[asterisk-biz] Matthew R vs. the world

[Matthew Rubenstein]

> > I encourage all my competitors to infringe Gates' "Windows" and 
> > "Microsoft" trademarks without asking his permission.
> > 
> 
> In light of that and how much it would cost to defend in court that may
> not be the best policy, and if it is one, advertising it so openly may
> not be the best.

	Well, of course that is precisely why I so encourage my competitors.
Note that I did not append a smiley ;).


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 08:21 +0100, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 22:03 -0800, Justin Newman wrote:
> > You are just plain wrong. Haha...better, just clueless.
> > 
> > Microsoft lost the trademark battle on Windows and had to pay off Lindows.com $20 million to change their name:
> > http://www.web2journal.com/read/45613.htm 
> > 
> According to that MS didnt lose, but rather settled to avoid losing.
> 
> <quote>
> Microsoft also failed to get the US Court of Appeals to hear a rare
> interlocutory appeal made before the district court case had a chance to
> start and declare the Windows trademark valid.
> 
> The district court trial, after a couple of delays, was finally supposed
> to start this half.
> 
> Obviously Microsoft couldn't run the risk losing the Windows name and
> settled out-of-court, basically an admitting that Lindows had it over a
> barrel.
> ...
> In the settlement, Lindows throws Microsoft a bone and acknowledges the
> validity of the Windows trademark.
> </quote>
> 
> Granted linspire acknowledging it means nothing, but the courts appear
> to have not ruled on it, only expressed some concern as to its validity,
> as such its still valid and has not yet been revoked by the USPTO nor
> the courts.  In europe it appears that MS did get some victory status
> off it in some courts, or so says that same article.
> 
> > I encourage all my competitors to infringe Gates' "Windows" and 
> > "Microsoft" trademarks without asking his permission.
> > 
> 
> In light of that and how much it would cost to defend in court that may
> not be the best policy, and if it is one, advertising it so openly may
> not be the best.
> 
-- 

(C) Matthew Rubenstein