Slashdot Log In
Who Owns The Linux Trademark?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 21, 2007 10:26 AM
from the turns-out-i-do dept.
from the turns-out-i-do dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In an addendum to the recent noises by Microsoft about Linux, InformationWeek blogger Alexander Wolfe has turned up an interesting list of who owns U.S. trademarks on the word "Linux." Yes, Linus Torvalds does indeed have the trademark as far as software is concerned. But Swiss company Rosch owns "Linux" for use with laundry detergents. Interestingly, both Pogo Linux and United Linux have abandoned their trademarks (Wolfe speculates that's because of Linus's lawyers). But Finite State Machines of New Mexico owns RTLinux and Linux Networx Inc. owns "Linux Supercomputing." You can also read the full list of all 204 Linux trademarks"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Who Owns It? Apparently Many Do (Score:5, Funny)
Was Janis a F/OSS coder ahead of her time? (Score:2)
OTOH, given that death is a heartbeat away, perhaps the materialism was overrated.
Re: (Score:2)
My friends all have frame rates that are so much higher
Write code all my lifetime, still no firewire,
So oh Lord, won't you code me a kernel driver!
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exmaple of similar trademarked companys:
Apple Records (the ones the Beatles owned)
Apple Computers (the one that Jobs owns)
Apple Vacations
Remember there was a big legal stink [wikipedia.org] between Apple Records and Apple Computers when the former released a sound card in their computer. Apple Records said that meant they were getting into the music business and then latter with iTunes.
Parent
Apples and Bicycles. (Score:3, Interesting)
The more important question is ... (Score:5, Funny)
1) Bill Gates and/or Microsoft
2) Steve Jobs and/or Apple
3) Rupert Murdock and/or MySpace
4) SCO (via litigation from Linus, Gates, Jobs or Murdock)
5) IBM (via litigation from SCO or cash from Linus)
6) Cowboy Neal (via high bid on eBay)
Re:The more important question is ... (Score:5, Funny)
8) Officer Barbrady
9) Leeroy Jenkins
10) ???
11) Profit!
12) I'll die in the future you insensitive clod!
Parent
Interesting, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Im not saying this is completely uninteresting. But I think it's a little strong to tie it to the "noise by Microsoft about Linux".
Re: (Score:2)
No, of course not. Trademarks purposefully apply only to a certain field of operation. This whole article is about the bleeding obvious and could as well have said "gee, did you know there's a Mario Pizza in other states as well?".
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Everyone knows that Linux is a line of laundry detergents and laundry bleaches for home use; all purpose cleaning preparations; general purpose scouring powders; skin soap.
Made from Penguins, no doubt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever moderated you insightfull needs a clue bat. Let's move on the the often-but-apparently-not-enough said explanation:
Important as no "prior art" for tm exist (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it does matters, indeed. There is no such thing as a "prior art" in trademarks.
- The first to file a trademark is the first to own, no matter if the name has been around for centuries (like the term "Windows" which was used since the original Dr. Douglas C. Engelbart demo to designate an application visual space in a graphical multi-task environment).
- Also, the trademark owner has the obligation to sue ("to enforce it's trademark") otherwise he can loose the trademark and the word may get genericised (Google fighting actively against the "verbing" of it's name to designated the act of searching on the web).
- The only limitation is that a trademark name cannot use some generic name in it's field (You can trademark "Google", because in english similarly sounding "pair of goggles" is an optical device that has nothing to do with online search engines also the similarly sounding "googol" is a mathematical concept. Google is unheard of when speaking of search engine) (As a counter example a "window" is part of a graphical interface. Thus Microsoft has patented combinations of it "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft Windows Vista", etc... and have a set of painfully long "trademark guidelines" on their website)
- Also, a trademark infringement is considered only when there's an actual conflict between two names, where both could be used to designate similar objects. As said by other
Back to our case :
Yes it is important, because otherwise that means that, some idiotic troll company that has nothing better to do, like, say, SCO, could patent "SCO Linux" or "Linux" for their product and then sue the shit out of other distribution makers or OSS projects for "patent infringement" because the others "Linux" infringe on theirs, and all can be confused because all are in fact names of operating system distributions, and "Linux" isn't a generic term.
By securing "Linux", Linus has avoided such a stupid situation. The fact that other companies has similarly sounding names doesn't pose any problem, because there's no way one could mix "Linux as the OSS kernel and distribution bsed on it" with "Linux the swiss detergent" (although this has been a running joke in a campaign advertising for computing courses here in Switzerland...)
In fact such a situation HAS happened before, and one was featured very recently on
Initially the project started as a AOL client, and AOL simply forced them not to use their name in the project name. Thus the project choose GAIM for name, using the initialism for "AOL Internet Messaging" that AOL wasn't using at that time.
Later, AOL registered "AIM" as a trademark for their own product (which was possible because the usage of "GAIM" wasn't widespread enough... and of course wasn't registered in the first place), and ended up unleashing their lawyers on GAIM because both project had similarly sounding names and designate closely related products (both are clients for internet messaging services).
Thus the Pidgin new name.
Parent
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We need a new penguin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That email is a good example of one way in which Linus is an effective manager. He had a clear vision about the logo and explained it vividly, using humor to reinforce the message.
old news (Score:2)
There are many, many more (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, this list [bmb-bbm.org] is the one for Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Jump on the bandwagon (Score:4, Funny)
Trademarks are Per *Industry* (Score:5, Informative)
If someone (reasonable) sees a mark, do they think it represents the thing offered in trade, or do they think it represents a competitor?
Trademark law requires that mark registrants "vigorously defend from dilution" their mark: actively find others offering under their registered mark competing products, then instruct the competitor to stop using the mark fraudulently or without authorization. If the mark registrant doesn't "vigorously defend" their mark, the market can become confused, diluting the exclusive meaning of the mark, and the registrant can lose their registration, making it available to the competitor (who's then got the same responsibility, if they reregister it themself).
Reasonable people are expected to distinguish between a computer OS and a soap. The Trademark Office registers marks in specific industries (with a fee for each industry in which it's registered). But courts sometimes have difficult questions in defining distinctions, especially in new industries like software.
Trademark is probably the most reasonable "intellectual property" law in the US. Because it's defined in service of the consumer, to ensure the clear flow of info between the mark holder and the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
If the mark registrant doesn't "vigorously defend" their mark, ... the registrant can lose their registration, making it available to the competitor (who's then got the same responsibility, if they reregister it themself).
Trademark is probably the most reasonable "intellectual property" law in the US.
The first paragraph makes me think that the new owner of the mark could force the previous owner to stop using the mark. Is this really reasonable, or is this case covered in some other way?
Re: (Score:2)
That is the entire point. The trademark is designed to serve the market, by clearly identifying the distinct product/service offered in trade. It is not just another arbitrary piece of property that is purely an asset to its owner (the registrant).
If everyone buying beverages thinks "Coca-Cola" means the stuff I brew in my bathtub, because I've advertised it for years without the Coke Corporation even
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/linux-detergent
And yes, it is a real photo!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Computer & Operating System (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You could trademark "Computer Biscuits" as a brand of biscuits, or "Biscuit Computers" as a brand of computers, but not descriptive terms like "Biscuits" or "Oat Biscuits" as biscuits, or "Computer" or "Personal Computer" in computing.
It's a laundry soap /and/ an operating system! (Score:2)
Images? (Score:2)
Maybe the plain text list is copyrighted! Which leads to another kinf of legal issues.
pengins (Score:4, Funny)
Bill Sparks, Chief of R&D
Purina Dog Food Company
St. Louis, Missouri 63164
At one point, Linux laundry detergent came with (Score:2)
Does this constitute trademark infringement by Rosche against Linus Torvalds?
It certainly could lead to confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Knoppix has Linus's Linux in it, so I don't see how it could cause any confusion between Linux and some competing product in the field of computer operating systems. The same argument applies to the soap.
Re: (Score:2)
If the makers of Linux laundry soap decide to bundle Linux software (different trademark), this is the area where the confusion can occur. And this was happening at one point. THe argument that it was unclear from looking at the package that these were in fact different (but identically spelled) trademarks bundled together might allow that argument.
Furthermore, this was covered on Slashdot when it happened, iirc. It did hit a lot of the tech news, and it is unlikely that To
Ummm. (Score:2)
Linux in the form of a laundry detergent? (Score:3, Funny)
This is great news! It should be included in HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux [tldp.org]. Linux usage will soar at last! Now we need a Linux beer to cover the male non-geek audience and world domination will be assured!
Porn? (Score:2)
Can I start a new political party, The Linux Party?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that, an AC who lacks common knowledge, or who pretends to in order to troll, you troll.
Re:imagine that (Score:5, Funny)
OTOH, MS's defence might be that they *are* involved in the enema industry, since the public has been taking it up the ass from them for years...
No Bill Gates (TM) douche for similar reasons.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:imagine that (Score:5, Informative)
The anti-dilution act is evil and should be repealed in its entirety, but that ain't gonna happen. It has been watered down somewhat by the courts.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
2. Xenix was not (to my knowledge) "written for the US Government". You're probably thinking of BSD.
3. Did you copy and paste part of that from Wikipedia? I swear, your line about Microsoft licensing is exactly the same.
4. Linux was not "based on" Minix. It was always its own kernel. (Which is obvious from its monolithic rather than microkernel design.) What it lacked was a userspace, which Minix had when Linus started. So users had make use of certain Minix programs and modules to make a usable system out of Linux.
5. Linus did not "find he had created a new kernel". (Again, you seem to be confusing BSD history in there.) He was reliant on some parts of Minix until the GNU tools became available to replace the userland with something a bit more available than Tanenbaum's research OS.
6. I'm not sure where you got the "freex" idea from. Linux was always called Linux. There is nothing in the historical usenet archives (which are still available) to suggest that Linux was considering any other name.
Parent
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
Linux because it was too egotistical. What was the name I reserved
for any eventual release? Freax. (Get it? Freaks with the requisite
X.) In fact, some of the early make files --the files that describe
how to compile the sources-- included the word "Freax" for about
half a year. But it really didn't matter. At that point I didn't need a
name for it because I wasn't releasing it to anybody.
And Ari Lemke, who insured that it made its way to the ftp
site, hated the name Freax. He preferred the other working name I
admit that I didn't put up much of a fight. But it was his doing. So
I can honestly say I wasn't egotistical, or half-honestly say I wasn't
egotistical. But I thought okay, that's a good name, and I can
always blame somebody else for it, which I'm doing now.
-- Linus Torvalds p84 and p88 "Just for fun"
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well you should check this in English Wikipedia and, if you and UseNet groups desagree, edit the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Linux_ kernel#The_name [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Minix was a teaching tool so it was used exactly how it was intended. I think saying that Linux was inspired by Minix is fair. Just so the record is straight the author of Minix states that Linux isn't based on Minix and who should know better.
I would like to think that Minix has a nice safe "family" relationship with Linux
Sort of my atempt to bury the Tanebaum vs Linus flame war of the early days
BTW Min
WTF? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)