Don’t forget

This Monday (6 February), Lior Zemer, mostly of Leicester, but also of Boston University School of Law, will be speaking at Queen Mary IPRI on the interface between copyright and Lockean theory. All are welcome and nobody’s palm needs to be crossed with silver, but please RSVP to Ilanah. The fun begins at 12.30pm.

Here they go again

ZDNet reports Linux Mark Institute (the body set up by Linus Torvalds to protect the LINUX mark) may be appealing against the decision by the Australian Trade Mark Registrar to refuse to register LINUX as a trade mark. An application to register the mark was turned down last year on grounds of lack of distinctiveness. Linux Australia’s president stated with regard to the present proceedings

"The decision of the trademarks office can be appealed, and I believe that is in progress, however Linux Australia is not actioning that…That's being done by the Linux Mark Institute…Their legal team is going through the process, and we are providing them information as they request it, as they need access to local documentation, and things like that, but we're really a third-party to it…We're not directly involved in the process.".
The initial application caused furore amongst software developers who use Linux and feared that they were at risk of being deprived of the opportunity to use the term, or would be forced to pay royalties to the mark-owner.

The IPKat says that this decision certainly important enough to make it worth appealing. The idea of an operating system being generic has implications that could reach well beyond Linux.
REMEMBER; A LA RECHERCHE DU TMS PERDU REMEMBER; A LA RECHERCHE DU TMS PERDU Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, February 03, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. with reference to your news on the appeal by the Linux Mark Institute
    and specifically to the concluding remark "The idea of an operating
    system being generic has implications that could reach well beyond
    Linux" (which I read as "[t]he idea of an operating system's *name*
    being genetic [...]", unless there is something deeper in that
    sentences that I am missing) you surely know how careful one must be
    when using the term "Unix".

    The latter can, in fact, be at the same a trademark (owned by AT&T, if
    I'm not wrong) when identifying - strange but true - the "UNIX(tm)
    Operating System", as well as a generic name to identify a certain
    class of operating systems whose characteristics (technically, the API
    or Application Programming Interface, but I won't bore you with that)
    are all more or less common to a "nucleus" from which UNIX(tm) itself
    was derived.

    Therefore, we have operating systems as diverse as AIX, SunOS,
    Solaris, even Linux, which are "Unix based" (note the different
    capitalization - "Unix" or "unix" v "UNIX(tm)") or even "unices"
    (plural of "unix", although some write "unixes" or "unixen").

    In Italian we even say that an operating system is "uno unix" ("a
    unix") in the sense above.

    So, it might be argued that "Unix" has already become a generic term,
    phonetically speaking (unless people say to each other "this operating
    system is a unix but not a unix-trademark", which, even in the rather
    peculiar world of computer geeks, is not my experience). Graphically,
    I know that the difference between "UNIX(tm)" and "unix" has been
    enforced with a certain attention by the trademark holder, although I
    can't quote you relevant case law right now.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.