@Cymric
As much as I'd love for M$ to lose this case, any case, if I were the judge, I might just rule in their favor on this one. Yeah, the word "windows" is a generic term for those little boxes that GUI's do most of their work in, but "Windows" isn't being used generically to describe those boxes. It's being used as a name for a whole entity that does more than make little boxes; it just happens to be an apropos moniker. The generic term for the type on entity in question is "graphical user interface". That's not a very catchy name, is it. If M$ had put that on the box as the name, I'd rule against them for sure. It's like Ford putting out Car(tm), or Cadbury putting out Chocolate(tm). Now, if Hershey put out a almond and chocolate candy bar and called it Nuts(tm), that's not generic for candy bar. But, it is for the nut industry, so they can't stop anyone putting "nuts" on their bags of nuts. But, they could stop people from using "Nuts" as a name for a candy bar. (I'm trying to split hair on purpose to make a point.)
The Lindows people are just grasping at straws because they don't want to lose in court. Which is what any good lawyer is supposed to do because they might just find a sympathetic (or negligent)judge and win on a long shot.
Now, if M$ was selling 3-packs of windows (the glass kind) and branded them Windows(tm), they'd have some kind of trouble defending that trademark. :-D I don't see them losing the software name thing, though.