Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

unix.com Wins Domain Dispute 187

Posted by Hemos from the fighting-the-good dept.
kyler writes "Apparently unix.com was able to afford the lawyers to fight off X/open from stealing their domain name in the wipo domain dispute. If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael? This is ludacris" We had the story about unix.org losing their battle so this is a Good Thing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

unix.com Wins Domain Dispute More

unix.com Wins Domain Dispute

Comments Filter:

  • is this the END end? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by packeteer ( 566398 )
    ... or is this just another victory to be appealed away?... anyone know how well this can stand up in the future?

  • They have this backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpatchMonkey ( 300000 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @04:50AM (#3984875) Journal
    Although many cases of domain disputes are clear cut, such as the one between etoy and etoys, where one should be allowed to keep their domain, this is quite different.

    You'll notice that the unix.com domain was registered by these people in May 2000. Obviously they knew the word "Unix" has been a trademark of the X/Open group for many years.

    For them to register unix.com is incredibly misleading to anyone who may expect an offical Unix company website there.

    The administrators of unix.org and unix.net have more rights to their domain names as they are not flying under the banner of a "Unix company".

    So, it's another stupid domain resolution. They just seem to have it completely backwards!
    • Well as per usual we have a grey situation rather than the easy black and white sort.

      I agree with your point why register a domain that clearly already has a trademark/copyright holder. What did they expect to happen?

      However WHY had the X/Open group not already registered the domain themselves? Its not like Internet domain names are recent thing, they should have had this registered a long time ago.

      I don't know enough about the situation to make statements, but from initial appearances both parties seem to be at fault.

      • Re:They have this backwards (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SpatchMonkey ( 300000 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:26AM (#3984938) Journal
        I think the problem there is that the Unix trademark has been passed around quite a lot through different organisations with differing opinions on how the use of the trademark should be enforced.

        The point is, though, that it has been a trademark for years -- even if X/Open only acquired it relatively recently.

        Also, probably even more importantly is the usage of such a domain name for email communications. While a website such as www.unix.com carries some weight as an official Unix source, email sourced from that domain carries an even higher regard.

        It's easy to forget that a domain name can represent the whole public image on the Internet, not just the website.
        • Check out my email address. Yes, that's legitimate. I really can be contacted as wd@arpa.com. In fact, I'm one of the administrators. Should DARPA or the NSF (or whomever, these days) go after us for having arpa.com because our email looks like it's coming "from those ARPA people"? The domain was registered legitimately, and has been held legitimately for years. Of course, much longer than 'unix.com', but still.

          Would you trust me because my email came from 'arpa.com'? :)

    • Re:They have this backwards (Score:5, Informative)

      by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:30AM (#3984949) Homepage
      If you read it properly, you'll note that the respondant company did not register the name in 2000.

      The company bought the domain name in 2000 from the previous owner company. The actual human owner (of both companies and hence the domain) since 1993 has been Mr Tim Bass, who has continuously run a free speech Unix discussion site there.

      Plenty of evidence that this is not a squat.

      Justin.

      • If you look at the US Trademarks database, you'll notice that Unix [uspto.gov] was first registered by AT&T back in 1986, predating the 1993 registration of "unix.com" by almost a decade.

      • Re:They have this backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Hittite Creosote ( 535397 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:47AM (#3984971)
        I didn't see anyone claiming it was a squat, merely that it was illogical. www.unix.com would (to most people anyway) indicate a company, and where one company has the trademark to unix, you'd expect to find them there. On the other hand, unix.org or unix.net would indicate non-commercial companies discussing unix. So to have the decisions go in the opposite direction indicates that the whole thing isn't decided by logic, it's not decided by who gets there first, it's decided by hordes of rampaging lawyers.
        • Blockquoth the poster:
          www.unix.com would (to most people anyway) indicate a company, and where one company has the trademark to unix, you'd expect to find them there. On the other hand, unix.org or unix.net would indicate non- commercial companies discussing unix.
          Is this really true anymore? I think since around 1996 and the dotcom explosion, people associate ".com" as a moniker meaning "on that Internet thing". How many really consider the root in "commercial"?
          • Exactly -- and IMNSHO once Network Slowlutions started suggesting that everyone should get .com .net and .org versions of their names to "protect" their interests (so they could sell 3x as many names) all bets were off...

            It is now impossible to tell what type of organization you are dealing with based on their domain name. I run the web site for one nonprofit whose .org name was already taken so they have a .com. This seems to bother nobody. It's like 800 numbers vs. 888, 877, 866, etc.

          • .com began as 'communication' but ended up as 'commercial'
        • I didn't see anyone claiming it either. Plenty of implication though ;-)

          Actually, I didn't see anyone claiming that on Slashdot. It was the section of ICANN's rules under which the claim was made though.

          Justin.

        • So to have the decisions go in the opposite direction indicates that the whole thing [is] decided by hordes of rampaging lawyers.

          In both the unix.org and unix.com cases, the panel said that X/Open had undisputed rights to the UNIX trademark, which covers unix.*. Unix.com refuted the bad faith claim, as it has been a viable, non-commercial web site since 1993. Unix.org, on the other hand, was a brand new site with nothing but links to commercial Unix-related sites.

          I disagree that unix.org was registered in bad faith, but the battle lines have been drawn.

          • It is rather weird that a noncommercial site about Unix used the .com address, while a commercial user got the .org one, where it ought to logically have been the other way around...
            • That's easy to answer, GREED.

              Network Solutions found out it was MUCH more profitable selling companies 3 domain names (.com, .net, .org) that simply selling them 1 (.com). They would have probably loved to have added .gov, .mil, .us, and .edu. Luckily for us someone else is/was managing that name space.

              Unfortunately with .us going commercial they can sell companies yet another name. Oh and I forgot .info and .biz. Pepsi should now buy pepsi.com (where they belong), pepsi.org, pepsi.net, pepsi.us, pepsi.biz, pepsi.info.

              Every time another unrestricted TLD is created, companies will feel that they have to buy their name in that space too. In the current setup all that creating more TLD's does is generate revenue for registrars. It doesn't do anything to make more domains available. Don't believe me, then why the big hoopla about sunrise periods?

              What we need is the return of some restrictions to TLD's; .com commercial .biz another commercial TLD (pick ONLY one) .org NON-commercial general .info information provider (individual or institutional) .net network related, i.e you are an ISP of some sort. .us lives/based in the USA. Keep the city.state.us and create broad xx.us as well. (ex; *.kid.us = us children's, *.med.us medical sites, *.lib.us = us libraries, etc.) .xx Other country code TLD's should be similar to .us. None of this .tv silliness. .mil military, not only us military. (i.e. *.us.mil = us military, *.uk.mil = British military, *.pt.mil = Portuguese military, *.nato.mil NATO sites, etc.) .gov = government sites, not just us gov. (see .mil above)

              Simple. The above would be cheaper for companies, would mean less reason for company A to sue individual B over domain name C, would mean lots more domain names for everyone.

              Registrars would stand to loose lots of money, and companies like Nike wouldn't be able to take over nike.org, nikesucks.info, etc, in on the whole I think it would be a good idea.

        • The .com=commercial entity means nothing anymore. For the longest time, I maintained an address on Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] using the .org TDL that they to this day maintain. I still use it, but not for much. But that's another story.

          Point being, I have to concur with other respondents. I think "dot-com" and I think "something on the 'net". Likewise, Speakeasy is a for-profit business, and if I register something of mine, it's going to probably be a ".net" just because I can. =^^=

  • My favourite part: (Score:5, Funny)

    by tuxedo-steve ( 33545 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @04:50AM (#3984876)
    From the document:
    The Complainant states that its mark is
    notorious and that the Respondent must have known about it.
    They could have said `well-known'. They could have said `famous'. They could even have said `ubiquitous'.

    They chose, `notorious'. That's kinda sweet. :)

  • Nice. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @04:52AM (#3984877)
    When I visit www.unix.net [unix.net], I get a picture of a pixilated finger, and the words, "Fuck You Open Group."

    As "ludacris" as it might seem, I don't believe this is the type of site that WIPO is going to take seriously in a domain arbitration hearing. I don't care how rich you are, you can't lawyer away the middle finger.

    • Re:Nice. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Thackeri ( 203958 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:57AM (#3984989)
      Actually, the words are "Fsck you Open Group"

      Much more appropriate IMO
    • Yeah, and after that it's the same UNIX guys who sptit on the Linux community on the claims it's immature and childish.

      Bleh.

      -max
    • I don't care how rich you are, you can't lawyer away the middle finger.

      Yeah, it isn't like you can go around spouting off any old thing on the Internet. We have high standards to be upheld here, people, and we don't want to hear any of that cry-ass First Amendment crap. ;-)

      P.S. Fsck you, not fuck you.
    • Interestingly enough, it looks like the guys at unix.net might possibly think that they're unix.org.

      Quote from http://www.unix.net:

      They decided to file a legal domain dispute with WIPO, effectively ripping the domain from the owner and UNIX (tm) community. They have also filed claims against unix.com and
      unix.net
      Either that or they're so upset about losing their domain that they wanted to tell you twice.

    • Foolishly, perhaps, I followed your link to unix.net. I'm in a school computer lab, using IE 5.5. Some very nasty shit followed. Redirected to a page that spawned endless copies of the goatse.cx picture (I'd never seen it; I'm so glad that I was finally exposed to this thing that I've been avoiding all this time) and deposited a "Winbomb" virus in my diskspace.

      Then, I tried it over telnet with an HTTP/1.0 GET and got nothing nasty. Used Opera, same shit (even with images, redirects and popups turned off: not well enough off, apparently). So I telneted an HTTP/1.1 GET, identifying the browser as MSIE 5.5, then I got a chain of redirects to the nastiness.

      Thanks, unix.net, for ruining my lunch.

  • I'm sorry, what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Whenever someone grabs a domain name similar to an OSDN friendly site, we get to hear all about the use of squatting for advertising, or even profiling, but when some company tries to claim a name that, in all reasonableness is rightfully theirs, it's corporate oppression? Nice double standard there.

  • Answers! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net

    Because being an opensource advocate means that you give up material possesions like domain names.

  • Pardon? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:04AM (#3984896)
    This is ludacris

    hell no nigga it ain't. This is Ludacris, foo' [universalurban.com]. Check yo spelling, y`all sucka MCs meant ludicrous.

    Ahem...

  • Ludacris? (Score:5, Funny)

    by martissimo ( 515886 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:06AM (#3984902)
    This is Ludacris [mtv.com] and i've never heard him mention unix while rapping... did you mean ludicrous perhaps? ;)
    • I've never heard anyone mention UNIX while rapping. I think I'd kinda like that, given the apparent intelligence level in most (but not all) popular music.

      Anyone out there got any hardcore geek music? I don't mean MC Hawking [mchawking.com], either, but you can check it out for chuckles.
    • No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Say it like Tyson:

      "Ludacrisp."
  • even after reading the article I am left confused.

    Who do I cheer for? Theres no Microsoft nor RIAA or MPAA to boo. I guess since its all unix I should root(pardon the pun) for them both.

  • i propose the following solution:

    unix.com [unix.com] goes to the holders of the trademark, and current owners of it get asterisknix.com [asterisknix.com], since that's what they really mean/want.

    everybody happy?

    (ok, asterisknix.com doesn't really exist, but it _could_)

    • Actually, no. They don't mean asterisknix.com. Visiting unix.com yields a web site that appears to be devoted to the exchange of knowledge and has NOTHING to do with Unix, except maybe to host knowledge associated with unix.

      In this case, I believe unix.com should go to the company that holds the UNIX trademark. unix.com current holders should find something else more befitting their content. Perhaps a variant of: uix.com [uix.com] (since it's the Universal Internet eXchange [as they use it]) (of course, uix.com is in use by the Underground Internet eXchange, so I guess that idea is pooched.)

      • Visiting unix.com yields a web site that appears to be devoted to the exchange of knowledge and has NOTHING to do with Unix, except maybe to host knowledge associated with unix.

        Then maybe you visited a different unix.com than I did. OK, they may call themselves `Universal Internet eXchange', but it's devoted to UNIX (the OS) discussion.

    • After all the trouble the mobilix folks got into from the owners of "Asterix and Obelix", I think "asterisknex.com" might be even less safe than "unix.com".

  • Biased as usual (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SpatchMonkey ( 300000 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:28AM (#3984945) Journal
    From the article:
    • ... so this is a Good Thing.
    Surely we can make up our own minds about that.

    Remember, everyone -- this is just some guy's opinion and not a fact.

  • Important Domain Arb Safety Tip (Score:5, Interesting)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @05:54AM (#3984982) Journal
    Notice the dramatic difference here between results of three-judge panels (unix.com) and an individual arbitrator (unix.org). The published statistics show that single-judge arbitrations tend to be dramatically slanted pro-Complainant, with more balanced (but still generally proComplainant) results arising from a three-judge panel.

    The Complainant gets to pick the arbitration house -- and will invariably pick the one with the strongest published pro-Complainant statistics. The respondant cannot challenge that choice, but under the rules may opt for the three-judge panel.

    • And, unfortunately, pay for the privilege. Accepting a single arbitrator costs the domain name holder nothing; asking for a panel requires that he or she pay for half the cost [icann.org]--- win or lose.

      This does even out the economic incentives somewhat. But even so, the UDRP provides choice of arbitrator to the complaintant, so market forces favor those arbitrators who tend to return pro-complaintant decisions. (I'm not suggesting any deliberate corruption, just magnification of any differences which naturally occur.)

  • The fight is now on for Eunuchs.com. I hope they have money left!

  • Message from Admin of Unix.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by ende ( 154873 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @06:38AM (#3985074)
    From Neo (Admin of Unix.com) on their forums:

    A few facts:

    * We registered the UNIX.COM domain in 1993 in good faith.

    * We only registered UNIX.COM (UNIX.NET and UNIX.ORG were registered by others)

    * We have spent well over $25,000.00 on UNIX related legal fees.

    * We have spent many more thousands of dollars to maintain this site so that all people can freely discuss UNIX related issues without commericals.

    * We have spent a lot of $$$ to promote free speech regarding UNIX and UNIX like operating systems.

    * UNIX is a generic term regardless of X/Open's claim.

    * X/Open's false claim hurts the world UNIX community because it creates a negative environment and fragments the community with harsh actions that are, in reality, anti-open.

    * We do this because we love the UNIX philosophy and the true UNIX community.

    This is my gift to you, each and everyone of you.

    From the bottom of my heart. - Neo
    • Whether or not UNIX is a "generic term" is irrelevant to the case. "Coke" is a generic term. "Shell" is a generic term. There are literally thousands of generic terms that are trademarked as company names. Unless X/Open trademarked the term *after* 1993 when the domain was registered, they have every right to get it back. For once, this isn't about a company abusing the system, it's about a company laying claim to what is rightfully theirs.

      • Shell (Score:2, Insightful)

        by srichman ( 231122 )
        "Shell" is a generic term.
        What Shell are we talking about here? The oil company? Is it really that generic? Does anyone in the world say, "I'm going down to the Shell station," when in reality they're going to BP?
      • Unless X/Open trademarked the term *after* 1993 when the domain was registered, they have every right to get it back.

        Why?

        • I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine that if the domain was registered in '93 but the trademark wasn't registered until '96 then the original owners of the domain could make a case that since they had the name first they were entitled to it. I'm just guessing, though. If anyone can tell me why I'm wrong I'd love to know.

      • rightfully theirs (Score:4, Interesting)

        by phriedom ( 561200 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @01:05PM (#3987522)
        I'm going to pretend that this post really is "interesting" and not "flamebait": Trademark allows for the development of a business identity. It prevents other people from making money off of your good name. It is generally limited to areas where someone is using a confusingly similar name that would lead customers to believe they are getting the "real thing" but they are not. It does not extend to unrelated business areas where a reasonable customer would not confuse the names, nor does it extend to every use of a word, though corporations often try to make it so. So, for example, I might be able to get away with selling "Olde MacDonald's Scotch Whiskey" without infringing on the trademarks of McDonalds resteraunt chain, nor 3M's Scotch brand products. Mount Olympus Camera Co. would not fly, but Mount Olympus Software, probably would. I might be able to sell "Unix Cheese Puffs" and "Unix Caffiend Cola" if the judge doesn't think I'm trading on X/Open's good name.

        My point is that X/Open do not own the word "Unix" they just some rights to exclusive use of it as a name for an operating system, and related things. THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THE DOMAIN NAME. What we don't want is people squatting on a domain, with no use for it other than to hold it hostage and to sell it to a party that does have use for it. That doesn't mean that a trademark holder is the only party with a legitimate interest in the domain, nor should their claim automatically be more legitimate just because they have a trademark. If I register NBC.* as a site or sites for Nehalem Baseball Club or some such before National Broadcasting Company does, they shouldn't be able to take it away from me.
        • You make quite a few valid points, but you're missing the key point that I was trying to make. McDonald's owns a trademark on the name "McDonald's". While you may be able to get away with Olde McDonald's Scotch Whiskey, you'd sure as hell have a hard time of getting mcdonalds.com. The reason is because you could just as easily get oldemcdonaldsscotchwhiskey.com. I may be in the minority, but to me this seems fair. X/Open should be entitled to unix.com since they own the trademark on "UNIX" and they are a company (hence the .com). If the people who currently own unix.com couldn't get unix.net or unix.org, they could have just as easily taken unixchat.com, since they seem to be a user forum. But companies who own trademarks should have the right to their domains. If the unix.com people want a website, they should take up their beef with unix.net or unix.org instead of taking a dot COM from a COMpany.
          • I still disagree, and I can turn your argument around on you. If I operate a distillery that sell Olde McDonald's Scotch Whiskey, trademarked or not, and I registered or came by mcdonalds.com before the resteraunt chain did, then THEY should go register mcdonaldsfoods.com or mcdonaldsinc.com or mickeyds.com or goldenarches.com. X/Open should go register unixos.com or unixsoftware.com or unixrocksyoursocks.com. If I was there first and I have a legitimate use for it, then it is and should stay mine. Trademark does not automatically entitle one to a domain, at least not in any law I know of. If I wasn't using the domain, then that would be a different story.

            Furthermore, I think the com stands for commerce or commercial, not company. Since unix.com is a resource for commercial, public, and private use of unix o/s, it is perfectly fitting that they have the .com TLD.
  • The unix.com site has a nice looking OS X theme and the apple logo all over it.

    Is is me or does this seem to scream at Apple "bring it on!" I kind of wonder if they have been out looking for legal trouble.

    Not trolling, just asking.

  • Molson lost their dispute too (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anybody remember how Molson was awarded Canadian.biz a while back? They lost on appeal in an Ontario Superior Court.

    Story [thestar.ca].

    Of course, I submitted this as a story back when it happened a few weeks ago, but it wasn't posted...

    • Re:Molson lost their dispute too (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WEFUNK ( 471506 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @08:44AM (#3985623) Homepage
      Actually, the follow-up to the canadian.biz case (which was part of the same original post discussing the unix.org dispute) was posted [slashdot.org] a couple of weeks ago, just not on the front page.

      In summary, the original registrant (a Canadian citizen) was able to convince a Canadian judge that "Canadian" does not mean beer alone and was able to block Molson from hijicking the canadian.biz domain.

      In his decision, the judge stated that "simply because a domain name is identical or similar to a trademark name should not result in the transfer of the domain name to the trademark owner. In my view, unless there is some evidence that the use of the domain name infringes on the use of the trademark name, a person other than the owner of the trademark should be able to continue to use the domain name." He was also critical of ICANN's definition and use of the "bad faith" criteria.

      It appears that ICANN and the registrar have respected the court decision, as the whois information has been updated with the original registrant's correct name and information.

      Between this and the contrast between the unix.com and unix.org cases, it certainly proves that ICANN is inconsistent in their rulings, and aren't considered (by at least one court) to have a very good handle on trademark law. Hopefully these decisions can be used as inspiration/precedent for the unix.org people to appeal so (just maybe) we can see two good news follow-ups from one bad news slashdot post.
      • Is there a way for the winners of the disputes to recoup their legal expenses?
        Otherwise, I think most private people would rather hand over their domains at the first sign of trouble.
        • Is there a way for the winners of the disputes to recoup their legal expenses?
          Otherwise, I think most private people would rather hand over their domains at the first sign of trouble.

          Important point. Thankfully, there's a good answer!

          According to the Globe & Mail [theglobeandmail.com], the legal costs of going up against a large corporation were a major concern for the eventual victor. But, happily:

          "Molson was also ordered to pay Mr. Black's legal fees."

          I hope this included all legal costs related to the arbitration phase as well as his appeal. I'm not sure, but Mr. Black might have been eligible for damages as well, but since his website plans were probably still too conceptual he probably couldn't argue any loss of revenue. However, awarding legal fees probably does open the door for damages and penalties, depending on the circumstances of future domain hijicking cases.

  • Thank you for telling me what to think (Score:3, Funny)

    by Astrorunner ( 316100 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @07:32AM (#3985219) Journal
    "We had the story about unix.org losing their battle so this is a Good Thing."

    Isn't it great that we have the editors at Slashdot to break things down to simple terms? All I need to do to make up my mind is look and see if it is a "Good Thing" or a "Bad Thing."

  • Comparing the unix.com and unix.org cases (Score:4, Informative)

    by Shirotae ( 44882 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @07:36AM (#3985227)

    I read through the decisions for the unix.com and unix.org cases, and can see some parts of the answer to kyler's question If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael?

    The unix.com domain had been in use for some time for a discussion forum where the main topic was unix, they kept their domain registration despite it including the trademark. The unix.org domain had not been actively used for anything, and the information provided about what it had been intended to be used for was seen by the arbitrators as indicating an intent to make money as a result of attracting visitors, with the unix trademark being part of what attracted visitors.

    The argument about 'unix' having become generic failed in both cases.

    The arbitrators seem to be deciding on the basis of whether or not the domain is actually being used for some legitimate purpose. Mere ownership of the trademark does not seem to be enough for victory. It is good that the holders of unix.com won, but if the report of the unix.org case is accurate as to the facts, then I think that was a reasonable decision.

    I also tracked down the decision for the unix.net case http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/200 2/d2002-0296.html [wipo.int], and among the things it says is The Respondent failed to file any evidence that might lead the Panel to the inference that the Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. Not having seen the site in its original form I can't tell for myself whether or not the arbitrators are right to judge that there was no legitimate interest. They seem to have formed the opinion that the site was really a web designer advertising their services, and using someone else's trademark to attract visitors. Perhaps someone who visited the site in its old form can comment.

    • Not having seen the site in its original form
      Use the Wayback Machine to view older versions [archive.org] of the unix.net. Here's a quick summary if you don't feel like clicking the links. From dec 98 to mar 2000, it consisted of only a construction page for 'unix network consulting'. Then, despite never having any Unix info or books, it got replaced with the statement 'I had to take the books offline so I didnt get my pants sued off'. This was up for a year until it became mountainback.com for four months. Now it's just the message 'fsck you open group'. IMHO it doesn't look like they had much of a case.
    • The argument about 'unix' having become generic failed in both cases.
      The report indicates that they are not allowed to addres the question of whether UNIX (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries) has become generic. All they can consider is whether The Open Group has a trademark on UNIX (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries).

      This is similar to the issue of patents: When someone is accused of violating a patent, they cannot argue that the patent is invalid. Getting a patent declared invalid is a completely separate legal procedure. (I can see that there is a source of confusion for USAns here. When someone is accused of violating a law, if the appeals go high enough it is possible for the law to be declared unconstitutional, but appeal of a patent violation will never consider the validity of the patent.)

      While it is not relevant to the case, I think that there is a good argument that UNIX (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries) has become a generic term. There is no such thing as "A UNIX" (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries). The Open Group specfically states that a valid use of "UNIX" (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries) is in an advertisement for "MyProduct word processor for the UNIX* operating system". ("It is acceptable to use an asterisk in place of the trademark symbol where the medium used... cannot reproduce the... symbols"). This shows the absurdity of their claim, for there is no program that works on all UNIX* operating systems (hello world excepted). I submit without justification that no reasonably useful program can be written just to the standard; i.e it compiles on all certified UNIX* systems with no ifdefs.

      Furthermore, The Open Group certifications listed on the web site apparently show that none of the BSDs are UNIX* systems. But there is NCR UNIX, so we have UNIX* for cash registers, woohoo! I think that they can trademark their certifications, i.e. "UNIX 98", but term UNIX* itself is moving close to being generic.

  • Have a look at this [bris.ac.uk] picture taken on 20th of August 1991 in Spain. Seems that the company has never heard of the trademark on UNIX either...

  • This is a big deal why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shimmin ( 469139 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @08:33AM (#3985565) Journal
    DNS is obsolete. Someone looking for unix info might type in www.unix.com, but experience has taught anyone who has surfed the net more than 30 minutes that randomly typing in URLs is a chancy way of finding what you want.

    Far more useful is to type what you're looking for into Google. Lately, the I'm Feeling Lucky button has just been uncanny.

    Why fight over namespace when the real value is in Googlespace?

    • I believe that these days it's not so much an issue of pragmatism as it is an issue of prestige. Perception plays an important role in marketing (as in politics). While it may not be as huge of a deal for individuals, this is the sort of thing that companies jump at.
    • Not exactly. With the right domain name you can also have the advantage in search engines. With a domain name like unix.com your chances of getting listed at the top of every major search engine with the keyword "unix" is much much higher than someone with "iloveunix.com".
      • Yeah but i-love-unix.com would get ranked higher then both because it would encompass more search terms.
      • Obviously, search engine operators don't release their ranking algorithms for the very reason of avoiding this sort of manipulation, but Google at least appears to value several types of meta-information above domain name.

        The search I ran this afternoon on "unix" gave unix.com in 26th place. The top 3 were the GNU project, FreeBSD, and geek-girl.com's unix reference pages (which kind of gives credence to the respondent's claim that the UNIX trademark should be revoked as having become generic).

    • Why fight over namespace when the real value is in Googlespace?

      Simple - because so far they haven't found any way to fight over Googlespace. I'm sure they're working on it though.

      -

  • Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @08:36AM (#3985581) Homepage Journal
    Notice the WIPO carefully not addressing the respondent's assertion that the word "UNIX" has become generic? It wouldn't do for that lot to effectively take a trademark away from someone. Why, if one of the outcomes of taking a complaint to the WIPO was that your trademark might be invalidated, people might stop abusing them so much. Lower case load equals less tasty UN funding. The WIPO likes its funds! They don't want that! So even though the respondent makes a damn good argument that the word "UNIX" has become generic, the WIPO just says "Oh we're not going to address THAT issue, but we'll find for the respondent anyway!"

    The respondent makes a pretty good argument that the word "UNIX" has become generic and every computer professional I've ever known has used the word in a very generic fashion. I wonder if a preemptive lawsuit might be filed to have the trademark removed from the word...

  • Major League Baseball tied the all-star game, are in the midst of a labor dispute between millionairse and billionaires and yesturday they closed a site [metsonline.net] that was promoting their business for free.
  • it's because you couldn't pass the third grade spelling test. You can use the domain registration money you saved and buy a dictionary. Try looking up "ludacris" in it.
  • This has already been said... but it's "ludicrous", dude. "Ludacris" is a rapper, and a bad one at that. Butchery!

    (Can we get a Pop-culture grammar filter over here please?)

    Do yourself a favour and buy yourself a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary... perhaps one with large print?

    [SPEAKING OF dictionaries: someone told me that the 1st Edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary was edited by a tenant of an insane asylum. Can anyone confirm/refute this as truth/myth?]

    WS

    Trout wrote of Eva Braun, "Her only crime was to have allowed a monster to ejaculate in her birth canal. These things happen to the best of women." --Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

    • Hmmm... I didn't add the signature (below, in italics) until after that message was posted, hence the strange syntax of the end of the message... Does the signature apply itself post-humously to already-posted messages?

    • .[SPEAKING OF dictionaries: someone told me that the 1st Edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary was edited by a tenant of an insane asylum. Can anyone confirm/refute this as truth/myth?]


      Something like that.. read The Professor and the Madman by Simon Winchester.
      • Actually, it was the OED itself. During its creation (which spanned quite a few decades, iirc) a request was sent out for contributions of supporting quotations, and by far the most prolific contributor was a US surgeon (Dr William Minor) confined to a British asylum for a bout of 'temporary insanity' during which he murdered a total stranger in London. The editors of the OED didn't know, for several years, that this was the case, until one of them arranged to visit the good doctor, and found upon arrival that things were not quite what they had believed... The book, "The Professor and the Madman" was actually quite an interesting read. j

  • Hi. This is Neo. (unix.com admin) (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 31, 2002 @09:57AM (#3986236)
    A couple of things to consider.

    (1) If you get into a UDRP dispute, hire a good UDRP lawyer.

    (2) I recommend our unix.com attorney, Dr. David Steele (www.cph.com)

    (3) Legal disputes are just like complex problems in your OS kernel: You don't hire lawyers to write a kernel driver :) You don't hire programmers to defend your rights in court :)

    (4) UNIX.COM won because the domain was registered in 1993 (in good faith) for good reasons (including the non-commerical technical forum www.unix.com) AND we had excellent legal counsel.

    (5) WIPO is not the proper authority to rule on the details of a trademark (generic or not). WIPO rules on WIPO guidelines.

    BTW: Thank YOU Slashdot-gurus for all the moral support over the years!!! -Neo

    www.unix.com
  • The principle behind the (bad) decisions is the (somewhat good) notion that the society that shows some favoritism towards economic interests ends up with more of an economy and thus everyone's better off, even though the gravity of the economic interests distorts the local sector of social space-time.

    Well, how do we get similar respect for something like the "Open Software Economic Interest Group"? Major economic value is being created here. The whole society, worldwide, can gain benefit by granting a favorable environment in which the OSEIG can carry out its wealth-creating function. We are as worthy of political favoritism as any corporate entity. We are not ever going to see a society in which economic interests are not granted major favors - but how, as an emerging economic interest, do we collect the favors that, if these games are to work right, should be ours (those of us too stupid to sell the old IPO stock in time, anyhow)?

    If the process works right, we should be able to even acquire domains of potential use to OSEIG's (and thus the greater society's) economic interests, simply by showing that the pie will be richer for all if those domains are in our hands - not because we're 'better,' but because we represent a larger share of and contribution to economic activity. The current underlying 'corrupt' argument for favoring groups with the most economic juice should favor us. Let's demand, not their end, but their proper and logical application.
    ___
  • This is ludacris
    Its 'Ludicrous': if your not careful you could go plaid!

    KEEP FLAMING, ASSHOLES!

  • Huh? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by alexburke ( 119254 )
    This is ludacris

    What on earth does a rapper [universalurban.com] have to do with UNIX domain disputes?
    • ludacris the rapper is one crazed individual, therefore his name is often used as a slang term to describe something "ludicrous" ... sorry if you all aren't up on the latest lingo... "my bad" spelling checkers are for pansies anyway... i meant to say ludacris so you anal readers can relax for a bit :) flame away...

  • Who needs domain names? You can very easily 123.12 the 1.11.4 in the 3.2.56 and instantly 88.76.122.5 any 47.3.44.111 without any dificulty what so ever!

  • This decision will be thrown out, because the document lists Network Solutions' address as "Hendon, VA". There is no such city; in fact NSI existed in Herndon, VA.

  • For the past couple of months I been checking www.objective-c.org [objective-c.org] it seems to have been taken over by some co. I have no idea about what happened to it.
    I was planning to learn Objective-C, but I have no idea where their web site has been displaced to.
    Anyone know what happend to the objective-c site?
    Here is [216.239.39.100] the google cache of the objective-c site before 'Arrow Ritcher' got it (who ever they are). I hope google dont ever update their cache, til I find where their site has gone to.
  • Unix is a trdemarked name, and therefore, the owner of the trademark should get the domain name, based on precedent of similar rulings.
  • Everyone knows that UNIX [hd.org] is really just a is really just a Fire [quovadimus.org] Extinguisher [bris.ac.uk], and certainly not a web page or much less a legal trademakr. Extinguisher, and certainly not a web page or much less a legal trademakr.
  • I don't know what the unix.com owners want to do with the domain (probably selling it for lots of $$ to AT&T?), but in trying to be 'not related to unix' they behave pretty lame, like stealing the webdesign from zope.org [zope.org]. Have a look [archive.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Close