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This discussion has been archived.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.
Who Owns It? Apparently Many Do (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday September 14, @10:12AM)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mp3bat.com/)
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.
The more important question is ... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.animal-assist.org/donate.html)
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)
(http://obsessivemathsfreak.org/ | Last Journal: Friday June 09 2006, @08:15PM)
8) Officer Barbrady
9) Leeroy Jenkins
10) ???
11) Profit!
12) I'll die in the future you insensitive clod!
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".
Important as no "prior art" for tm exist (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.sympato.ch/)
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.
Hmm.. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.everybodysucksbutme.com/)
old news (Score:2)
(http://www.halley.cc/ed/)
There are many, many more (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.dutchvirtual.nl/ | Last Journal: Friday August 10, @07:04AM)
For instance, this list [bmb-bbm.org] is the one for Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Jump on the bandwagon (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/)
Trademarks are Per *Industry* (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
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.
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://markbyers.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 24 2006, @12:54PM)
http://folk.uio.no/hpv/linuxtoons/linux-detergent
And yes, it is a real photo!
Computer & Operating System (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a laundry soap /and/ an operating system! (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday October 01 2001, @06:53PM)
Images? (Score:2)
Maybe the plain text list is copyrighted! Which leads to another kinf of legal issues.
could be product restriction (Score:1, Redundant)
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)
(http://www.metatrontech.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 21, @01:39PM)
Does this constitute trademark infringement by Rosche against Linus Torvalds?
It certainly could lead to confusion.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:1)
(http://www.xonar.net/)
Ummm. (Score:2)
(http://www.mrcopilot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 02 2005, @10:10AM)
don't forget Linux GOLD (Score:1)
http://www.linuxgoldcorp.com/ [linuxgoldcorp.com]Linux Gold
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?
RTLinux is now owned by Wind River (Score:1)
What about Tux? (Score:1)
Make it a Verb and put it into dictionaries (Score:1)
Article teaser answers Title's question (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 28 2007, @04:33AM)
You can also read the full list of all 204 Linux trademarks
At least 204 people and/or companies, I'd guess. That's what a trademark is - something registered with the gov't so everyone knows who owns it. The trademark registry includes full description of the mark and the scope of the services,products or markets where the trade mark is used. "Who owns" regarding trademarks is very much like "who owns" regarding motor vehicles. Just read the title to the property.
I'm registering Linux Toothpaste! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:imagine that (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday April 19 2007, @10:15PM)
Imagine that, an AC who lacks common knowledge, or who pretends to in order to troll, you troll.
Re:imagine that (Score:5, Funny)
(http://babelfish.alt...%2F%2Fslashdot.jp%2F)
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.
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.
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
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.
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://fredrik.obra.se/)
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://my.opera.com/bhtooefr/blog/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 11 2005, @09:07AM)
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"
WTF? (Score:2)
(http://eklitzke.org/)