Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software Your Rights Online

Linux Trademark Domain Crackdown 231

Posted by Hemos from the staving-off-squatting dept.
CgiJobs writes "SeriousDomains.com was going to try and auction off a bunch of Linux domain names. Looks like Linus Torvald's lawyers scared them off, though. I saw the domains before they yanked them and they weren't much to get excited about. Most were quite long. " So - is this a good thing? Or a bad thing?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Trademark Domain Crackdown More

Linux Trademark Domain Crackdown

Comments Filter:

  • What is legit use? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I enjoy working with Linux and just registered a domain for personal use - no squatting. Now what? Am I supposed to contact Linus for permission? If so, how?

    In what context is the regex /.*linux.*\.((com)|(org))/i OK?

    A quick whois on some obvious .com entries returned hits on the following: linuxlover, linuxlovers, linuxfreak, linuxfreaks, linuxfan, linuxfans, linuxnut, linuxuser, linuxdriver, linuxman, linuxgrrl, linuxguy, linuxgal, linuxgroup, linuxserver, linuxwoman, linuxluser, linuxuniverse, linuxgang, linuxtree, linuxroot, linuxamerica, linuxadmin, etc.

    Then I realized that I was doing it the hard way instead of searching for "www.linux*.com" at Netcraft [netcraft.com] which returned over 1500 entries (and that's only .coms starting with "linux").

    begin ramble mode...

    I'm gratified that most of the sites I checked are running Linux but one wonders about linux-diploma.com, linux-masters.com and linuxadvisor.com (Solaris) or linux-fan.com and linuxace.com (FreeBSD). At least I haven't found any running M$ yet.

    WARNING: Seeing a list of hundreds of Linux sites can be hazardous to your productivity.

    ...end ramble mode

  • Re:Can I buy & sell land I never use? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    yes but domain names and land/property is different: the key word being names.

    domain _names_ are easily associated with a trademark or cpyright or whatever and there fore should not be bought and sold according to the same rules.
  • Mr. T?! "Hey sucka! I pity da fool who tries to steal my name!"
  • The problem is that this prances on the line between trademark and stupidity.

    There'd be nothing left if every business took control of every name having any resemblance at all to their names.
  • Most domain names, at $35/year, are priced below their market value. That's why there are so few good ones available. People register them as if they were free, because they nearly are. But that low cost is also what creates the shortage. Domain speculators help alleviate the shortage, by making names available to people who are willing to pay the most for them. In other words, by reselling the names at a profit, domain speculators help insure that the names will go to somebody who intends to use them, or at the very least, to somebody who will pay dearly for the privelege of not using it.


    It's hard for me to see how speculators in tickets and domain names alleviate a shortage. To me, it appears that they create the shortage in the first place, and then magnanimously offer to resell them at a much higher price to alleviate the shortage. That strikes me as an excellent example of extortion.


    Why is an auction any more efficient than a lottery? It's nicer for the person selling the good, but if that person doesn't want to capture the most value from it, why should someone else who has no interest in using the good jump in?

  • In fact, I'd have no problem with Linus approving use of word "Linux" within a trademar/company name/title. AFAIK, you can't call a product "Unix" without whoever-holds-the-TM approval, why Linux is worse? And if your distribution is good, you'd probably get the permission. And if it's bad, you won't.

    Or if you are too proud, you can just call it FooBar (without "Linux"), and write "we are distribution of Linux(TM)" in a small letters below. That'd be worse, but still OK - Debian/Caldera/Mandrake are all known now by the first name, and are seldom referred to as "Debian Linux" or "Mandrake Linux" - because they have their own name, and everybody knows what they are.

  • Linus has the ability to selectively choose who and who does not get the ability to use the term "Linux" (TM) in trademarked names of companies, products, titles, etc.


    Exactly. Just like the owner of any other trademark. Pick your favourite evil, dude! It's either open slather to abuse, squat over and otherwise sully the good name of Linux, or have Linus say Yea or Nay. Is it just the fact that the lawyers have been involved that concerns you? I believe he's just fighting the battle with appropriate weapons.




  • If you do not CONTINUOUSLY act to protect your trademark, it has the potential of becoming generic. Just ask Xerox or Kimberly Clark (makers of Kleenex).

    And having your brand name so ingrained in public awareness as to become generic is bad? Isn't that the whole point advertising?
  • For what it's worth, Microsoft has allowed many domains to include its trademarks for years -- windows95.com and activex.com are two examples

    There are lots of domains with Linux in them too. I think Microsoft would be justified to stop things if somebody tried to sell "windows95.com", or used it to point at some page that has nothing to do with MicroSoft or Windows or attacked them, or perhaps provided false information that misled consumers.

    If somebody does "window95sux.com" and uses it to attack MicroSoft, I don't think MicroSoft can do anything about that, since it is obvious from the URL that it is not an official site. Same thing goes for "linuxsucks.com".

  • List? (Score:1)

    by zempf ( 4454 )
    Can anyone provide us with a list of the offending domain names? I imagine they were usual squatter fodder like sooperdooperlinuxopensource.com or something similarly unsightly, but you never know..

    -mike kania

  • I think Microsoft would be justified to stop things if somebody tried to sell "windows95.com", or used it to point at some page that has nothing to do with MicroSoft or Windows or attacked them, or perhaps provided false information that misled consumers.

    Selling a domain to someone else is not prohibited because the domain has a trademark in it. The owner of windows95.com [windows95.com] sold it to CNET at some point, in fact. Recently, the owner of windows2000.com [windows2000.com] sold it to Microsoft in exchange for money and the rights to bob.com [bob.com].

    The main issue here is what you publish on a domain that you own. That's where a trademark holder can step in and say your domain infringes on his rights by creating confusion in the marketplace. That's what a trademark is all about -- owning and protecting a brand that distinguishes your goods from other peoples' goods. If I own a Linux domain and publish nothing on it, how am I creating confusion with Linux consumers by selling that domain to someone else?

    The only other issue worth considering is the new set of cybersquatting laws. Someone who owns a domain with "Linux" in it and contacts Torvalds with an offer to sell it could be running afoul of those new laws. That, however, is the problem of the person buying from SeriousDomains, not the seller. Caveat emptor.




  • Does that mean I am not permitted to register the domain of nakedlinux.com or linuxbabes.net or linux-in-school.edu or linuxpanties.org or this-is-not-linux.int?

    Is the word "Linux" now so special it has surpassed brandnames like "Coca-cola" or "Kodak"?

    Where is the "Freedom" as in "FREEDOM" in all of this?





  • You wrote:

    "I'd be looking for www.linuxprogrammer.com first."

    Guess what? www.linuxprogrammer.org exists, and it IS for sale !!


  • It already is Linux®, and has been for several years. Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, although it isn't his fault. (If you didn't know, some random tried to register the trademark and start charging money. The only way to defend Linux® as a name is to reserve it, and apparently to protect it as well.)

    This is probably an unfortunate but necessary step. I'm curious to know what the nominal fee is.

  • Here's what Linus has to say about the whole issue himself as posted to linux-kernel. Makes sense really, and he'd doing it for the good of *everyone* using Linux, not just him.

    --- begin quote --


    Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:28:45 -0800 (PST)
    From: Linus Torvalds
    cc: Kernel Mailing List
    Subject: Re: Using "linux" in a domain name

    [ sorry for the off-topic thing to "linux-kernel", it's just the best medium I can think off off-hand ]

    Ok,
    I've been getting tons of email about the trademark thing due to the action of stopping the auctioning off of linux-related names, so instead of just answering individually (which was how I started out), I'll just send out a more generic email. And hope that slashdot etc pick it up so that enough people will be reassured or at least understand the issues.

    And hey, you may not end up agreeing with me, but with the transmeta announcement tomorrow I won't have much time to argue about it until next week ;)

    Basically, the rules are fairly simple, and there really are just a few simple basic issues involved:

    - I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with scams, cybersquatting, etc etc. I'd personally hate that, for rather obvious reasons. I _like_ being proud of Linux, and what has been achieved. I'd rather not have to apologize for it..

    - Trademark law requires that the trademark owner police the use of the trademark (unlike, for example, copyright law, where the copyright owner is the copyright owner, always is, and always will be unless he willingly relinquishes ownership, and even THEN he ends up having rights).

    This is nasty, because it means, for example, that a trademark owner has to be shown as caring about even small infringements, because otherwise the really bad guys can use as their defense that "hey, we may have misused it, but look at those other cases that they didn't go after, they obviously don't care.."

    - Even with things that aren't scams or something like that, VALID uses of "Linux" may be bad if they mean that other valid uses of "Linux" are blocked.

    Those are the kind of ground rules, I think everybody can pretty much agree with them..

    What the above leads to is

    - I'm required to ask people to acknowledge the trademark. When you use the term "Linux" in official marketing literature etc, you should acknowledge it as a trademark owned by me. Not because I love seeing my name in print, but simply because of the "policing" issue (#2) above.

    (And no, that does NOT mean that you have to add that to normal, everyday use of the term. Common sense rules the day, think of the situations where you see the silly "xxxx is a trademark of yyyy", and realize that yyyy may not really care except the legal issues force them to ;)

    - _Intent_ matters. It matters a lot.

    If your intent is to use the word "linux" as part of a real Linux project, that doesn't mean that you automatically absolutely have to get permission from me. That's the LAST thing I want. I want "Linux" to be as free as possible as a term, and the real reason for having a trademark in the first place was to _protect_ it rather than use it as some kind of legalistic enforcement thing.

    But, for example, if your intent is to register "mylinux.com" (made up example, I don't know if it is registered or not) only in the hopes of selling the domain name for mucho dinero later, then that kind of intent is not something I (or anybody else, I think) would find really acceptable, because now the use of "linux" in this case has really been a question of blocking somebody ELSE from using the term and using it to get money.

    This is where the cybersquatting laws come in, for example, allowing the use of a trademark as a way to make sure that such squatting activity does NOT happen.

    - Being "specific" is _good_. Being specific largely avoids the problem of many people/organizations wanting the same name. We had an example long ago of somebody who would have wanted to register "Linux Expert" as a servicemark, yet obviously that is a pretty generic term. Not good, if it means that there will be confusion about who owns the term.

    In contrast (to give some tangible examples), something like "VA Linux" or "Red Hat Linux" oviously isn't a generic term: it's a very _targeted_ term for something very specific. Those kinds of names do not detract from other peoples ability to call _their_ Linux company something else.

    - Finally, you have to judge the "officialdom" and the importance of the business side of your usage. Not because I or anybody else really cares all that much, but more because of the "pain factor" if the name is asked for by somebody else.

    Basically, ask yourself the question: "What if somebody else had a project, and happened to chose the same name for his project as I have for mine, how strong a protection do I want for MY version of the project?"

    Also, ask yourself: "Would anybody ever have reason to question the name, and do I need to make provisions for protecting this particular instance of it" (and note that "anybody" may not be me as the trademark owner myself, but it may be a competitor who wants to make life uncomfortable for you)

    If you decide that you want some official protection from the mark, that probably means that you want to own your own version of the trademark, ie a "service mark" or a "combination mark". There are obvious cases where such a thing is wanted - you should not be surprised to hear that various Linux companies own their own combination marks, or have at the very least gotten that ownership verbally approved by me pending getting the paperwork done.

    So basically, in case the trademark issue comes up, you should make your own judgement. If you read and understood the above, you know pretty much what my motivation is - I hate the paperwork, and I think all of this is frankly a waste of my time, but I need to do it so that in the future I don't end up being in a position I like even less.

    And I'm _not_ out to screw anybody. In order to cover the costs of paperwork and the costs of just _tracking_ the trademark issues (and to really make it a legally binding contract in the first place), if you end up going the whole nine yards and think you need your own trademark protection, there is a rather nominal fee(*) associated with combination mark paperwork etc. That money actually goes to the Linux International trademark fund, so it's not me scalping people if anybody really thought that that might be the case ;)

    I hope people understand what happened, and why it happened, and why it really hasn't changed anything that we had to assert the trademark issue publically for the first time this week. And I hope people feel more comfortable about it.

    And finally - I hope that people who decide due to this that what they really want is trademark protection for their own Linux trademark, that they could just wait a week or two, or contact maddog at Linux International rather than me. We're finally getting the shroud of secrecy lifted from transmeta (hey, we'll have a real web-site and zdtv is supposed to webcast the announcement tomorrow), and I'd rather worry about trademarks _next_ week.

    Ok?

    Linus

    (*) "Nominal fee". What an ugly sentence. It's one of those things that implies that if you have to ask, you can't afford it. In reality, it's more a thing where both intent and the size of the project will make a difference - and quite frankly it's also a way to slightly discourage people who aren't really serious about it in the first place.

    -- end quote --
  • microsfot.com is still up and still redirects to linux.org... funniest damned thing i've seen yet. i am way surprised we haven't seen it in a quickie or something (maybe we have and i missed it). personally picked up the link on iscabbs.

    --bc
    ------------------------------------------
    the amazing bc
    latin/funk flugelhorn & trumpet
    webnaut, music junkie, sysadmin from hell
  • I think it is worth noting that when you trademark something, your trademark only applies to whatever type of business you do. For example, it is perfectly legal for a company named "RedHat" that sells hats. I'm sure there are tons in fact. It is NOT, however, okay to have a company called say RedHatt that sells a Linux distribution.

    It is not illegal to have a site like "aboutredhat.com" *provided* you are not providing competition or consumer confusion via the use of the trademark. So, you really dont need Linus's approval to use coollinuxsite.com or whatever domains they may have been trying to sell. You just need to follow a specific set of guidelines.

    On the other hand though, it is illegal to sell or exploit something trademarked for the purpose of direct material gain. In other words, making money off the word "Linux." Linus is right in doing this to protect the name of Linux. It's good for Linux, it's good for the trademark issue in general. But that doesn't mean that Linus is cutting on on people's rights. He's just being his normal fatherly protective self.
  • From what I see. You can register any *linux*.TLD as long you aren't actually trying to dilute the trademark.
    Ie. Linux.com Linux related web-site. OK.
    Linuxlover.com Porno site. Not OK

    From Linus' standpoint he is merely defending his trademark.
  • I'd definately put this in my "bad thing" category. Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. What would the /. crowd be saying if it was a different company, say, Microsoft, Etoys or Amazon threatening anyone who uses the names "amazon", "etoy", or "microsoft" or any variation of them in their names? (Just search the archives for "Etoy" if you can't answer that)

    Don't get me wrong here, domain squatters are a bunch of lowlife scum who should be lined up and shot.. but threatening lawsuits for using the name of a supposedly free operating system isn't the free thing to do. And yelling and screaming about how stupid intellectual property laws are and then praising them when they suit you is hypocracy in it's finest form.

    To make a short story shorter: Domain squatters suck. IP laws suck. Domain squatters just suck less.

    --
    Reject
  • Linus didn't stop someone who was trying to register a Linux domain; he stopped someone who was trying to sell Linux domains at the highest price (by auction).
    Selling domain names is a business that Linus doesn't want to see mixed with the word Linux, and I fully agree with him.
  • lawyers are evil, bottom-dwelling filth.
    Exactly, but remember that open source can fix almost anything.
    We need to open source the lawyers!
    It's a simple process really, first you need to reverse engineer them to find out how the internals work. This can be done with an axe or chainsaw. Then you need to redistribute the parts -- for packaging I recommend a shallow grave.
    CAUTION: This may not be legal, consult a lawyer first.
    --Shoeboy

  • Do you people even listen to yourselves (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If this was microsoft, you would be all over it. Since it is your own cause, you like it.

    Do you people understand what hypocrysy is.

    Cybersquatting, and intelectual property rights, and whatever else you want to throw on this fire is either all good, or all bad. And even if there is a gr(e/a)y area, it probably wouldn't look as bad if you defined that area as something other than your point of view.

    This has to be the largest selection of closed minded oafs I have ever heard call themselves educated.

  • Can I buy & sell land I never use? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Or cars? It's called the free market. And before you jump up and say that "but you don't own domains like land and cars!", what about renting apartments in prime locations with good views, etc., and then subletting them at inflated prices? I don't own the apartments either, yet this is legal to do where I live. And if this is legal with lots of history and precedent to back it up, why should domain names be any different?
  • Funny you should mention that; at one point, there existed the http://adultlinux.fsn.net/ AdultLinux Site which had links to some purportedly "adult-oriented" games for Linux, along with links out to more directly "porn" sites.

    The site no longer exists, and (warning!) will suck your web browser to a site entitled "Forbidden Hardcore Porn!" which presumably intends to grab credit card numbers like crazy...

    There also was, quite some time ago, someone that suggested visiting http://www.linuxchick.com, which is a "front page of every conceivable keyword tag."

    In short, there are examples of this sort of thing. The linuxchick.com domain may in particular be a decent target for "lawsuit."

    In contrast, www.linuxgirl.com [linuxgirl.com] seems not at all inappropriate.

    And Verio appears to own the domain www.linuxgirls.com.

  • The only reason to shiver is if you trust sleazoid domain name squatters more than you trust Linus Torvalds, or if you have fantasies of making big bucks by registering a domain name and reselling it (sorry, the good names are all gone now).

  • As the trademark holder, Linus is perfectly well allowed to leave legitimate and useful Linux sites alone, and only harrass those sites who, say, use a Linux name to attract viewers for something that has nothing to do with Linux (e.g. to get click-through fees from porn sites).

  • FINALLY someone with some sense posts in this article.

    The whole of the comments makes me think of that one guys sig, "Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot."

    If the Linux "community" continues to act in sch irrational and hippocratic ways, fewer and fewer people are going to take the Linux/Open Source movement seriously and come to the conclusion that they are all high-school geeks who want everything handed to them for free.

  • Well, I'll let a friend of mine use my car, but I certainly wouldn't let you use my car.

    Am I a hypocrite?

    Chris
  • I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot.

    That's an interesting viewpoint, one that I'd never considered, but which seems accurate. However, benevolent despots who are so convinced of their benevolence that they try to conquer the world (hoping to bring all peoples to the light of their gentle rulership) are missing the point. A benevolent despot leaves people alone unless they are hurting other people. A sicko-freaked-out-sadistic benevolent despot messes with peoples' lives for their own good.
  • It's probably a good thing Linus's lawyers got them to cease and desist; nevertheless, I'd be more inclined to look for

    OpenSourceProgrammers.org
    OpenSourceProgramming.org

    first!
  • Well.. IANAL, of course.. but here goes.
    This might sound wordy.. but....
    One of the purposes of trademark is to prevent one company from using anothers trade-marked name to make money OFF THE WORK OF THE MARK HOLDER.

    To demonstrate... If someone opened 'Disney tattoos', it might be possible that a great many customers would go there mainly because they thought the artist was IN THE EMPLOY OF Disney corporation. In this case, the tattoo parlour would be unfairly using the Disney name. Remember, it's not about whether or not Disney ever plans to get into the tattoo business, but it's about perceptions of the customer.

    In the case of these domain extortionists (speculators, whatever you want to call the sleazeballs), the sole reason they were going to make money off the so-called 'product' they were selling (linux domains) was because of the linux mark and what it represents.

    Moreover, I think the main focus is that Linus did not *stop* them from using it, he simply had his lawyers write them a latter explaining things. THey CHOSE to stop it. And it would be best to remember that there is a big difference (even when the tables are turned) between the lawyer sending a letter, and actual court decisions.
  • I wasn't aware of that. If that is true, then etoy *did* kind of ask for the trouble they got.

    I still maintain it's not the same thing, at any rate.

  • If you're a guy in a basement with an idea for a new distro or something, and instead of the 50$ NSI or (cheaper) alternative, you have to go give 2,000$ to 200,000$ to some squatter for it (and they are using them for money) you're SOL. Linus is giving the middle finger to squatters (who rank with spammers, in my books), and helping keep the domains as cheap as you can find them. And that's a Good Thing (TM).

    Except of course that the domain squatters already have the domains. So, all Linus did was removing the possibility of the guy in the basement buying the domain he wants in an auction. Don't even think that seriousdomains.com will just give back the 250 domains to NSI.

    I wonder if people would react the same if it would have been Microsoft that threatened legal action against a squatter trying to auction off domains.

    -- Abigail

  • As the trademark holder, Linus is perfectly well allowed to leave legitimate and useful Linux sites alone

    What's your viewpoint of etoys vs etoy?

    -- Abigail

  • Since trademark law requires that Linux defend his trademark, I've often worried that Linus wasn't vigilant enough in guarding his trademark. The last thing anyone wants is for Microsoft to come along and slap "Win Linux" on the side of a box and say that "Our definition of Linux is different than many people's definition of Linux."

    Truly it would be best for Linus to do exactly what it seems he's done. Setup a registry that requires a nominal (say $1?) fee to grant an unlimited "license" to use the Linux trademark. The nominal fee is probably required in order to make everything legal. In the same vein, they have to police the use of the word Linux by unregistered and frivolous users.

    Ideally, I would like to see this "registry" run by an organization like Linux International, which could be more easily pressured to change their practices if the users think they are being inappropriate in their judgements about who should be granted a license (and their current leader, Maddog, is one of the fairest players I've ever encountered).

    But hey, if Linus thinks he's can do just a good a job at monitoring this, well, it is his trademark.
  • Good point ;)

    I hereby find myself guilty of the heinous crime of assumption and sentence myself to ten thwacks of the clue stick. :)

    Judging by the other domain names listed (OpenSourceProgram(s|ers|ing).com) it's obvious what their Linux domains would have covered, but these guys are squatters, you actually (generally) would have had a difficult time proving they were infringing his trademark.

  • No, it is not proper. He is not the arbiter of "the best interests" of the community.

    He cannot revoke their GPL. No more than you can summarily revoke Microsoft's EULA.

  • <sarcasm>And that would explain why Microsoft was able to so easily shut down www.microsfot.com, and Sony www.playstatiom.com? As I recall, Sony handed over a hefty sum (six digits) under the table to get that back<sarcasm>
  • I sure as hell hope not.

    Open Source is a concept. A generic concept. Unpatentable. Able to be used by many. So many should be able to benefit.

    If I were to start an Open Source Programming house I would be quite 'peeved' if I could not use that domain for trademark infringements.

    That would sound to me almost like 'predatory trademarking'

  • There are a few of us now, and seem to be snowballing in numbers ;)
  • Opening Bid: $100,000 (?!? What are they smoking?)

    Current Bids: 0 (Yes, zero. nada. zip. big friggin' surprise)

    :-)

  • Wrong. Linuxlover's porno has nothing to do with an Operating System. Perfectly legal.
  • I'm gratified that most of the sites I checked are running Linux but one wonders about linux-diploma.com, linux-masters.com and linuxadvisor.com (Solaris) or linux-fan.com and linuxace.com (FreeBSD). At least I haven't found any running M$ yet.

    Why? openbsd.org runs on a Solaris box. That's what sunsite gives them, and they're happy. Not all hosters run Linux.

  • I took a look at his main page...
    • Is Entrapreneur.com a pun or a misspelling? I rather suspect the latter.
    • The very first item mentioned is BusinessProcessReengineering.com. Makes me want to snap up BusinessProcessReengineering.net just to spite him.
    • Another featured sale is zInvestors.com--for the z-grade investor, one presumes.
    • HowDoIDoAnIPO.com. Generous capitalization makes all the difference.
    • iUsedBooks.com...but then i gave up and just watched TV, presumably.
    • 24HourPokemon.com--A 24-hour website! What will they think of next?
    • Commenting on the marketability of zYowser.com, they note, "Marketing ideas flow out of us like Niagra."
    • WorldCupGirls.com is listed under "sports"...
  • I use a piece of software called WinGuard. This is like saying Microsoft could pick and choose titling and naming. Think about winfiles.com too.

    Funny you should mention winfiles.com. It used to be called windows95.com. It's no great stretch of the imagination to assume that Microsoft did have something to do with that domain name change.

    This is all a little ambiguous...

    Yes, and that's why ultimately legal issues get decided by people, not machines.

    Linus owns Linux' trademark. But is he the arbiter of all things Linux? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either. Someone mentioned using this to try to squash LinuxOne. I don't like that idea at all, much as I dislike what they're trying to do. It sounds very slippery (as in the slope).

    I agree that it's a slippery slope and I'd rather not see the day when it becomes necessary to apply for "Official Linux(TM) logo certification." However, even if that day comes, I think most current Linux users could hardly give a damn about the name and would carry the GPL'd code over to a new project, and that's what's important in the end.

  • Well, our difference, then , is that I don't think that first-come-first-served is necessarily the fairest way to distribute things, but you seem to prefer it.

    Our do understand, however, the sentiment against somebody apparently making something for nothing, and that probably accounts for why ticket scalping is widely outlawed. Even so, it's legal in many places, and it's not so profitable that it attracts a lot of attention.

    Interestingly, the economics of the domain registration situation are slightly different, in that there is only one possible seller for a given domain name. You can buy playoff tickets from any one of a number of scalpers, but you can only buy a particular domain from the current holder. And the seller might have many prospective purchasers bidding for the name. That imbalance probably drives up domain prices considerably.
  • That's pretty cool, thanks for the link.
  • Hmmm....... no?

    The three that are *left* are the opensource names... it *clearly* states that the ones containing the trademark "linux" were removed (~250 of them). RTFA, good advice. Take it.

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
  • It's extra-legal, but I wouldn't be surprised if the reason that the lawyers acted was that these domains were going to be AUCTIONED.

    Individual consultants with "linux" in the name have a single domain name, and they don't make a beef about representing THE Linux, only the collection of HOWTOs, programs, limited distros, etc. packaged in a convenient place for the reader. (This allows the Linux material to survive reorganization of the sponsor's main web site - obviously the material can be collected on that page, but a reorg could break links.) The fine print inevitably refers people to Linux International for THE Linux.

    In contrast, with an auction you don't know what you're going to get. As others have pointed out, the feeding frenzy for anything with "Linux" in it suggests that you'll find porn sites, scam sites, and worst. That's something that no trademark holder can afford to ignore.

    So my impression is that this is much ado about nothing -- and it's certainly not illegal for his lawyers to focus on extra-legal factors like whether the domain name is being publicly auctioned.
  • It would appear that Slashdot users strongly embrace the assertion of the Linux mark when used for noncompeting goods (or not used in commerce at all), presumably approving of the dilution-based or cyber-squatting theories asserted by counsel for Mr. Torvolds.

    Forgive my cynicism at wondering whether this is a new manifestation of truly a principled view embracing strong IP trademark law by slashdot denizens, or whether they are simply rooting for those whom they perceive to be the "good guys."

    Ironically, whileI ordinarily adopt a strong IP position in these forums on traditional Copyright, Trademark and Patent issues, I find the new cybersquatting laws and broad assertion of dilution theories to be very dangerous unbalancing of the fundamental policies of trademark law; and one that in the long run will hurt our community far more than it will help.

    I believe that both were horrible mistakes and will never stop hoping that the Congress will someday come to its senses and repeal the ridiculous power-grabs by trademark powers that be.

    Even when those laws operate to benefit those, like Linus, whom I also perceive to be the good guy.

    Time will tell whether our community will likewise cheer the same conduct when asserted by perceived "bad guys" against perceived "good guys."

  • First I need to disclaim: 1) I know very little about the DNS system, I wish I knew more but I don't. 2) This is mildly off-topic.

    My general understanding of the domain system is that it works on a cascading system with the database propagating through the system server to server. If this is true, why not write a little robot to keep track of speculator's listings (eBay alone has several thousand) and simply refuse to resolve the domain to an IP? I know this could get messy on servers with virtual hosting, but I feel it's an interesting concept.

    Or just plain stupid. Either way, whadda'ya think?



    ----

  • Funnier yet, take a look at the href="http://auctions.yahoo.com/booth/mycallcenter ">domains they currently have up for auction

    hmmph. Nary a bidder does not a happy squatter make. Good.



    ----

  • Of course I can't write HTML. I do it for a living, after all.



    ----
  • I called Mr. Linus Torvalds and asked him about this domain auction problem. He assured me that any legitimate projects have nothing to worry about. His lawyer informed him that he needed to take action. Refusal to enforce a trademark makes future enforcement impossible. As long as the registered domain is a legitimate project and all references to Linux indicate the trademark there shouldn't be any problems.

    As the registered owner of NLinux.com/.net/.org I was a little concerned. My project is just getting off the ground and it's mostly just a hobby. The last thing I need to deal with is a letter from some lawyer.

    Linus said he is terribly busy with the Transmeta rollout on Jan 19th, but as soon as he gets a moment he'll address this issue. If you are extremely concerned about your domain then contact John T. Hall-VALinux Vice President, Support and Professional Services.

    Trevor Lowing

  • Whether a despot is benevolent or not is in the eye of the beholder. Contrary to what a lot of people in the world like to think, there are no absolute morals to decide this type of thing.

    I have often argued that I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot. He thinks he is doing the world a favour by taking power for himself, and that is why the whole antitrust trial frustrated him so much. In his own mind, he does have good intentions, and doesn't appply force when he doesn't have to. That you and I don't happen to agree (because on the whole we don't agree with his goals or methods) doesn't really change that.

    Because people are different and freedom is fragile, infringing on our basic freedoms is bad even if the intentions are good.

    If Linus is a benevolent despot, then he is a despot of a country with no borders, no laws, no police, and no currency. Except for occasional events, the only thing Despot Linus actually involves himself in is the national infrastructure, and even in that he works together with the populous ("so you built a bridge hu? Lets see if we cannot run a highway by it"). The royal roads are tollfree, kept clean by volunteers, and everyone is expected to take responsibility for themselves (well, not all, there are of course bus and train companies like "VA" and "Redhat"). Today he offered a decree that we try not to spoil the national name.

    He, maybe I got a little carried of on that metaphor... :-)

    -
    We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
  • All domains cost $35.00 a year. You can give them away, but you can never sell one for more then you paid for it.

    I think that would pretty much put an end to squatters.

    Ticket scalping is illegal in most states, but that has hardly done much to put an end to it. It would be the same with squatting.
  • How many times do I have to point this out?

    There is not just one Slashdotter. This should be extremely obvious. There are a whole lot of Slashdotters, and they have different opinions. So when you see one opinion at one time, and another opinion later, think about the fact that it most likely isn't the same person!

    Unfortunately, the trolls can always win this kind of argument. When most Slashdotters agree on something, it's "karma whoring" or "the party line"; when they disagree greatly on something, it's "a flame war"; and when one person posts one opinion, and later another person posts another opinion, without necessarily arguing with each other, it's "hypocrisy".

    Logic proves: you can use fallacy-laden "logic" to prove anything you damn well want.
    --
  • I think that Judge Jackson misused 'benevolent', then. 'Benevolent' assumes good intentions, applying force only when needed, etc. That is clearly not the case in the context of Judge Jackson's findings.

    When I say 'benevolent despot', I mean that Linus is in a position of self-made authority... and that his decisions are his own, not subject to being overridden by a 'public', and that he has demonstrated he is willing to use that authority (hence, 'despot'). Linus controls the kernel. The 'benevolent' part is that he uses this authority well, in my opinion. He is not capricious, he uses the Big Stick of lawyerdom sparingly, and lets self-correcting problems take care of themselves. The world needs more benevolent despots and fewer self-serving oligarchs (big word!).

    I like Linux. I have a feeling I'd like Linus, if I knew him personally. I certainly respect the heck out of him, and I certainly don't intend that my comments be taken as negative.

    As noted by others, Linus has left parody sites like www.linuxsucks.com alone. Those are not a commercial infringement of trademark. There's no impetus to do anything about it... one of the legal definitions of when something like that is 'parody' is whether the intent is primarily commercial.

    I imagine Linus gets a laugh out of it once in a while, too... and even he will admit there are parts of Linux which do, in fact, suck.

    Let he whose software is free of suction cast the first Dhrystone. (My code certainly sucks!)

  • Maybe you haven't thought about this. That bit extends to more than just domain names. Linus has the ability to selectively choose who and who does not get the ability to use the term "Linux" (TM) in trademarked names of companies, products, titles, etc. While I personally would trust Linus' decision on said issue, it still automatically worries me. God knows what would have happened if other companies often in the press (M$, Nintendo, Apple, etc.) started doing the same thing.
  • Linus is forcing the squatters to not sell the domains. He owned the trademark first, and so he decides. This is a good thing, I think, as the squatters are just trying to profiteer on Linux(r)'s good name ;-)

    Etoy had their domain first, and Etoys grabbed their "eToys.com" trademark after, so the prior art bit kicks in. I'm sure if those squatters had bought the name before Linus held the trademark (say, in 1995), they'd be well within their rights to continue to sell them.

    Similar, but not same situations..
    ---
  • I'm sure a lot of us realised that, yes, these are the foul scum known as domain squatters. As well as the fact that the "nominal fee" listed on the page is a fee the domain squatters get. Linus is just trying to make sure they don't sell to every Tom, Dick, and IPO Jane out there.

    This gets lost in the, "domains, Linus, lawyers -- oh my!" keyword stream of thought, which leads to rantings of hypocrisy.
    ---
  • "I don't support trademark enforcement on domain names. If this was Microsoft making people stop the selling, all the slashdot crowd would be up in arms."

    If Microsoft didn't defend their trademark, they'd lose it. Same goes for Linus, and anyone else. I support Microsoft in keeping their trademarks under their roof, and support any normal business activity. I don't support the way they break the law, but don't confuse that with rampant zealotry..
    ---
  • The domains in question were being actioned off by domain squatters...

    How many of these Linux domains were snapped up because of the various IPOs in the 4th quarter of 1999? I betcha lots :-)

    Linus was doing the community a service. If you're a guy in a basement with an idea for a new distro or something, and instead of the 50$ NSI or (cheaper) alternative, you have to go give 2,000$ to 200,000$ to some squatter for it (and they are using them for money) you're SOL. Linus is giving the middle finger to squatters (who rank with spammers, in my books), and helping keep the domains as cheap as you can find them. And that's a Good Thing (TM).
    ---
  • You're oversimplifying the situation.

    Etoys who registered their trademark after Etoy existed is clearly in favour of Etoy.

    SeriousDomains, a cyber-squatting group that buys domains speculatively and auctions them off to the highest bidder, bought these domaisn after Linus received the trademark. It's his decision on how they use it, and he's chosen to not let them make money from squatting.

    Do you see the difference between a big company bullying someone who was already there, and someone who owned the trademark stopping domain squatting/auctioning which is likely a direct result of the recent $$$ IPOs?
    ---
  • For a long time I've been comfortable to know that Mr. T holds the Linux TM. However this act almost seems exactly what I think many people (including myself) hoped to avoid by Mr. T holding the TM.
    While I do not like domain hording at all, I wonder if this means that anyone wishing to have a domain using the TM Linux must deal with or pay Mr. T and his lawyers? Such actions seem entirely contradictory to a free an Open Source OS and similar software. Filtering what domains may have his TM in it seems a scary step that could be taken farther to use of that TM on sites that may be deemed inappropriate. Often when a corporation or organization takes such action it can become an ugly PR mess, and for myself this so far seems like a very disappointing act from Mr. T.
  • Many legal actions like this have become very ugly PR problems (some even seen here on /.). Many companies stay out of such messes that can also be monetarily costly. I hope this does not become the case with Linux.

    I also worry about a concern you brought up. While Mr. T indeed is deserving of respect regarding his work in Linux, I wonder if such action isn't determination of the use of the name of an OS that he does not actually own. Yes, legally he owns the TM and that indeed entitles him to attempt such action. However (regardless of all the work he's done) he does not own the OS and such action gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach. No I do not think Mr. T is going to one day rise up and somehow grab the OS as his own. Yet such action does not seem to follow the same free and open principles of the OS, who's name Mr. T owns the TM on.

  • (Score:2)

    by Duxup ( 72775 )

    Often we seen many companies skirt trademark law by using similar names for nearly identical products, so I wonder:
    Could one day this all escalate and Mr. T become some horrible dictator wielding his mighty TM so violently that Linux production splits into two nearly identical products?
    Could we see another OS called LinEx with a toucan in a tux as a mascot?
    Will we find ourselves at each other's throats on the edge of violence like we are about issues like Heinz Ketchup and Hunts Catsup even though there's partially no difference what so ever between them!?!?
    *tear*

  • Let's see: a domain-hoarding company says that Linus is bullying them and that he's charging fees for domains including "Linux"-- and we believe them? Bullying, I can believe, but charging fees? Sounds like these guys are trying to smear Linus.
    --
  • redundant [technocrat.net]

    The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)

    Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.

    Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.

    "Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")

    Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?

    Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.

    Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?

    Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..

    VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.

    Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.

    (So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)

    Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.

    "Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?

    Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.

    No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)

    Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:
    • Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
    • Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
    • Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
    Maybe the resulting agreement would be as simple as "our free software is GPL, but if you have yet to agree to our terms, you are not yet free to call it "Linux" nor free to pretend that you are a Penguin. (no fraud, please) You are free to join us if you choose to at http://our.linux.org/agreement/LPL

    Reputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?

    What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?

    These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.

    Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)

    Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")

    Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.

    "Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.

    If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.

    chaorganize!

    [sources: LINX [theregister.co.uk] . "attEnTiOn"-NoT [slashdot.org] . StiG [brainofstig.ai] . BiOnOMiCs [bionomics.org] . CHaOs-is-G00D [chaordic.org] . PaRtneRsHiP [partnershipway.org] . FrEELoAdiNG [zdnet.com] . MoNeY [wired.com] . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY [transaction.net] . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE [wired.com] . RHaT-IpO [salon.com] . AddApT [addapt.org] . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . [chaordic.org]ViSA [visa.com] . DeE-HoCK [fastcompany.com] . CoMMiE-UniTy? [technocrat.net] . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . [salon.com]MiNDcRaFTiNg [cascadepolicy.org] . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs [wired.com] . ETHiCs-of-iP [ram.org] . ScSL [upsidetoday.com] . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe [fastcompany.com] . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs [chaordic.org] . wHaT'sa-NaMe? [technocrat.net] . CrEdiT-DuE? [technocrat.net] . OPEN-CoDE [opencode.org] . ETHiCs [wired.com] :thanks]
  • I don't intend this as flamebait, but: what was the whole eToy[s] thing about? A company forcing another to give up the domain name, because (among other things) it included profanity. I don't fully understand why this good when Linus does this, but not when eToys does.


    -----
  • It sounds to me like Linus was simply stopping some domain speculation on domains that should remain freely usable by the linux community. Domain speculators are the scum of the earth. Why should a person be able make money by selling domains they would never otherwise use. It's wrong.
  • They guy up above was exactly right when he said Linus must by law take legal action to defend the name in order to keep control of the Linux trademark. That is how trademark law is written. You start out by saying "I own this name" and you have to prove it by taking action against other people who try to use it without your permission or who use it "generically". Moderate him up.

    I'm chiming in to say that, since TurboLinux is trying to sell a bunch of software that is not GPLed, I'm hoping this action means "goodbye TurboLinux, hello Turbosnu" == Turbo's not unix... wait, that's probably an gnu infringement. How about TurboLOSE: Turbo'll Open Source Everything!

  • Before you start to panic, please take a moment to read about the Fair Use Doctrine [bitlaw.com] which allows for free appropriation of content in certain cases of parody, commentary and academic research.

    I am relieved that Linus is taken steps to protect the Linux trademark so that it is not being misrepresented. Can you imagine the damage it would do to the credibility of Linux, and the open source movement in general, if the only information that someone found on Linux was incorrect because somebody threw up a domain with the word Linux in it to try to catch the ipo craze like LinuxOne has?

    I'd trust Linus to keep himself in check in regards to the fairness with which he applies trademark restrictions more than many other huge companies. Have some faith.

    - tokengeekgrrl

  • I just noticed that www.lnux.com (ie: VA Linux System's stock ticker) is a web site dedicated to the Be operating system, or some books about it anyway.. I think that's pretty funny.
  • One possible reason could be that auctioning off these urls would create a artifically high price for linux urls. If there is a high price on the urls, it would encourage people to buy whatever varients they can think of, and sit on them until someone else wants them - which is not a good thing, and something I think that this auction would have encouraged. IF Linus keeps control of the what urls can be used and by whom, then we don't have to worry about url squatters.

    Minds are like Parachutes,
  • surely purchase of domain names with the intention of selling them to the highest bidder is a bona fide revenue making exercise. The practice does not appear to be forbidden by law (however, I am from Australia, and so am not that crash hot on us commercial law). There are many businesses selling products, items, or services they themselves would not use. is this any different?
  • Argue that it's to protect the Linux name from being soiled... but everyone knows what Linux is! It's not as if a million people are going to go to sites like Linuxwarez and boycott Linux because it happens to be a site for escorts... gimme a break.

    The truth is, by homogenizing the Linux domain names and keeping it among the "elders" and established Linux leaders, the whole theory of open source pretty much goes out the window, don't you think? I mean, open source means anyone can view it, change it, or repackage it, doesn't it? Why is it different with domains?

    As for the argument that windows95.com and activex.com weren't challenged for their domains, perhaps it's because they're MS-flag-wavers and essentially free advertising?

    I question Linus getting involved this far along in the game. It seems like suddenly the Linux market is becoming more and more concerned about trademarks, licenses and IPOs than they are about the things that got them here in the first place: OPEN SOURCE.

    Creativity, freedom to change and offer alternatives. That's Linux. It should reflect in their domain names as well.

    Go back to Transmeta, Linus. I'm sure you'll make some money there.

  • I remember when I was younger, I used to walk home from school. There was one path that everybody used, that went down this gulley, across some railroad tracks, and back up a hill on the other side. Everybody used this route, and had for years. One day, the guy who owned the property that included the hill decided that he was going to fence in his property, and he put a chain link fence right across where the path ran. Within a week, somebody had torn down the section across the path, and everybody was back to using the path again. The property owner replaced that section of the fence, and it was torn down again. This happened several times, until the property owner called the police to find out who was tearing down the fence, and have him arrested.

    Well, the police finally did catch somebody tearing down the fence, and they did arrest him. Caught him in the act. The case never went to trial, because the State's Attorney dropped the charges. It seems that, because the path had been used for years as a public traffic route, and the property owner had made no attempt in those many years to protect his ownership rights in that part of his property, he lost some of his rights. (I believe the technical term was adverse posession, but it's been many years.)

    Now, I don't know if the Linux.com and other web sites were registered before Linus had trademarked Linux®. However, I do know that Linux is trademarked now, and that if Linus does not take action to defend that trademark against even harmless misuses, he will lose the right to defend it against flagrant misuses. Once he lets people walk all over it, he no longer has the right to try and stop them.

    One thing that I would find interesting (although it's not important to Linus protecting his trademark) is what the license terms are. Could they be just as simple as agreeing to put "Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds" at the bottom of the main page?

  • Linus abandoned Linux trademark. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:56PM (#1360477)
    If you do not CONTINUOUSLY act to protect your trademark, it has the potential of becoming generic. Just ask Xerox or Kimberly Clark (makers of Kleenex). Linus was silent when Linux.{com|org|net} came online. Also too, when valinux.com, linuxhq.com, linux-hw.com, corellinux.com, etc. Did Linux act to protect his trademark? No. Looks like it was abandoned to me. Linux cannot jump up many years later and reassert full ownership any more than Sony can claim ownership over the term VCR (yes, this was a Sony trademark at one time, abandoned, and now generic and used my many makers of VHS players w/o payment of royalty to Sony).

  • MS had nothing to do with the domain name change (Score:3)

    by Zico ( 14255 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @08:32PM (#1360478)

    The reason why windows95.com is now called winfiles.com is because they don't concentrate solely on Windows 95 software anymore. Even if they only dealt with Windows 9x software, the name would still be outdated once Windows 98 came out. Now that they also list Windows CE and Windows NT software, it makes even less sense.

    Also, the domain name windows95.com is still owned by (and still points to) winfiles.com, which is a service of C|Net. Furthermore, windowsce.com takes you to HPC.net, specializing in all things CE, and windowsnt.com is owned by noname.com. In fact, of all the combinations of windows(95|98|CE|nt|2000).(com|net|org), the only one owned by Microsoft is windows98.com.

    In other words, please don't don't drag Microsoft into this discussion of Mr. Torvalds's newfound litigious behavior. There's enough FUD arond here as it is.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Domains (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @08:48PM (#1360479)
    Keep in mind.. Linus did not prevent them from selling the domains, and did not prevent anyone from using them, and did not even TRY to prevent them from using them.
    What he did was prevent them from AUCTIONING THEM OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, as if they were a 'product', as this would be a fairly clear trademark violation. The only thing giving these domains value IS LINUS' TRADEMARK 'LINUX', as an operating system, under the terms it was marked under.

    So.. don't think of it as a domain problem... the problem was a company was selling something based SOLELY ON HIS TRADEMARK.

  • Well now... (Score:3)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:31PM (#1360480)
    I must say, I find this funny. I'm not going to delcare this as a one sided thing... a black and white thing... but can admire this.

    1) Linus isnt' trying to profit or protect his interests, he's just putting the brakes on a business that most of us would agree is sleazy. Domain speculating is SLEAZY. If he sent them a letter informing them that Linux(tm) is a trademark, and that he is willing to fight it.. the speculators won't be willing to fight it, it's not worth their time. So good for linus.
    He's *not* trying to keep people from using linux in domain names.. he was just using his trademark to stop some domain speculation. GOOD FOR HIM.

  • Re:Dangerous Precedent? (Score:3)

    by Abigail-II ( 20195 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @05:58PM (#1360481) Homepage
    However linus has done this kind of thing before, to prevent people from misusing the linux name,think of the (old?) owner of linux.co.uk, who was abusing the linux name and domain, linus used his Tm there in a benifitial way as well. But most of the time, he'll allow just about anything to happen, as long as it doesnt 'hurt' the 'linux(tm)' name.

    Uhm, in this case the domain names are not being used yet. So, unless Mr. Torvalds can predict the future, you can't know whether the domain names will "hurt" the linux name or not.

    -- Abigail

  • Linus is no despot (Score:3)

    by dutky ( 20510 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:18PM (#1360482) Homepage Journal
    otherwise how would the linuxsucks [linuxsucks.com] site have been able to register the domain name?

    These other folks were clearly just obnoxious, profiteering, domain squaters and deserved to be slapped down like the running dogs they are.
  • ... the more it smacks of hypocrisy. Something I hate to say.

    I have lost track of the number of cases where we have screamed at the domain name "bullies" who have demanded domains be handed over for 'trademark infringement', only to have the Slashdot hordes scream and kick loudly about how "he got it first", "first come first served", "go to hell".

    Now, when someone tries to register a domain involving the 'holy grail' (as many here would equate it to), the shoe is ever so apparently on the other foot.

  • Linus done right, however... (Score:3)

    by Bob-K ( 29692 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @04:30PM (#1360484)
    Linus is clearly doing the right thing by defending his trademark; as others have noted, failure to defend it can lead to losing it.

    That said, what exactly is so bad about domain speculators? It seems to me that they provide a useful service, just like ticket scalpers. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about the scammers who used to register and re-register domains without ever paying for them.

    Most domain names, at $35/year, are priced below their market value. That's why there are so few good ones available. People register them as if they were free, because they nearly are. But that low cost is also what creates the shortage. Domain speculators help alleviate the shortage, by making names available to people who are willing to pay the most for them. In other words, by reselling the names at a profit, domain speculators help insure that the names will go to somebody who intends to use them, or at the very least, to somebody who will pay dearly for the privelege of not using it.

    To illustrate: I just missed out on being able to register bobk.com, having been beaten by a couple of months by Microsoft (remember MS Bob?). As of last month, it's registered to somebody else, and I don't know the story behind it. But consider the situation of Microsoft holding the name, one that many other wanted, and for which MS had no further use (nor did they ever use it, as far as I can tell; a great domain name just went unused from 1994-whenever). What should Microsft have done with it?

    Obviously "give it to me" wasn't an option; for that matter, there a a zillion Bobs out here who would love the name, but only one could own it. Who should get it? Should they have everybody write an essay as to why the deserve it and then give it way? Giving it to the highest bidder is an imperfect solution, but it's better than all others. Even if MS donated it to charity to avoid looking greedy, there's no assurance that the charity would be able to put it to use unless they sold it.

    The Microsoft example is an anomoly, but it illustrates why reselling domain names (or Super Bowl tickets) helps to efficiently distribute underpriced goods when demand outstrips supply.

  • Re:Fair Use Doctrine (Score:3)

    by catfood ( 40112 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:46PM (#1360485) Homepage
    Before you start to panic, please take a moment to read about the Fair Use Doctrine which allows for free appropriation of content in certain cases of parody, commentary and academic research.

    "Fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks. It is part of copyright law. Even the word "copyright" is embedded in the URL you gave.

    Trademark law is not copyright law. Copyright law is not trademark law.

  • Re:Fair Use Doctrine (Score:3)

    by wendy ( 42400 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @03:43PM (#1360486) Homepage
    Fair use is rooted in copyright (though even there it's under attack by laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that enforce technological bars to fair use), but it has applications in trademark as well.

    Although trademark law does not have the explicit fair use exception of copyright law, First Amendment concerns have carved out a narrower privilege: you can use a trademarked term to discuss or criticize the product or company to which it refers. Consumer Reports can't be sued for trademark infringement when it bashes a product in a review, and a URL aimed not at confusing readers/consumers but showing them a different angle on a trademarked product should be privileged by fair use.

    (American law only, and not a long-established doctrine, at that)

  • A mixed outcome? (Score:3)

    by Uller-RM ( 65231 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @01:53PM (#1360487) Homepage
    It's neither good or bad. It's good to see that people aren't scared about protecting the good name of Linux. It's bad because it makes Linux-using folks look like karma whoring fiends who are rabid about the .com industry - and that some people can have Linux in their name regardless of their value to the community (diverse ranges such as LinuxOne and LinuxToday) and some cannot. Who knows what might have been done with the names, positive or negative. And while I understand that Linus does have the trademark, was there any other reason besides trademark enforcement to block sales?

    I get a sort of queasy feeling about it - there wasn't much to be gained by blocking them, and we might have gotten some bad repute as a result.

  • Re:Would Linus be able to do this with LinuxOne? (Score:3)

    by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @07:43PM (#1360488) Homepage
    IMO it would set a dangerous precedent if Linus started wielding the trademark like a clue-by-four on any company that looked to make money from semi-legitimate (in the case of LinuxOne), and legitimate (in the case of Slackware, et all) businesses relating to Linux. The let them make their mistakes on their own, and let people realise that there are shady people out there.

    It's a bit different when dealing with domain squatters, who are pretty close to spammers.. MO, of course :-)
    ---

  • Sun did the same thing in 1996 with Java domains (Score:4)

    by rcade ( 4482 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:43PM (#1360489) Homepage

    This sounds like what Sun did in 1996, going after a bunch of domain names that included the word "java." See the NetSurfer Digest [netsurf.com] summarizing the story.

    SeriousDomains would not be infringing anyone's trademark rights by selling domains with the word "Linux" in them. The buyer of those domains wouldn't be infringing by buying them, either -- it's what you do with them that counts.

    For what it's worth, Microsoft has allowed many domains to include its trademarks for years -- windows95.com [windows95.com] and activex.com [activex.com] are two examples. It seems odd that someone who gave away intellectual property worth millions -- his operating system -- would be exerting a trademark claim over domains while the closed-source bajillionaires at Microsoft are looking the other way.

  • Probably getting Smart (Score:4)

    by Kid Zero ( 4866 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @01:59PM (#1360490) Homepage Journal
    Linus is probably getting smart and checking to see who is getting the domain names. I know It'd be irritating to go to linuxsomething.org and be confronted with say, tons of popups and porn. Enough of that and people would get the wrong idea. I have no problems with him doing this.

  • Re:Linus Torvalds vs. Etoys! (Score:4)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:34PM (#1360491)
    The difference is that Etoy.com had their domain for years, and were using it in a generally accepted 'appropriate' manner, and etoys fucked them over.

    IN this case, a domain speculator registered a bunch of linux domains in order to make a profit from selling them later, which is a filthy practice, and linus *already* has the trademark...

    Look. I bet it wouldn't hold up in court.. but what domain speculator would go to court over it? They don't care...

  • Re:Dangerous Precedent? (Score:4)

    by chabotc ( 22496 ) <chabotc&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:14PM (#1360492) Homepage
    Parodies on known names are perfectly legal. Microslutsux.com would be a perfectly legal names, as long as they dont pretend to be a true microsoft site, but present (anything near obvious) them selves are a real parodie. Think of 'Naked gun' and other parodies..

    The trademark/copyright infriction comes into places if they try to setup a linux site, with the real Linux(Tm) name doing linux stuff.

    This would obviously be a difference to a parodie.

    However linus has done this kind of thing before, to prevent people from misusing the linux name,think of the (old?) owner of linux.co.uk, who was abusing the linux name and domain, linus used his Tm there in a benifitial way as well. But most of the time, he'll allow just about anything to happen, as long as it doesnt 'hurt' the 'linux(tm)' name.

    -- Chris Chabot
    "I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
  • Linus owns the Linux trademark. From this, they're saying that he is picking and choosing who has 'approval' to use said trademark.

    Fair enough. Just as Microsoft is the arbiter of who uses their trademarks.

    I really hope that all those other sites have done as this site claims, or else there is the question of selectivity. As in "Anyone can create a Linux distribution, and call it xyz Linux or whatever, but should you wish to market it, you need Linus' approval?"

    This is a bit worrisome.

    I use a piece of software called WinGuard. This is like saying Microsoft could pick and choose titling and naming. Think about winfiles.com too.

    This is all a little ambiguous, I haven't had enough coffee yet, but apply some lateral thinking. I'm not screaming, I'm just trying to evaluate this.

    Yes, I hate the idea of domain squatting. It sucks.

    Linus owns Linux' trademark. But is he the arbiter of all things Linux? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either. Someone mentioned using this to try to squash LinuxOne. I don't like that idea at all, much as I dislike what they're trying to do. It sounds very slippery (as in the slope).

  • Re:A mixed outcome? (Score:4)

    by Uller-RM ( 65231 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @01:58PM (#1360494) Homepage
    One more thought - what about parody or comic site names?

    "Our understanding of their position is that we cannot have an outright auction of domain names that contain the word Linux, and that those legitimate Linux consultancies or programming shops that are interested in any of our domain names that incorporate Linux® must approach Mr. Torvalds et al to make sure that the domain name is worthy to be granted a license..."

    I'm sorry - that bit right there gives me shivers, plain and simple. This is, quite honestly, the first lawyerly bit surrounding Linux, GNU, or the GPL that has honest-to-god worried or scared me.

    =-I

  • Dangerous Precedent? (Score:4)

    by icqqm ( 132707 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @01:49PM (#1360495) Homepage Journal
    From what I gather about the statement, it seems that the lawyers are implying that anything with the word "linux" in the domain has to be "approved" by them. What about a domain like Microsoftsucks.com? Or a parody website of some sort? Would they also need permission? Or is this just for auctions?

  • Would Linus be able to do this with LinuxOne? (Score:5)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @01:53PM (#1360496) Journal
    Is it possible for him to keep them from using "Linux" in their company name (and thus stop their quasi-bunk IPO)? If it is, is it proper for him to do so?

  • Why this is necessary (Score:5)

    by lrund ( 64966 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2000 @02:00PM (#1360497)
    This is probably going to be massively redundant, and many of you already know this, but I'll say it anyway. Trademark law requires that a trademark holder defend their trademark, otherwise they can lose it.

    Irrespective of that, there has been a lot of stink raised recently regarding LinuxOne. The "word on the street" (Wall Street) is that this is an operation just trying to cash in on the word "Linux" and not really offer anything except an IPO. A get-rich-quick scheme. If this goes through, it could seriously damage the credibility of "Linux" (quotes added to indicate the word and the image, separated from the actual product), and that hurts every legitimate Linux user, Linux administrator, and Linux support-and-sales company.

    Linus is doing the right thing.

    There are those who accuse people like Linus of being despots... and they're right. but Linus is a benevolent despot. And given the propensity the online community has for divisiveness and special-interests-at-the-cost-of-everybody-else, I think that's a Good Thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Close