Who Owns The Linux Trademark? 115
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"
Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:0, Informative)
In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.
Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).
Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.
There are many, many more (Score:5, Informative)
For instance, this list [bmb-bbm.org] is the one for Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:imagine that (Score:3, Informative)
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: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.
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:5, Informative)
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"
Re:Microsoft could have a say.... (Score:2, 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.
Re:Computer & Operating System (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.
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.