Torvalds steps into Linux trademark fight

TalkBack 45 of 80:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

I think I have it

No_Ax_To_Grind wrote:

/* As you often accuse me of, I think your being hypocritical Arguing that MS is "evil" and "greedy" for trying to protect the Windows trademark, while cheering on Linus T. in his efforts is, well, you know.
*/

The issue isn't Microsoft's choice to defend its trademark, it is (a) Microsoft's decision to use trademark to hijack a common computer science word, and (b) Microsoft's long-time pattern of bullying small companies instead of fighting fairly in the marketplace.

on a more indignified note, he wrote:

/* You say I am a MS supporter, well maybe a little. But when I see people like yourself cheer on this type of behavior against ANYONE it bothers me deeply. There appears to be a great deal of situational ethics being applied at all levels, pirating of content is fine because, well the other guy (content owner) is guilty of something in my opinion. Allowing Lindows to pull the crap they did because, well it's MS and they *deserve* it. We hate patents but Eolas is ok because it'll hurt MS, but my gawd how horrible the one-click patent was.
*/

Regarding these three issues:

Pirating content: very few adults say "it's fine, since the RIAA is pretty bad." Instead they say "don't believe the RIAA's line that its only looking out for the artists, ask the artist about it's contracts with the RIAA's studios." That doesn't make piracy right, but it does ask for some honesty on the RIAA's part.

It also leads people to ask "if P2P networks can distribute content more cheaply than the RIAA, and the current system is lousy at protecting the artists, then why should we prop up the RIAA?" And soon somebody proposes having compulsory licensing, so that everyone who uses P2P networks pay $5 to the Library of Congress, which then distributes that money out to the various artists whose songs are traded over those networks, based on log statistics.

Lindows: People weren't happy about Lindows choosing to upset Microsoft with a potentially-infringing name; they were happy to see Lindows make the bully back off. The main issue was the genericity of "windows," not the legal and marketing tactics of a small company.

Eolas: This was simply a case of poetic justice. Microsoft has patents on pretty ridiculous things, and tells the world that open source software is guaranteed to violate patents, *and* shift that liability on to the end customer. Then a University professor charges the company with patent infringement.

For the record, many people in the open source community worked to find prior art and invalidate that patent.

Posted by: mlybbert   Posted on: 08/11/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Selecting the Right NAS Appliance for Your Workgroup LAN Dell Data storage is a major concern for enterprises today. Network attached ... Download Now
• Offload Reporting To Improve Oracle Database Performance Quest Software Is your organization looking for a more cost-effective way to get critical ... Download Now
• Red Hat support, patches, updates with the interoperability of Novell Novell Get top-ranked Novell support for your Existing Red Hat Environment Download Now