Apple Sued Over Unix Trademark 881
Jerrry writes "CNET News reports The Open Group is suing Apple over unlicensed use of the Unix trademark, after Apple used the term in conjunction with its Mac OS X marketing. Apple, meanwhile, is countersuing to have the Unix trademark declared invalid because the term has become generic."
Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
how can people fucking reply before the article... (Score:0, Insightful)
i just clicked on this shitty apple sux sco sux, unix sux most article, and it came up with 404?
and now that is available it immediately has 5 replies already!
fuck slashdot
-------
anyways, here is the deal:
time to sue the whole world, maybe it will get a better place after everybody fights everone else and their borthers
jeez, and i thought the open group had some higher values and beliefs =)
oh i forgot, its only apple. those traitors deserve it.
macos-sux? a unix u say?
no way. sue em to oblivion.
thank you.
doesn't sound very "open" to me (Score:2, Insightful)
OPEN Group? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do they come up with these names?
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus, even if Apple did want to buy a license, they probably couldn't.
*nix (Score:4, Insightful)
As generic as they come (Score:5, Insightful)
And it has. So many companies have been marketing and otherwise throwing around the name "UNIX" for so long now -- what do you think the chances are that The Open Group formally licensed their trademark to each and every one of them?
The timing and selection of this lawsuit reeks of convenience.
Re:Wow, Kettle meet Pot, Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
They really work to protect their brand more than anything else. I saw a cease and desist they sent to wincustomize.com for somebody emulating the OSX desktop look and feel on a PC.
Protecting IP is one thing, but Apple is tops when it comes to protecting their brand.
Personally, I think Apple is in the wrong here. I have seen some of these ads for OSX that basically say "It's just like UNIX" -I mean come-on, at least put a bullet next to the word or something.
Apropos UNIX quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Master Foo discourses on the Unix Nature
A student said to Master Foo: âoeWe are told that the firm called SCO holds true dominion over Unix.â
Master Foo nodded.
The student continued, âoeYet we are also told that the firm called OpenGroup also holds true dominion over Unix.â
Master Foo nodded.
âoeHow can this be?â asked the student.
Master Foo replied:
âoeSCO indeed has dominion over the code of Unix, but the code of Unix is not Unix. OpenGroup indeed has dominion over the name of Unix, but the name of Unix is not Unix.â
âoeWhat, then, is the Unix-nature?â asked the student.
Master Foo replied:
âoeNot code. Not name. Not mind. Not things. Always changing, yet never changing.â
âoeThe Unix-nature is simple and empty. Because it is simple and empty, it is more powerful than a typhoon.â
âoeMoving in accordance with the law of nature, it unfolds inexorably in the minds of programmers, assimilating designs to its own nature. All software that would compete with it must become like to it; empty, empty, profoundly empty, perfectly void, hail!.â
Upon hearing this, the student was enlightened.
UNIX: What's the first thing that comes to mind? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what the answer is NOT: The OPEN GROUP. I don't even have a clue what they do. Most people have never heard of them, even most people who know what unix is.
Also, Apple is accurately describing their OS when they say it is Unix-Based.
The mark should be generic.
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, by their own statement:
I didn't know ignoring trademarks was now 'industry standard'
I'll go make a computer of my own and call it 'AppleMac'
Re:In other News... (Score:5, Insightful)
Generic? Based on what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on what? Are we to understand that frequent use of a trademark renders it generic? That is utterly preposterous. The Unix trademark is as zealously defended as the law requires, and beyond any reasonable doubt it is most certainly not generic. Is "Volkswagen" generic? How about "Coke" when referring to a beverage? Try it out in the marketplace and see how far you get.
Get real, folks.
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:2, Insightful)
"everywhere" meaning what? In general discussions in newsgroups? In the commercial world?
I'm pretty sure any commercial products that use it have a license to.
'Everyone else' using it in general discussions is like using the term 'Kleenex'. I certainly don't say 'star-nix' when I speak of Unix in general.
Re:I think i'll side with Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
In some cases, like OpenGL, it followed an attempt to create an industry standard, and was in some sense actually sort of open, but most of the time it really seemed to mean something like `open to everybody that pays us ten million dollars.'
Nothing to do with term `open source' I think (and predates it).
Unix name and Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Unix is a standard. As I understand it, Linux is referred to as "*nix" because it hasn't passed the Open group's Unix standards evaluation. Just as companies are ISO-certified when they meet certain workflow, structural, managerial, and who-knows-what standards according to a very expensive evaluation, an OS will be certified as "Unix" once having been evaluated as specifically matching those standards.
Investors and entities considering contracting a company's services will use the "ISO-whatever" certification as an indicator that that company has been evaluated to have a certain set of qualities, just as those evaluating operating systems for a project will use the "Unix" certification as an indication of the OS's having met a certain set of standards.
Now, I'll have to leave the value and full meaning of the "Unix" standard up to someone else to define for us, but the point is that it is not the simple purchase of the right to use a trademark name.
Starting with Windows NT, there was a "POSIX compatibility layer" in Windows, but I don't believe that Microsoft ever claimed to be offering "Unix." However, if Apple were to win this suit, it is conceivable that the precedent would be set that would allow Microsoft - and anyone else producing an operating system - to claim that their operating systems wer "Unix."
If the term "Unix" is judged to have become as generic as "Kleenex," then there might well be a need to come up with another name, so that there can be a standard for future reference.
Personally, I suspect that Apple is not "upholding a principle" by not paying for a name that should be available to all breeds of "*nix," but rather that they know of something or many somethings that would prevent OS X from meeting the Open Group's Unix standard.
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The IP Jungle that is Unix... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did the check bounce? (Score:5, Insightful)
One simple thing. They didn't. Their OS is based on Unix code for certain, it's pretty close to BSD compatible, but it's not Unix(tm) and, as your post shows, they've been marketing it in a way that can be argued to be misleading in that sense.
There's a big difference between Unix-like (Linux), genetic-unix (BSD) and branded Unix(tm) that's been thoroughly tested and certified by the Open Group. The trademark can't stop people from using the word unix in association with the first two, but it is illegal to use it in a way that implies or misleads that something is in the third category when it's not.
I don't know all the details here, but it's entirely possible that Apple has crossed that legal line.
Turn it on its head (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in Australia we have something called the Heart Foundation. They have a label that is put onto foods that meet the Heart Foundation standards (IE Low in salt, low in fat, generally good for your heart). What would you think if you saw a food product in the supermarket that said it was "Heart Foundation-based"? It's misleading isn't it? It's a company saying "We are low in salt, but screw the fat, thats not important, so we sort of conform to the Heart Foundation. But we aren't really Heart Foundation certified".
It's exactly the same for Unix. You can't say you are "Unix-like" or "Unix-based" because it's misleading.
OS X may have a unix kernel, but the whole operating system is NOT unix, and so it cannot use the unix name.
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UNIX: What's the first thing that comes to mind (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, most people who think they know what Unix is have something like "something like Linux, but obsolete" in mind. These are probably the same people that couldn't write a half-way portable shell script if their life depended on it, because they wouldn't even know where to look for the relevant standards.
Apple saying that OS X is Unix-based is, of course, fully OK, and not the thing that is debated here. Just like it is OK to say that Linux is "Unix-like". That's not the point.
And you not having a clue may not be the best argument either, by the way.
Re:Goal is to Maintain the Unix Standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. None of the classic purposes of trademarks apply.
Apple's labeling of Darwin as "Unix" is neither:
Apple's use of the term "Unix" is clearly descriptive. The Open Group is merely seeking testing fees.
If they have a complaint that Darwin somehow deviates wildly from other "official" Unixes in a way that discourages development of Unix applications I'd love to hear it. As it stands, Darwin is the single largest reminder to developers that Linux is not Unix.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your analogy holds no water, because, even though Windows XP is, in a very distant way, somewhat related to VMS, it is in no way decended from it.
Unix was a bunch of code that a bunch of people licensed and re-licensed, and specifically ALL of the BSD's (Open, Net, Free, Darwin) that still live are decended from BSD directly. Linux has all new code, unlike the BSDs, but it reimplements Unix to such a degree that it is, for all intents and purposes, Unix. It just isn't related except in spirit to Unix.
The open group is quite unnecessary nowadays, and should be replaced by a website proffering a set of compliance tests that anybody can run. I'll pay hosting for the first year!
Re:Generic? Based on what? (Score:3, Insightful)
thermos
escalator
aspirin
trampoline
cellop
linoleum
If they're not careful:
Kleenex
Xerox
FedEx
Jell-O
There are plenty of examples of companies losing their trademarks to general use. It IS a big deal, though in this case, it seems that Apple is right.
-jg
Some things never change (Score:2, Insightful)
Not generic, but not relevent (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, it's not clear to me that Apple has violated the trademark. They are a little sloppy when they talk about OS X's Unix origins [apple.com] -- they really should make it clear that they have no license for the Unix trademark -- but it's perfectly legitimate for them to claim that OS X is derived from Unix.
Really this is about the Open Group struggling to hang onto the shreds of its dwinding relevence. Sun and HP still go through the motions of certifying their right to use the Unix trademark, but they don't make a big thing about it. And Linux continues to eat into the Unix marketplace, even though it isn't certified as compliant with any Unix specification. It probably could be, if anybody were willing to spend the money. But nobody is, and nobody cares -- which is bad for Open Group.
False (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.
Apple has sued other PC makers for too closely copying the iMac. That's their trade dress and they've every right to it.
However Apple hasn't sued any toaster manufacturers unless you're referring to some of the really bad Compaq designs that ran really hot. Nor blender makers, vacuum manufacturers, not even the George Foreman Grill folks.
Just PC and OS folks too closely infringing on the iMac's trade dress.
Go ahead, rebut me. Find a citation where Apple has sued a non-computer related company for infringing. Apple iMac-identical items aside Apple has and can lay no claim to products with swoopy translucent plastic casings in bright colors. Rowenta irons, vTech phones, PaperMate ballpoint pens, all can be as harmonious as they wish with apple's iMac and remain unharassed.
If you've got a problem with a company go ahead and express it but don't go making things up.
Offtopic.. but required (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:3, Insightful)
If Unix becomes a generic term, Microsoft could call Windows a Unix (it's bad enough that OS/390 can call itself a UNIX, but at least it passes the certification testing). Unix then becomes a generic term for operating system.
UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of the Open Group.
Re:Unix looks generic to me (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't live enough time. Otherwise you would think of Solaris, AIX, HP/UX and Irix *at least* (counting survived ones).
Most of Unix people thought it's a shame that Apple links "Unix" to their "Mac OSX".
BSD had a special relationship with the name. As for Linux - it's GNU, and "Gnu's Not Unix", just by the definition.
P.S. When you hear of "Windows" you think of Microsoft, right? I usually counterask: "Which Windows? MS or X11?"
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you heard "Linux-based" and "The power of Linux", you would expect the thing to be Linux, right?
Re:Apropos UNIX quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or as Henry Spencer put it: "Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
Musical works != sound recordings (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple Music, the Beatles publishing company, no longer exists.
Then who owns the master recordings?
The Beatles music rights were purchased and AFAIK are still owned by Michael Jackson.
The rights to the musical works (embodied in sheet music) or the rights to the sound recordings (embodied in phonorecords such as tapes and CDs)?
No, no, Apple, no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone here needs to take a pill and get a fucking clue. Apple and The Open Group included. I'll deal with each individually.
Slashdot Readers:
You guys are fucking unbelieveable. "Go Apple!" and all this shit. You've gotta be fucking kidding me. Learn something about what "UNIX" means, reflect upon it, then think about how destroying the Unix trademark might be a bad thing. For the unenlightened; You're only allowed to use the Unix trademark if you conform to the Unix specification. Why does this matter, and who cares? YOU care because you're posting to Slashdot only because of any number of specifications, a Unix spec probably being one of them. HTML being another. TCP/IP, C, Perl, SQL, 3-Phase Power at 110 or 220 volts, whatever. The point is that standards and specifications are the only way to provide reliable infrastructure. Let me bring it down to earth for your Slashdotted minds: You know that "United Linux" thing (or whatever the fuck they're calling it this week) where a bunch of distribution vendors are getting together to make a Linux specification? It's the same fucking thing as The Open Group! Supporting one but not the other is not only inconsistent, its hypocritical. The only way that Linux will ever be able to rival Microsoft is by providing a common specification for which to program and support. Similarly, this is one of the main reasons the Unix specification and it's accompanying trademark has been around for 20 years or so. This is why big iron almost always runs an implementation of the one true Unix specification. If Linux ever wants to move out of the closet and onto the production floor, it would be wise to follow suit.
So stop being such short-sighted pricks. Yes, trademarks and other IP are misused on a regular basis. However, that doesn't make them inherently evil.
The Open Group:
I can understand that you guys are upset that Apple has been using the word "UNIX" in it's marketing literature; because you probably feel like it diminishes your trademark. Realistically though, Apple has made a reasonable effort to say things like "Unix based..." and crap like that. You couldn't possibly have come to some sort of agreement? I mean, they're only part of the fucking group.
Apple:
I like what you're doing these days, but...
Stop being such hypocritical jackasses. You throw your IP around like Mike Tyson does women. Then when you step on someone's toes, instead of removing your foot; you press down harder so that you can knee them in the balls with your other leg. What an asinine thing to do. Don't forget that you own IP on standards and specs too. I mean shit, if you'd have started "The Firewire Group" as an off-shoot of the IEEE1394 working group, you'd probably be selling more iPods because I could use them as storage for my Sony DV Recorder. By the same token, if you ever want Rendevous to be at all useful to people in the real world, it has to be cross-platform. So either submit it to a standards body, or better yet, make "The Rendevous Group" and licence it out. Then, in 20 years you might understand The Open Group's position when someone else is selling "Rendevous Based" brain implants.
Okay, I think I'm done ranting now.
Re:Apple should pay up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats why trademarks are only good for one small field.
You proved your own point wrong in the same line.
Apple has a trademark on macintosh when used in reference to computers.
Before computers existed, NOBODY used apple to refer to computers!
Is apple sueing anyone for using the term apple to describe something that isnt a computer?
Go make something that isnt a computer and name it apple, wont even need to add stars to the name to not get sued.
Unix is in my opinion pretty generic, but what the hey.
Only UNIX is trademarked.
All apple has to do is not make all four letters caps whenever they use the word unix, and they are not infringing. Easy fix for now and the future.
As for the past, if they publicly appologized and claimed it was an honest mistake, they did not realize they used the term in a trademarked way, and had it changed on their pages and ads and whatnot Very fast (IE any day now), a judge may even let them off without having to pay damages for the time they have been using UNIX on their site.
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not saying FreeBSD and Linux aren't worthy of being called "Unix" rather than "Unix like" but is everything that could claim it, worthy of it? Now and in the future?
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should have enforced that mark, X/Open! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, you must admit that there is a difference between casual/common branding (like if someone says in a book "BSD is a flavor of Unix") and the explicit use of this trademark in the advertising of a commercial product.
AFAIK neither Linux nor BSD has ever been distributed as "Unix". In fact, the "GNU" acronym is pretty much an inversion of this trademark.
I'll be interested to see how the courts decide on this: I'm guessing that the failure to enforce casual use will not impede action against commercial use. Anyone know of any precedents?
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:2, Insightful)
No, Unix hasn't become a generic term. It's true that people rarely type Unix(tm), but that's more a reflection of the clumsiness of the typing than of the people not knowing that Unix is a trademarked term. It's true that until recently I didn't know who the current owner was...I wasn't sure it wasn't still AT&T, but I sure knew it was trademarked.
For a somewhat similar example, Ada it rarely spelled Ada(tm), but it was, in fact, trademarked by the DOD. Whether they are still the owners of the trademark I don't know, but while they were interested they determined who could call their compiler Ada, and what tests and proofs it had to pass and present. That was why the Apple II compiler was called Janus. The DOD had decided that it wouldn't allow any subsets, and a full compiler for Ada couldn't be fit into the Apple II. (Note that I haven't been using the (tm) notation? Just imagine how clumsy that would make things!)
Note that I'm not clear why Linux isn't a Unix, but *BSD is. But it's a real distinction that is important for some purposes (it's just never been important to me). Of course, it's possible that Linux just hasn't seen getting a Unix certificate as important. (By the way, did you notice that I haven't been saying Linux(tm)? Linux is also a trademarked term.)
So this case does make me want to say:
"Go, Apple, go"... but I don't want to stop there, I want to extend it a bit to:
"Go, Apple, go. Go far away."
Re:Go, go, Apple, go! (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Mac OS X is a GUI wrapper and some application libraries wrapped around BSD and a kernel. Both of the latter having been previously referred to as "Unix".
1a) If Apple is guilty of any deception it is in calling Mac OS X "Mac OS", because it has very little to do with prior Operating systems called "Mac OS". But then, that's a good thing.
1b) It is a very nice wrapper.
2) Unix existed before the Single Unix Specification.
Is it now incorrect to refer to the OS that Kernighan and Ritchie worked on as "Unix"?
You cannot use a trademark to end the legitimate use of a term. This is not a "kleenex" or "escalator" issue. The term "Unix" was in use before the Single Unix Specification existed. The Open Group can't change the meaning of the term ex post facto.
If Apple were advertising that they complied with the Single Unix Specification without paying the Open Group then they would have a complaint. The Open Group has to convince Apple that doing so would be of value to Apple.
Of course Apple may have this silly idea that they don't need to recruit developers who are going to treat their box as a generic Unix system. For one thing, they seem to show up pretty spontaneously, as can be noted by the amount of open source projects that have been ported to Darwin.
General Response (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you all for pointing out the details of Apple's standards activities. I'm much better educated for it, without having to exact the effort to check the facts myself.(/SINCERITY)
The reason I didn't check them is because they are completely tertiary to the point. Perhaps I should have written more hypothetically, but I figured that might have been evident when I mentioned brain implants.
Do any of you have friends (insert obligatory slashdot joke here) that can only respond to one point of a multi-facted email or letter? I do, and I'm reminded of them here. For those who have trouble following, I'll condense my post into a list of points: (with bullets!)
- Standards and specifications are good.
- The Open Group should stop being IP nazis.
- Notwithstanding, Apple are hypocritical assholes for wanting to invalidate the Unix trademark and consequently the specification.
If you will, allow me to clarify a few things. Unfortunately, I didn't state explcitly that whether the standards are, free, open, closed or proprietary, I don't care. When it comes to standards I care about two things:- The quality of the spec, or the implementation of the standard.
- The documentation of said standard or spec.
I apologize to the IP bigots who had to waste their time screaming, "WHAT ABOUT OPEN STANDARDS!?!?" Your cause was never meant to be a part of this discussion. But since you brought it up, I might say a few things. As I mentioned before, IP isn't inherently evil. It just seems that way because it is often times wielded for the wrong reasons. Just as the GPL is a copyright licence, IP can often times work in your favor. The trick is to leverage it effectively and not get caught up in utopian visions of software without ownership. Please, allow me to get all Nash-like on you: What's best for both the group and the individual is what's best for both. Now some Darwinism as paraphrased from Ghost in the Shell [amazon.com]: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. That is to say homogeneous groups or individuals are more susceptible to failure than a heterogenous group. Applied the world of IP the solution for success becomes quite clear: One must use IP to benefit not only one's self, but others to a proportionate degree. By the same token, if one behaves with only the group in mind; failure is inevitable, as the individual has not paid enough attention to it's own needs to remain viable. I await the responses of both your neighbourhood PHB and Mr. Stallman.Getting back to the point, I think I just gave a good reason why The Open Group might be best to stop hoarding their IP. ;)
As it relates to Apple, whatever they might be doing elsewhere is irrelevant. Similarly, the hypocritical bit is self-evident. What matters is that they are intent on destroying the IP of others for no one's benefit but their own. How would your life, or the life of any given slashdotter improve without a Unix trademark? It wouldn't. In fact, it might get irrevocably worse. This is perhaps the fault of The Open Group, because it seems to me that the Unix specification means very little without the Unix trademark; and vice-versa. I simply don't see the benefit of everyone and his dog being able to call their software "Unix". I do however, see a problem with the loss of the definition of exactly what is Unix and what isn't. Yes, I'm aware that they'd probably just come up with another name/trademark; But that then begs the question, "Why bother?"