Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Sues Alexaholic

theodp writes "ZDNet reports that as Jeff Bezos tap-danced out of a cringe moment at Web 2.0 Expo prompted by Tim O'Reilly's questioning of why Amazon couldn't get along with Alexaholic (now Statsaholic), Amazon had already filed a lawsuit to legally spank the tiny company into oblivion."

124 comments

  1. Thanks Tim by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Keep up the good work.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    1. Re:Thanks Tim by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's kind of funny that O'Reilly was complaining about Alexa/Alexaholic when O'Reilly and Associates basically trademarked "Web 2.0" and sued anyone else that used "Web 2.0" in connection with a conference or convention.

    2. Re:Thanks Tim by cyphercell · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're kidding? Got a link?

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    3. Re:Thanks Tim by Shemmie · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Thanks Tim by Animaether · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not GP, but here you go:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/12 38245 - O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'

    5. Re:Thanks Tim by fimion · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was a Cease and Desist order. no one was sued.

    6. Re:Thanks Tim by cyphercell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      thanks, what a schmuck! Seriously, this news is like watching two fat warthogs fight over eating a piglet, it's disgusting.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    7. Re:Thanks Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what an... odd metaphor... I've never heard anyone say that before...

    8. Re:Thanks Tim by maxume · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.tomrafteryit.net/sorry-tim/

      In short, O'Reilly is partnered with CMP and CMP has the mark and sent the letter.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Thanks Tim by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's the trademark registration: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=m kfu1u.3.3 Here's an actual instance of CMP/O'reilly threatening a (not even US-based!) non-profit for using it: http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web -20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    10. Re:Thanks Tim by rm69990 · · Score: 1

      Seems more like a cease and desist letter than a lawsuit to me, but what do I know...

    11. Re:Thanks Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lest people think this is new, O'Reilly attempted to trademark "netizen" and "website". They may be doing it through a third-party now, but O'Reilly has been attempting to trademark common web-related terms pretty much since the web was first created.

    12. Re:Thanks Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True enough. I was one of the many who was glad handed by whatever poor secretary had to answer the email when that flap was going on. The whole thing was made even sillier by the very idea of "Web 2.0" being anything but another stupid buzzword that'll have it's fifteen minutes before everybody runs off to "Web Xtreme" or some other dumb thing.

      But here's a thought, if Alexa is going to be a bunch of assholes, block them. They're getting their data from other people and now claiming "intellectual property". Back when I was running a small website, I IP filtered them. My website didn't even exist far as they knew. If they want *my "intellectual property," they can pay me or they can shove off.

      The Internet used to have a "death penalty" concept in which misbehaving sites found themselves cut off. If no one allows Alexa access, Alexa has no data. They have no business benefiting from an open Internet if they're going to play "it's mine!" games...

    13. Re:Thanks Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black... It's too bad Jeff Bezos didn't know about this LOL. That would have been a nice snappy retort.

      I can't believe _anyone_ would trust Amazon when it comes to doing stuff on the internet. Anyone remember "one click ordering" patent fiasco? Amazon and all related companies should be shunned by everyone who does development because of this. I'd never partner with them or use any of their services.

      Can't believe anyone is stupid enough to build anything connected to Amazon with or without an agreement. They can afford to screw you whenever they want.

      As far as Alexa goes... I've only ever seen that on marketing people's computers. Seriously few regular users even care about Alexa's stats and they are not representative of what people are doing. It's a bunch of self-important marketing crap. $5 says the only people that disagree with this point are marketing people or marketing programmers. I guess it's easy to kid yourself if you look at the thing every day.

      I have to admit I do rather enjoy seeing marketing people going at it in court. I has the same morbid fascination for me that cock-fighting has for those people that watch it.

      -AC

    14. Re:Thanks Tim by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And in other news, attempted murder is not really a crime.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  2. biting the hands that feed them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "thanks for all the free labor and code" multi-multi-billionair founder Jeff Bezos said while addressing his audience of free workers "there is a sucker born every minute, we just you the tools to make it easier for us to cash in your efforts"

    1. Re:biting the hands that feed them by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Yes and Tim showed him what it was like to be food on stage in front of an audience of wolves. Kinda nice when you consider the brow beating he gets over amazon's one-click patent. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230983&cid =18750539

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    2. Re:biting the hands that feed them by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who still boycotts Amazon over the one-click patent. That O'Reilly sold out doesn't mean that I have to. Still, it's getting more and more difficult to avoid Amazon, especially when I have to explain to well-meaning friends and relatives that I can no more accept a gift bought through Amazon than I can accept a gift made through child labour.

    3. Re:biting the hands that feed them by jamie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I still am too... but yeah, when RMS gives up it makes you feel pretty lonely...

    4. Re:biting the hands that feed them by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      You guys are hardcore, tougher than stallman. :) Is it about the price or the principle at this point?

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:biting the hands that feed them by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Well, when Amazon was starting out there was a continuous flood of Amazon spam in the usenet groups I read. They seemed to be encouraging 'our affiliates are spamming not us' spam. I've never done business with them because of that. The one click patent and the 'geo locate and quote higher prices if we think you'll pay more' e-commerce system cemented that opinion.

    6. Re:biting the hands that feed them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your family must be really impressed by your trolling career.

  3. Alexa by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why does that name sound so familiar?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Alexa by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're either thinking of an excellent line of tech books, or you're thinking of a far-right-wing Fox pundit infamous for cutting the mic of his guests, his sometimes uncontrollable temper, his misinformative Talking Points, and his outrageous, illogical, irresponsible, and despicable "opinions", showcased by, for example, his blaming immigration policy for a drink driving incident and his general insensitivity and partisan agenda-pushing.

      Either is good.

    2. Re:Alexa by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1

      That oughta teach me to pay more attention to subject lines.... Whoops ...

    3. Re:Alexa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why does that name sound so familiar?

      perhaps this will refresh your memory ?

    4. Re:Alexa by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nope, now I remember after reading farther down. Toolbar...Spyware. Didn't know they were still around. Or maybe I just used to pay more attention when I was removing them manually, before I started using Adaware.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Alexa by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Can you say, "malware"?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Alexa by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, caught in the article too. Surprise, surprise...Spyware company tries to stamp out anything even closely resembling competition. I find spyware to be very educational. It taught me a lot about the Windows Registry.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:Alexa by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      No....

      Im thinking its probably AlexRelated, everyones favourite piece of spyware.

      -Red

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    8. Re:Alexa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Alexa toolbar doesn't do anything the Google Toolbar doesn't do. What do you think Google uses as the initialization vector for PageRank? Toolbar data. And Alexa's TOS tells you up front what they're doing; Google calls it "advanced features." It's just that Alexa did it first and got sued by a fraudulent idiot for being not cool enough.

    9. Re:Alexa by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I also delete the Google, MSN, Yahoo, and MyWeb(duh!) Toolbar, all of them, and recommend against installing it. It just adds clutter and slows the machine down. If they want buttons all over their toolbars, I show them how to drag them down from the address bar. All the convenience, none of the crud.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Alexa by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      And Alexa's TOS tells you up front what they're doing; Google calls it "advanced features."

      I've only installed Google toolbar once (didn't do much for me), but the installer was very clear that if I enabled the page rank indicator and certain other features, that it would send usage data back to Google to help them rank pages and do other data-mining. I'm not sure how it was possible to miss it unless you're one of those Skinner monkeys that just hits Ok on every dialog that appears without reading it.

      Of course, maybe the installer has changed.

    11. Re:Alexa by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 1
      Nice reference to B. F. Skinner. :)

      I thought I was the only one who remembered him.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    12. Re:Alexa by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      He was a Deputy Director at the FBI back in the late 90's. Yeah, I remember him.

    13. Re:Alexa by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about the same person: the guy who wrote "Beyond Dignity & Freedom"?

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    14. Re:Alexa by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was making a weak X-Files joke. However, I am familiar with B.F. Skinner, Skinner boxes, operant conditioning, etc. from long-ago Psychology classes.

    15. Re:Alexa by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 1

      Now it makes sense. I never watched X-Files. I used to work nights.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  4. another GoogleClick moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another generation learns the old truth... the upstarts always seem to start as the Good Guys taking on the Big Faceless Corporate Machines. Their CEOs are hip and appear smiling, sharp but casually dressed, on magazine covers. Even after they go public, they maintain that halo for awhile, give lip service to idea of making the world a better place instead of just making a buck. Why not make a little less, and give something back to the people?

    Then one day, the upstarts turn into the Big Bad Guys. There's just no way to tell the difference. The need to dominate the industry is overriding, and the end justifies every means.

    1. Re:another GoogleClick moment by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Another generation learns the old truth... the upstarts always seem to start as the Good Guys taking on the Big Faceless Corporate Machines. [..] Then one day, the upstarts turn into the Big Bad Guys. There's just no way to tell the difference. The need to dominate the industry is overriding, and the end justifies every means. Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:another GoogleClick moment by danpsmith · · Score: 1

      Another generation learns the old truth... the upstarts always seem to start as the Good Guys taking on the Big Faceless Corporate Machines. Their CEOs are hip and appear smiling, sharp but casually dressed, on magazine covers. Even after they go public, they maintain that halo for awhile, give lip service to idea of making the world a better place instead of just making a buck. Why not make a little less, and give something back to the people?

      Every company does seem to undergo this transition. And honestly, for most companies it seems to be the moment they go public. Google is still managing to print money, watch how cooperative they become when earnings slip.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
  5. Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Jeff Bezos is an active pedophile and rapist. In a similar way to Michael Jackson - but much more sinister - he procures young children, leads them into his mansion and touches them in all the inappropriate places. A few complaints have been brought against him, but he uses his vast riches from Amazon to pay the parents off. It's sick and wrong.

    I'm glad Tim O'Reilly took a stand against this Alexaholic thing, but someone needs to stand up and shoot him down for his child molesting.

    1. Re:Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like -1, Truth

    2. Re:Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I work for Amazon's web services department. I just emailled a link to this comment to our legal services team. Enjoy your lawsuit, prick.

    3. Re:Amazon's shame by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      nothing to sue for here....it's not specific enough to be liable and most definately True as an opinion with plenty of examples.

    4. Re:Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing Amazon seems to prefer using their lawyers to solve every problem.

      My name is John D. I write for a dying dead tree rag, please sue me, I need attention...

    5. Re:Amazon's shame by renegadesx · · Score: 0

      In response to AC's link he emailed us. We decided to not press charges at the other AC that called him a rapist. He raped a member of our legal team last year... and his daughter.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    6. Re:Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon lawyers, please note: parent AC is a different AC than the crazy "JB is a pedo" poster.

    7. Re:Amazon's shame by bangzilla · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You most certainly do not work for Amazon Web Services as no one in that time would write what you wrote. Be off with you crookback troll scrum. Look - this is not an Amazon issue it's the issue for all companies that provide web-based services. It's best all round if we publish/use formal API's = makes upgrade life so much easier. Using unpublished, unsupported "API's" (screen scraping anyone?) is fine for a short amount of time, then when the format you're relying on changes you scream bloody murder. Work within the system and it'll work for you. The "we're just a small, poor company" card has been played many times over and is wearing very thin. A company doesn't have the API's you want/need - move along OR work with them, but don't piss and moan if you don't follow the rules.

      --
      Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
    8. Re:Amazon's shame by ebuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      You only used one click to submit your comment, so GO SUE YOURSELF!

    9. Re:Amazon's shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, have been trolled most thoroughly.

    10. Re:Amazon's shame by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Anonymous Coward wrote:

      Amazon lawyers, please note: parent AC is a different AC than the crazy "JB is a pedo" poster. Well, which pus up the question how you can know that. The obvious solutions are that you are either the parent AC or the crazy "KB is a pedo" poster. If you had been the parent AC, you could have noted the difference directly in that parent post. Therefore I conclude you're the crazy "KB is a pedo" poster. :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. I'm not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    As Alan Graham's article points out, Alexa is working with "mountains of data" on the backend - which is requiring mountains of expensive processing power. As he also points out, Alexa haven't released APIs to access and reuse their data - indeed, they've shown no desire to have somebody else profit off that work at all.

    So... why would anybody be the least bit surprised that Alexa are angry and suing? Alexaholic / Statsaholic is doing nothing more than stealing the difficult bit that Alexa has already accomplished, and wrapped it in a different template with their own ads, allowing them to make money off it while Alexa makes not a penny.

    Alan Graham, I ask you - if I were to take the articles you write from ZDNet and republish them verbatim on my own site (with your byline, but my template and ads) - wouldn't you be rather upset? Of course you would, and hence you're a hypocrite if you expect Alexa not to take action.

    1. Re:I'm not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Alan Graham here...I'll answer you...since you actually don't get the thrust of the piece.

      It smells bad to have someone from a $16 billion dollar company pitch to an audience of web 2.0 developers about how you can trust them with your business and pretend to be a good steward of what web 2.0 stands for...while you're suing one guy for upwards of $500k...especially when you had a year to shut him down and you only did that after you took all his ideas. On top of that you operate a company that would not exist without the volunteer efforts of every single person who installs the Alexa toolbar and reports that data back to the company...and they even admit...no data/volunteers...no Alexa.

      What I expect Alexa to do is to find it in themselves to work with the community that they depend on...in a more open way. I have nothing against them making a buck...but this type of lawsuit is heavy handed.

    2. Re:I'm not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Alexa hasn't released APIs to access and reuse the data, how are Alexaholic getting it to republish it? If it's freely available on their website, then yes they have released an API. The API is, point an http client at this address to get the data.

    3. Re:I'm not surprised... by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Big companies need lawyers and they need to keep the lawyers busy. Otherwise, this happens:

      http://snuffleguppy.vox.com/library/post/more-comm ercial-stuff.html

      Oops, my bad - that was a link to YouTube-like stuff and was actually supposedly about bankers. My sound card is on the fritz, so I just assumed...

  7. Reasons to like Alexa? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Informative
    From an excerpt in the article titled "Reasons to like Alexa" a response to the claim that Alexa's data is not representative was Statistical significance is attainable with only a small subset of the population - ask a pollster or a high school math teacher..

    That is a mistake, or rather a mistaken response to the claim. Yes, statistical significance is attainable but only if the sample is representative (i.e.) is random. The critics' claim is that Alexa's data is not representative, in other words the sites that choose to give Alexa their data are somehow don't represent a random sample of all the websites out there. It isn't a question of size but rather of quality.

    1. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by Romancer · · Score: 0

      You forget that Alexa is malware and installed without most peoples permission. So a random number of average computer users browsing for porn, downloading screensavers, and playing online texas holdem games will get the "tool" and contribute to the data pool.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    2. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by Assassin+bug · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, representation is reliant on how the samples are obtained and the response variable used for the estimate. However, representation and the randomness of the data are not necessarily related. There are different "kinds" of random-sampling techniques (e.g., systematic or arbitrary). Also, the data itself has its own measure of randomness. You can have a non-random, representative data set. You can even have non-random data with heterogenious variance and have it be representative. What matters, in statistics, is that the assumptions for whatever statistical test is used are checked and that corrections to the analysis are made to accomodate for violations of the assumptions.

    3. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The critics' claim is that Alexa's data is not representative, in other words the sites that choose to give Alexa their data are somehow don't represent a random sample of all the websites out there. It isn't a question of size but rather of quality.
      AFAIK, Alexa statistics are generated from the browsing habits of Alexa Toolbar users and from nothing else.

      In other words, the sites browsed do not talk to Alexa or Amazon.

      Read what Alexa has to say in their Disclaimer.
      I'll give you the quick version: Sites with less than 1,000 monthly visitors are likely to have poor statistics backing up their ranking.

      I imagine Alexa has people smarter than the both of us combined working on their stats. I doubt you're going to catch them in a "gotcha!" moment.
    4. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that Alexa is malware and installed without most peoples permission. So a random number of average computer users browsing for porn, downloading screensavers, and playing online texas holdem games will get the "tool" and contribute to the data pool.

      But you're effectively pointing out that it isn't random. Only less savvy users will be included. More savvy users won't be tricked/forced into installing the software, so the user base isn't random. Instead, it is only including a subset of less sophisticated users who don't notice, AND would be willing to install those piggybacked applications, AND don't have something like SpyBot installed to remove malware.
    5. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by msouth · · Score: 1

      But you're effectively pointing out that it isn't random. Only less savvy users will be included. More savvy users won't be tricked/forced into installing the software, so the user base isn't random. Instead, it is only including a subset of less sophisticated users who don't notice, AND would be willing to install those piggybacked applications, AND don't have something like SpyBot installed to remove malware.


      So, it's only "the market"? I think that's exactly the people they are after. Your "subset" is practically everyone.
      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    6. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, statistical significance is attainable but only if the sample is representative (i.e.) is random.

      Actually "random" would be the opposite of "representative", as long as statistics are concerned. Represenative means the same proportions of the subgroups in the samples are the same as the whole. The subgroups should be carefully chosen to represent properly what could bias or change the outcome of the results.

      As an extremely simple example, you want in the sample to have the same proportions of age, gender, income, professions etc (some of those categories may not matter in certain studies).

    7. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually what you describe is quota sampling. Representativeness can be checked using the quotas you describe, but if you do not begin with a random sample you will have nothing useful in the ultimate results. This is why Gallop came into its success in better predicting the Truman election in 1948 than the polls using quota sampling.

    8. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for you.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    9. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      To have representation you have to sample your population in a random manner. Otherwise you get all kinds of biases. For example, if a study a out illegal drug use in U.S. somehow only sampled college students, that would not be very random. The results would not be representative of the whole U.S. population. Contrary to common sense it is in fact very difficult to get a truly random sampling without having any cohort effect. A good way to do random sampling is to sample from a fairly uniform ID database that most members if your population would have, for example. If researchers had access to the social security database, they could randomly choose ssn's from it and use that sample in their study.

      As an extremely simple example, you want in the sample to have the same proportions of age, gender, income, professions etc (some of those categories may not matter in certain studies).

      Wrong, or rather the wrong response to the post. What you are describing is how you know one choice is a member of your population or not. That is a different problem then selecting a small and representative sample out of that _whole_ population such that it would represent that population up to a certain degree (that you specify). In the hypothetical example of drug use study, you would have already identified a way to select only individuals in U.S. that have been here for long enough to consider them part of the "population of U.S.", now you don't have an unlimited resources to go ask everyone of those individual about their drug use, what you do is you try to randomly sample enough individuals from your population to be representative, publish the results in a reputable journal and 'bam' you got your PhD, well... maybe...

      You need to review some statistics material ....

    10. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by ritborg · · Score: 1

      Actually "random" would be the opposite of "representative", as long as statistics are concerned

      Right track, wrong train:

      Actually random does not mean the opposite of representative. Representative samples may or may not be selected randomly. Random samples may or may not be representative.

      A classic example:

      If I want to test the average lifetime of incandescent light bulbs; I would not go to GE and simply randomly test how long until light bulbs burn out. Reasoning being, this is random; but not representative. This wouldn't study all light bulbs, just GE light bulbs. Maybe other companies don't last as long (or maybe they last longer than GE). Our sample wouldn't be representative of all incandescent light bulbs and our study would be invalidated.

      The sample would be random and representative if I was to randomly select from all models/manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs. This same approach would fail if I were comparing it to all light bulbs (merc-vapor, compact florescent, led etc..)

      In the case of the article the question of representative is: does a random sample of alexa users look like a random sample of all internet users. Are they are any special behaviors that alexa users do/do not do that all other internet users do that would create a bias. My guess is that there is probably a bias; but we'd need a study to find that out!

      I think you had the right idea; except the "opposite" part

    11. Re:Reasons to like Alexa? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Random is the only way to be sure that all proportions of subgroups are accurately represented (well, other than sampling every member). What you describe is a way to have the same proportions of subgroups that you think there are. Another way of describing random is that it's out of phase with everything, thus won't encounter any aliasing errors (an example of in-phase is sampling the temerature on Earth every 24 hours).

  8. anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    read that as 'sexaholic'?

  9. Everbody loses?? by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

    The folks at Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe beg to differ.

    --
    What?
  10. Alright... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... who else read, "Amazon Sues A sexaholic"?

    What?

    Just me?

    Oh... nevermind.

  11. dont' fret by User+956 · · Score: 1
    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  12. The problem with Statsaholic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has been shown in multiple studies that statsahol use is a gateway to statsajuana and statsamphetamine. Good for Bezos!

    1. Re:The problem with Statsaholic by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Good for Bezos!

      Except that Bezos is on crack himself.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:The problem with Statsaholic by MrTranscendence · · Score: 0

      I feel I should note today has been rather annoying for me, and seeing the above modded "informative" actually made me crack a grin.

    3. Re:The problem with Statsaholic by hxnwix · · Score: 1
      But, Bezos is on benzos - and for good reason:

      Bezos's net worth:

      * 1999 - $10.1 billion, ranked no. 19
      * 2000 - $6.0 billion, ranked no. 23
      * 2001 - $2.0 billion, ranked no. 234
      * 2002 - $1.5 billion, ranked no. 293
      * 2003 - $2.5 billion, ranked no. 147
      * 2004 - $5.1 billion, ranked no. 82
      * 2005 - $4.8 billion, ranked no. 41
      * 2006 - $4.3 billion, ranked no. 147 (shared with others)
      * 2006 - $3.6 billion, ranked no. 70 (shared with 2 others) Poor frickin' bastard. And don't think it's "ok" because he has 3.6 thousand million dollars; it's not ok. Nothing could make it ok. Benzos for Bezos make it less not ok and that's a start.

      *I personally have no idea whether Bezos uses benzodiazepines. In the same vein, I should say that I don't know whether he shoots heroin. And because there's no smoke where there could be a very hot fire, I should also point out that I have no knowledge of his crack-related habits - save his spontaneous aggression, grandiose scheming and oft-loquacious disposition. He might not actually smoke crack, though. And the bible says you shouldn't judge people, so don't.
    4. Re:The problem with Statsaholic by MLease · · Score: 1

      Except that Bezos is on crack himself.

      Shouldn't that be statscrack?

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  13. data != articles by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least according to US copyright law, raw data does not contain the expressive component necessary for copyrights.

    From the complaint:
    "Alexa seeks to force Mr. Hornbaker to stop infringing Alexa's trademarks and to stop pirating Alexa proprietary data."

    I don't know exactly what Alexa does, but the only thing protectable in a database is its *design and *structure -- and that only if those attributes exhibit creativity (rather than the ordinary constraints of the relational model).

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:data != articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not just using Alexa's *data* - they're using Alexa's *servers* to assemble the data and create the images. Do a view source on the following example URL:

      http://www.statsaholic.com/craigslist.org+friendst er.com+myspace.com+orkut.com+blogger.com?y=r&r=5y& z=50

      In the source of the page, you'll find the inline image is pulled directly from:

      http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=695&h=340&r=5y&y= r&z=50&u=craigslist.org&u=friendster.com&u=myspace .com&u=orkut.com&u=blogger.com

      ie. Alexa's does the work getting people to install their toolbar, logging the URLs those people access, crunching the data, and even assembling the final display of that data. Statsaholic steals all of the above work, plus the bandwidth for all the images they're hotlinking without permission, despite Alexa's wishes.

      What does Statsaholic add to that? Nothing, really. A slightly cleaner template and their own ads.

      And yet, if the AC post below is to be believed as from Alan Graham, we should be seeing this theft of resources despite the owner's wishes as some kind of champion-of-the-people thing.

      I ask you again, Alan - are you fine with me taking your articles to use on my own server without your permission (and hotlinking any related images from the ZD server), then making a profit of it with my own ads?

      It is EXACTLY the same thing.

    2. Re:data != articles by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think you understand the issue. Statsaholic is just telling your browser the location of the image. Your browser fetches the image directly from Alexa, and Alexa generates the image. The Alexaholic guy is at no time in posession of the image, so how could he have possibly violated Alexa's copyright?

      The *only* service that Statsaholic provides is concatenating some strings into a URI.

    3. Re:data != articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So stealing Alexa's bandwidth isn't a problem for you, eh?

      You won't mind if your neighbor plugs into your electricity either then, will you? After all, at no time is he in possession of anything physical that belongs to you, so it must be OK.

    4. Re:data != articles by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      How is he stealing their bandwidth? Alexa is serving the images/data directly to the client. If they do not want this made available to then general public then they should have a website that only servers the content to registered users.

    5. Re:data != articles by mike2R · · Score: 1

      The thing about image hotlinking without permission is that it is 1) Generally undesirable from the site owners point of view, and 2) relatively complicated for a non-technical person (eg a great many small site operators) to block without password protecting the whole site.

      I don't think the argument works that by operating a public webserver you are permitting any action which it is configured to allow. This would legitimise DOS attacks for example. IMO you need to judge these kind of grey area uses on the merits, weighing up benefits and harm to both the entities involved and the internet as a whole. In the case of hotlinking without permission, there don't seem to be any benefits to anyone apart from the hotlinker, so I incline towards a default deny as being sensible.

      Whether it's copyright infringement is another question, but there are definitely elements of passing off and the use of others resources.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
  14. Ohh I get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of those things where the advancement of our tools for the greater benefit of all, is less important than profit. Great financial model, this capitalism stuff.

  15. Alexaholic isn't a mashup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Alexaholic hot links images from Alexa using javascript, that's all it does. It's not a mashup. It doesn't create any graphs, all it does is pulls images from Alexa behinds the scenes and displays them on a page full of ads.

    1. Re:Alexaholic isn't a mashup by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a gross misrepresentation of what Alexaholic does. It does not "pull images" from Alexa. Ever. It just constructs a URI and tells your browser about it. Then your browser pulls the image directly from Alexa.

  16. So Tim O'Reilly won't mind .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I create Booksaholic.com and offer all the O'Reilly books for free. Of course i'll plaster the site with ads and make money off it, like Alexaholic does.

  17. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, you might be somewhat humorous.
    In Bush's America, you are nowhere close.

    You failed it.

  18. Same old game, different players. by Whuffo · · Score: 1, Informative
    I suspect nearly everyone here has experienced the "joy" of helping someone succeed - and then have that person take it all as their own with no benefit to the people who made it possible. If you haven't experienced this yet - you will.

    So Alexa built their business on the backs of the volunteers that provided the data they now claim as their proprietary data. Building on that ethical triumph, they see someone else make good use of the same data and proceed to sue them into oblivion - but not before taking all the good ideas this person had for their own. Of course, we're talking about Amazon; the people with that "one click" patent that they've used against competitors more than once.

    I'd say something about this being good reason to avoid Amazon in the future - but I already came to that conclusion a long time back. There was a book I'd heard about and I wanted a copy. Nobody seemed to have it in stock - but Amazon did, and they took my order for a copy. After a week I was wondering where my book was and checked Amazon's website for order status. Backordered. But they should have it for me in 5 to 7 days.

    After a couple of months of this I finally contacted the publisher of the book to see what was going on. What was going on is the book that Amazon was selling me was OUT OF PRINT and had been for a few years. You'd think Amazon might communicate that little detail to me, wouldn't you? Nope; they maintained the fiction of "it'll be here in 5 to 7 days" right up until I cancelled my order. You should see how their attitude changes at that point; I must have been transferred to a "customer retention" specialist.

    OK, here's the real truth about the big Amazon catalog. It's the ISBN catalog; they just borrowed that data and imported it into their database.

    I'm expecting someone from Amazon to jump up and say "I stole it fair and square, it's MINE now."

    1. Re:Same old game, different players. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, here's the real truth about the big Amazon catalog. It's the ISBN catalog; they just borrowed that data and imported it into their database.


      It is the ISBN catalog, only with extended data from users (popularity, rank, reviews). Amazon is only trying to avoid being the next Bowker's in the chain. If you read the Amazon Web Services EULA, they basically state you can cut down the information you pull off of Amazon, but you cannot extend or add to it in any way.

      captcha: blowers
  19. Not really by memeplex · · Score: 1

    Alexa is not malware unless you consider IE malware (which you might well.) Both the Alexa toolbar and IE/Windows are installed by the user voluntarily after they agree to the license. Same old, same old. Why do you think MS and Amazon have armies of lawyers? If you use Windows and IE, and can't keep track of what you're running, you get what you deserve. If you like the related-links feature (the same tech as in Amazon's "people who bought this..."), then use it and accept sending your clickstream data. Or don't. Most end-users will never know or care.

    Use OS X or Linux and Firefox. (ducks)

    1. Re:Not really by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      Alexa toolbar and IE/Windows are installed by the user voluntarily after they agree to the license. Same old, same old

      Well you acutally gave an example why my post is true. Exactly because "Alexa toolbar....." is insalled by the user _voluntarily_ the web statistics data it collects is not representative of all the website visits out there. Do you see why? -- Because somehow only certain kinds of people would _choose_ to install Alexa and those people in all likelyhood would choose to visit only certain websites (like MSN, or OMGPonies.com and so on.). In other words, the same characterstics that make me want to volunatirily install Alexa crap will make me also go to certain websites that others will not go to.

      Take yourself as an example, you use OS X, Linux and Firefox. You probably don't go very often to MSN.com do you? Well, that might skew Alexa's statistics then because they claim that they represent the whole population of web users out there.

  20. Well, Duh.... by ZenMonkey · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that Alexa would have done best by offering him a job - he's obviously bright, highly motivated by their technology and an expert in their problem domain.

  21. Alexaholic... good? by RockMFR · · Score: 2

    I've never been to Statsaholic until just a few minutes ago. There's nothing good about this site at all. I guess it might have been relatively better than Alexa before the Alexa redesign a few months back, but now it seems to be pretty broken.

    1. Re:Alexaholic... good? by kalbzayn · · Score: 1

      The biggest redesign that happened on Alexa recently is the ability to chart multiple domains in one chart...which was originally seen on Alexaholic. That was the main reason people went their originally, the ability to compare multiple domains at one time.

  22. You are describing image hotlinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alexaholic dynamically constructs an image URI using javascript and hotlinks the image (traffic graph). It's not a mashup, its a clever way of hotlinking images from someone else and making money off advertisements.

    Using someone's bandwidth and making money off it with banner ads is NOT COOL.

  23. He was screen scraping... by xENoLocO · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...not using the APIs.

    He was "avoiding an API fee", but the data he wanted was not available through the API anyways, so he screen scraped alexa. If alexa had wanted that data available they would have made it available through the API.

    The guy (hornbaker) admittedly says he wants to turn this into a PR battle. And I remember him explicitly trying to stick it to amazon before he changed the site name.

    I don't really know who the hell to cheer for here, so I'm just gonna sit back and watch.

    --
    "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    1. Re:He was screen scraping... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If alexa had wanted that data available they would have made it available through the API.

      But if they HADN'T wanted that data available, there wouldn't exist a URL through which anybody could access it.

    2. Re:He was screen scraping... by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      That's like saying "I see the car on the lot... I can drive it whenever I want!".

      It's simply untrue. There are terms of service on websites for a reason, and not everything is free reign.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    3. Re:He was screen scraping... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      That's like saying "I see the car on the lot... I can drive it whenever I want!". Actually, it's more like "I see the car on the lot, and whenever I ask the salesman about driving it, he gives me the keys and tells me to have fun." People aren't breaking into the web server to get content; they're asking for a page and the server is happily returning it.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:He was screen scraping... by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      So that means you're free to disect that data and rebuild it into your own app?

      "Google does it" isn't really an excuse, either... google has been sued over it too.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    5. Re:He was screen scraping... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      So that means you're free to disect that data and rebuild it into your own app? As I understand it, no one was dissecting anything. He was serving a page that referenced a chart produced by Amazon, served directly from Amazon's server.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  24. Turn the tables by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Funny

    I must admit I did read "Amazon Sues Sexaholic" first time round. But what if we turned the tables around..

    Sexaholics Sue Amazon

    That would be one classy action suit!

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:Turn the tables by jaysones · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase The Onion: I'm like a sexaholic, but for booze.

    2. Re:Turn the tables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top 10 Reasons it's better to be an alcoholic than a sexaholic:

      10. Booze is easier to find. (Unless you're a woman at a Country&Western bar after closing)
        9. Nobody looks down on you for getting your booze from an ugly bottle
        8. Booze won't give you an STD
        7. If the booze leaves a bad taste in your mouth, it's easy to take care of: More booze.
        6. Driving a Hummer while tanked much safer than driving a tank while getting a hummer.
        5. Booze never decides it wants a deeper relationship.
        4. If you accidentally pick up the wrong sort of booze, it's just not a big deal.
        3. Booze doesn't mind if you're passing around a bottle.
        2. Booze legal even in repressive Southern states, without marrying the bottle.
      And the #1 reason being an alcoholic is better than being a sexaholic
        1. Two words: Friction burns.

  25. Nothing shocking here by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    Oh my god... a business behaving like a business rather than like a friendly community contributor? I can't believe it! Why on earth would this business behave as if its only concern is making money?

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  26. So has gone Bezos, so will go Kevin Rose by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    This is an ancient story, my friends, that existed long before the internets. A lot of grteat entrepreneurs start off as idealistic young types with a idea and a dream. And pretty soon the money, and power gets a hold of them and they end up paranoid, dictatorial, vicious businessmen. One day you're a curious young inventor named Thomas Edison, but pretty soon you're a wealthy shark trying to personally destroy Tesla and Westinghouse to defend your giant corporation.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  27. Your excuses for business immorality are shocking by spun · · Score: 1

    Did you even read the summary, for God's sake? This is about a conference where Bezos is trying to get a bunch of web 2.0 developers to buy into using his APIs while his company, Alexa, gave tacit permission to Alexaholic, who are paying them for data, to use their API. Then Alexa steals all Alexaholic's ideas and plans to sue them into oblivion.

    "Yeah, dudes, web 2.0 is totally open. Sharing is caring. Oh by the way, if you get big enough, we'll steal all your ideas and sue the pants off you."

    As consumers wise up under the continued pressure of immoral and unethical businesses who only care about making money, the businesses who offer consumers what they want: morality, fairness, ethics, and reciprocity, will be the ones who succede. Businesses will need to act like ethical entities if they want to continue to make money.

    You aren't being in any way insightful or wise when you point out that businesses want to make money. By presenting it in such a simplistic manner, you are offering up an excuse for immoral behavior on the part of these companies and simultaneously denigrating those of us who do not enjoy doing business with scoundrels as naive fools who don't know how the real world works.

    News flash: We know how the world works, Einstein. We just don't like it.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  28. Re:Your excuses for business immorality are shocki by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    You aren't being in any way insightful or wise when you point out that businesses want to make money. By presenting it in such a simplistic manner, you are offering up an excuse for immoral behavior on the part of these companies and simultaneously denigrating those of us who do not enjoy doing business with scoundrels as naive fools who don't know how the real world works.

    You obviously don't understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse. I wasn't in any way excusing Amazon's behavior. I was just pointing out that there's nothing shocking or surprising about it.

    Until the rules of the economy are changed such that ethical behavior and profits coincide 100%, you're going to keep seeing businesses behaving badly. Period.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  29. Re:Your excuses for business immorality are shocki by spun · · Score: 1

    You obviously don't understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse.

    Oh man, I'm sorry. That's exactly the same line I use on my wife ;-). It was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I've just seen far to many apologists for the status quo here lately and it irks me. I thought you were one of them. Anyway, I agree with you, we need to make companies bear the real social and economic costs of their unethical behavior before they will stop behaving unethically.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  30. well I've patented Web 3.0 by avi33 · · Score: 1

    My lawyers are polishing their C&D's at this very moment...

  31. (Offtopic: Your sig) by AMuse · · Score: 1

    Hola; I tried to email you through the slashdot interface but it seems to not be an option. We did defeat prop 90 (yay!), so I just wanted you to know your sig was out of date.

  32. Re:In Soviet Russia... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, it failed you.

    SCNR

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  33. Re:(Offtopic: Your sig) by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 1

    Thanks! I don't see signatures so I completely forgot about it.