• sab@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also, how the hell could Microsoft get a patent for X in 2003 when X has been around since 1984, and is pretty much a direct competitor? This makes no sense at all.

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Makes sense I guess. Somehow also makes the trademark even more absurd.

        Reminds me a little of Apple v. Apple Records, and how Apple promised never too use their brand to enter into the music industry (like they later did with iTunes anyway).

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In 1991, Apple Computer made an agreement to pay Apple Records $26 million in exchange for letting Apple Computer use the “Apple” trademark for music. But that was long before iTunes, they wanted the Apple trademark for their computer chimes. Apple Records agreed to let Apple Computer use the Apple trademark for music as long as it did not “package, sell or distribute physical music materials.”

          Much later, iTunes was developed and Apple Records sued Apple Computer. Eventually a judge sided with Apple Computer, pointing out that iTunes did not package, sell or distribute physical music materials. Thus, Apple Records couldn’t get another bite of that Apple…

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      The law is a weapon of the rich. You don’t have to be right, you just have to be able to afford out-lawyering your competition. Patents are especially revolting.

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course, my question was rhetorical. I guess it didn’t come out so clearly considering it’s also, at least in theory, a damned good question.

        • fiat_lux@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was probably clear enough, you just caught me half-asleep and unmedicated. I really dislike patents.

    • ThoughtGoblin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is Xorg a “direct competitor” to Microsoft? Especially Microsoft’s trademark to X in the gaming market where they own the Xbox and Xorg doesn’t participate at all?

      Trademarks protect consumers by preventing fraud and misleading naming. It makes perfect sense that Microsoft owns X in the given market space due to the enormous prevalence of Xbox. Their first console was literally X-shaped and it would be bad for consumers for anyone to be able to make the “X-station” or “X-cube” or some such.

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One could not imagine Linux without X11 in 2003. And in 2003, the situation between Microsoft and Linux was rather tense.

        That said, I managed to somehow forget about Xbox. I agree it makes sense that Sony couldn’t launch an “X console” with a gigantic X on the side.

        So yes, I want thinking it through. I do however think that using this trademark against X.xom would be ill conceived, no matter how much I hate Musk. If they start moving into gaming it might be different though, so fair enough.

        Thanks for making me think it through more! :)

    • GustavoM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “You better not touch the F word! Call of Duty did it first!”

      Welp. I can see it happening.