Why not compete on products and service, instead of arrogance, monopoly. lawyers and size?
Printable View
Why not compete on products and service, instead of arrogance, monopoly. lawyers and size?
one thing comes to mind when reading that article, when Lindows was established. If they were established at the same time, ie 1983, since there was not a broad internet structure established, you could not penalize ethier for their names and such their should induce their copyrighted claims as valid. if Lindows was established later, then It has no claim on windows.
At least Bill didn't start his own linux distro.
It's a shame Lindows is a useless, bug-ridden operating system.
p.s. I don't see them sueing apple.
Again, everybody is blaming Microsoft for monopoly...
I think they have the the right to keep the windows trademark...
Because it's very related to the windows operating system, and I thnink that they made the name Lindows, just to make it sound like windows...
i agree 100%Quote:
Originally posted by ammar
Again, everybody is blaming Microsoft for monopoly...
I think they have the the right to keep the windows trademark...
Because it's very related to the windows operating system, and I thnink that they made the name Lindows, just to make it sound like windows...
Previous judgments have generally ruled in favor of protecting general terms trademarked for specific industries (i.e., Windows in the computer operating system industry but not in the transparent air and light opening industry or Apple for computer hardware and software but not red fruit). The Lindows name, from what I have seen, has created confusion about what exactly this product's relation is to Microsoft Windows.
On technical merits, Lindows is generally acknowledged as a substandard Linux distribution or "n00b distro." Indeed Lindows seems more in the business of producing look-at-me publicity than creating a genuinely useful Linux distribution.