to buy a $200 from Wal*Mart…..
Rajan:
LindowsOS actually have 3 alphanumerical differences.
Bugger – I meant 3. That’ll teach me not to proof-read when I’ve been interrupted 16 times by the kids!
Besides, most articles in the mainstream press (the ones that would confuse users) call it Lindows, which has one alphanumerical difference
That’s right. It’s not strictly correct though, is it? It’s be like referring to “Pepsi” (reg’d trademark) as “Peps” or “Matsushita” as “Matsushit,” not in the “hey, that sounds like another competing product,” sense, but in a “hey, that’s not the full name of the company/product sense.”
LOL I can just imagine a LindowsOS 95 :-).
Coupled with the back-tracked claims of “Full Windows Compatability” from the beginning, as opposed to the “Can open ‘Windows Documents’ (sic) nowadays, one could say that’d be in line with current delivery of product!
Ah hah! You used Lindows instead of Lindows.com/LindowsOS! One alphanumerical difference.
Look again… I used a Wildcard! Lindows*
Well, if they are stupid enough to buy a $200 from Wal*Mart…..
I know… It was a ridiculous argument to make, and even I couldn’t take it seriously! And I was the one saying it!
Coupled with the back-tracked claims of “Full Windows Compatability” from the beginning, as opposed to the “Can open ‘Windows Documents’ (sic) nowadays, one could say that’d be in line with current delivery of product!
Well, notice Microsoft sued when Lindows.com was continuiong their Windows-compatiblity mantra. They stopped as soon as they realize it was impossible.
Well, on their retail box, http://images.lindows.com/lindows30pkg_large.jpg, they mention Windows as if the product was a fusion of Windows and Linux. So honestly, I don’t think Lindows.com had any other reason to pick that name other than to confuse consumers.
If that’s the whole big idea, what’s the whole point? What does Michael have against Microsoft? Isn’t he better off creating Livendi Luniversal?
I think it was meant as a publicity stunt and as a joke (of course I’m not Michael, so you’ll have to ask him if you want the real poop).
Lindows was originally going to be able to run a few Windows programs. It was supposed to be the Linux distro that ran Windows programs and was targeted at Windows users; hence the name Lindows.
to sue MS for having an OS with “Windows” as a name. Why can’t they? I cannot understand how legal system works in the US.
They claim to have trademarks pending on Instant Messenger, these are also words from the english language.
They have their stinking lawyers harass anyone who even uses something similar like Net Messenger etc.
It’s just plain bullshit…
CroanoN:
I think it is ridiculous to sue MS for having an OS with “Windows” as a name. Why can’t they? I cannot understand how legal system works in the US.
No, no, no. Please read the article – it’s not very good (Hey, it’s NYT) – maybe look around for a better one or two.
1) Microsoft sued Lindows.Com
2) The Judge declared that “Windows” was a common word and a weak trademark.
3) Lindows.Com did the obvious and jumped on the Judge’s remarks, urging him to throw out the Windows trademark. Why? Because without the trademark, Microsoft has no case against Lindows.com.
Microsoft is doing all of the suing; if you like, Lindows.com is “countersuing” to defend themselves.
The summary for the article isn’t very accurate there – you need to read the article as well as the summary.
The thing that gets me is that this all happened donks ago – why is it news now, as though it just happened? Is the NYT realling grasping for articles that it’ll pass off old news as something new?
I find it amusing that Microsoft calls Robertson a serial opportunist. Could the irony get any thicker?
Anyone who thinks that only stupid people confuse “Word” and “WordPerfect” know nothing about real people. Real people don’t give a rats ass about the details. They hear one word that sticks in their heads and marketing folks know this. Marketing folks know more than YOU people calling consumers stupid.
My sister is a Director of hospital registration. She makes excellent money. She’s educated, intelligent, and can handle computers well enough to do her work and make our mother look like a moron. Yet, she continues to call her Toshiba “PocketPC” a “Palm Pilot.” Why? She’s a consumer who only pays attention to a certain extent. Do you “xerox” notes for your co-workers or use kleenex on your runny nose?
Calling people stupid because they confuse product names (which are designed for that purpose) is ignorant.
Hear, hear.
As I said before, it’s bleeding obvious that “LindowsOS,” always referred to as “Lindows” was named such to be confused with “Windows.”
It’s got nothing to do with how smart someone is – it’s to do with marketing.
Sure, every geek worth their salt knows the difference. Well, every geek that knows anything about Operating Systems outside of the realm of MS-Based OSes.
I know more than one highly-paid, mega-geek programmer (including my bro-in-law) who don’t have any experience in OSes outside of MS. He might not pay too much attention to the different OS!
Hell, half the people I know have thought that my Lycoris/LX desktop was just a skinned version of XP! *splutter*
It already made to the top of segfault list.
Anyway, this is clear example how Microsoft is trying to take over well known industry acronym. IANA should sue Microsoft for the confusion they bring into DNS world.
But I’m not a lawyer. Rajan, you’re not lawyer too – your arguments are so pathetic, you better stop making fool of yourself. SGI, IBM etc – these are acronyms, you can safely trademark them.
When Lindows picked their name they had their choice.
And after picking the name they were expecting Microsoft to sue and were prepared. This was their game plan from the beginning. They got a legs up – Microsoft got a denial in their request. So here comes the second move in the game –
bounce the ball back to Microsoft.
And if you add the fact that Microsoft was originally denied in their trademarking of Windows it makes the game more interesting.
How much Lindows gain from it is hard to tell. They already won in view that Microsoft failed to squash them.
So I can predict the next move of Lindows – IPO.
>>>They already won in view that Microsoft failed to squash them.
That’s only in preliminary injunction hearing. They have not even gone to a full trial yet.