ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

Careers

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

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

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows 7

IE 8

Hardware

Microsoft Arc Mouse (Red)

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Sponsors: SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
exterminator
lawn care
SEO
Search Engine Optimisation
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Marketing
PPC Management
Search Engine Optimization
Search Engine Optimisation
search engine optimisation
Cheap Web Hosting
Webanalyse
online credit card processing
Lenovo Laptops
Text Links
Business Gifts
SEO Services
SEO
cheap websites
Search Engine Optimization
Promotional Pens

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. "

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 59
Last Page | Next Page

The time now is 9:21:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By BobSmith (3719 Posts) at 12/11/2002 1:31:00 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 matgarnz (86 Posts) at 12/11/2002 1:58:18 AM

I find the whole issue rather puzzling.

Balmer has been interviewed several times over Linux, and has stated that he would like to create a close developer and user community as there is for Linux. Which is all very nice, yet on the other hand, there are law suites bought against enthusiast sites who are trying to develop this "community" and a just geniuinely enthusiastic about future Microsoft products.

What Microsoft needs to do is relax a bit, be open and more transparent. Heck, I've seen more "community" involvement by SUN than what Microsoft does.

#3 By BobSmith (3719 Posts) at 12/11/2002 2:19:06 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.

#4 By joenorton (1 Posts) at 12/11/2002 2:41:22 AM

Microsoft copies Apple again!
Apple invented the idea of screwing its most loyal and dedicated fans by suing them.
When will this ever end? :)

#5 By matgarnz (86 Posts) at 12/11/2002 4:49:17 AM

RE: #3 By BobSmith (3315 Posts) at 12/11/2002 2:19:06 AM

Microsoft need to learn a leason or two. Piss of your fans, you piss of your user base. It is the old battler vs the mega corp. and people will always support the little battler and his website.

I don't see the OpenGroup jump on people who use UNIX as the case of unixology or other unix orientated sites, and I don't see SUN chuck a hissie fit over people using Solaris, as in http://www.solariscentral.org.

I think Microsoft need to tone down their rhetoric, and learn to shut up when their opinion is not wanted.

This post was edited by matgarnz on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 04:54.

#6 By JaggedFlame (2581 Posts) at 12/11/2002 7:00:35 AM

#4, yes, I seem to recall Apple suing like crazy when skinners and modders were excited enough by the new Aqua interface that they used it in their skins. It got pretty bad.

#7 By jimlat (151 Posts) at 12/11/2002 7:07:44 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) ;]

#8 By GhostRider (308 Posts) at 12/11/2002 8:44:07 AM

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

#9 By pthurrott (28 Posts) at 12/11/2002 8:56:35 AM

Regarding #1, it is truly frivolous to sue a company for using a name that sounds like Windows. You can't use the name, and now you can't use a name that rhymes with the name? Come on. What's next? Hey, that name has three or four letters from the word Windows! You're infringing on our mark!

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

In fact, the judge in that case obvious believes it to be frivolous as well, and he's thrown it back in Microsoft's face: Thanks to this lawsuit, the company will probably lose its Windows trademark. If that's not the definition of frivolous lawsuit, I'm not sure what is.

Paul

#10 By AWBobStein (943 Posts) at 12/11/2002 9:07:56 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.

#11 By activedd (1 Posts) at 12/11/2002 9:46:12 AM

Why is there such a problem with MS protecting what they've spent years and millions of dollars on promoting? It's perfectly acceptable for a company to want to protect their registered names, especially a name as recognizable as Windows. An average user who comes across "Windows SuperSite" might think it is an actual Microsoft site (especially with its heavily borrowed design elements of many true Microsoft sites). Seems fine to me if MS doesn't want the word "Windows" starting off a non-microsoft site/company name. Before putting the time and energy into crafting a site catering to or promoting MS, one should first take a little time and read the terms-of-use policies concerning the use of MS registered names. Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive to Microsoft's cause here. Maybe I'll start a new site called "Thurrott SplendidSite" and see what happens.

#12 By bonoriffic (110 Posts) at 12/11/2002 9:51:59 AM

#7 I believe the Simpsons refer to that product as a novelty flying disc.

#9 If you truly feel this strongly on the subject, which just looks like sour grapes on your part, then stop paying your license to Microsoft for the right to use Windows in your various publications. There is a difference between lindows which isn't the actual trademarked word and using the actual Microsoft product name. Microsoft won't lose their trademark on Windows as it fits the very definition of a trademark in that a secondary meaning exists to a word that over time identifies it with the product or seller. Microsoft trying to prevent consumer confusion over lindows is a valid lawsuit. Suing the fast food industry for making you fat, now that is a frivolous lawsuit. Attempting to stop a website from using your product's name in a way that is specifically meant to confuse the customer and offers illegally obtained information for download about that company... I can't see anything wrong with it.

By the way Paul, Microsoft makes a wonderful product called Word that has a spell checker, you should give it a try.

#13 By eswan (6 Posts) at 12/11/2002 9:59:54 AM

UNIX� is a registered trademark of The Open Group. See http://www.opengroup.org/legal.htm
That's why Linux, *BSD, OS X, and others are not 'UNIX'.

#14 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 12/11/2002 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.

#15 By DELTA75329 (15 Posts) at 12/11/2002 10:47:35 AM

#12: Valid lawsuit?? Sorry, but that's not correct. "Lindows" does not equal "Windows". If you think otherwise, please seek professional help. How can Microsoft enforce their trademark over a word they did not trademark? Come on now, get a clue. "Lindows" is a made up word. It's clever, maybe even annoying, but it's not deceitful. There's a clear difference. Using your reasoning, the average consumer is supposed to be confused by the difference of the words "Cat" and "Hat". Same idea: only the first letter is changed. But in reality, everyone knows those are two different things. Give people some credit and understand that they can tell the difference between "Lindows" and "Windows", if only to know that these are two separate and distinguishable products. Hell, people even knew that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 were different products, even if they did not understand the technical aspects. Still with me, or did I lose you on "Fat"? Whether you see it or not, the lawsuit was not valid; the judge assigned to the case drew the same conclusion. I'll take his word over yours seeing as how the judge is far more experienced and definitely more qualified to deal with legal matters than you are. Aside from taking one's word, I can think for myself, thank you very much. "Windows" is a Microsoft trademark. But they never bothered to trademark "Lindows". If there are any sours grapes, it's on Microsoft's part. Maybe Microsoft and their supporters on this issue can wait until real people actually report some genuine confusion before Microsoft swoops in to save what they see as the poor defenseless idiot consumers in PC land. Permitting them this kind of broad interpretation to their trademark enforcement is dangerous.

I'm not bashing Microsoft here: I'm a proud Windows XP user, and I find Office to be essential. Microsoft writes excellent, robust and user-friendly software, but the company itself could use a bugfix if you ask me.

One other thing: what does it matter if a couple words are misspelled? Your weak and half-hearted attempt at a rebuttal is only further weakened by this kind of nonsense. Do you think coughing up insults makes you any more credible? Perhaps attacking one's education is an exercise best suited for you and a mirror. I suggest a logical argument next time. Perhaps with some *thought* and *logic* put into it. You should give it a try.

This post was edited by DELTA75329 on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 11:04.

#16 By bluvg (1834 Posts) at 12/11/2002 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"???

#17 By sodablue (5245 Posts) at 12/11/2002 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.

#18 By tonymangero (28 Posts) at 12/11/2002 11:08:24 AM

He ought to use this to his advantage with a response to MS similar to:

"I can waste everyone's time fighting this suit or I can change the name. What are you going to give me if I comply and change the name?"

This could range from MS setting him up with a contact in their Press Office that he would have direct access to (to scoop news), to more material things like software.

I'm not sure how feasible that is, but it might be worth a shot.

#19 By GhostRider (308 Posts) at 12/11/2002 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?

#20 By bonoriffic (110 Posts) at 12/11/2002 11:42:39 AM

#15 If the lawsuit was frivolous it would have been thrown out and never gone to trial. It wasn't. I never said Microsoft would win, only that it was a valid argument. As to your other ramblings, you seem to suffer from a superiority complex. The consumer has been proven time and time again that they are not well educated, or even rational people. I'm glad you can figure out lindows is not windows. However, you do not speak for the other half a billion people who may not. Trademarks have everything to do with content, not just being real close sounding. If lindows was a toaster, nobody would take an issue. The simple fact is windows and lindows are both operating systems. Microsoft only asked a judge to consider that consumer confusion may take place. It is a reasonable question to ask.

Regardless the point is Bink has a popular site for one reason, he posts illegally obtained information regarding Microsoft yet also capitalizes on Microsoft's product name. Again, it is not unreasonable for Microsoft to ask that to stop. If you feel otherwise, fine, but it is still a valid point with solid legal base worth considering.

#21 By DELTA75329 (15 Posts) at 12/11/2002 11:43:49 AM

#17 / sodablue -

No insult intended, but were you confused by the names? Did you think Lindows was another version of Windows? If you *truly* were confused, then I would consider revising my stance if I saw evidence that more people in the general population felt the same way, not just people on this board backing you up just to spite me. But since that's likely not to be the case, I stand by my original posting. For that matter, I have good reason to think the judge who decided the case would agree with me, but I intend to speak only for myself here. I'm no fan of Lindows, but the name was chosen, and it was their right to choose it.

You make an interesting point about "avoiding headaches". I like it, but I don't agree with it. I see that suggestion as a coward's way out. Competition is not always nice; it is survival of the fittest much of the time. Are companies supposed to hamper development and marketing of their products because the competition wants to act and reason like a child? Where would Microsoft be if they had been sensitive to the complaints of Apple about Windows? Seriously.

As per your request for enlightenment... "Lindows" does not equal "Windows". They are not the same words. I say to anyone who disagrees "Seek professional help if you think those are the same words." By that I mean go back to school and take an English class or something. I'm not trying to be insulting, but this is (or rather should be) a simple concept. I should not have to explain that the words are fundamentally different. As for their meanings in relation to the products they identify, I refer you to my original question I posed to you regarding the confusion Microsoft is only too happy to try to prevent. The trouble is, there is no confusion: only an accusation from Microsoft that there might be. It is reasonable to assume people are not going to mix these words up. They know these are two separate products as they knew Windows 98 and 2000 were separate. The only people complaining here are Microsoft and their supporters, but interestingly enough, no public outcry. Not a word from independent consumer advocate groups. There's been no consumer outcry on this issue. That's because people understand the concept that "Lindows" and "Windows" are not the same word or the same product. I.E., people "get it". Microsoft's excuse to file this already determined to be frivolous lawsuit is clearly without merit and borders on anti-competitive in my opinion, but that's another story.

On a final note, calling someone on a personal attack is by no means the crime as you seem to think it is. If you saw me pointing that out as a personal attack on bonoriffic, so be it. You have a right to your opinion and that's good enough for me. We can argue the finer points of etiquette on messages boards some other time. For now, let's stick to the issues at hand.

#22 By CPUGuy (1772 Posts) at 12/11/2002 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.

#23 By EricFerleman (143 Posts) at 12/11/2002 12:05:02 PM

#18, somehow I doubt Microsoft will ever cozy up and give Bink inside press access or free software just for his domain. They have the money and muscle power to get his domain easily enough right now, and I don't think they care what their fan base thinks about it.

This post was edited by EricFerleman on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 12:06.

#24 By DELTA75329 (15 Posts) at 12/11/2002 12:12:00 PM

#20: I liked this one. My responses are as follows:

"#15 If the lawsuit was frivolous it would have been thrown out and never gone to trial. It wasn't. "

Perhaps, and I'll agree that the legal definition of frivolous would probably support this. However, Microsoft is not proving it's case in the eyes of the court. And for good reason. Either way, not good for them.

"I never said Microsoft would win, only that it was a valid argument."

You say it's valid, I say it's not. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm not trying to get you to change it, my intent is to refute what I see to be misinformation. Our opinions won't effect the case; the legal system will determine if the argument is legally valid or not. But at the end of the day, you and I will still be on our respective sides of the fence.

"As to your other ramblings, you seem to suffer from a superiority complex."

Save it. You're clearly no more of an expert in legal matters any more than I am, and you're no shrink either.

"The consumer has been proven time and time again that they are not well educated, or even rational people."

Excellent point, and I agree with you on this one. But why then, are there no complaints from the public on this?? You speak of valid questions; I think this one qualifies. Especially since the judge asked the very same question. I would think Microsoft's complaint to have merit if said confusion really existed, but it does not. Therefore Microsoft's expressed motives are basically crap. I suspect something deeper going on with regard to their intentions, but that's just me being paranoid.

"I'm glad you can figure out lindows is not windows. However, you do not speak for the other half a billion people who may not."

Thanks. I'm sure you, like everyone else, had no trouble figuring out the difference either. I never presumed to speak for anyone other than myself. That's because I can't speak for half a billion people. Guess what? Neither can you. And neither can Microsoft. They can only speak for their own interests, and that is precisely what they are doing in this case.

"Trademarks have everything to do with content, not just being real close sounding. If lindows was a toaster, nobody would take an issue. The simple fact is windows and lindows are both operating systems. Microsoft only asked a judge to consider that consumer confusion may take place. It is a reasonable question to ask."

To say the least, much of that is debatable. Especially when it comes to broad and liberal interpretation of just what content is in question. For clarification, I refer you to the lawsuit filed against "Austin Powers: Goldmember". There was a complaint about the name on the grounds of copyright and trademark infringement, but the Austin Powers installment kept the title. If you choose to look it up, you may find some striking similarities to Microsoft's gripe.

"Regardless the point is Bink has a popular site for one reason, he posts illegally obtained information regarding Microsoft yet also capitalizes on Microsoft's product name. Again, it is not unreasonable for Microsoft to ask that to stop. If you feel otherwise, fine, but it is still a valid point with solid legal base worth considering."

On this one, you're correct. I can't deny that statement, because I, for one, think it's true. We're in agreement regarding Bink. I took exception with your comments regarding ""Lindows" and "Windows" because I think they were incorrect. I still do. Again, my intent is not to change your opinion, only to refute it. There are opposing views out there on anything and there always will be.

#25 By steven1832 (124 Posts) at 12/11/2002 12:12:10 PM

I can't believe that some of you don't get it, if you don't protect your trademark you loose it! It's not personal it's business.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 25 of 59
Last Page | Next Page

The time now is 9:21:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us