[IP] Glass Panes: Microsoft's word-monopoly on "Windows" challenged

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:42:03 -0800
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: fwd: Glass Panes: Microsoft's word-monopoly on "Windows" challenged

>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/30/technology/30LOGO.html
>
>December 30, 2002
>
>Glass Panes and Software: Windows Name Is Challenged
>
>By STEVE LOHR
>
>      here is no question that Microsoft Windows, the name of the
>dominant personal computer operating system, is one of the leading
>brands in the world. Today, Windows is the face of computing for nearly
>400 million people worldwide ó the software that determines the look and
>basic operations of more than 90 percent of all PC's.
>
>But success, money and monopoly, it seems, do not put even so familiar a
>name as Microsoft Windows beyond challenge. An upstart company,
>Lindows.com, is trying to persuade the Federal District Court in
>Seattle to invalidate Microsoft's trademark on Windows.
>
>At issue is the level of legal protection that should, or should not, be
>accorded to an ordinary word that Microsoft adopted as its own: windows.
>
>The litigation so far ó a mounting pile of evidence and briefs ó
>provides a detailed narrative of the origins and rise of a
>mega-brand, and a primer on trademark law. And an order by Judge
>John C. Coughenour, refusing Microsoft's plea for a temporary
>injunction against Lindows.com, suggests that Microsoft has a fight
>on its hands against a feisty start-up with fewer than 50 employees.
>
>In January, Judge Coughenour is expected to decide on Lindows.com's
>motion for a summary judgment ó a ruling from the bench ó that the
>Windows trademark should be revoked. But that is a long shot. Both
>sides are preparing for a trial that is scheduled to begin in
>Seattle on April 7, when a jury is expected to begin weighing
>whether Lindows is an illegal copycat brand and whether Microsoft's
>trademark on Windows should be taken away.
>
>Lindows.com is defending a broad principle, its lawyer says. "No
>company, no matter how powerful, no matter how much money it has
>spent, should be able to gain a commercial monopoly on words in the
>English language," said the lawyer, Daniel Harris, a partner at
>Clifford Chance.
>
>[...]


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/