[Am-info] "windows" trademark owned by Microsoft? Baloney

[Roy Bixler]

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:12:55AM -0400, Gene Gaines wrote:
> The savages at Microsoft have gone too far in attempting to
> destroy Lindows, and additionally in attempting to use SCO to
> destroy Linux.

Right -- although I wonder about the meaning the latest news on the
SCO front that Baystar wants to redeem their $20 million investment.
Particularly, I wonder if Microsoft is involved in this decision or
whether Baystar is finally beginning to see what a sham SCO Group's
cases are.  If Microsoft is involved in this latest decision, as I
understand they were involved in the initial decision to make the
investment, then my guess would be that they see the writing on the
wall and want to pull the plug on SCO Group before there is an adverse
ruling to set any unwanted precedents.

> What to do?  Why are we taking time to read this email list?

Sometimes I wonder about that.  But sometimes it is worth it to read
this list and your posting is an example of that.

> If we, as individuals and as a group cannot take some position
> on this issue, then I think we should shut down this list.
> 
> HEAR YE HEAR YE:  If anyone on this list believes that
> Microsoft's actions in this matter in any way legitimate or
> ethical, PLEASE LET US KNOW. If you are afraid to disclose your
> email address publicly, send me a private email and I will
> forward your comments to the list without your email address,
> and if you wish without your name.

Sorry, no can do.

Ultimately, when Microsoft saw that the case was not going their way
in the US, they filed a bunch of trademark infringement suits in
European countries where English is not the native language and
"windows" is not a word in these countries' native languages.  In that
case, it is harder to argue for genericity.  Also, Lindows did not
have a chance to defend itself in at least some, if not most, of these
cases.  Therefore Microsoft got quick rulings against Lindows.  The
Benelux ruling that Lindows had to make their Web site unavailable to
Benelux residents was particularly damaging.  Lindows had to back down
or potentially face very steep fines for "making their Web site
available to Benelux residents."  This is yet another example of where
Microsoft's deep pockets and deviousness can cause harm to a
competitor even when US law is not on its side.

-- 
Roy Bixler <rcb@bix.org>
With Microsoft, failure is not an option.  It is a standard feature.