Microsoft vs. Lindows

Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc. was a court case brought by Microsoft against Lindows, Inc, claiming that the name "Lindows" was a violation of its trademark "Windows."

In addition to the United States, Microsoft has also sued Lindows in Sweden, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. Michael Robertson has called this situation "Sextuple Jeopardy", an extension of the term double jeopardy.

In response to these lawsuits, Lindows had launched "ChoicePC.com" [http://ChoicePC.com] , which allows people to purchase lifetime Lindows memberships that includes a free copy of LindowsOS, free LindowsOS upgrades for life, and a ChoicePC.com t-shirt, for $100 USD. All money from the memberships goes towards helping Lindows in its legal battle against Microsoft.

Lindows had also retaliated against Microsoft's lawsuits with using "Lin---s" (pronounced "Lindash") and the corresponding domain "lind---s.com" (now disused). Consumers and resellers from countries in which Microsoft has blocked the sale of Lindows products due to the trademark lawsuits were encouraged to visit the Lin---s website instead of Lindows.com to purchase the Lin---s software, which is identical to Lindows except for the name change.

As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and that the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before [cite web | url=http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/1135821 | title=internetnews.com: Microsoft's Appeal in 'Lindows' Case Rejected | accessdate=2006-05-02] . Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims [cite web | url=http://www.silicon.com/software/os/0,39024651,39118328,00.htm | title=Silicon.com: Lindows wins in US court Microsoft ruling | accessdate=2006-05-02] . The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark. In July 2004, Microsoft offered to settle with Lindows. [cite web | url=http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116947,00.asp | title=PCWorld : Microsoft, Lindows Make a Deal | accessdate=2006-05-07] As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $24 million, and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.

Lindows started off with a handicap of having to defend themselves from their own lawyers (from St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company) who were meant to be defending Lindows. [ [http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=59 A Legal Victory: We Got Our Slingshot] ] Judge Robert Takasugi found St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company had breached their contract. [ [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,115751-page,1/article.html Lindows Prepares to Go Public] ] [ [http://sec.edgar-online.com/2004/07/19/0000936392-04-000755/Section20.asp LINDOWS INC Securities Registration Statement (S-1/A) Legal Proceedings] ]

ee also

*Microsoft litigation

References

External links

* [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.asp Microsoft Legal News]
* [http://www.choicepc.com ChoicePC.com]
* [http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg-2002-04-all.html Windows v. Lindows: High-Tech Trademark Troubles]
* [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jul04/07-19lindowspr.mspx Microsoft's press release announcing the settlement]