Microsoft vs Lindows

From: Dwight K. Elvey <>
Date: Thu Aug 15 19:02:00 2002

>I've done a little digging in my spotty library. (It's so
>nice to finally have enough shelves for all the books.)
>And I've come across a few additional references thay may
>be of some help. The first references come from a set
>of inter-office memoranda from Xerox dated in 1978 and
>included phrases such as "window-based display," "window-
>oriented display," "windows with standard behavior" and
>"non-preemptive window behavior." These memoranda are
>discussions about a programming environment and mention
>that both Smalltalk and Mesa already had window-based
>environemnts at the time.
>The next reference comes from Interface Age magazine, July
>1981. In the article "The Video Display Revolution," Table 2
>lists features of various terminals. One feature listed for
>the HDS Concept 100 terminal is Windowing.
>The last reference I came across prior to 1983 is in the
>August 1980 issue of Byte. In an ad for Software Development
>and Training, Inc., a text editor is described as having
>"FULL SCREEN window displays..."
>Not all of the references described windows as we currently
>think of them, but they do illustrate that the term was
>in general us in the field of computer user interfaces
>well before Microsoft trademarked it.
>Brian L. Stuart

 All of this about prior use may not help. Trademarks are different
than patents. There is also precedence that similar sounding
trade names with similar product can be considered a violation
of trademarks. ( McDonald's has won a few of these ). If they
had the name before M$ then they might have a case, otherwise,
I doubt they will get vary far. If the court feels that they
chose the name to sound alike, they will not win, regardless
of prior usage.
 It is too bad, I'd like to see M$ take a hit on this one.
( Just my opinion and not a legal statement )
Received on Thu Aug 15 2002 - 19:02:00 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:36 BST