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

[David Lawyer]

> 
> > 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. 
> > 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Martin B?hr wrote:
> > 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.

The product Linus controls is only the kernel.  But Linux means to
most people much more that just the kernel.  It seems to mean the
operating system, including oodles of free and not-so-free software.
The view I stated has support from others on the Internet, even
though I didn't know about them when I wrote it.

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 07:43:44PM -0700, Dustin wrote:
> No, "Xerox" is still a trademark AFAIK so that's not enough.  

No.  Many dictionaries show it as a word in the English language.
Until there's a court case, it's not known if it still retains
trademark status.

> 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.
> 
> 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