ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Microsoft Strong Arms Windows Enthusiast

Time: 00:54 EST/05:54 GMT | News Source: WinInformant | Posted By: Robert Stein

So True. "In the meantime, Bink is left wondering why someone who has supported Windows XP so vocally would be threatened by the company that makes the product. Microsoft has taken a similar hard line against other similar Web sites in the past; in 1998, the company demanded that I change the name of the Windows SuperSite to SuperSite for Windows, and Active Windows was forced to change its name to ActiveWin, for example. "

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 23 of 23

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 01:31:00 AM

Paul really bugs me some times.

"Microsoft is currently in danger of losing its Windows trademark, thanks to a frivolous lawsuit it filed against Lindows.com last year."

FYI, it is not frivolous to enforce your trademark. If you don't enforce your marks, you lose them. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that if you go to the trouble of getting trademarks, you have just wasted a considerable amount of money if you don't plan on enforcing them.

#2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 02:19:06 AM

Microsoft doesn't have issues with communities. It loves communities. What it doesn't like, though, are trademark infringements.

If you think Sun would do any less, you've got to be kidding. Sun and Apple and every other major corporation has a legal department whose job it is to defend trademarks (among other things). This is very standard corporate practice. I find it very hard to believe that Bink didn't expect this.

#3 By 7711 (12.107.81.66) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 07:07:44 AM

#1: exactly right. I once read that the company that makes the Frisbee disc (Wham-o, I think) has individuals on the payroll to search through the media for used of the "Frisbee" name without the little tm mark..aggressive enforcement, but then the name Aspirin is still trademarked in Canada due to successful trademark use.

Oops....Frisbee (tm) ;]

#4 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 08:44:07 AM

#5 Unix is not a trademark owned by any one company. Apples to orange comparison.

#5 By 2 (24.51.234.43) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 09:07:56 AM

I will just say that changing our name was upsetting at first, but if Bink does things correctly he can make the best of the situation.

#6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:34:51 AM

Glad eswan said it, cause otherwise I was going to bring it up.

Lindows is sort of like selling Rolix(rather than Rolex) watches for $100 on the street corners in Hong Kong. There's only one reason you choose a name like that.

And BTW, while Paul thinks the "Windows" trademark is frivolous... the "Windows XP" trademark is definately not. This issue here is based off the latter, not former.

Hmm, it seems redhatlinux.com is taken, but not redhatlinux.us. Perhaps I should register that and put up a lot of anti-Linux crap.

#7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:51:39 AM

These types of things don't serve to boost Microsoft's image. I wonder if they intend to do something with that domain name? I don't think their legal department is bored.... ;)

Interesting--if "Windows" is too general for trademarking, what about "Apple"???

#8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:58:02 AM

DELTA75329 -

"If you think otherwise, please seek professional help."

"And what's the deal with the personal attacks? Do you think that makes you any more credible?"

Good question... Would you care to enlighten us on that?

As for Lindows. It seems to me that they could save everybody a lot of headaches if they changed their name. Perhaps Linderson? Seems to me that since it's just a made up name, and it's not intended to be confused with Windows that they shouldn't have any problem using a name that doesn't "accidentally" confuse itself with Windows.

Obviously their choice of name was purely by accident, right?

This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 10:58.

#9 By 1124 (165.170.128.66) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 11:33:13 AM

"There isn't a consumer on this earth that would purchase a Lindows-based PC and think they were getting Microsoft Windows. "

Paul,

These kinds of statements are what gets people upset. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW THIS!!
I know for sure that it confuses my mother and lets not even mention my grand.

If MS did what Lindows did, you would be the first on your soapbox about the evils of Microsoft.

BTW, nice Inquirer title ("Microsoft Strong Arms Windows Enthusiast"). Do you write for them?

#10 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:01:51 PM

Delta: Actually, when the whole lawsuit came around, I asked my mother if she heard the term Lindows, would she think it was a product that was made by Microsoft, and she responded with a yes. The question is not whether or not they confuse Lindows and Windows (although that could happen), the question is whether or not people confuse Lindows as being a Microsoft product.

The fact is it's not just a made up word, it's a word that was made for the sole purpose of capitalizing off of Windows' name recognition.

#11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:41:48 PM

BTW, if you go to the streets of Hong Kong, New York, etc. you'll find people selling fake goods. Jeans, watches and so forth that look exactly like the designer labels. But instead of saying Rolex, they'll say Rolix or something on them. Instead of saying Hilfiger they say Hillfigure and so on.

It's common practice, and their defense is that they aren't using the same name, they are just using a made-up name. Yeah it sounds similar, and yeah their product is designed to look similar, but... "honest , we're just providing an alternative!"

If you can't see that you need psychological help. :-)

#12 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 01:12:06 PM

Delta: Just because people use the computer doesn't mean they know the terms... in fact, they do NOT know the terms.

Hell, I know people that are afriad of the start bar, do you honestly think they know IDE, BIOS, etc.... no, they don't. They aren't handling the computer, they just call the people who can handle it and pay them to fix it/set it up.

Lindows only has name recognition among computer enthusiests, and that's ONLY because of the trial case. Lindows essentially has no name recognition at this point... and I guarentee you that any non-computer enthusiest that you ask will think that Lindows is a Microsoft product.

#13 By 2960 (68.100.157.191) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 01:29:01 PM

There's only one thing to be learned from all his.

The Trademark laws need work.

The "Don't enforce and lose" issue has caused so much grief, and cost so much in legal $$$'s (not that the Lawyers care) that it should be re-written to allow companies to seek action against only those it feels it's necessary to seek action against.

TL

#14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 02:47:55 PM

#30 - Actually it's Apples and Apples. Nice try to deflect from the point, but I think you should address it directly instead. Why must this product be called Lindows? Why must bink use windowsxp.nu? The only reasons I can think of is for them to gain from the confusion relating to MS's product.

Zolk - Exactly!

That's why I'm confused by this argument. It's pretty cut and dried as to why this is happening, just as it's pretty clear why Lindows is being sued. I don't understand the rational of anybody defending either case.

#15 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 03:07:28 PM

I usually agree with Paul Thurrott but on this issue I find him to be dead wrong.

Lindows lawsuit being frivolous is a huge joke. Lindows knows exactly what they are doing...

As for bink. Sorry man, but you shouldn't have registered that domain name... Hopefully its obvious to you why this isn't cool what you have done with your website. Why not just winxp.nu? Its even shorter to type@!

Peace,
RedAvenger

#16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 03:11:00 PM

TL, bob670, Zolk, sodablue, Red - Dead on!

#17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 04:25:44 PM

"There's only one thing to be learned from all his.

The Trademark laws need work.

The "Don't enforce and lose" issue has caused so much grief, and cost so much in legal $$$'s (not that the Lawyers care) that it should be re-written to allow companies to seek action against only those it feels it's necessary to seek action against."

I've never heard a single company complain that enforcing trademarks is burdensome. On the other hand, faulty attempts to protect trademarks exposes the true concerns of the trademark and go a long way to determine whether or not it is valid. This is a perfect example: Microsoft has failed to attack hundreds of products with Win or Windows in their name... Meaning they in part except that it can be a generic name or are willing to have other's dilute the quality of the trademark if and only if the product doesn't challenge them.

You are specifically requesting that selective enforcement be not only allowable, but the law? That's worse than someone trying to violate a trademark; the trademark holders have no responsibility to use the mark uniquely or consistently, and have the power to selectively prosecute violators? That's an oddball suggestion.

Soda, I don't get your position at all: why doesn't Lindows just change it's name? Because they picked it and want it... The only reason to change it is to make Microsoft happy. That's not a very good reason. Why doesn't Microsoft withdraw its trademark and lawsuits, that would make Lindows happy.

By the way, the site should lose its name; this is a case of good trademark protection. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 18:11.

#18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 06:28:39 PM

Jerky boy - "Soda, I don't get your position at all: why doesn't Lindows just change it's name? Because they picked it and want it... The only reason to change it is to make Microsoft happy. That's not a very good reason. Why doesn't Microsoft withdraw its trademark and lawsuits, that would make Lindows happy."

You don't get my position because you ignore the most critical component of my position.

The only reason they choose Lindows was to create confusion with Windows. If they called it "Linderson OS" or something, it would be the same product, it would be a unique name, yet it would not create confusion with Windows. It is that confusion reason that is not desirable to Lindows, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

As to bink and windowsxp.nu, that's entirely because of the enforcement mandate for trademarks.

Maybe Bink should call it windowsxptm.nu?

#19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 06:41:20 PM

I ignore your "most critical component" because that's MS's problem. And you are obviously just confinign yourself to MS' blinder's again. Only reason? There's few things in this world motivated by one reason. Someone else could just as easily say the name is that way to suggest that it is Linux with a Windows compatibility layer--which it is--in which case, any name will probably attempt to capture that quality.

You are saying MS is afraid of confusion so Lindows should change. Your suggestion is also foolish--you act as if Linderson OS has the same qualities and aspects of the current name "it would be the same product, it would be a unique name, yet it would not create confusion with Windows." But it has no uniqueness, no oompf as a name, it creates no impression, nor does it suggest what it is. The idea that this is a good idea just impresses on me that Lindows is more unique and meaningful than the name Windows ever was.

"As to bink and windowsxp.nu, that's entirely because of the enforcement mandate for trademarks." But are you saying there's a problem with that? Are you suggesting like Tech that a company only needs to protect a trademark when it pisses them off and at other times it's just a compliment and not a dilution?

#20 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at Wednesday, December 11, 2002 08:27:57 PM

jerky boy - "I ignore your "most critical component" because that's MS's problem."

Which is, of course, why they are suing.

It appears that you have caught yourself up in another convoluted string of logic inescapable because of your hatred of Microsoft.

"Are you suggesting like Tech that a company only needs to protect a trademark when it pisses them off and at other times it's just a compliment and not a dilution?"

Pretty much, and that's sort of how the law works. If Bink had asked permission to use Windows XP, Microsoft would have either said yes or no. I guess I see this a bit like the MP3 pirates arguing how they are giving free publicity for the bands.

You know, maybe Microsoft or the bands don't want the free publicity?

#21 By 931 (66.156.6.136) at Thursday, December 12, 2002 06:53:50 AM

This is wrong if MS takes this beyond a stupid letter that there required to sent inorder to claim they enforced there trademark then this is absurd...what's further absured is they dont want to fork over the couple hundred for the transfer.. lol

This dude just stick it to them for a long as possible just on principal... if this was some site that said "MS blows donkeys.." i still would not think differently.. he owns it, it's farken his.. ms was late to the game registering it.. they fing lose.. tough bananas ms.

#22 By 931 (66.156.6.136) at Thursday, December 12, 2002 06:55:24 AM

reminds me of the nissan ruling which btw nissian motors lost.

#23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, December 12, 2002 02:38:58 PM

#51 - "You're the one who brought up an irrelevant example."

That's the problem... the examples is very relevant, but you keep avoiding that issue because you are apparently afraid it may damage your logic.

Perhaps you should explain why you think Lindows should use a name which is similar to Windows so as to confuse users which doesn't use Windows as part of the explanation. I'd like that, it'd be quite humorous.

replica watches