Board index » kylix » Re: wxwindows is dead...

Re: wxwindows is dead...


2004-02-24 05:39:18 PM
kylix2
Quote
i will put a trademarking on Foods, ...
e.g. "Apple" <g>
-Michael
 
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

Quote
Saying MS has rights on the word 'windows' is FUD. It has the right on the
trade name Windows for software products.
But AFAIK, Xerox and/or the MIT used the word "Wimndow"(s) for the kind
of GUI they created, long before MS.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"Lester Caine" wrote:
Quote
BUT the US court has already said that it CAN'T trademark
'Windows' and in the latest 'Lindows' case the Judge has
ruled that the previous situation can not now be changed
simply by throwing more money at it.
In Europe MS has won a few cases. It's more convenient to use one name
around the world.
Quote
So when MS loses their appeal to have US case law rewritten
can we just go back to using wxwindows :)
At least not in parts of Europe.
Peter
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >schreef in bericht
Quote
>Saying MS has rights on the word 'windows' is FUD. It has the right on
the
>trade name Windows for software products.

But AFAIK, Xerox and/or the MIT used the word "Wimndow"(s) for the kind
of GUI they created, long before MS.
Yes, but using it is something different from registering it as a trademark.
I think at that time the word windows in conjunction with software was not
that common as it is now, so the registration wasn't rejected. The problem
arises when a product is so popular that the trademark becomes common
language: xerox-machine (Xerox), stanley knife (Stanley), windows (MS),
aspirine (Bayer), luxaflex (Hunter Douglas), walkman (Sony) etc. The laywers
of the latter two are very busy to get their trademarks out of the Dutch
Dictionary.
Peter
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

Quote
The problem
arises when a product is so popular that the trademark becomes common
language: xerox-machine (Xerox), stanley knife (Stanley), windows (MS),
aspirine (Bayer), luxaflex (Hunter Douglas), walkman (Sony) etc.
None of the examples but "Windows" are common words in English or
another major language that _obviously_ fit to the use in the
trademarked product.
OTOH what English words did apple register ? Can I call my next
computer series "pomme" or "applet" ?
-Michael
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"pnichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I can understand somewhat, about Lindows as a word play on Windows
(especially in a society that is deemed not to possess even a moronic
capacity for intellectual thought by the elitist), but I cannot, for the
life of me, understand how anything related to the word WINDOWS, is owned.
patented, copyrighted, etc. by Microsoft.
I've noticed that you have difficulty understanding quite a few things.
Allow me to put things in a perspective that you will find much more
understandable.
www.sun.com/suntrademarks/
Quote
That is absolutely absurd.
Since MS obviously does not own the word "windows", it is your argument that
is absurd.
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >schreef in bericht
Quote
>The problem
>arises when a product is so popular that the trademark becomes common
>language: xerox-machine (Xerox), stanley knife (Stanley), windows (MS),
>aspirine (Bayer), luxaflex (Hunter Douglas), walkman (Sony) etc.

None of the examples but "Windows" are common words in English or
another major language that _obviously_ fit to the use in the
trademarked product.
Despite it are legal trademarks xerox and asperin have made it into my
english dictionary. Windows in the sence of OS hasn't.
Quote
OTOH what English words did apple register ? Can I call my next
computer series "pomme" or "applet" ?
applet will be a problem I think but pomme not. In french speaking parts of
the world the computer is also called Apple, not Pomme.
www.actapricot.org/apricot_history.html <g>
Windows bicycles shouldn't be a problem either.
Peter
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"Peter Agricola" wrote:
Quote
asperin
typo. must be aspirin.
Peter
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Windows bicycles shouldn't be a problem either.
Nor a building product like www.andersenwindows.com .
Many of the posts in this thread display a gross lack of understanding on
the trademark issue.
A trademark isn't a source of income. It doesn't entitle the owner to
collect royalties or license fees. If anything, a trademark costs the owner
in terms of the time and money needed to defend it. All the owner gets in
return is a unique product name.
Noone owns the word "windows" or "sun" or "java". Noone can prevent you
from using these as part of your language, However, a trademark holder
*may* be able to prevent you from using one of these words (or some
derivative) as a product name in the computer industry.
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

JQP wrote:
Quote

I've noticed that you have difficulty understanding quite a few things.
Allow me to putsuperciliousnessective that you will find much more
understandable.

www.sun.com/suntrademarks/

No, you have failed to see the rhetorical twist I was putting on the
discussion concerning LAWYERS and the superciliousness of certain court
decisions based upon the preponderance of nonsensical twists on the ideas
of common expression and meaning. Reread the entire response again. Note
the phrase,
"I guess if someone had deep enough pockets to pay the "professional
twisters of common sense word meanings, and basic
etymology", then MS could be forced to rename MS Windows, since the word
Windows was commonly in use, before MS Windows ever existed; both in common
usage and in the software industry.?
I guess you failed to see as well, that I specifically mentioned I could
understand the case against Lindows as a word play on Windows. I do not
feel, however that wxWindows was in any danger, no more than I believe
XWindows is in any danger, but MS could try to get XWindows to change their
name as well if they wished. However XWindows could challenge MS and make
them change their name as well since XWindows (1982) has been around longer
than MS Windows. So why don't they? Money to pay the bottom feeders (aka,
ambulance chasers).
wxWindows did not back, because MS could win, they backed down because of
the LACK OF FUNDS to fight MS. That was the meaning of the post. The one
with the deepest pockets oftentimes, unfortunately, wins; --even when they
have an extremely weak case.
MS would have had an extremely weak case against wxWindows, since they would
be forced to prove that wxWindows was a marketing ploy that would infringe
upon the trademark of MS Windows. The term "windows" in the software world,
has referred to some type of a graphical interface long before Microsoft
used it to refer to their own blend of a GUI interface. We all understand
the idea of trademarks, but pushing it to the extremes is where I have
problems with it, especially when you consider that the word or phrase was
in common use in the industry, LONG before it was trademarked.
Again, MS has a much stronger case against Lindows, albeit I do not think
the US courts may rule in their favor. Lindows is clearly a marketing ploy,
wxWindows was not. wxWindows used the phrase windows, to refer to what most
would understand about windowing in computer systems, in general. It was
not designed to compete against MS even in the same market sphere. It was
designed as an XPlatform widgeting windowing based toolkit. The common user
would never even be aware of wxWindows.
I do not know of any programmer that would be confused about wxWindows
verses MS Windows. Well, perhaps some naive Windows only ones [meant as a
humorous pun, not to be taken seriously] :).
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

"pnichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"I guess if someone had deep enough pockets to pay the "professional
twisters of common sense word meanings, and basic
etymology", then MS could be forced to rename MS Windows, since the word
Windows was commonly in use, before MS Windows ever existed; both in
common usage and in the software industry. "
And the words "sun" and "java" were in use long before "Sun" and "Java" so
what's your point?
The fact that a word has other meanings/usage or has been used before is not
terribly relevant to the trademark issue. The thing that really matters in
court is who declared and registered the product name in a particular
industry first. If you never declared or registered your claim, sorry, you
lose.
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

JQP wrote:
Quote
"pnichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:403b80c0$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>"I guess if someone had deep enough pockets to pay the "professional
>twisters of common sense word meanings, and basic
>etymology", then MS could be forced to rename MS Windows, since the word
>Windows was commonly in use, before MS Windows ever existed; both in
>common usage and in the software industry. "

And the words "sun" and "java" were in use long before "Sun" and "Java" so
what's your point?

I do not see Sun nor Javasoft suing people over the use of these terms
within the common scope of the word usage, that is the point. 'Kava', for
instance, is certainly a twist on the word "Java" and is DIRECTLY RELATED
to Java itself (as in compiler and JVM). There used to be an IDE named
'Kava' (and no I am not referring to Kawa)as well. Sun did not sue them nor
ask them to change the name "Kava" either. Sun does not threaten a coffee
company that uses the word "Java" either. IF someone tried to come out with
a framework or a programming language called Java, that would be a quite
different matter.
The point is, I think it is fair for MS to go after Lindows, though I do not
think it is rational to assume, that Windows and all derivatives of that
word, belong to Microsoft. That could be taken to mean that all Homophones,
similes, and metaphors are all assumed to be trademarked as well. This
would damage etymology as a whole, and make anyone and everyone legally
liable for trademark infringement.
Even so, any rational person could see Lindows was a marketing ploy that
wished to use the Windows name to make Lindows seem like another Windows,
from a marketing perspective. It is dicey, as to whether MS can win on
this, because it would mean any derivate word, Homophone, simile, etc.
could be subject to litigation.
However, there was no reason for MS to go after wxWindows at all. What is
the logic behind this? What, please tell me?
Borland used to have a framework called OWL Windows. When it was in play
would it have been fair game for MS to go after it? What's next? XWindows,
windowing systems in general, 3D Windows, Window Maker, etc? That is the
point, it can easily get to the point of absurdity and in wxWindows case, I
would argue, that it has.
This is quite different, from say, a company that wanted to use the name
Microsoft directly. Then I would totally agree, MS would have every right
to seek and should receive legal remedy in such a case. Same is true if
anyone wanted to use the name Sun, though you do realize there are several
companies with that name, do you not?
As I previously stated, no one would argue that companies have a right to
trademark certain names to protect product brand name recognition. I, nor
anyone one else that has posted, has argued against this.
What is argued against is when we take words in common usage and try to
ascribe ownership and trademark violations to the word which has a usage
outside of the trademark meaning itself. That is what happened in the
wxWindows case, and I see no way any rational person can avoid that fact.
 

Re:Re: wxwindows is dead...

At 20:32:15, 23.02.2004, Peter Agricola wrote:
Quote

"Marc Collin" wrote:
[snip]

please read
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html


Peter
I cancelled his message because of rule #7.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized." -- Sun Tzu