Microsoft loses trademark battle
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NEW YORK - In another regulatory attack on Microsoft's dominance of the market for computer operating systems, the US Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the firm's claim to exclusive rights to the word 'windows', writes Larry Black.
The office ruled that the term - which Microsoft adopted for its successful operating system in 1983 - has a generic meaning in the industry and that it was in use long before the firm tried to copyright it.
'Windows', now commonly understood to mean Microsoft's system, also describes overlapping rectangular displays that allow computer users to bring more than one program to the screen at a time.
Microsoft, which says it will appeal against the ruling, argues that the loss of the trademark creates the danger that consumers will be sold inferior products and allows competitors to cash in on its expensive marketing efforts.
Windows makes IBM-compatible computers as easy to use as those produced by Apple. Most of the software industry now tailors its programs to the Windows systems, and Microsoft charges no royalty for the use of the name. But it does require licences and set rules for 'proper use' of the logo.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments