Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Patents

Linux Trademark Protection In Australia 376

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the decease-and-resist dept.
robyannetta writes "Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required), if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing. About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm. Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Trademark Protection In Australia More

Linux Trademark Protection In Australia

Comments Filter:

  • Appropriate phrasing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Monday August 15, 2005 @08:51PM (#13326721) Homepage Journal
    ...may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name (warning: Registration Required) [Emphasis added]

    So you have to register to read about how people may have to register...

    • Re:Appropriate phrasing (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=smh.com.au [bugmenot.com]

      User: SamJones42
      Pass: SamJones42

    • PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:36AM (#13328114)
      Ok. Jeremy is my Lawyer, and folks actually need to understand he's a bloody good guy who helped out a community journalism group I'm involved with free of charge once because , well we where poor asses and he's got a heart.

      Jeremy is doing this as LINUS's rep here so as to assert that the trademark application is REAL, so as to stop unsrupulous companies abusing the name "Linux" or trying to trademark it.

      I dont know if they intend to collect on the money, my suspicion is that its pretty damn negotiable. Its just to assert that linus's trademark is a real one.

      I don't know what the deal is with Jeremys Scientology suite was. I know he stepped down from the EFA over it, which was the ethical thing to do. Either way, I doubt Jeremy can answer that concern for you because of the lawyer/client confidentiality thing. I guess everyone has a black -spot in the history.

      [b]THERES ALWAYS MORE TO THE STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE[/b]

      Jeremy is a geek. A raging geek. He's proud of it too. He gives a damn about linux, and you can be assured this is not some SCO type grab.
      • If they don't intend to collect the money, why not set the price at $0.01? Then people who were scared into paying wouldn't feel so bad about it.
        If the price list says $5000, it looks as though they actually expect to collect thousands of dollars, even if they give everyone a discount. And if there are lawers involved, they would have to collect a good bit of money to pay their fees. Even geeky lawyers expect to be paid. Or is Jeremy doing this for free too?
      • I received the letter in /email/ as well - what bothers me is that none of my products or service have linux used in their names, /none/. I know that the various projects I have OpenSourced will run in linux but that's the extent of it.

        The letter was sent out in the evening and quite honestly is immediately ranked as spam/scam in my eyes such to the point where I started hunting around for a way to contact Linus or a group representing Linus to inform him of this.

        In the end I wrote back a simple email sayi

      • Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @07:58AM (#13329159) Homepage
        Well given the name Linux was invented by a third party, and the prior use I hope the mark gets thrown out. And if he's your lawyer you should be ashamed.

        We had a similar scan in the EU (Austria primarily) of someone making the same kind of "for the good of Linux' type claims. That one was dealt with in the same way I hope this is.. crushed underfoot.

        • Re:PANIC NOT., THERES MORE TO THE STORY!!! (Score:4, Informative)

          by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @09:41AM (#13329702)
          Alan, with deference to you and all, he's acting for Linux mark. You know. The trust thingee linus entrusted the his Linux Trademark to. But you should know that right?

          The whole deal has to do with Linux australia, acting for Linux Mark, filed to register the trademark to stop unscrupulous mobs claiming it or whatever. The judge has noted other companies are already using it.

          So the letter went out to companies with linux in the name to just simply state for them that they are using the name under licence from Linus Torvalds via Linux Mark/Linux Australia.

          Its possible a figure has to be attached to it to make it a real deal.

          Somewhere in the mess, this has all gotten mushed up in the madness of the press.

          Believe me Alan, Jeremy is well known in the Aust Open Source scene. This isnt a scam, and privately between you and me (and the rest of slashdot), I'd take a wager he wont follow thru on the bill. Because thats not actually what this is about.

          he didn't when he represented me (being that I was unemployed at the time).

  • Er, uh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luigi30 ( 656867 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @08:52PM (#13326723)
    Isn't this the kind of thing Free Software was supposed to be against? Anyone can distribute their own flavor of Linux and call it Linux without being threatened by lawsuits over trademarks?

    • Re:Er, uh (Score:3, Informative)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 )
      Ignore it.

      Jere4my Malcom isn't a practicing lawyer. He's a whore for the Church of Scientology.

      Just do a google for "Jeremy Malcolm Scientology". All he does is write letters, which you can safely ignore, since he never follows through.

      He's just another crackpot trying to hustle a few buck.

      • Re:Er, uh (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )
        I don't know...everything I've read says that the CoS lawyers are mean and vindictive, and spare no expense to make you miserable. Maybe this guy is just a Scientologist, and not part of the cult's legal army?

        I tried that Google search you suggested [google.com] and it looks like he tried to sue Google because Google Search linked to pages where people got pissed off after he tried to sue them.

      • Re:Er, uh (Score:2, Informative)

        by Michael Hunt ( 585391 )
        Mr Malcolm is quite a respected individual in these parts; having been an EFA board member, and being involved with Western Australia's pre-eminent Internet Association on some level for quite some time.

        He's also a lawyer; in that capcity he has acted both for (see previous cites) Scientology, and against it (www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual00.html, www.apana.org.au/Reports/Annual/Annual01.html).

        He voluntarily stood down from the board of EFA during his actions on behalf of CoS, in order to prevent ac

  • Err, excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Famanoran ( 568910 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @08:53PM (#13326733)
    Doesn't Linus own the 'Linux' trademark already?
    • Here's an article [zdnet.com.au] stating as much.

    • Re:Err, excuse me? (Score:2, Informative)

      by QuantumG ( 50515 )
      and guess who the lawyers are representing. This article is the biggest troll ever to get posted on Slashdot. There's a FAQ [ilaw.com.au] for anyone who actually cares to learn what Linus is trying to acheive in Australia.

      • Yeah, QuantumG posted this same attempt at a refutation of the story elsewhere on this discussion. I still don't get it. You are attempting to refute a claim against a lawyer by referring us to the lawyer's FAQ. That's not an unbiased source.

        And, really, what gives you the ability to speak for Linus Torvalds? You may indeed have that warrant, but you have given me no reason to believe so.

        And I've seen no clear indication that these lawyers are representing the interests of Linus Torvalds. Can you give
    • Yes he does, but unless he defends it, under US law, he can lose his rights to it. The Licencing scheme does that.
  • Just google for Jeremey Malcolm scientology.

    He's a crackpot scientologist.

    First hit: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm [holysmoke.org] is really interesting.

    • Hey Moderators! Do not mod down as troll until you've read the history of moderation!

      I have and it's all lies lies I tells ya!
      • Guess there are a few scientologists who monitor slashdot ... (which we already knew, since they've tried to get posts that point out how cracked they are removed in the past).

        Linkies: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm [holysmoke.org]

        snippet:
        ---&<---&<---
        Scientology whore lawyer Jeremy Malcolm DMCAs Google

        Following the lead of his master, the "lawyer from Hell" Jeremy Malcolm DMCA'ed Google, demanding the removal of "lawyer from Hell" sites about him.

        http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/not ice.cgi?NoticeID=428

        Attorney Demands Removal of "Lawyer From Hell" Sites

        Dear Sirs

        DMCA Complaint

        I write to complain about infringements of copyrights held by me (which are also defamatory of me, but I realise defamation is outside of thee ambit of this complaint procedure). The search query which brings up each of the pages below is "[private]".

        The results are as follows:
        ---&<---&<---
        or http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/legal/ [sweenytod.com]
        snippet:
        ---&<---&<---
        cientology have a well deserved reputation of being a very aggressive organisation, accepting no criticism of their organisation or of their dead creator, L Ron Hubbard. They are legendary on the Internet with their attacks on freedom of speech, with legal action on almost every cotenant to force critics to take down web sites.

        Well, my humble offering is no exception. Scientology in Perth, Western Australia has started legal action to force me to remove this site. When it became obvious that I was not going to do so, they threatened my ISP with legal action, asking him to remove my site. They even went so far as to offer him immunity from the upcoming lawsuit.

        This page will be updated as the situation progresses.
        The Players.
        Jeremy Malcolm
        The lawyer for Scientology is a local man called Jeremy Malcolm. JM used to be on the board of an organisation called Electronic Fronters Australia . EFA is "is a non-profit national organisation formed to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems."

        From his position of fighting for freedom of speech, he is now fighting to stifle it. But that's life. I suppose a man has to do what a man feels he has to do. You can visit Jeremy Malcolm's web sites at the following locations.
        ---&<---&<---
        There's lots more. This guy is a self-promoter, and now he's trying to do a SCO.
    • Take a chill pill. He is legit. He's a lawyer. He's representing Linux Australia who are operating under instructions from the Linux Mark Institute who represent Linus. It's all perfectly above board. Lawyers will represent anyone who can pay. To form an opinion of a lawyer based on one case they did is naive to the extreme. If you want to see what Jeremy Malcolm is all about, go read what he has written [ilaw.com.au] or look at the other cases he has been involved in. He introduced the first anti-SPAM act in Australia.
      • One case? Come off it - the guy is in internet kook.

        The Linux Mark Institute made a mistake. And I HAVE read some of the crap he wrote at the url you point to - which includes his statement about Linux violating patents, without giving a single example.

        Anti-vilification? Hey, unless he's willing to give any examples of those purported patent violations, I'm justified in saying he's full of shit, in spades.

        And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits.

        • Believe it or not, not everything you read on the internet is true.

          And he's far from being an advocate of free speech. He is always threatening people with SLAP suits.

          It's spelled SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). And if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples? You can't? What a surprise.

          I've met Jeremy. His company, Terminus Network Services [terminus.net.au] hosts my flooble.net site. All indications are that he's a decent bloke,

  • Soon to be the empty set.

  • Bugmenot link (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nitehawk214 ( 222219 )
    link [bugmenot.com]

    My favoite quote from TF Lawyer "At this point, the exercise is not about extracting fees from people."

    No, not at up to A$5000, it couldnt possibly be about the money.

    • Re:Bugmenot link (Score:3, Interesting)

      by boarder ( 41071 )
      If you read the ACTUAL story from the group, it isn't about extracting fees completely.

      He isn't saying that you have to pay to use Linux in your business name, he is saying that if you choose to TRADEMARK said name THEN you have to pay.

      This is guaranteeing that nobody can trademark the name linux without paying and that nobody can completely trademark the name linux.

      Now, I'm guessing that the fee is to pay for the lawyers when someone does license it. It does seem fishy and the lawyers themselves even stat

  • Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc, he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application.

    I think that is a but underhanded. Even in the US, isn't Linus' policy that people can pretty much use the Linux name as long as they are decent about it? I forget where I read it, but I seem to recall that he could go after lots of commercial entities (Red Hat, Progeny, and s

  • Is that a cluster i see in the photo?

  • Login: (Score:2, Informative)

    by Eightyford ( 893696 )
    Login: SlashyLaRue

    Password: slashdot

  • Full article for the lazy (Score:4, Informative)

    by ZakuSage ( 874456 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:00PM (#13326776)
    Australian companies providing Linux products and services may soon have to pay up to $A5000 a year to licence the operating system name, if the patents agency IP Australia grants a trademark application it is reviewing.

    About 90 companies with products, services or websites containing the word "Linux" recently received letters of demand from Perth lawyer Jeremy Malcolm.

    Acting for user group Linux Australia Inc [linux.org.au], he asks recipients to sign statements saying their use of the word is subject to the group's licence agreement, which has fees of $A200 to $A5000 under a successful trademark application. Those using the term in a descriptive sense do not have to pay, he says.

    "It is your legal responsibility to obtain a licence from the Linux Mark Institute before you are allowed to use the word 'Linux' as part of your product or service name or brand," Mr Malcolm wrote to companies.

    User group president Jonathan Oxer says the trademark application is to protect the name from abuse. "At this point, the exercise is not about extracting fees from people," he says. "It's an extremely small number of people that are likely to have to licence it. It's about establishing the trademark. This is the reality of working in the commercial world that we're in now."

    Reactions ranged from support to confusion.

    "I suspected it was a scam, so I posted the message (to a local mailing list) to find out more," says Richard Ham, a Sunshine Coast IT consultant whose ventures include his EdIT Counsel consultancy and Linux-related website http://linuxhowtos.net/ [slashdot.org]">linuxhowtos.net.

    Investigations relieved Mr Ham's concerns, but not everyone is so understanding.

    "There's been a mixture of positive support and paranoia, and that's kind of what I expected," says Mr Malcolm, who was engaged in a celebrated 2002 anti-spamming case against Perth company T3.

    The trademark action emerged after a 2003 conflict in which an Adelaide Linux consultancy called itself Linux Australia Pty Ltd. The user group, in operation for years, took exception to the name's similarity and blocked the application through IP Australia. The consultancy changed its name to OpenEra but the incident highlighted that the Linux name was in legal limbo because it was unregistered.

    The user group acted to become an agent for the Linux Mark Institute, a US-based organisation created in 2002 to police use of Linux creator Linus Torvalds' trademark after he became concerned about a website operator selling pornography through http://linuxchix.com/ [slashdot.org]">linuxchix.com.

    The Australian trademark application was lodged with the trademarks office on January 19 last year. It has an acceptance due date of September 7.

    In the weeks leading to that date, Mr Malcolm hopes to build momentum for the initiative so the trademark will be granted to Mr Torvalds, with the user group monitoring use in Australia.

    About a dozen letters have been returned and Mr Malcolm is in talks with IP Australia over whether that is enough.

    "I'm hopeful that just to show that we've got positive responses from some of the most important users of Linux out there will be enough to convince IP Australia to grant the trademark," he says.

    OpenEra, whose inadvertent naming conflict with the user group started the process, got its letter last week and "we'll be signing it", says managing director Hosi Stankovic.

    "We have the legacy of (the dispute) and all the hate mails but we don't really have any objections to (the user group) registering the name," he says.

    "We just want a trademark and to have it safe to trade with."

  • Claim: LINUS supports it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:06PM (#13326809)
    This article, Suspicions fade over Linux trademark move [zdnet.com.au] on ZDNet Australia that I dug up claims that, "letters sent out by a lawyer acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds are part of a legitimate process to ensure the open source software's creator maintains control of the 'Linux' trademark."

    Can someone please get LINUS to verify this preposterous claim? I would not be surprised if Linux Australia is not a legitimate user group at all.

    • Re:Claim: LINUS supports it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by zsau ( 266209 ) <slashdot@the c a r t ographers.net> on Monday August 15, 2005 @11:23PM (#13327549) Homepage Journal
      linux.org.au has been a registered domain name for some years. Back before broadband, I found the supplier [lsl.com.au] for my first Linux CD, Red Hat 5.1 when it was fresh, through it. (I think the CDs cost about $10, which took me a while to save up for. I was in year 7 or 8 at the time :)

      The webpage looks drastically different, though, and it's possible that over the years the membership has changed so that it's no longer there for Linux users, but there to extort the name. I don't really know what my opinion should be.
    • Linux Australia [linux.org.au] is the group organising the big linux.conf.au [linux.conf.au] conference each year. (Both Linus and /. editors have attended in the past...)

      They are currently in the process of setting themselves up as the group to talk to if you want to talk to FOSS volunteers in Australia. This is pretty much a self-appointed role for them, but they have put a lot of effort into communicating with the LUGs all over the country and they have deeper pockets and a higher profile than the LUGs due to organising the region's
  • Created an account on there for all of you to use: Username: slshdt0816 Password: slashdot

  • explanation (Score:4, Informative)

    by ehaggis ( 879721 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:15PM (#13326857) Homepage Journal
    There is a letter from the lawyer at http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html [ilaw.com.au]. It spells out the intent of the letter a bit better than the articles.

    Evidently it was a poorly written letter in the 1st place. Some lawyer.

  • Conversion. (Score:2, Redundant)

    by FrankieBoy ( 452356 )
    ... up to $A5000 a year ...

    So that works out to about...50 pence?

  • scammer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:20PM (#13326881)
    he is just attempting to scam people, there is a great different between selling a IT product called "linux something" and linuxchix.com. the spirit of linuxmark is to prevent the misuse of the linux name in cases such as linuxchix.com, so that it's legitimate use won't be ruined. money has nothing to do with this. this guy is a con artist.
  • What would Tony Soprano do?

    Fahgetaboutit...

  • Registration NOT required... (Score:5, Informative)

    by SJ ( 13711 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:26PM (#13326902)
    If you remove the 'oneclick' argument from the URL.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/next/linux-trademark-pr otection-comes-at-a-cost-for-some/2005/08/15/11239 57995044.html [smh.com.au]

  • That's not so bad... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#13326906)
    He's not charging all that much for use of the trademark. I don't usually see monetary figures in hex, though. I guess that's just a Linus thing. But $41,472 - $42,240 seems pretty reasonable.

  • Until Linus himself endorses this.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Generalisimo Zang ( 805701 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:29PM (#13326918)
    Until Linus himself comments on this, I'm going to have to assume that this whole thing is a scam, and that their claiming to be acting as "agents of Linus Torvalds" is simply a lie.

    It looks like a scam, sounds like a scam, and is spearheaded by a guy who's previous internet comments make him look like a loon.

    I seriously doubt that this is in any way legit. Seems like a SCO-like scam, with less finesse and even less of the veneer of respectibility than the SCO scam.

  • This isn't exactly the latest news. From ZDNet Australia, 13-August-2004: [zdnet.com.au]

    As reported by ZDNet Australia on Tuesday, Linux Australia Inc has secured Linus Torvald's support to register the word "Linux" as a trademark with Australia's intellectual property regulator. The move is designed to prevent local companies attempting to claim the word as their own, but it will also throw open the possibility that local Linux vendors will start paying royalties to trade on the term for the first time.

    Still not parti

  • Necessary evil (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bandraginus ( 901166 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @09:34PM (#13326942)
    Guys, the Slashdot summary is a little misleading. The group "Linux Australia Inc" is NOT applying for the trademark.

    I work at the patent office here in Australia and so I looked it up. The details of the trademark are:

    Trade Mark : 985197
    Type of Mark: Word
    Acceptance Due: 07-SEP-2005
    Class/es: 9, 16, 42
    Owner/s: Linus Torvalds
                        GPO Box 4788
                        SYDNEY,2071,NSW
                        AUSTRALIA

    This actually seems to be a genuine attempt at preventing malicious abuse of the Linux name.

    So I'm a bit ambivalent about this trademark. On one hand it goes against the spirit of open-ness. On the other hand I can think of numerous examples where I would want this enforced (eg, it protects the name from abuse by certain world-dominating-software-companies who may have an interest in dirtying the name).

    I'm no fan of patents in IT, but this seems like a necessary evil to me.

    Sad reflection of the times we live in... :(

    • Re:Necessary evil (Score:4, Informative)

      by jonoxer ( 547509 ) on Monday August 15, 2005 @10:45PM (#13327348) Homepage
      Thanks for pointing out the facts of this application! It looks like a lot of people are getting very upset for no particular reason, which is dissappointing.

      This trademark application is being done to ensure that Linus has control of use of the "Linux" trademark in Australia. It's *not* a money-grabbing exercise by a lone scam artist. For reference, the relevant players are:

      LMI (Linux Mark Institute) which was created as an organisation to administer the "Linux" trademark on behalf of Linus.

      Linux Australia, the national representative body for Linux users and developers in Australia which is acting on behalf of LMI to secure the trademark in Australia for Linus.

      Jeremy Malcolm, who is Linux Australia's legal counsel and has been working for more than a year to shepherd the application through IP Australia and despite the claims of previous posts is *not* a scientologist loon, but rather the victim of a character assassination attempt by a certain individual who for several years has been mischaracterising him online.

      One other thing that needs clearing up is that trademarks are *not* patents! They are totally different things. Many earlier posts have made ridiculous statements about the GPL protecting the name "Linux" and generally confusing the two.

      • But PAY for it?!? (Score:3, Informative)

        by vhogemann ( 797994 )
        Ok, but why charge for the use?

        I mean, keep the use free of charge, but require anyone using the word "Linux" to send a copy of their work to be certified, or something... but don't charge for it!

        Because, if I want to hack Linux and put inside my clockwatch... and them make it avaliable on my website under the name of WatchLinux for FREE, I wont want to pay someone to use the trademark... Hell, I'd rather make a WatchNetBSD or something!

    • Re:Necessary evil (Score:3, Informative)

      by zsau ( 266209 )
      Checking the GPO Box, it seems it's owned by Linux Australia, Inc., not the Linus Torvalds we know and feel ambivalent about.

      Does that mean anything? I, for one, don't know.

  • Linus (Score:2, Informative)

    by appavi ( 679094 )
    Linux Trademark owned by Linus
    See Slashdot post
    http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/19/0828245.shtm l [slashdot.org]

  • I run a small consulting company that had the words Linux mentioned in several places on the Website. I'm one of those who got the email letter from Jeremy. Anyway, my blog below provides a brief summary.

    http://www.livelogcity.com/users/penguinman/269.ht ml [livelogcity.com]

    Maybe we need a new non-trademarked word to refer to Linux in Australia, so that small companies like mine can still refer to this OS without having to worry about paying no trademark license. Maybe we can all put Tux icon in place of the word Linux.

  • Somehow, this could help bring some order to the GNU/Linux and Linux confusion, over which expression to use. Since Linux is the kernel, strickly speaking, to uphold that trademark, all uses of Linux when GNU/Linux was actually meant should be dealt with in order to protect the Linux trademark. It's the law. If you have a trademark, you must protect it's usage and context.
  • Jeremy's other work has also including defending people against spammer's who've sued for being put on blacklists. How quickly the tide turns [slashdot.org]. As others have pointed out, he's also a very strong anti-spam campaigner.

    As a disclaimer: I have met Jeremy a fair few times. I also work with his cousin and the treasurer of Linux Australia. Neither have given me any comment on this matter.

  • Linux Australia's explanation (Score:3, Informative)

    by hypatia ( 86372 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:04AM (#13327988)
    The president of Linux Australia (which is, btw, kind of an umbrella group for Australian LUGs and which manages the linux.conf.au conference), said this [oxer.com.au] in his blog:
    There'll be a bit of an update about this soon by someone more knowledgeable than myself, but in the meantime the important thing to know is that the email is part of the process that LMI (Linux Mark Institute) has been undertaking to secure the trademark to the word "Linux". LMI is acting on behalf of Linus Torvalds to establish and protect the Linux trademark in various jurisdictions around the world, and has enlisted the assistance of local organisations within those jurisdictions to act as local representatives. Linux Australia has been cooperating with LMI to assist with securing the trademark in Australia.

    Jeremy Malcolm has also published a FAQ [ilaw.com.au], including the following:

    What was the purpose of your letter?
    There are many businesses in Australia that are using the word "Linux" as part of their operations. IP Australia, our trade mark registrar, knows this, and considers it an obstacle for the success of Linus Torvalds' application to register "Linux" as a trade mark here. We need to show IP Australia that although a lot of people may be using "Linux" in a trade mark context, they are doing so under licence of Linus (or strictly, under sub-licence from LMI).

    Why was I sent the letter?
    The letter was sent to anyone whom it appeared might have been using the word "Linux", or some derivative of that word, in a trade mark context.

    But I'm not using it in a trade mark context!
    That's good to know. Thanks, and sorry for any inconvenience.

    But you're asking me for money!
    No I'm not. You might be required to licence the mark in the future if you are using the Linux mark in a trade mark context for your business, but I have no instructions, and don't anticipate receiving any, to pursue you to take out such a licence.

  • linuxchix.com (Score:3, Informative)

    by michaeldot ( 751590 ) on Tuesday August 16, 2005 @01:45AM (#13328151)

    If I understand correctly, Linus first set up "Linux" as a trademark so that he could stop a site called "linuxchix.com."

    I'm curious if a company like Apple would be able to stop an (as yet non-existent) site named "ipodchix.com" given that there are a ton of "iPod" sites that use the iPod trademark: "ipodhacks.com", "ipodsync.com", "ipod-fun.de", "ipod-dj.com", "ipod-shop.co.uk", "ipod-warehouse.com.au", "ipod-conga.com", etc, etc. And if they can, would they?

    Does this mean that the open source movement is actually more protective of its associations and (as the story article suggests) litigious when it comes to this matter than a corporation?

    (By the way, if anyone is thinking of setting up ipodchix.com just to see what happens, here are some (mostly work safe) pictures to get started. Purely in the interests of trademark research of course!)

    http://www.eluid.org/images/misc/iPod1.jpg [eluid.org]
    http://www.eluid.org/images/misc/iPod2.jpg [eluid.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close