XFree86 announces position statement about X11R6.4 licensing
David Dawes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Marc Evans
One Indian Head Plaza
Nashua, NH 03060
ma...@xfree86.org
603-594-9630
April 7, 1998, Bellaire, TX
THE XFree86 PROJECT ANNOUNCES POSITION STATEMENT ABOUT X11R6.4 LICENSING
The XFree86 Project announces its position regarding the recently
announced licensing of X11R6.4 by The Open Group (TOG) of Cambridge MA.
"As a direct response to the new licensing terms made by TOG a week ago,
we have found it necessary to state publicly the position and future
direction with which The XFree86 Project will proceed," said David Dawes,
President of The XFree86 Project, Inc.
The X11R6.4 sample implementation (SI) from TOG comes with a new license.
The new licensing reduces the freedom with which their SI may be used.
This is because a license fee must now be paid by those who generate
revenue from distributing their SI or code derived from it. TOG has
stated that the X11 standards will, however, remain "open".
The TOG licensing change is incompatible with the goals of XFree86 and
most of the free software community that have been in communication with
The XFree86 Project directors over the last week. Some have made the
point that the change would make it extremely difficult for their projects
to ship physical media which contains TOG derived product, and they've
made their preference for unencumbered X11R6.3-based source releases
overwhelmingly clear. A fundamental part of XFree86's mission is service
to the free software community. As a result, The XFree86 Project is
opposed to TOG's new licensing terms.
The XFree86 Project will continue its development based on the freely
available X11R6.3 SI and, where appropriate, attempt to implement future
developments to the X11 standards independently of TOG. "It is our
intention to beef up our problem tracking system and request that people
sending bug fixes or enhanced source code to TOG also send them to us,
so that the free version of X can also benefit from them," said Dirk
Hohndel, Vice President of The XFree86 Project.
The XFree86 Project remains committed to providing a freely redistributable
(in source and binary form) implementation of X11. To this end, the
copyright and licensing of XFree86 code will continue to be of the BSD
style (as used by the X11 SI up to and including X11R6.3). These terms
allow TOG and others to integrate XFree86 code into their distributions
without a license fee or other financial consideration.
Linus Torvalds, principal author of the well known Linux operating
system, said "The XFree86 Project is doing the only reasonable thing in
this context. They have my full support in keeping the idea of free
software alive for the X Window System. I hope that the public will
recognize this important task and that many people and corporations will
continue to support XFree86. I will personally work with them to help
with their goals."
Garry Paxinos, Vice President of Metro Link Incorporated said "In keeping
with the original philosophy of the X Consortium, Metro Link believes
that the sample implementation of the X Window System should remain
unencumbered. The decision reached by the XFree86 Project to fork the
tree at R6.3 will ensure unrestricted access to the ongoing development
and enhancements to the core X technology. Metro Link endorses this
decision, and we will continue to contribute to and support the XFree86
Project."
Theo de Raadt, leader of the OpenBSD group said "The OpenBSD group is
massively pleased to know the X11 subsystems we ship on our 8 main
platforms will continue to be available freely. The fact that XFree86
runs on all our platforms and the TOG's X11R6 SI runs on two or so
shows that XFree86 has been doing a wonderful job of support for free
operating systems on multiple platforms."
The XFree86 Project, Inc is a non-profit corporation of the state of
Texas, USA. The primary charter is to design, implement, and distribute,
as free software, an implementation of the X Window System. The software
implements the X Window System specifications for many UNIX and UNIX-like
operating systems. All products of The XFree86 Project, Inc, are freely
available, and freely redistributable. Major supporters of XFree86
include Digital Equipment Corporation, Metro Link, Red Hat Software,
S.u.S.E. GmbH, and many others.
For more information please send electronic mail to core...@xfree86.org,
or visit us on the Internet at http://www.xfree86.org/.
"UNIX" is a registered trademark of The Open Group
"X Window System" and "The Open Group" are trademarks of The Open Group
"XFree86" is a trademark of The XFree86 Project, Inc
"Metro Link" is a trademark of Metro Link Incorporated
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds
"Red Hat" is a trademark of Red Hat Software, Inc
"S.u.S.E." is a trademark of S.u.S.E. GmbH
"Digital Equipment Corporation" is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation
--
David Dawes Email: da...@XFree86.org
President, The XFree86 Project, Inc URL: http://www.xfree86.org
J. Maynard Gelinas
YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH! Thank you, there is a God. Well, there is a
God in a secular sort of way, and He loves free software... uhhh,
secularly. I think I'll shut up now. YEEEAAAAHHHH!!
--jmg ;-)
David Dawes (da...@xfree86.org) wrote:
: THE XFree86 PROJECT ANNOUNCES POSITION STATEMENT ABOUT X11R6.4 LICENSING
[snip]
: The TOG licensing change is incompatible with the goals of XFree86 and
: most of the free software community that have been in communication with
: The XFree86 Project directors over the last week. Some have made the
: point that the change would make it extremely difficult for their projects
: to ship physical media which contains TOG derived product, and they've
: made their preference for unencumbered X11R6.3-based source releases
: overwhelmingly clear. A fundamental part of XFree86's mission is service
: to the free software community. As a result, The XFree86 Project is
: opposed to TOG's new licensing terms.
[snip]
Erik Corry
In comp.os.linux.x David Dawes <da...@xfree86.org> wrote:
> TOG has stated that the X11 standards will, however, remain "open".
Good to hear confirmed.
> These terms allow TOG and others to integrate XFree86
> code into their distributions without a license fee or other
> financial consideration.
If the TOG actually make the effort to integrate XFree86
changes, then this should minimise the bad effects of the
split.
Perhaps now we can all get back to work. To this end I would
like to suggest XFree86 consider releasing snapshots or even
an anonymous CVS repository between official releases. It
was mentioned that the main thing XFree86 lacks is programmers'
time, and experience seems to suggest that a more open
development style encourages more people to join in.
A lot of harsh and not particularly constructive flames
have been exchanged since the 1st, now is the time for
people to put their code where their mouth is.
--
Erik Corry
Pascal Haible
In article <6gfdm9$kdr$1...@mailhost.sign-tronic.dk>,
>
Hmm. Noticed the quotes around "open"?
If this means "open" as the The "Open" Group, or "free" as
"free X11R6.4" ...
Anyway, anything released before the license change will remain free,
and this includes the X11 specs and the specs of the extensions up to
X11R6.3.
Pascal
Stephen R. Savitzky
da...@xfree86.org (David Dawes) writes:
> THE XFree86 PROJECT ANNOUNCES POSITION STATEMENT ABOUT X11R6.4 LICENSING
[...]
> The XFree86 Project will continue its development based on the freely
> available X11R6.3 SI and, where appropriate, attempt to implement future
> developments to the X11 standards independently of TOG.
And there was much rejoicing.
OK, folks, we've just seen eminent domain applied in the free software
community. I think this provides a nice counterpoint to the recent
Netscape announcement -- if you set your software free, the community
will come to your aid; if you suddenly make it unfree, the community
will take the necessary action to liberate it.
One point: it's not impossible that TOG will try to assert trademark
rights over ``The X Window System'' -- I suggest that we officially
change the name of the free windowing system to X-Windows.
--
/ Steve Savitzky \ 1997 Pegasus Award winner: best science song--+ \
/ <st...@starport.com> \ http://www.starport.com/people/steve/ V \
\ hacker/songwriter: \ http://www.starport.com/suites/Starport/Filk/ \
\_ Kids' page: MOVED ---> http://www.starport.com/places/forKids/ _______/
Erik Corry
In comp.os.linux.x Pascal Haible <hai...@gabor.ito.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
> In article <6gfdm9$kdr$1...@mailhost.sign-tronic.dk>,
> Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.x David Dawes <da...@xfree86.org> wrote:
>>
> Hmm. Noticed the quotes around "open"?
Please don't spread this sort of FUD. On the subject of standardisation
nothing has changed at all. The quotes merely indicate that there are
differing views of what 'open' means. But if you were satisfied with
the way the standard was run before then you should be satisfied with
it now.
> Anyway, anything released before the license change will remain free,
The license change did not apply to the standards at all!
This is precisely why I was glad that David Dawes mentioned it. People
have been rushing around saying that X is dead and we should move to
Y or Berlin or something. There's no new reason for that, so if you
liked one of those projects, then by all means contribute to them,
but don't claim that the TOG forced you.
--
It's not so much an afterlife, more a sort of apres-vie. --DNA
--
Erik Corry er...@arbat.com
Erik Corry
In comp.os.linux.x Stephen R. Savitzky <st...@central.starport.com> wrote:
> One point: it's not impossible that TOG will try to assert trademark
> rights over ``The X Window System'' -- I suggest that we officially
> change the name of the free windowing system to X-Windows.
More FUD.
It's not impossible that the TOG will hire contract killers
to assassinate the core members of XFree86, but let's just
stick to the things they actually have done, rather than
speculate on what other 'evil deeds' they may be planning.
--
You couldn't deny that, even if you tried with both hands. -- The Red Queen
--
Erik Corry er...@arbat.com
Iain Kyte
I have not kept the previous post to save time and band width.
The general response of the XFree86 group is very encouraging. I
support there position.
Next we all have to re-group and move ahead. As long as the "The Open
Group" allows us to see the Protocols then our version of X Windows will
follow. In the mean time XFree86 has to setup a development group if
not done already. This will be a forum to discuss enhancing protocols,
algorithms, and software enhancements. From this we can create a better
X Windows. The main thought is to set up the Discussion on the Next
Generation of XFree86 there by steeling the Thunder from The Open
Group.
For now the development should be split into supporting the current
version and fixing bugs, ect. While the above is being done a forum to
enhance XFree86 should be taking place so it will exceed any of The Open
Groups versions. The version could use the Linux Dual Release process.
Ideas for the Next Version:
1. Modules for Video Drivers. (The Video Card Vendors will be able to
produce and compile there own drivers for X Windows)
2. Find common X Window Patterns that are set across the network. This
would be were a standard Dialog box could just be sent as, display OK!
Dialog with this text. To work it could be self learning, that is given
a picture of the display once it would while running or for a duration
of time store it for displaying.
3. Add the ability of using Compression and Encryption modules.
Encryption for transferring sensitive information and the Compression
for faster transfers.
Please add, and discuss these Idea's and everyone else's. From this we
will show that Quality products do not cost.
Sincerely Iain Kyte
-----------------------------
All of the above is my idea in such that I am not representing my
employer.
Stephen R. Savitzky
Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.x Stephen R. Savitzky <st...@central.starport.com> wrote:
>
> > One point: it's not impossible that TOG will try to assert trademark
> > rights over ``The X Window System'' -- I suggest that we officially
> > change the name of the free windowing system to X-Windows.
>
> More FUD.
From the X11 Release 6.4 Release Notes:
``X Window System is a trademark of The Open Group.''
<http://www.camb.opengroup.org/tech/desktop/x/r6.4doc/relnotes/relnotes.htm>
I'd say it's not merely ``not impossible'', but ``exceedingly likely.''
Any questions?
--
/ Stephen R. Savitzky \ Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc. /
/ w:st...@rsv.ricoh.com \ http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/ /
\ h:st...@starport.com / http://www.starport.com/people/steve/ \
\____ Kids page: MOVED: http://www.starport.com/places/forKids/ _____________\
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Stephen R. Savitzky wrote:
> One point: it's not impossible that TOG will try to assert trademark
> rights over ``The X Window System'' -- I suggest that we officially
> change the name of the free windowing system to X-Windows.
I suspect that Microsoft would claim that X-Windows is too close to their
"Windows" trademark.
ken...@nojunk.rahul.net
In article <352BAF39...@noware.com>, Iain Kyte <No...@noware.com> wrote:
>Next we all have to re-group and move ahead. As long as the "The Open
>Group" allows us to see the Protocols then our version of X Windows will
>follow. In the mean time XFree86 has to setup a development group if
>not done already. This will be a forum to discuss enhancing protocols,
>algorithms, and software enhancements.
I think it is great for XFree (or any other X vendor for that matter)
to add new features or performance enhancements on top of or underneath
the Standard protocols. The sample implementation is not sacred,
that's why it is called "sample".
In my opinion, however, you would be making a serious mistake by
changing the Standard protocols in any way. Users need
interoperability between commercial UNIX systems and XFree systems.
If you break compatibility in any way, you may as well stop calling
yourself "X".
--
Ken Lee, http://www.rahul.net/kenton/
Wolfgang Rupprecht
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
> I suspect that Microsoft would claim that X-Windows is too close to their
> "Windows" trademark.
Its been refered to as X-windows (incorrectly) for as long as I can
remember. I'm sure folks can dig up old usenet tapes back to the late
80's that contain the phrase "X windows".
Besides if M$ kicks up a fuss, whats wrong with going for the jugular
and calling it "X98"? ;-) (Are they really going to try to claim they
own all names that have a year-2000 problem?)
-wolfgang
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
> "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
> > I suspect that Microsoft would claim that X-Windows is too close to their
> > "Windows" trademark.
>
> Its been refered to as X-windows (incorrectly) for as long as I can
> remember. I'm sure folks can dig up old usenet tapes back to the late
> 80's that contain the phrase "X windows".
Trademarks are not patents. Prior art does not invalidate a trademark.
David Dawes
In article <6gg6g1$fuj$1...@ec.arbat.com>, Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.x Pascal Haible <hai...@gabor.ito.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>> In article <6gfdm9$kdr$1...@mailhost.sign-tronic.dk>,
>> Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.x David Dawes <da...@xfree86.org> wrote:
>>>
>
>> Hmm. Noticed the quotes around "open"?
>
>Please don't spread this sort of FUD. On the subject of standardisation
>nothing has changed at all. The quotes merely indicate that there are
>differing views of what 'open' means. But if you were satisfied with
>the way the standard was run before then you should be satisfied with
>it now.
For the record, yes, that is precisely the reason for the quotes.
>> Anyway, anything released before the license change will remain free,
>
>The license change did not apply to the standards at all!
>
>This is precisely why I was glad that David Dawes mentioned it. People
>have been rushing around saying that X is dead and we should move to
>Y or Berlin or something. There's no new reason for that, so if you
>liked one of those projects, then by all means contribute to them,
>but don't claim that the TOG forced you.
That is why I made a point of mentioning that. XFree86 remains a project
that's mission is to implement X, not to invent a new window system.
David
--
David Dawes Email: da...@XFree86.org
The XFree86 Project, Inc Phone: +61 2 9351 2639
c/- School of Physics, Fax: +61 2 9351 7726
University of Sydney 2006 AUSTRALIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You came along for a weekend, but you only stayed for one night.
You took off your hair, you pulled out your teeth. I almost died of fright.
-- Deep Purple "Living Wreck"
Iain Kyte
Thank you for the reply to my post. I support what you are saying here
and what you have to say about the XFree86 staying on par with the
Commercial Unix.
ken...@nojunk.rahul.net wrote:
>
> In my opinion, however, you would be making a serious mistake by
> changing the Standard protocols in any way. Users need
> interoperability between commercial UNIX systems and XFree systems.
> If you break compatibility in any way, you may as well stop calling
> yourself "X".
> --
> Ken Lee, http://www.rahul.net/kenton/
The only thing to say is that what will "The Open Group" do? Are they
"Open"? Does "Open" defined by the Open Group mean that you must sign a
Non-Disclosure agreement or pay them for using the new protocols they
come up with? This is what the issue is and will it force the XFree86
project to create its own Unix Window System. If so how can we make it
the standard?
We need to discuss this and form a set of plans.
Hope this clarifies my ideas.
Iain Kyte
Pascal Haible
In article <6gg6g1$fuj$1...@ec.arbat.com>, Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.x Pascal Haible <hai...@gabor.ito.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:
>> In article <6gfdm9$kdr$1...@mailhost.sign-tronic.dk>,
>> Erik Corry <er...@arbat.com> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.x David Dawes <da...@xfree86.org> wrote:
>> Hmm. Noticed the quotes around "open"?
>Please don't spread this sort of FUD.
the word "open" has or might have different meanings for the TOG
and the rest of the world. So what exactly does it mean for TOG?
>On the subject of standardisation
>nothing has changed at all.
[...]
>> Anyway, anything released before the license change will remain free,
I still don't see what was wrong with what I said. I simply wanted to
say that X11R6.3 is free and will remain free forever, including the specs.
I did not say a word about later versions.
>The license change did not apply to the standards at all!
Glad to hear. However, this is not obvious from looking at the home page
of TOG. The license I would have to accept to download X11R6.4 does
not state that the docs are not part of the license. I can only
deduce it from the fact that the untarred xc/ tree only contains the docs
and can be ftp'ed from the mirrors without _seeing_ the license.
But now that you told me, I know for sure.
>This is precisely why I was glad that David Dawes mentioned it. People
>have been rushing around saying that X is dead and we should move to
>Y or Berlin or something. There's no new reason for that, so if you
>liked one of those projects, then by all means contribute to them,
>but don't claim that the TOG forced you.
I agree that there has been to much talk of this kind lately, but I don't
see how this relates to what I have said. If you think I don't like X11,
ask your favourite search engine for "+XFre86 +Haible".
Pascal
Christopher Browne
On Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:09:13 -0400, Iain Kyte <No...@noware.com> wrote:
>I have not kept the previous post to save time and band width.
>
>The general response of the XFree86 group is very encouraging. I
>support there position.
Ditto.
Contrary to what others have suggested, I do *not* stand with the notion
that X should be released by XFree86 under the GPL.
There is a past history of cooperation between commercial vendors and
those that have guided X. By staying with a "BSD" style license, this
allows maximum cooperation in this fashion, not forcing disclosure on
those that do not wish to disclose specialized source code.
>Next we all have to re-group and move ahead. As long as the "The Open
>Group" allows us to see the Protocols then our version of X Windows will
>follow. In the mean time XFree86 has to setup a development group if
>not done already. This will be a forum to discuss enhancing protocols,
>algorithms, and software enhancements. From this we can create a better
>X Windows. The main thought is to set up the Discussion on the Next
>Generation of XFree86 there by steeling the Thunder from The Open
>Group.
I disagree, in much similar fashion to the way I disagree with the
assumption that "XFree86 must move to the GPL."
The XFree86 Project is an organization that has existed for some years
now. It is not your right or mine to decide this. It is appropriate
for people that wish to participate to contact The XFree86 Project to
find out how it is that they can most readily integrate in peoples'
participation.
It is surely a neat idea to have both "experimental" and "stable"
editions available; that may well be a useful idea that could be
inherited from Linux.
Extensive changes will require an extensive amount of forethought and
testing so as to make sure that the system *doesn't* break.
My ideas:
- There needs to be a freely available and readily usable test suite to
validate conformance. TeX has the "trip test"; I see Scheme
implementations that come with "test scripts"; J has one. The only ones
I'm aware of for X appear not to be freely available. (I would not be
offended by someone providing a URL to a counterexample...)
- There may be some need to open things up a little "politically." It is
not quite clear how one joins the development team.
>From this we will show that Quality products do not cost.
Anything worthwhile is always costly in some fashion. A complex
software system like X cost many millions of dollars to develop.
The question is, how is that cost to be paid?
One of the philosophical questions of accounting is the question: "Are
allocations arbitrary?" The answer to that question is "yes." Allocating
costs to things is indeed an arbitrary process.
One of the *major* improvements that comes out of using "libre software"
is that deployment decisions do not have to be decided based on per-unit
costs of software licenses. With free software, the arbitrary choice is
for the allocated cost to be NOTHING. This encourages maximizing
deployment, and thus maximizing the utility of such software.
This still leaves the "piper" to be paid. A system with the complexity
of X still costs a gazillion dollars to develop. The hope is that it is
valuable enough to have it available that some portion of the population
will voluntarily contribute to development efforts.
Free OS users that value the software that they have freely received but
that have not tried to give anything back to the community, whether in
terms of services, code, or money, obviously must not think very much of
the long term for the free software they benefit from. An obvious
immediate appropriate thing to do would be to check
<http://www.xfree86.org/donations.html> on how to "empower" The XFree86
Project from a financial point of view. At this point in time, they are
one of two organizations in the "free software domain" (the other being
the FSF) that seem to me to be appropriate for to send financial
support. There are others that seem less stable than these...
--
There are two types of Linux developers - those who can spell, and
those who can't. There is a constant pitched battle between the two.
(From one of the post-1.1.54 kernel update messages posted to c.o.l.a)
cbbr...@hex.net - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Wolfgang Rupprecht
How is this? People routinely using a phrase to refer to an item
doesn't establish an uncontested infringement? M$ has had over 10
years to complain about the "X Window System" being refered to as "X
windows".
Why is it that that the Cokacola company hires people to buy 'coke' at
various restaurants and and takes them to court is they sell other
brands of soda in response? If you don't defend it, you lose it.
-wolfgang
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
> > Trademarks are not patents. Prior art does not invalidate a trademark.
>
> How is this? People routinely using a phrase to refer to an item
> doesn't establish an uncontested infringement? M$ has had over 10
> years to complain about the "X Window System" being refered to as "X
> windows".
>
> Why is it that that the Cokacola company hires people to buy 'coke' at
> various restaurants and and takes them to court is they sell other
> brands of soda in response? If you don't defend it, you lose it.
You're confusing two different issues: prior art, and a generic term. The issue
with prior art is: Does it exist? If you can find it, the patent can be
invalidated The issue with a generic term is: Is the term perceived by customers
as the name of a particular product, or as a generic term for a class of products.
As of today, there is no question that the term "Windows" is perceived by customers
as referring to Microsoft's product, thus Microsoft has the right to enforce their
trademark by preventing other products from using the term "Windows" in such a way
that might lead to confusion or dilution of their trademark. If they fail to do
this and the term does become generic, then it can be lost (the way previous
trademarks like "asprin" have been lost). That's why Coca Cola tries to make sure
the term "Coke" is not used to describe any cola drink.
Eric Lee Green
On 9 Apr 1998 14:20:12 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@news.hex.net> wrote:
>Free OS users that value the software that they have freely received but
>that have not tried to give anything back to the community, whether in
>terms of services, code, or money, obviously must not think very much of
>the long term for the free software they benefit from. An obvious
Definitely so. Those of us with real jobs often don't have time to do
much contributing labor-wise, but: every computer we ship out of here
is shipped with a paid-for copy of Red Hat Linux in appreciation of
the work they've done in making Linux useful for our particular
purposes (as an administrative server). We could put a free copy of
RHL on every computer we ship, because we don't make use of any of the
non-free products that come with RHL, but that's our contribution
towards the free software vendor that has most helped our
business. (For those of you who don't agree that Red Hat is a free
software vendor, ask CheapBytes how much they pay for a RHL license).
(Sorry, I might personally make a donation to the XFree86 folks, but we don't
even run "X" on our administrative servers).
--
Eric Lee Green ex...@prysm.net Executive Consultants
Systems Specialist Educational Administration Solutions
"We believe Windows 95 is a walking antitrust violation" -- Bryan Sparks
Mark A. Davis
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>
> Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
>
> > > Trademarks are not patents. Prior art does not invalidate a trademark.
> >
> > How is this? People routinely using a phrase to refer to an item
> > doesn't establish an uncontested infringement? M$ has had over 10
> > years to complain about the "X Window System" being refered to as "X
> > windows".
> >
> > Why is it that that the Cokacola company hires people to buy 'coke' at
> > various restaurants and and takes them to court is they sell other
> > brands of soda in response? If you don't defend it, you lose it.
>
> You're confusing two different issues: prior art, and a generic term. The issue
> with prior art is: Does it exist? If you can find it, the patent can be
> invalidated The issue with a generic term is: Is the term perceived by customers
> as the name of a particular product, or as a generic term for a class of products.
> As of today, there is no question that the term "Windows" is perceived by customers
> as referring to Microsoft's product, thus Microsoft has the right to enforce their
> trademark by preventing other products from using the term "Windows" in such a way
> that might lead to confusion or dilution of their trademark.
Too bad for THEM. Last time I checked, it is not a REGISTERED
trademark, something you cannot do to a plain English word that refers
to multiple things.
> If they fail to do
> this and the term does become generic, then it can be lost (the way previous
> trademarks like "asprin" have been lost). That's why Coca Cola tries to make sure
> the term "Coke" is not used to describe any cola drink.
But the word "coke" does not generally mean anything else, either.
Saying that Microsoft can own the word "windows" is like saying GM could
own the word "cars" or "automobiles". They COULD own the phrase "GM
cars", just as Microsoft DOES own the phrase "MS-Windows" and "Microsoft
Windows", the proper names of the products.
Windows is not a product. They are used in houses/cars/etc and by
graphical OS's. Microsoft invented neither.
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Mark A. Davis, |Lake Taylor| Voice: (757)-461-5001x431 8-4:30ET |
| Director of | Hospital | ma...@yy.laketaylor.org ***to reply |
|Information Systems|Norfolk, VA| from USENET remove anti-spam "yy." |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
Wolfgang Rupprecht
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
> You're confusing two different issues: prior art, and a generic term. The issue
> with prior art is: Does it exist? If you can find it, the patent can be
> invalidated The issue with a generic term is: Is the term perceived by customers
> as the name of a particular product, or as a generic term for a class of products.
> As of today, there is no question that the term "Windows" is perceived by customers
> as referring to Microsoft's product, thus Microsoft has the right to enforce their
> trademark by preventing other products from using the term "Windows" in such a way
> that might lead to confusion or dilution of their trademark. If they fail to do
> this and the term does become generic, then it can be lost (the way previous
> trademarks like "asprin" have been lost). That's why Coca Cola tries to make sure
> the term "Coke" is not used to describe any cola drink.
You are the one that brought patents and prior art into this. We are
not talking about patents so why bring it up?
If one has a trademark one needs to prevent infringing uses. If one
doesn't promptly stop others from infringing one's trademark one loses
the right to prevent them later.
The "X Window System" has been referred to as "x windows" for at least
the last 12 years and M$ has never grumbled.
-wolfgang
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> Too bad for THEM. Last time I checked, it is not a REGISTERED
> trademark
Check again. From http://premium.microsoft.com/msdn/library/specs/platfrm2/d3/s1191b.htm
--->
Correctly referencing the Windows mark means doing all of the following:
Using the symbol "®" with our marks Windows and Microsoft. The symbol should be
placed
next to the last letter of the mark, at the upper right or at the base line. In
advertising copy,
the symbol should be used at the first or most prominent mention.
Placing the generic product name, "the descriptor," immediately after the mark. The
descriptor
for the Windows operating system is "operating system."
Including the following notice(s) on such material:
"Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation."
and (if Microsoft is used) "Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft
Corporation."
<---
> something you cannot do to a plain English word that refers
> to multiple things.
Wrong. When the plain English word identifies a particular product in a field of
commerce, rather than a generic item, the word can be a valid trademark (whether
registered or otherwise). Other examples: Sun (a trademark in at least two fields,
computers and chemicals), Apple (computer company), Diamond (multimedia company),
Creative (multimedia compnay), Chase (bank), Caravan (minivan by Dodge), Tide (detergent)
and many others.
It is true that most new trademarks are not English words, because the current practice
assumes this makes establishing and maintaining the trademark easier. But it isn't a
requirement.
> Windows is not a product. They are used in houses/cars/etc and by
> graphical OS's. Microsoft invented neither.
It isn't necessary to be the inventor in order to establish a trademark. Again, you are
confusing patents and trademarks.
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
> You are the one that brought patents and prior art into this. We are
> not talking about patents so why bring it up?
Only because the original poster to which I replied claimed that Windows was not a
trademark because X had been incorrectly referred to as "X Windows" (or is it "X
windows?") for a long time. That might be a valid defense against a patent claim
(assuming that "a long time" were long enough), but it means nothing in terms of
trademarks, as longs as the trademark has not become generic.
> The "X Window System" has been referred to as "x windows" for at least
> the last 12 years and M$ has never grumbled.
Do you know this for a fact? In any case, it isn't relevant as long as the term has not
become recognized as generic by the potential customers for Windows. Most of the
potential customers for Windows have never heard of X or "X Windows," nor have they ever
heard of any other type of computer software called Windows other than Microsoft's
product. The trademark is (for now) secure.
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Mark A. Davis wrote:
> Saying that Microsoft can own the word "windows"
They don't own the word. They own the trademark. The trademark can not be used to
identify other products which might lead to confusion or dilution of the trademark. You
can still use the word to describe windows in a house or car.
> is like saying GM could own the word "cars" or "automobiles".
They could, theoretically own a trademark (but they don't).
Brian Mueller
Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
>Why is it that that the Cokacola
It's "Coca-Cola"...sheesh, you must have seen this spelled 10,000
times, surely you can spell it..
> company hires people to buy 'coke' at
>various restaurants and and takes them to court is they sell other
>brands of soda in response? If you don't defend it, you lose it.
As much as I hate microsoft these days, they do have a case if they're
going to sue people who call it X Windows. You can't steal someone
else's name just so your thing will gain popularity. It's the same
principle with 3Com and Microsoft right now: MS can't call their
palmtop a Palm PC anymore, they can only call it a "palm-sized PC". In
the same way, nobody can call a computer product by a name like X
Windows.
----
Brian Mueller
E-mail: mulder78 at ix dot netcom dot com
20 year old male, in Morgan Hill, California, USA
(ten miles south of San Jose, California)
Mark A. Davis
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>
> > Too bad for THEM. Last time I checked, it is not a REGISTERED
> > trademark
>
> Check again. From http://premium.microsoft.com/msdn/library/specs/platfrm2/d3/s1191b.htm
>
> --->
> Correctly referencing the Windows mark means doing all of the following:
>
> Using the symbol "®" with our marks Windows and Microsoft. The symbol should be
> placed
> next to the last letter of the mark, at the upper right or at the base line. In
> advertising copy,
> the symbol should be used at the first or most prominent mention.
> Placing the generic product name, "the descriptor," immediately after the mark. The
> descriptor
> for the Windows operating system is "operating system."
> Including the following notice(s) on such material:
>
> "Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation."
>
> and (if Microsoft is used) "Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft
> Corporation."
I DID check all documentation I could find. And it clearly states that
"Windows" is a trademark, not a registered trademark. "Microsoft",
"MS-Windows", MS-DOS", and "MS" are all REGISTERED trademarks.
> > something you cannot do to a plain English word that refers
> > to multiple things.
>
> Wrong. When the plain English word identifies a particular product in a field of
> commerce, rather than a generic item, the word can be a valid trademark (whether
> registered or otherwise). Other examples: Sun (a trademark in at least two fields,
> computers and chemicals), Apple (computer company), Diamond (multimedia company),
> Creative (multimedia compnay), Chase (bank), Caravan (minivan by Dodge), Tide (detergent)
> and many others.
But that is my point. "Windows" refers to multiple things in the field
of computers and has done so long before MS-Windows came into being.
Better examples are those similar to the ones I gave in my first posting
Car industry: car, automobile, van, truck
Computer industry: windows, mouse, cpu, computer, terminal, printer
Clothing industry: pants, shirt, suit, socks, tie
etc...
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Mark A. Davis wrote:
> I DID check all documentation I could find. And it clearly states that
> "Windows" is a trademark, not a registered trademark. "Microsoft",
> "MS-Windows", MS-DOS", and "MS" are all REGISTERED trademarks.
This used to be true. There was a bit of discussion a few years ago when the Windows trademark
registration was complete, but not all that much.
> But that is my point. "Windows" refers to multiple things in the field
> of computers and has done so long before MS-Windows came into being.
You're still not getting it. "Long before" is not relevant. What matters is actual customer
(or potential customer) perception. A large enough marketing budget can turn a generic term
into a valid trademark.
Mark A. Davis
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>
> Mark A. Davis wrote:
>
> > I DID check all documentation I could find. And it clearly states that
> > "Windows" is a trademark, not a registered trademark. "Microsoft",
> > "MS-Windows", MS-DOS", and "MS" are all REGISTERED trademarks.
>
> This used to be true. There was a bit of discussion a few years ago when the Windows trademark
> registration was complete, but not all that much.
Hmm, I must have missed it. How unfortunate this all is.
> > But that is my point. "Windows" refers to multiple things in the field
> > of computers and has done so long before MS-Windows came into being.
>
> You're still not getting it. "Long before" is not relevant. What matters is actual customer
> (or potential customer) perception. A large enough marketing budget can turn a generic term
> into a valid trademark.
Such are the amazing powers of a near mega-monopoly?
Joseph C Wang
In article <qcvhskd...@gelion.crc.ricoh.com>,
Stephen R. Savitzky <st...@crc.ricoh.com> wrote:
>From the X11 Release 6.4 Release Notes:
> ``X Window System is a trademark of The Open Group.''
> <http://www.camb.opengroup.org/tech/desktop/x/r6.4doc/relnotes/relnotes.htm>
>
>I'd say it's not merely ``not impossible'', but ``exceedingly likely.''
>Any questions?
TOG can trademark "X Window (pause) System" but they can't trademark
"X (pause) Window System". You can't trademark letters of the
alphabet or short letter-number combinations, which is why the i586 is
called the Pentium, and why the documentation for X says its a system
named "X Window" and not a "window system" named "X."
Also, you lose a trademark if you don't try to defend it, and if TOG
tried to enforce the trademark now, it would have a very weak case
since it's known about XFree86 and other implementations of X for
years and hasn't done anything about it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang Globewide Network Academy
pres...@gnacademy.org FREE Distance Education catalog database
http://www.gnacademy.org Over 15,000 courses and degrees
Barry O'Neill
In article <352D36...@yy.laketaylor.org>, ma...@yy.laketaylor.org
says...
> But the word "coke" does not generally mean anything else, either.
Really? "Coke, (colk). Mineral coal deprived by dry distillation of its
volatile constituents."
also
"Cola. 1795. Genus of trees, Sterculiaceae, native to western tropical
Africa ; esp. Cola aciminata."
finally
"Coca. 1616.[-Sp. coca. - Quechua - cuca.] The name in Bolivia of
Erythroxylon coca; hence, applied to its dried leaves, which are chewed,
with powdered lime, to appease hunger, and stimulate the nervous system."
Of course, these could all be ingredients, hence all that sugar to mask
the taste...
regards,
Barry
--
"Humour is *such* a subjective thing, don't you think Mollari?" - Emperor
Cartagia, Babylon 5
Tim Smith
Mark A. Davis <ma...@yy.laketaylor.org> wrote (about the Windows trademark):
>Too bad for THEM. Last time I checked, it is not a REGISTERED
>to multiple things.
You should check more frequently than every five years. :-)
...
>Saying that Microsoft can own the word "windows" is like saying GM could
>own the word "cars" or "automobiles". They COULD own the phrase "GM
>cars", just as Microsoft DOES own the phrase "MS-Windows" and "Microsoft
>Windows", the proper names of the products.
>
>Windows is not a product. They are used in houses/cars/etc and by
>graphical OS's. Microsoft invented neither.
You are fundamentally confused about what trademarks are. When one owns
a trademark on a word, one does not own the trademarked word. One owns the
right to use that word as the brand on a product in a particular field.
The use of that word in unrelated categories is still OK.
GM would not be able to get a trademark on "automobiles" for their cars,
but, for example, if McDonald's were to make special kids meals that come
in boxes that look like cars and call them Automobile Meals, they would
have a good chance of being able to trademark the word "automobiles".
--Tim Smith
John W.
Tim Smith wrote in message <6gr4k4$hqa$1...@halcyon.com>...
<snip>
>You are fundamentally confused about what trademarks are. When one owns
>a trademark on a word, one does not own the trademarked word. One owns the
>right to use that word as the brand on a product in a particular field.
>The use of that word in unrelated categories is still OK.
>
>GM would not be able to get a trademark on "automobiles" for their cars,
>but, for example, if McDonald's were to make special kids meals that come
>in boxes that look like cars and call them Automobile Meals, they would
>have a good chance of being able to trademark the word "automobiles".
>
>--Tim Smith
This all makes little difference. Laches and estoppel are defenses to
an action for trademark infringement. Therefore, if Microspoof or anyone
else tried to sue people for using the term X windows, they would probably
lose because they have permitted others to use "X windows" for a decade
without challenge. The law protects the vigilant, and not those who sleep
on their rights.
John M. Wadsworth
john...@value.net
Matthew Reynolds
Hey Wolfgang -
You know, I haven't seen this much excited traffic about X in months...
The whole licensing thing is suicidal. X and UNIX are losing market
share on the
desktop at an alarming rate, and the Open Group is responding by cutting
the market
share even further by restricting licensing, which angers the public
domain software
development community to no end. This could truly drive the final nail
into the
coffin for X.
Looks look at some of the history:
OSF put the screws to people for motif licenses as soon as it got
established, by
jacking up the licensing fees.
The X server needed to be redesigned years ago. The X event system is
non-extensible,
and the graphics toolkit is as primitive as a wooden club.
The extensions that were implemented by the X consortium didn't meet
market demands.
Who cares about PEX? The X Imaging Extension? The multithreaded
server?
The X system doesn't even support printing, one of the most critical
features in
a commercial product.
The ancillary systems surrounding X-Windows, such as Interviews,
LessTif, XView,
and Athena have all become obsolete. Who wants to risk developing
software on a
platform that may be obsoleted shortly?
X has to face it: for any chance of survival (forget growth at this
point), it must
remain a TOTALLY open system. Get the message COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS
HAVE ALREADY FLEED
TO MICROSOFT WINDOWS.
A chilling reminder: The sales of UNIX workstations on the desktop
actually declined
last year by 7%.
Unless there is a project underway to make the X system 100% compatible
with MS-Windows,
which is beyond the resources of the Open Software Group, the reality
must be dealt with
that it is no longer a viable commercial system, and every effort must
be put forward to
tap the resources and GOOD WILL of the public domain software
development community.
Matthew Reynolds
ANVIL Software
Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
> > You're confusing two different issues: prior art, and a generic term. The issue
> > with prior art is: Does it exist? If you can find it, the patent can be
> > invalidated The issue with a generic term is: Is the term perceived by customers
> > as the name of a particular product, or as a generic term for a class of products.
> > As of today, there is no question that the term "Windows" is perceived by customers
> > as referring to Microsoft's product, thus Microsoft has the right to enforce their
> > trademark by preventing other products from using the term "Windows" in such a way
> > that might lead to confusion or dilution of their trademark. If they fail to do
> > this and the term does become generic, then it can be lost (the way previous
> > trademarks like "asprin" have been lost). That's why Coca Cola tries to make sure
> > the term "Coke" is not used to describe any cola drink.
>
> You are the one that brought patents and prior art into this. We are
> not talking about patents so why bring it up?
>
> If one has a trademark one needs to prevent infringing uses. If one
> doesn't promptly stop others from infringing one's trademark one loses
> the right to prevent them later.
>
> The "X Window System" has been referred to as "x windows" for at least
> the last 12 years and M$ has never grumbled.
>
> -wolfgang
Jeffrey B. Siegal
John W. wrote:
> Therefore, if Microspoof or anyone
> else tried to sue people for using the term X windows, they would probably
> lose because they have permitted others to use "X windows" for a decade
> without challenge.
Says who? Microsoft has been very active in searching for unauthorized and
incorrect usages of their Windows trademark for years. The X Consortium (and
Open Group) have *never* used the term "X windows," and have on numerous
occasions specifically stated that "X windows" is incorrect. You can bet that
any magazine that used the phrase "X windows" has received a letter from
Microsoft's lawyers requesting that their trademark not be abused.
> The law protects the vigilant, and not those who sleep
> on their rights.
As I see it, Microsoft has been extremely vigilant in this matter. Just my
opinion.
Stefan Monnier
Matthew Reynolds <ma...@anvilsoft.com> writes in a poorly formatted message
bloated by a complete copy of the message he was responding to:
> A chilling reminder: The sales of UNIX workstations on the desktop
> actually declined last year by 7%.
But on the brighter side, we should not forget that 99% of the Linux PCs
out there are misrepresented in those worthless studies since the've been
sold with (closed?) windows on it.
Stefan
John W.
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <3533653E...@quiotix.com>...
<snip>
>
>Says who? Microsoft has been very active in searching for unauthorized and
>incorrect usages of their Windows trademark for years. The X Consortium
(and
>Open Group) have *never* used the term "X windows," and have on numerous
>occasions specifically stated that "X windows" is incorrect. You can bet
that
>any magazine that used the phrase "X windows" has received a letter from
>Microsoft's lawyers requesting that their trademark not be abused.
>
Okay, you're right. The correct term is the "X Window System." That is
how it appears in the official literature, even from the Open Group.
Nevertheless, people have been referring to the "X Window System" as X
windows for years - correctly or incorrectly. If you don't believe me then
go to Excite, Yahoo, or any other search engine and enter "X windows" or X
AND windows. You will find plenty of examples.
But this is really beside the point, and involves just a little too much
nit-picking. If Microsoft wanted to sue someone, say a magazine, for
"incorrectly" referring to the X Window System as X windows - as you
propose - they would still lose for a variety of reasons.
The first hurdle would be to explain - in opposing a motion to dismiss -
why the generic use of the term X windows by a non-competitor in a non
commercial setting would constitute an infringement of their trademark. The
federal trademark laws make actionable only the use *in commerce* of "a
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark
in connection with the sale . . . of any goods . . . on or in connection
with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive." The law was intended to protect consumers by making actionable
the deceptive and misleading use of marks and to protect persons engaged in
commerce against unfair competition. "[T]rademark policies are designed
`(1) to protect consumers from being misled as to the enterprise, or
enterprises, from which the goods or services emanate or with which they are
associated; (2) to prevent an impairment of the value of the enterprise
which owns the trademark; and (3) to achieve these ends in a manner
consistent with the objectives of free competition.'"
A reference in a magazine - which is the scenario you conjured up - is
not a commercial use because the magazine cannot be viewed as engaged in the
sale, distribution or promotion of the X Window System simply because it
used the term "X windows" to describe it. Nor is anyone likely to be
deceived. Unlike Windows 95 or Windows NT, which can be purchased off the
shelf at most any commercial software outlet, one really must go out of
their way to find software for the X Window System - and it doesn't work
very well on non unix-like systems. Considering the disparity of the
platforms on which the X Window System and "Windows" run (because Windows
"is" its own platform now) a person would have to smoke some powerful drugs
to be confused - even if they did managed to acquire the software.
Moreover, in a world where MS has a virtual monopoly on desktop operating
systems, the company could hardly complain that a magazine - which does not
sell software - has engaged in "unfair competitition."
The second hurdle they would run up against is something called "fair
use" - which happens most often when a trademark describes a person, a
place or an attribute of a product. If a trademark holder were allowed
exclusive rights in such use, the language would be depleted in much the
same way as if generic words were protectable. Thus trademark law recognizes
a defense where the mark is used only "to describe the goods or services of
[a] party, or their geographic origin." (Citations omitted.) "The
`fair-use' defense, in essence, forbids a trademark registrant to
appropriate a descriptive term for his exclusive use and so prevent others
from accurately describing a characteristic of their goods." (Citations
omitted.)
"Window" is a generic term which is not protectable. MS already sought
to have it otherwise, but did not succeed. This is a good thing. Otherwise
glaziers as well as software developers would all be at Microsoft's mercy.
Since the X Window System uses a root window and a number of other client
windows (i.e., plural of window) it is fair to describe it as a windowing
system that uses windows. So, if I use the term X windows to describe
multiple X window clients or as a shorthand way of describing what the X
Window System does, then my use of the word "windows" is purely descriptive
and, hence, fair use. There is no deception or confusion involved in such a
use of the term "windows" especially because of the predominant X in front
of it. As the courts have said over and over again: "When the mark is used
in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the
word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth."
The third problem they would have is establishing damages because a
magazine sloppily referred to the X Window System as x windows. Trademark
remedies are guided by tort law principles. Since it would not be a
trademark counterfeiting case, MS would have to prove both the fact and the
amount of damages. Damages are typically measured by any direct injury
which a plaintiff can prove, as well as any lost profits which the plaintiff
would have earned but for the infringement. Since the purpose of the
trademark infringement laws is to take the economic incentive out of
trademark infringement, an award of damages could also include any profits
earned by the defendant as a result of the infringement. Costs of suit may
also be awarded, as well as attorneys fees in "exceptional cases" (i.e.,
when the infringement is malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful).
However, as a general rule, damages which result from a tort must be
established with reasonable certainty. The requirement of certainty in
damages means that a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable basis for
computing the damages. Many courts have denied monetary awards in
infringement cases when damages are remote and speculative.
With all of this in mind, let us go back to your example of a magazine
that incorrectly used the term x windows to describe the X Window System.
Assuming the unlikely scenario that MS could overcome the first two hurdles,
I don't know how it could begin to demonstrate damages in such a situation.
If for instance the misstatement occurred in a magazine with a target
audience of Linux users, Unix system administrators or X Window developers -
none of whom, presumably, give a flying fig about MS - damages for loss of
reputation, prestige or market share would be entirely out of the question.
Nor is it likely that the magazine could profit from the misuse - because
most of the readership would understand it to be the mistake that it is. If
the misstatement occurred in one of those popular MS-sycophant rags, then MS
would probably have to show that its trademark was misused in a manner that
cast it in a bad light (which is highly unlikely), or somehow damaged its
sales (which is even more unlikely).
An assessment of the chances of making money in a lawsuit is one of the
first things a lawyer does. If a suit doesn't look profitable, then he or
she will tell his client so. In the given scenario, the chances of a
profitable lawsuit would be slim to none. I think that MS knows this, which
is why you don't hear about them bringing such actions. Having lawyers send
letters is just an act of tasteless sabre rattling - to which I would
respond by telling that lawyer to stuff his letter.
John M. Wadsworth john...@value.net
Attorney at Law
Jeffrey B. Siegal
John W. wrote:
> If Microsoft wanted to sue someone, say a magazine, for
> "incorrectly" referring to the X Window System as X windows - as you
> propose - they would still lose for a variety of reasons.
Please reread my message.
I did not suggest that Microsoft has or would sue a magazine for this. I said
that Microsoft has _requested_ that magazines (and others) abusing Microsoft's
trademarks stop doing so. Are you claiming that they haven't? Even if there is
no real liability, a magazine receiving such a letter has no reason to continue
incorrectly referring to X as "X windows," since it has always been incorrect
anyway.
> The
> federal trademark laws make actionable only the use *in commerce*
Remember, this conversation started with a suggestion that a version of X be
promoted as "X Windows." That would clearly be commerce.
Also, it seems possible that Microsoft would have recourse under the recent
anti-dilution statute.
John W.
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <3535CC47...@quiotix.com>...
>John W. wrote:
>
>> If Microsoft wanted to sue someone, say a magazine, for
>> "incorrectly" referring to the X Window System as X windows - as you
>> propose - they would still lose for a variety of reasons.
>
>Please reread my message.
>
>I did not suggest that Microsoft has or would sue a magazine for this. I
said
>that Microsoft has _requested_ that magazines (and others) abusing
Microsoft's
>trademarks stop doing so. Are you claiming that they haven't?
Nope, never made any such claim. I just think it is a waste of time to
bother with such a letter, except in the rare situation that an article
might actually damage MS's interests. I think Coca-Cola has probably
damaged its image in the public eye by engaging in the same form of
obnoxious witch hunting.
Furthermore, MS has exhibited almost no interest in unix or unix-like
systems except for Xenix (har har) which even SCO successfully shed. It
they have no interest in unix, they have little reason to believe that a
misstatement regarding "X windows" will damage their reputation among users
of MS products, and they have no reason to believe that it will harm either
their reputation or profits from sales to people who have no interest in MS
products.
> Even if there is no real liability, a magazine receiving such a letter has
no reason to continue
>incorrectly referring to X as "X windows," since it has always been
incorrect
>anyway.
I agree. Why be wrong? Then again, why be arrogant and engage in sabre
rattling when a friendly letter pointing out the difference could do just as
well.?
>
>Remember, this conversation started with a suggestion that a version of X
be
>promoted as "X Windows." That would clearly be commerce.
>
I didn't make that suggestion. And, as you already pointed out, the X
Window System is NOT officially promoted as "X Windows." I merely suggested
that a lot of people, correctly or incorrectly have been referring to the X
Window system as X wndows. Furthermore, I think it takes more than a
reference to the X Window System as "X Windows" in a magazine to make it
occur "in commerce."
>Also, it seems possible that Microsoft would have recourse under the recent
anti-dilution statute.
Dilution is grounded on the idea that a trademark can lose its
"ability . . . to clearly and unmistakably distinguish one source" through
unauthorized use. (Citation.) It is a "gradual whittling away of a firm's
distinctive trade-mark or name." (Citation.) In order to establish a
dilution claim, two elements must be shown: (1) ownership of a distinctive
mark, and (2) a likelihood of dilution. Dilution by 惑lurring' may occur
where the defendant uses or modifies the plaintiff's trademark to identify
the defendant's goods and services, raising the possibility that the mark
will lose its ability to serve as a unique identifier of the plaintiff's
product. To establish dilution by blurring, the two marks must not only be
similar, they "must be 扉ery' or 愀ubstantially' similar."
I think the predominant X in front of the incorrectly used word
"Windows" would defeat a dilution claim. X does not use a logo similar to
that use by MS products, so only the words are similar. But an X in front
of Windows - which MS never uses - hardly substantially similar, especially
when one takes into account the context in which it is used in a magazine
article. Moreover, descriptive, "fair use" is a defense to an anti-dilution
action in the same manner as it is a defense to a generic trademark
infringement action.
Jeffrey B. Siegal
John W. wrote:
> Furthermore, MS has exhibited almost no interest in unix or unix-like
> systems except for Xenix (har har) which even SCO successfully shed. It
> they have no interest in unix, they have little reason to believe that a
> misstatement regarding "X windows" will damage their reputation among users
> of MS products, and they have no reason to believe that it will harm either
> their reputation or profits from sales to people who have no interest in MS
> products.
Are you really this out of touch? These "people who have no interest in MS
products" have been adopting MS products at a furious rate. Ask SGI. OK,
that's perhaps a contraversial claim and you might not accept it. Still MS
certainly has an major interest in high performance and server computing (both
traditional strongholds of Unix), they do care what Unix users and buyers
perceive. Imagine, for example, an stereotypical MIS "suit" new to both Unix
and Windows (NT), but is considering purchasing one or the other to replace
mainframe systems. Upon hearing the phrase "X Windows," it is possible that
such a person might perceive that it is related to Windows, perhaps thinking X
stands for "extended."
> I agree. Why be wrong? Then again, why be arrogant and engage in sabre
> rattling when a friendly letter pointing out the difference could do just as
> well.?
I never said such a letter would necessarily be unfriendly.
> >
> >Remember, this conversation started with a suggestion that a version of X
> be
> >promoted as "X Windows." That would clearly be commerce.
> >
> I didn't make that suggestion. And, as you already pointed out, the X
> Window System is NOT officially promoted as "X Windows." I merely suggested
> that a lot of people, correctly or incorrectly have been referring to the X
> Window system as X wndows. Furthermore, I think it takes more than a
> reference to the X Window System as "X Windows" in a magazine to make it
> occur "in commerce."
Again, if you are interested in knowing what we were talking about, I ask that
you read the beginning of this thread in order to properly understand the
context. If your news server no longer offers it, try dejanews. If you are
just interested in practicing your legal argument skills, please do so
elsewhere.
> I think the predominant X in front of the incorrectly used word
> "Windows" would defeat a dilution claim.
You claim the X is "predominant" but this is far from clear. X could just as
easily be viewed as a modifier of "Windows" rather than as the predominant
portion of the incorrect "X-Windows" name.
> X does not use a logo similar to
> that use by MS products, so only the words are similar. But an X in front
> of Windows - which MS never uses - hardly substantially similar, especially
> when one takes into account the context in which it is used in a magazine
> article.
Please do not relate everything I write to the example of a magazine article.
That was just an example, and does not directly relate to the original issue of
whether the name X-Windows should be adopted.
John W.
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <353653C3...@quiotix.com>...
<snip>
>Are you really this out of touch? These "people who have no interest in MS
>products" have been adopting MS products at a furious rate. Ask SGI. OK,
>that's perhaps a contraversial claim and you might not accept it. Still MS
>certainly has an major interest in high performance and server computing
(both
>traditional strongholds of Unix), they do care what Unix users and buyers
>perceive. Imagine, for example, an stereotypical MIS "suit" new to both
Unix
>and Windows (NT), but is considering purchasing one or the other to replace
>mainframe systems. Upon hearing the phrase "X Windows," it is possible
that
>such a person might perceive that it is related to Windows, perhaps
thinking X
>stands for "extended."
I will believe it when I see it. MS has no plans to port *any* of its
software to any of the freely available unix or unix-like platforms such as
Linux - although it might have a market there. The only thing that MS has
done recently is port IE to Sun's version of unix. To say the least, it has
not gotten rave reviews. I would hardly call it adoption of MS products at
a furious rate, and I would not view it as reflecting a "major interest" or
"care" by MS for what Unix users and buyers perceive. If MS was that
interested in targeting Unix users, it would port its Office suite as well.
Aside from WordPerfect, I haven't seen a decent word processing program (as
oposed to text editing program) out there.
Until MS does make its products more available, the X Window System and MS
Windows will continue to exist in two essentially different worlds. It is,
therefore, unlikely that anyone would get confused.
>> I agree. Why be wrong? Then again, why be arrogant and engage in
sabre
>> rattling when a friendly letter pointing out the difference could do just
as
>> well.?
>
>I never said such a letter would necessarily be unfriendly.
>
A letter from a corporate legal department is an unfriendly act, and
would be perceived as a veiled threat by anyone of intelligence. A letter
from the company's public relations department would be more appropriate.
>> >
>> >Remember, this conversation started with a suggestion that a version of
X
>> be
>> >promoted as "X Windows." That would clearly be commerce.
>> >
>> I didn't make that suggestion. And, as you already pointed out, the
X
>> Window System is NOT officially promoted as "X Windows." I merely
suggested
>> that a lot of people, correctly or incorrectly have been referring to the
X
>> Window system as X wndows. Furthermore, I think it takes more than a
>> reference to the X Window System as "X Windows" in a magazine to make it
>> occur "in commerce."
>
>Again, if you are interested in knowing what we were talking about, I ask
that
>you read the beginning of this thread in order to properly understand the
>context. If your news server no longer offers it, try dejanews. If you
are
>just interested in practicing your legal argument skills, please do so
>elsewhere.
I have better things to do with my time than nit-pick over legal issues.
You were wrong in the example you gave. So I suggest that if you want to
give bad legal advice, you can do that elsewhere.
>> I think the predominant X in front of the incorrectly used word
>> "Windows" would defeat a dilution claim.
>
>You claim the X is "predominant" but this is far from clear. X could just
as
>easily be viewed as a modifier of "Windows" rather than as the predominant
>portion of the incorrect "X-Windows" name.
>
>> X does not use a logo similar to
>> that use by MS products, so only the words are similar. But an X in
front
>> of Windows - which MS never uses - hardly substantially similar,
especially
>> when one takes into account the context in which it is used in a magazine
>> article.
>
>Please do not relate everything I write to the example of a magazine
article.
>That was just an example, and does not directly relate to the original
issue of
>whether the name X-Windows should be adopted.
>
The context in which a trademark is used by the registrant, a competitor
or even a non-competitor will determine whether the trademark is being
infringed under the law. You offered an incorrect example. Give me a
different one and I might agree with you.
If the issue is whether X-Windows should be adopted as an official name
for the X Window System, the answer to that is simple. X-Windows is not the
official name, and there is no reason to make it so. I further agree that
making the official name X-Windows would probably infringe MS's trademark.
So there.
Jeffrey B. Siegal
John W. wrote:
> Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <353653C3...@quiotix.com>...
> <snip>
> >Still MS
> >certainly has an major interest in high performance and server computing
> (both
> >traditional strongholds of Unix), they do care what Unix users and buyers
> >perceive....
>
> MS has no plans to port *any* of its
> software to any of the freely available unix or unix-like platforms such as
> Linux - although it might have a market there. The only thing that MS has
> done recently is port IE to Sun's version of unix. To say the least, it has
> not gotten rave reviews. I would hardly call it adoption of MS products at
> a furious rate, and I would not view it as reflecting a "major interest" or
> "care" by MS for what Unix users and buyers perceive.
The point is not that Microsoft wants to port their software to Unix; they want
to replace it, or at least substitute for it when the issue is making or losing
a sale. Microsoft would like Windows NT to satisfy the needs (server and high
performance computing) which have been traditionally satisfied by Unix. So you
might say that Microsoft is interested in turning Unix users and buyers into
*former* Unix users and buyers. They seem to be succeeding.
> I have better things to do with my time than nit-pick over legal issues.
> You were wrong in the example you gave. So I suggest that if you want to
> give bad legal advice, you can do that elsewhere.
I do not believe that posting to a newsgroup is or should be taken to be legal
advice, good or bad.
> If the issue is whether X-Windows should be adopted as an official name
> for the X Window System, the answer to that is simple.
That *was* the issue.
> I further agree that
> making the official name X-Windows would probably infringe MS's trademark.
> So there.
Finally, agreement!
John W.
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <3536CFAF...@quiotix.com>...
>John W. wrote:
<snip>
>The point is not that Microsoft wants to port their software to Unix; they
want
>to replace it, or at least substitute for it when the issue is making or
losing
>a sale. Microsoft would like Windows NT to satisfy the needs (server and
high
>performance computing) which have been traditionally satisfied by Unix. So
you
>might say that Microsoft is interested in turning Unix users and buyers
into
>*former* Unix users and buyers. They seem to be succeeding.
I agree. I think that MS wants to rule the computing world. But that
would be about as good as giving Oracle's Larry Ellison the power to decide
how we use the Internet. Bad ideas all around. But even if MS wants Unix
users to become non-Unix users, I'm not sure that they have won the hearts
and minds of people using Unix. Until it does, X and Unix will remain a
different world.
Unix and unix-like systems have the advantage of giving people the
autonomy to do computing the way they want to, and not the way someone else
thinks they should. Given the smarts, a person could re-write their system,
add and remove features, and make enormous adjustments to customize a Unix
or unix-like system to suit their needs and tastes. You can't do that with
MS products because the source code is not as freely available. So, In the
final analysis, I think MS has a little bit of a religious war on its hands
when it comes to making converts. (BTW, I keep adding the words "unix-like"
because Unix is also a registered trademark that cannot technically be used
in connection with any system other than that of the registered trademark
holder.)
>
>Finally, agreement!
Yes, Indeed.
s. keeling
Matthew Reynolds <ma...@anvilsoft.com> writes:
>
> A chilling reminder: The sales of UNIX workstations on the desktop
> actually declined
> last year by 7%.
Is that all? I know of forty that disappeared last year.
No-one I know works with a unix desktop; they all have some form of
Winx machines that connect with/to unix (and other) servers.
My client plans to phase out unix servers within two years.
Chyaa, right.
--
kee...@spots.ab.ca Contract programmer, server dude.
TopQuark Software & Serv. Enquire within.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Omegaman
Wolfgang Rupprecht <wolf...@dailyplanet.wsrcc.com> writes:
> Why is it that that the Cokacola company hires people to buy 'coke' at
> various restaurants and and takes them to court is they sell other
> brands of soda in response? If you don't defend it, you lose it.
REally? Where? Certainly doesn't happen in the South where all
carbonated drinks are referred to as "coke". The terms soda and pop
aren't in common usage. So you get exchanges like this:
Me: ...and I need a coke.
Vendor: What kind?
This was thoroughly off-topic but amused me nonetheless...
--
-------------(( http://www.communique.net/~omegam ))-----------------
Omegaman<mailto:ome...@cmq.com> | "When they kick out your front door,
PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come?
6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head,
59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?"
Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton"
"Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979
----------------------------------------------------------------------
newhouse at rockhead dot com
s. keeling wrote:
> No-one I know works with a unix desktop;
That's because you live in an M$ centric environment. I work with
a primary Unix desktop (NetBSD). I can't think of any developer I
work with that doesn't have a primary UNIX workstation. Some
management-chain types have MAC's (it's a long story ... don't ask).
> they all have some form of Uinx machines that connect with/to unix
> (and other) servers.
Only to play games and view an occasional document that various
clowns send them in some M$ format. Event though HTML would be more
generic.
> My client plans to phase out unix servers within two years.
Why? Have they done side by side performance comparisions? Or are
they suffering from some "single vendor" fever?
How many Terabytes are they serving? We are running about
1TB/server. Seeing about 60+MB/s through a Unix file system. What
kind of numbers does your client get on NT? (Just curious, se saw
less.) That would be on Alpha 4000's and PP200's with 6-PCI SCSI
connections per TB.
> --
> kee...@spots.ab.ca Contract programmer, server dude.
>
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
> advanced.
I certainly don't want to rely on someone else's magic for my
servers. If I can't distingiush it what makes you think they can?
Paul
--
newh...@rockhead.com Contract Software Engineer, Mass Storage Dude