577
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sab@kbin.social 51 points 1 year ago

Also, how the hell could Microsoft get a patent for X in 2003 when X has been around since 1984, and is pretty much a direct competitor? This makes no sense at all.

[-] nefarious@kbin.social 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trademarks can apply to different areas. In this case, Microsoft's trademark is for services related to online chat and gaming, not for something like a window manager.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn76041368&docId=ORC20030304054014&linkId=20#docIndex=19&page=1

[-] sab@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Makes sense I guess. Somehow also makes the trademark even more absurd.

Reminds me a little of Apple v. Apple Records, and how Apple promised never too use their brand to enter into the music industry (like they later did with iTunes anyway).

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In 1991, Apple Computer made an agreement to pay Apple Records $26 million in exchange for letting Apple Computer use the "Apple" trademark for music. But that was long before iTunes, they wanted the Apple trademark for their computer chimes. Apple Records agreed to let Apple Computer use the Apple trademark for music as long as it did not "package, sell or distribute physical music materials."

Much later, iTunes was developed and Apple Records sued Apple Computer. Eventually a judge sided with Apple Computer, pointing out that iTunes did not package, sell or distribute physical music materials. Thus, Apple Records couldn't get another bite of that Apple....

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 26 points 1 year ago

The law is a weapon of the rich. You don't have to be right, you just have to be able to afford out-lawyering your competition. Patents are especially revolting.

[-] sab@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Of course, my question was rhetorical. I guess it didn't come out so clearly considering it's also, at least in theory, a damned good question.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It was probably clear enough, you just caught me half-asleep and unmedicated. I really dislike patents.

[-] ThoughtGoblin@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

How is Xorg a "direct competitor" to Microsoft? Especially Microsoft's trademark to X in the gaming market where they own the Xbox and Xorg doesn't participate at all?

Trademarks protect consumers by preventing fraud and misleading naming. It makes perfect sense that Microsoft owns X in the given market space due to the enormous prevalence of Xbox. Their first console was literally X-shaped and it would be bad for consumers for anyone to be able to make the "X-station" or "X-cube" or some such.

[-] sab@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One could not imagine Linux without X11 in 2003. And in 2003, the situation between Microsoft and Linux was rather tense.

That said, I managed to somehow forget about Xbox. I agree it makes sense that Sony couldn't launch an "X console" with a gigantic X on the side.

So yes, I want thinking it through. I do however think that using this trademark against X.xom would be ill conceived, no matter how much I hate Musk. If they start moving into gaming it might be different though, so fair enough.

Thanks for making me think it through more! :)

[-] GustavoM@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

"You better not touch the F word! Call of Duty did it first!"

Welp. I can see it happening.

this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
577 points (100.0% liked)

News

23397 readers
3057 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS