How does it affect user groups Re: [SGVLUG] Linux Trade mark ...

[David Lawyer]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 07:43:44PM -0700, Dustin wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Martin B?hr wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:18:49AM -0700, David Lawyer wrote:
> > > I'm not even sure that "Linux" is a trademark anymore since it's also
> > > become a word in the English language. 
> 
> > > It's legal for a name to escape from trademark status and I think that
> > > "Unix" may have escaped but it hasn't been tested in court. 
> > 
> > to escape trademark status i think there must actually be a quantifiable
> > use of the word that fits the category but does not describe the actual
> > product.
> 
> No, "Xerox" is still a trademark AFAIK so that's not enough.  It seems to
> be enough that the Xerox Corporation defends the trademark and tries to
> discourage generic usage.  "Coke" is in the same boat--in the South, maybe
> still today, "coke" can be a generic term for any carbonated beverage.  
> Anyone think "Coke" has lost it's trademark status?
> 
> In any case I can't see how there is any question about "Linux", given the
> existence of an active legal entity whose only purpose is to defend it.  
> If what David suggests were true, then LMI wouldn't exist and certainly 
> neither Linus nor Maddog would go to the trouble.

Look on the Internet.  There are others that agree with me.  Linux as
trademarked primarily means just the kernel.  But "Linux" is used to
designate a complete operating system and applications.  So one may
claim that it has escaped it's narrow trademark meaning.

> 
> David suggested that maybe Linux *should* lose trademark status, but 
> that's a separate question from whether it already has (which is evidently 
> no).
> 
> Dustin
> 
> 
> 
			David Lawyer