Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Government The Courts News

Linux Trademark Rejected in Australia 295

Posted by CowboyNeal from the minor-setbacks dept.
daria42 writes "Linus Torvalds' bid to have the word 'Linux' trademarked in Australia has failed, with the local intellectual property regulator sending his lawyer a vitriolic letter deriding efforts to provide evidence the trademark application was legitimate. In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Trademark Rejected in Australia More

Linux Trademark Rejected in Australia

Comments Filter:

  • First to file! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    O sorry, that's patents...

  • vitriolic? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by efuseekay ( 138418 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:35AM (#13574398)

    The rejection may be on shaky grounds, but the letter was hardly vitriolic. It is firm, and laid out the causes for rejection in a clear manner (caveat : IANAL).

    Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

    • Re:vitriolic? (Score:2, Informative)

      by saider ( 177166 )
      Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

      Wikipedia and Google are poor choices for any kind of "proof". Since Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at any time, the contents are subject to change and may be of questionable authorship. A Google search is even worse because you can use a Google search to back up whatever theory or belief you want.

      For any argument, you need to refer to a good, solid, and authoritative source. In this cas

    • Anyway, using wikipedia and google to bolster your application may be stretching it a bit...but hey what do I know :).

      Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source?? (Not directed at you, efuseekay)

      Genuine authoritative sources are reviewed and re-reviewed by individuals whose credentials are verified, etc. to ensure they know the topic at hand. Think of the requirements for an expert witness [cornell.edu], if that helps; pay particular a

      • Re:Using Wikipedia as a reference is a Bad Idea... (Score:4, Funny)

        by xappax ( 876447 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @08:12AM (#13575201)
        Unfortunately, as you have failed to demonstrate your authority as an expert in information integrity, I am forced to disregard your comments under the assumption that unless you have some sort of verifiable expert credentials, you're a babbling idiot. ;)
      • Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source??

        Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.

        Sure, you cite laws on expert witnesses. Do all book publishers ensure these requireme

        • [GP]:Wikipedia is an interesting concept, but why oh why do people insist on treating it as some kind of authoritative source??

          Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print? Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate. Besides, if you are doing anything important and you get info from any source (especially the web), you should ALWAYS double check it.

          Please re-evaluate your criteria for evaluating authorities.

          One often useful cri

    • Re:vitriolic? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ramblin billy ( 856838 ) <defaultaddy@yahoo.com> on Friday September 16, 2005 @08:30AM (#13575324)

      You're right about the response letter. As for sources? Look again. The problem with using wikipedia and google as sources wasn't that Intellectual Property Australia rejected them as qualified or legitimate. The problem was that they did not support Linux Mark Institute's argument. In fact, they did the opposite. The IPA is denying the application, in part, because of the existence of too many other legitimate uses of the name. Both wiki and google established the widespread inclusion of the name in many products offered by many different companies. In other words - "linux" is too generic a term to restrict its use to one entity.

      This response did not bother LMI. They were basically protecting the name from abusers by claiming it first. If they can't restrict use of the term, neither can anyone else. In this one case, the IPA seems to have made an informed and reasonable decision.

      Don't try to explain that to the poster of the article. I have no idea whether stupidity or irrational bias accounts for the poster's inflamatory slant. I'm sitting on some mod points right now, if I could figure a way I'd slap 5 big 'T's on this article, although 'KW' might be more appropriate.

      billy - remember the boy who cried 'wolf'?

      • Re:vitriolic? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mysticgoat ( 582871 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @10:43AM (#13576461) Homepage Journal

        This response did not bother LMI. They were basically protecting the name from abusers by claiming it first. If they can't restrict use of the term, neither can anyone else.

        This is an excellent point, and one not mentioned in the article. Did the LMI construct their case with deliberate weaknesses to assure this result? A problem with FOSS is that institutions governing ownership of IP are designed to establish and protect specific property rights; they have no mechanism for assuring that a specific property is to be free of any such encumbrances. So it almost seems like the best way of assuring no one can trademark "Linux" is to use a kind of null hypothesis approach: argue before the court that it can be trademarked in such a way that the court has to look at evidence that shows a trademark should be denied.

    • Re:vitriolic? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Whafro ( 193881 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @08:52AM (#13575474) Homepage
      The requirements for a specimen provided to foreign trademark associates are rather strict, and need to demonstrate (generally) that a mark is being actively used in commerce and in the way that is described in the trademark application.

      In this case, it looks like they registered in classes 9 (basically computer programs), 16 (printed matter), and 42 (computer programming services).

      So they would usually need at least three specimens that show a commercial use of the mark (LINUX) in each class. Probably the best way of doing this would be for the applicant (Linus) to show a web page of his own ownership that sells/provides these services and goods directly. Advertisements and brochures are good as well.

      Now, there are some parts of his app that specify use of the mark in things like " Computer programs, data processing apparatus and devices, peripheral devices for computer systems, apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of signals, magnetical and optical data carriers " ... in which case he'd need to show examples of most to all of these or amend that part of the application.

      All he would have to do is make/produce a brochure and he'd have been golden, provided that his app didn't ask for retroactive protection (the Oz IP site doesn't go into that much detail in its preliminary searches).

      Things that (perhaps surprisingly to many) almost NEVER work as a specimen are things like letterhead, business cards, many types of advertising, and even certain presentations of packaging.

      Now, a refusal doesn't mean that a mark is dead. Linus will now have the opportunity to provide a substitute specimen that will satisfy the requests and requirements of the examiner.

  • The good, the bad and the ugly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adtifyj ( 868717 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:35AM (#13574401)
    This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia. Nobody needs to be concerned about trademarks. Everyone can go back to using the word as they wish.

    The bad news is that bad people can use Linux however they like. This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.

    The end goal was to prevent trademark disputes, yet people in favour of the trademark want to spend money keeping the trademark application process going. Why?
    • The other day Linux killed three people!

      What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.

      • Re:The good, the bad and the ugly (Score:4, Informative)

        by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @05:06AM (#13574486) Homepage
        What Linux is the name of this fire we had a while back. Ah, the old Linux Fire.

        That would be perfectly legal, trademark or no trademark. It only protects the use of the word in the specific domain it is defined (Operating systems, presumably, in this case). The purpose of trademark protection is to avoid confusion for the customers (and thus protection from that confusion for the owners).

        Here in Japan, for instance, there is both a Unix laundry detergent and a Unix brand of plastic food containers. The domains do not overlap and thus no confusion.
      • That's actually just about exactly the situation that the former lead singer of Katrina and the Waves [wikipedia.org] found herself in after the hurricane a few weeks ago; she's quoted as saying "The first time I opened the paper and saw 'Katrina kills 9,' it was a bit of a shock." However, as far as I know she doesn't have any trademark on her name, and even if she did (in the field of pop music) she would have no ability to prevent it being used as the name of a hurricane.

    • Re:The good, the bad and the ugly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lifewish ( 724999 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:50AM (#13574445) Homepage Journal
      This will mean that the Aussie LUGs will need to keep an eye out for slander and libel, and act.

      No, this will mean that they can't act. Anyone is free to write their own OS, call it Linux and then either sell it on or complain loudly about how demonstrably buggy Linux is.
      • act is not a synonym for legal action. In the fictitious example you cite, the appropriate response would be to inform the ACCC that this "Linux OS" is being falsely presented as Linux. Remember that as a result of this trademark decision, Linux is now equated with an Operating System that uses the linux source code. It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.

        A less emotive example would

        • Re:The good, the bad and the ugly (Score:5, Interesting)

          by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Friday September 16, 2005 @06:15AM (#13574640)
          It is precisely this wide definition that would provide the legal justification for the ACCC shutting down an OS that was clearly not being described properly.

          That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do that the ACCC couldn't shut down a loud party in a park.

          The 'ACCC', for those not ofay with the name, is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [accc.gov.au]. Officially, they're the "Australian government organisation responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act". Practically, they're an utterly toothless tiger that, well, pretty much just lays around and does nothing really.

          Under the former head, Professor Fels, the ACCC took a pretty proactive role, and bounced around banging heads (where deserved) with gusto. Nowadays, it's toothless.

          Right now in Australia, for example, we're being utterly rorted by the oil companies. They've somehow managed to set up a situation where a bunch of issues (some real, some just 'excuses') are whereby the price of petrol (gas?) at the pump is skyrocketing, and the oil companies are actually turning a couple of million dollars a day, per company, extra profit. This isn't passing on of costs from higher worldwide oil prices, this is actual rorting. The whole country is screaming out for the government and the ACCC to act by way of investigation and regulation as appropriate. The ACCC is just lying there "oh, er, this really isn't something we can involve ourselves in". FFS, this is the whole reason that the ACCC exists!!!

          So yeah, end rant, back on topic... the ACCC has the power to act in a situation over misuse of the Linux name as you describe, but they will not ever actually get off their arses and do something!

          • Businesses are free to set their own prices. There is no fraud going on here; it is not illegal to make a big profit. It is not government's job to set prices or profit margins. If you think the current prices of refined oil in Australia are too high, please tell us of your wonderful supplier that is willing and able to supply oil for a lower price. Better yet, contact them and sell the oil yourself, and you will be able to make a profit.
            • Price fixing is illegal, and I find it hard to believe that is not what is happening with petrol prices.

              Yeah, they just all decided at once to hike their prices by 20 cents a litre. Pull the other one.
              • Price fixing may be illegal, but it is nevertheless the way the world works. If you don't like it, you'd better act yourself because the politician you elected isn't going to.
                • If someone were to talk about how it's annoying that gravity pulls things down, and you said "That's the way the world works", I'd agree. But the way our civilization works is the sum total of how we make it work, it's all artifical and built the way we want it to be. If you just take it the way others are making it to be, it's your loss. I tend to try complaining and trying to change things if they don't suit me.
    • This is good news. Nobody can use trademark law to their advantage here in Australia.

      Actually, I disagree. I think that this is a huge opening for a competent trademark lawyer to leap in and snap up the term before the (apparent) rightful owner gets its act together and submit a proper trademark application.

      I wouldn't look upon this as 'good' or 'safe', I'm thinking dangerous situation.

  • Its surprising.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amodm ( 876842 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:40AM (#13574418)
    that they were using Wikipedia and Google to prove the references. They are good for us people, but in a court.......no way !!
    • Wikipedia may be interesting, but it is hardly an official document. Basically it guarantees nothing: content may be (and often is) relevant and correct, but that's it. IMHO it should only be used as an initial pointer. Would you perform any critical action (open heart surgery, nuclear power plant control,...) based on Wikipedia's information? I surely would not. I would not be surprised if its legal value turned out to be limited.
      • Wikipedia may be interesting, but it is hardly an official document. Basically it guarantees nothing: content may be (and often is) relevant and correct, but that's it. IMHO it should only be used as an initial pointer. Would you perform any critical action (open heart surgery, nuclear power plant control,...) based on Wikipedia's information? I surely would not. I would not be surprised if its legal value turned out to be limited.

        You are setting higher standards for the legal system than it can meet. You c
      • Would you perform any critical action (open heart surgery, nuclear power plant control,...) based on Wikipedia's information?

        I have [wikipedia.org], and I'd do it again!

        ... At least, I would if my doctors let me near sharp cutlery. :'-(
    • Wikipedia and Google [...] are good for us people, but in a court.......no way !!
      Are you kidding? In a formal document? Yes, you probably are one of those people who would hand in an essay quoting Wikipedia as a source...

    • What about Internet Archive? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kamiza Ikioi ( 893310 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @06:33AM (#13574694)
      And yet, the Internet Archive's Wayback machine has been successfully used in several copyright court cases.

      I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that either of these are the best sources. But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is. (Because it keeps records of page updates as well, so you could trace the entry all the way back to the original post of the entry, as well as identify specific sources of each tidbit of information).

      Google... nah, not really. Google is good for finding information, not validating it, imho.
      • But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is.

        Anything can be evidence in court, but it helps is the evidence is credible or at least semi-permanent. For example, a scribble with a pencil that left an impression on a pad of paper could be evidence in a murder trial, but I doubt the same could be much evidence in a contract dispute.

        Wikipedia is a living and changing work that anybody is free to contribute to. The Wayback machine is a part of an organization that is intere
      • Internet Archive tells you what a page contained on a given date. If what you want to do is prove that someone said something bad on their website on a given date, then naturally it could be a good piece of evidence. Wikipedia also tracks changes, so if, again, what you want to do is prove that someone said something on wikipedia on at a given time, then you could use Wikipedia as evidence too. What neither of these sources is good for is finding out how accurate the statements made on the webpage are.

      • Re:What about Internet Archive? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @09:43AM (#13575877)

        But, if Internet Archive is a valid legal source, then by all means Wikipedia is.

        Here's a scary thought- Slashdot as a valid legal source.

    • Wikipedia and Google, and for that matter Slashdot, are probably among the best ways to track common usage of tech terms. Certainly there are no written, traditionally published references which are likely to be able to keep up.
    • Surprising or not, not the first instance, though. [wikipedia.org]

  • Misleading summary... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:42AM (#13574423)

    ...yet again. The summary states:

    In the letter, the regulator points out that information from Wikipedia and Google used by the lawyer to support the trademark application is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark to be registered."

    The statement "information from Wikipedia... is simply not effective in making the case for a trademark" is wrong. The article states:

    The applicant used Wikipedia and Google to back its claim but IP Australia dismissed the examples. "The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use.

    So basically, Wikipedia as a source is fine, but in this particular instance, the source didn't back up the claims. A totally different situation than the summary makes out.

    • Re:Misleading summary... (Score:5, Funny)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:51AM (#13574448) Journal
      A misleading summary that allows the user to forward his anti-Wikipedia agenda? That's unpossible on slashdot!
    • Microsoft Windows is a range of operating environments for personal computers and servers.

      Does that "demonstrate" that Microsoft Windows is a generic term and not a trademark? The trademark office has misread that entirely.

    • Re:Misleading summary... (Score:5, Funny)

      by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @06:01AM (#13574608) Journal
      The entry from the Wikipedia encyclopaedia indicates 'Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel' ... demonstrating generic use rather than trademark use.
      About time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along". Never would've thought that silly dispute could have any practical meaning.
      • About time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along". Never would've thought that silly dispute could have any practical meaning.

        One day, I'll have more mod points, then I'll be coming back for you.

        Insightful or funny though, which would you prefer?

      • time for RMS to say, "see, I told you it should be called GNU/Linux all along"

        Think back a bit, after he stopped pretending that he had never heard about it when he was asked about it in interviews for a couple of years (either for some attempt at comic effect or deliberately putting it down perhaps - it got a bit old after the first couple of times) he put forward the "LiGnuX" name. It got a bit less silly after that but no more relevant - and no, it wouldn't make any difference if the FSF had tried to re

    • That's easy to fix just go to Wikipedia and update the article to make it reflect what is needed. Once the trademark has been granted change it back. Problem solved :o)

  • Breaking News (Score:4, Funny)

    by OSXpert ( 560516 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:42AM (#13574425)
    Netcraft Confirms it: Anonymous Coward dead at 52. Regardless of whether you agreed with his posts all the time, he was a frequent contributor of great information to slashdot. Truly an American Icon.

  • Oy Weh! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by putko ( 753330 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:47AM (#13574438) Homepage Journal
    This one is so awful. From the looks of it, Linus Torvalds was forced [com.com] to play the trademark game, because of a slimeball lawyer.

    But it appears that because he didn't defend it from early on, he's now unable to claim it in Australia. So he should have been demanding money from all the Linux-name-using folks all these years if he wanted to become the trademark.

    How ironic: to frustrate a lawyer slimeball at the behest of his users, Mr. Torvalds makes himself look silly in front of the court.

    To get an idea of how scummy the first lawyer was:

    Torvalds didn't plan on gaining trademark protection for the word "Linux" when he began work on his OS, but by 1996 he started wishing he had. That's when William R. Della Croce Jr. of Boston first started demanding 10 percent royalties on sales from Linux vendors, based on a trademark claim he had filed in 1994. The Linux kernel was still free software, but according to Della Croce, the name itself was his property. [infoworld.com]

    That's 10 percent! What a parasite! It makes me think he deserves the Mr. Hands treatment [threat.tv].

  • Decision doesn't mean anything for other markets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FlorianMueller ( 801981 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:51AM (#13574446) Homepage
    I don't think this Australian decision has anything to do with the validity of the Linux mark in other places. The information in the article suggests that Linus Torvalds has been poorly represented and/or IP Australia didn't fully understand that Linux is not a "generic" term, or it could be a combination of both.

    This passage here looks like the lawyer failed to do his job properly: It is not clear from the declaration in what way Mr Jeremy Malcolm is authorised and qualified to make this declaration on behalf of Mr Linus Torvalds. It should be a routine task to provide documentation that satisfactorily answers that question before it's even asked. Probably a document with Linus' signature (and some official confirmation of its authenticity, such as by a notary public along with a so-called apostille) would have done the job.

    I've opened the PDF file [zdnet.com.au] of the IP Australia letter, and the examiner says that the decision could be reconsidered on the basis of better evidence. That means some more effort will have to be put into this than printing out a Wikipedia article and a few pages of Google search results. A key question will be "the date when use of the trade mark commenced".

  • Editors on crack... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cody Hatch ( 136430 ) <cody@chHORSEaos.net.nz minus herbivore> on Friday September 16, 2005 @04:53AM (#13574455) Homepage
    The article was poor, but the summary on /. was retarded. It didn't took a bad article, misunderstood it, spun it in a way seemingly designed to misdirect attention, and failed to convey the important information.

    The bottom line is - Linus (or possibly an Australian LUG, the article wasn't entirely clear) was afraid that someone might trademark Linux and do Bad Things with it. So they initiated an attempt to trademark it for themselves, and the relevent authority told them not to be silly, the term was clearly generic.

    This is great. First, it's a sign of sanity - all too rare in government bodies in charge of intellectual property protection. Second - it's ten times better for the term to be un-trademarkable than for it to be trademarked, even in the hands of someone theoretically trustworthy.

    So, to sum up: 1) You can't trademark the term Linux in Australia. 2) This is a good thing.

    • Re:Editors on crack... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nagora ( 177841 )
      First, it's a sign of sanity - all too rare in government bodies in charge of intellectual property protection.

      I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one? "Hoover" clearly became synonymous with vacuum cleaners in general, what has "Linux" become synonymous with? Operating systems? Hardly!

      Second - it's ten times better for the term to be un-trademarkable than for it to be trademarked,

      • The term Linux is used on Slashdot to mean anything from `open source' to `UNIX-like'. And this is a community that supposedly knows more about Linux than most other people. If that level of confusion is here then I can imagine it's far more widespread.
      • In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic?
        It is a generic term for any OS or distro based on the Linux kernel.
      • I'm not sure how this is a good or sane thing. In what sense can the term "Linux" possibly be generic? If it's generic, what other uses overlap with the correct one?

        1) The Linux kernel
        2) Operating systems based on said kernel (as in "I run Linux")
        3) "Appliance" systems based on said kernel (e.g. Linux PDA)
        4) Huge kernel mods (RTLinux, ucLinux)

        This rejection seems to focus on #2, personally I think maybe #4 is the strongest reason why there should not be granted a trademark on Linux.

        So you think that it's fi
    • It really surprises me how someone like Linus who has been working on Linux for 15 years already can act so unprofessionally.

      I mean, numerous books have been written about Linux, companies have been founded to provide support for it. Show the lawyer a few books and he knows what you mean.

      Instead he half-asses submitted a poorly written wikipedia page and some google searches.

      The Slashdot summary is wrong, the reply isn't vitriolic, it's a clear factual refusal. It's a shame Linus is unable to realise what

    • You must be new here.

    • Editors?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BarryNorton ( 778694 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @06:20AM (#13574652)
      The editors sole job here is to judge which submissions, usually by mentioning Microsoft and/or OSS, will incite 'debate' - i.e. receive a lot of posts, supporting advertising revenue.

      Slashdot is over...
    • IMO, /. has turned into the electronic equivalent of those trash tabloids as I call them; World News, The National Enquirer, etc. I don't remember /. being this way in the early years. Now it is fine if they want to make money and they have figured out this is how best to make it, but it doesn't agree with my style of news reading. Lately the central point for news gathering has been Google, Ars-Technica, and other select sites that cater to my hobbies.

      3 years ago I was ready to kick the /. habit because

  • What's 'Vitriolic' About That Letter? (Score:4, Funny)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @05:41AM (#13574566)
    The letter doesn't seem terribly "vitriolic" to me. Obviously, someone has never received a letter from a lawyer.

  • Where's the vitriol? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Friday September 16, 2005 @05:47AM (#13574579)
    I don't see any vitriol there. When did Slashdot become a tabloid?

    Actually, that smells more like incompetent lawyer than bad government agency. The Australian trademark mob does have a bit of a reputation for being quite firm with registrations - they must be genuine and proper and not half-assed. Any trademark lawyer worth his salt here would know that, and draw up a proper application.

    If my students cite Google and Wikipedia as primary sources of reference in the academic papers they submit to me, they fail, and I send them back for a re-write (at their option). Same should apply for trademark applications. What sort of half baked cowboy is this guy?

  • Does anyone know if "Windows" is a registered trademark in Australia?

  • Treaty? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) *
    Doesn't Australia and the US have a treaty in place where these kind of things are observed?

  • FOSS and trademarks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by james_gnz ( 663440 )

    Trademarks aren't new to FOSS, and I can't imagine the Linux trademark being restricted as severly as the Mozilla or AbiWord ones:

    If an individual or organization is creating a Community Edition of Mozilla Firefox or Thunderbird, it must use the names "Firefox Community Edition" or "Thunderbird Community Edition" to identify this software.

    ... AbiSource freely licenses the use of certain of its trademarks solely in combination with the suffix "Personal" when applied

    • (Unlikely IMHO) worst case scenario if "Linux" were trademarked:
      Debian and Fedora are based on Linux®. "Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

      Have you ever picked up a retail box of Linux software in the US? They almost all have that in the fine print on the back of the box.

  • Basis of the application must be sound (Score:4, Interesting)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Friday September 16, 2005 @06:47AM (#13574742)
    I've written before about trademarks on Slashdot, and although IANAL, I have done enough trademarks unassisted that I might just have a clue...

    The point about a trademark is that it is YOUR mark that indicates that something is in some way YOUR product. As I have said before, I believe that there is no incompatibility between FOSS, GNU and trademarks because trademarks are just a way of identifying the source of things - they are totally different from patents and copyright. In principle, it is absolutely right that Linus, who originated it, should be able to trademark the name Linux. By enforcing the trademark, he can effectively "quality check" or stamp things with his imprimatur. If someone else produces a crappy Linux/Gnu distribution, he should have the right to stop them calling it Linux. They can still publish it and say "Uses Linux(TM) Kernel 2.6. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds". They just can't call the product Shit Linux, or whatever. Equally, if someone else produces a good distro, he should be able to exchange pieces of paper which basically say "So long as you are good guys and recognise my principles, you can call your distro Nice Linux", and one from the supplier saying "Dear Mr. Torvalds, we recognise your trademark, thank you for allowing us to use it." If you think about it, this is clearly a Good Thing. It helps create a community of trust based around a government agency, at relatively low cost.

    So what went wrong in Oz? Well, IMHO the error Linus made was in not making use of the name Linux as a trademark earlier, which means that it has in reality become generic in many places. He needs to show that it really does connect back to him. Submitting letters from suppliers of Linux distributions available in Australia saying "We recognise that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds, he licenses us to use it, and we are very unhappy about these people who use the name without permission" would be a start.
    But in practice, if the name has been in general use for years and has not been defended, it would be a hard case.

  • In the US there appear to be a bunch of trademark applications [uspto.gov] either related to Linux or using the phrase. The only one for "Linux" (stand-alone) appears to be a 1999 application for laundry detergent [uspto.gov] from a Swiss company. I'm not a lawyer or patent expert, but I gather other Slashdot readers may know more on the status/history of "Linux" trademarks here in the US, where the patent office often seems to approve applications without particularly thorough investigation or prior usage.
    • The Linux laundry detergent is actually older than the Linux operating system kernel, although it wasn't introduced in the USA right from the start.

      The "Linux" trademark for laundry detergents in the USA was granted in 2000, but that's not a problem - trademarks are always granted *for a specific domain* only. That's why when you go to a grocery store, you can still buy "apples" even though Apple probably has a trademark filed for the term - the trademark applies to computers only, so the fruit of the same

  • I heard .. (Score:2, Funny)

    by gaanagaa ( 784648 )
    I heard that Linus Torvalds was given some options. 1. To change Tux to a Kux named kangaroo. 2. To remove the compatibility of Opera web browser from Linux, which they claim as the Sydney's trade mark.
  • After all, the GPL allows forks and doesn't require a name-change.

    Although it seems unlikely at the moment, it's possible that Linux will deteriorate and fork a superior version (like with gcc/egcs many moons ago) - Linus could get hit by a bus or lose his mind... it's not likely, but it's possible.

    In that case, which should use the TM?

  • Now let me step out and get my fire retardant coat.
  • Perhaps a new term is necessary: caveat boner. It roughly translates to "beware of legal cockery up the ass", a problem that occurs oftentimes when intellectual property matters are at hand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Close