Comments on: Torvalds weighs in on Linux trademark row

Linux founder defends protection of the trademark and insists that sublicensing is a loss-making operation.

[System Tyrant]

People need to complain.

I understand why they are defending the Linux trademark. It sucks that they have too, but in order to keep those who will misue the Linux trademark from doing so you have to defend it against the small guys.

Software patents aren't like trademarks or copyrights. Calling someone a hypocrite for critisizing software patents, but defending trademarks or copyrights is ridiculas. Trademarks and copyrights don't usually encompass general items like patents. Unless I'm wrong they are more specific in what they cover and how they are used.

[System Tyrant]

People need to complain.

I understand why they are defending the Linux trademark. It sucks that they have too, but in order to keep those who will misue the Linux trademark from doing so you have to defend it against the small guys.

Software patents aren't like trademarks or copyrights. Calling someone a hypocrite for critisizing software patents, but defending trademarks or copyrights is ridiculas. Trademarks and copyrights don't usually encompass general items like patents. Unless I'm wrong they are more specific in what they cover and how they are used.

patents and trademarks aren't related unless you're stupid

The thing to do now is to find out who is trying to say that patents and trademarks are related and make cutting remarks about their intelligence.

I'm compiling a list of other things that trademarks are not related to:
copyrights
buying a house
election laws

Please feel free to add your own items to the list.

[System Tyrant]

Difference.

Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are all different. If they weren't then their would be no need to have them all.

My opinion is that calling someone a hypocrite for supporting trademarks and copyrights, but not patents is stupid. Patents usually cover a general descriptions of a process or design. Trademarks aren't general in nature and neither are copyrights. If I write a book and someone writes one like mine I probably wouldn't win a lawsuit against them unless they plagiarized my work. Trademarks are a little more general. Think of Lindows and Windows. Microsoft won their case agains Lindows over the Windows trademark because they the courts decided that Lindows could be confused with Windows. Patents on the other hand are left to general interpretation by the courts and the patent office. Just because you filed and got a patent doesn't mean squat. When someone disputes the patent you can still loose it do to prior art or competing patent (personally I think the patent off should refund your money in a case that their is a competing patent and they allowed your's to go through).

Of course this is all my own opinion and is subject to change.

patents and trademarks aren't related unless you're stupid

The thing to do now is to find out who is trying to say that patents and trademarks are related and make cutting remarks about their intelligence.

I'm compiling a list of other things that trademarks are not related to:
copyrights
buying a house
election laws

Please feel free to add your own items to the list.

[System Tyrant]

Difference.

Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are all different. If they weren't then their would be no need to have them all.

My opinion is that calling someone a hypocrite for supporting trademarks and copyrights, but not patents is stupid. Patents usually cover a general descriptions of a process or design. Trademarks aren't general in nature and neither are copyrights. If I write a book and someone writes one like mine I probably wouldn't win a lawsuit against them unless they plagiarized my work. Trademarks are a little more general. Think of Lindows and Windows. Microsoft won their case agains Lindows over the Windows trademark because they the courts decided that Lindows could be confused with Windows. Patents on the other hand are left to general interpretation by the courts and the patent office. Just because you filed and got a patent doesn't mean squat. When someone disputes the patent you can still loose it do to prior art or competing patent (personally I think the patent off should refund your money in a case that their is a competing patent and they allowed your's to go through).

Of course this is all my own opinion and is subject to change.

[herrwitt]

the doctrines of copyright and patents ...

Pardon me but , somehow in the (cyber)scheme of things , the term 'patent' doesn't seem to be applicable in this ever-changing world of computer programming ... Kindly consider , the very 'field' on which we place our (cyber)'feet' is forever changing @ the speed of light ... Hence , it seems superfluous to consider the fact that a process , or a specific group of operating instructions , can be held 'outside the elastic medium in which it flourishes' , and be held to the now-'ancient' dictums of patent 'law' ... This is the age of cyber-dom , and a new order must be followed ...
Copyright , on the other hand , is totally another matter ... But the licensing of (cyber) copyrights could be such a time-consuming process that even their importance could be muted ...

[System Tyrant]

Ok...

I had to break out the dictionary and decrypter to read your post. :)

Correct me if I got you wrong. I think what you were trying to say was that patents shouldn't be used for software.

[herrwitt]

the doctrines of copyright and patents ...

Pardon me but , somehow in the (cyber)scheme of things , the term 'patent' doesn't seem to be applicable in this ever-changing world of computer programming ... Kindly consider , the very 'field' on which we place our (cyber)'feet' is forever changing @ the speed of light ... Hence , it seems superfluous to consider the fact that a process , or a specific group of operating instructions , can be held 'outside the elastic medium in which it flourishes' , and be held to the now-'ancient' dictums of patent 'law' ... This is the age of cyber-dom , and a new order must be followed ...
Copyright , on the other hand , is totally another matter ... But the licensing of (cyber) copyrights could be such a time-consuming process that even their importance could be muted ...

[System Tyrant]

Ok...

I had to break out the dictionary and decrypter to read your post. :)

Correct me if I got you wrong. I think what you were trying to say was that patents shouldn't be used for software.

Trademarks are not the same as copyrights - leave Linus alone!

As a consultant that has written guidelines for trademark creation and maintenance, Linus Torvald is completely correct in taking the steps to maintain the Linux copyright. Just because the code is open source, the name and the marks used are not. People easily confuse the easy access to the software which is openly available and therefore a benefit to the community which uses it. Trademarks are unique identifiers, which technically have to stand the test of

Trademarks are not the same as copyrights - leave Linus alone!

As a consultant that has written guidelines for trademark creation and maintenance, Linus Torvald is completely correct in taking the steps to maintain the Linux copyright. Just because the code is open source, the name and the marks used are not. People easily confuse the easy access to the software which is openly available and therefore a benefit to the community which uses it. Trademarks are unique identifiers, which technically have to stand the test of