Lindows = trademark infringement?

So say judges in Finland and Sweden:

Judges in Finland and Sweden have given Microsoft Corp. what it has twice been denied in the U.S.: preliminary injunctions barring Linux vendor Lindows.com Inc. from using the Lindows name. [...]

"In response to what is a clear and obvious infringement on our trademark, Microsoft has taken action in select international territories to curtail infringing or misleading behavior on the part of Lindows.com," [Microsoft spokeswoman] Drake said.


Share this

I think that's a load of

I think that's a load of crap. The people who produce the Lindows distro of Linux are most assuredly *not* trying to make people think their product is the same as Windows. Quite the opposite.

I wasn't aware that Windows

I wasn't aware that Windows started with an L.

I've never understood the

I've never understood the "your name sounds like mine so you're ripping me off" line of reasoning. I know of a woman in Mt. Juliet, TN, who runs a dog grooming business that is being sued for having a similar name to a business in Nashville. The woman from Mt. Juliet didn't even know this other business existed until she received a certified letter informing her of the pending lawsuit, and yet she's essentially being accused of using a similar business name to siphon the other company's potential profits. Never mind that she doesn't do business in Nashville, and the other company doesn't do business in Mt. Juliet! When we divorce intent from crime, we do ourselves a huge disservice.

The woman from Mt. Juliet

The woman from Mt. Juliet didn't even know this other business existed until she received a certified letter informing her of the pending lawsuit, and yet she's essentially being accused of using a similar business name to siphon the other company's potential profits. Never mind that she doesn't do business in Nashville, and the other company doesn't do business in Mt. Juliet!

Yeah, too much IP law is simply monopoly enforcement rather than property rights enforcement.

When we divorce intent from crime, we do ourselves a huge disservice.

However, a lot of criminal law does not depend on intention. You can accidently kill someone and be charged with manslaughter. I think it's still appropriate.

However, a lot of criminal

However, a lot of criminal law does not depend on intention. You can accidently kill someone and be charged with manslaughter. I think it's still appropriate.

True, but isn't intent the essential difference between manslaughter and murder? I don't have a problem suspending intent when it comes to violent crime, but it seems that in property crimes intent is where the crux of a case would lie.