I read the lawsuit. IANAL, et. al., but it seems to come down to a fundamental question: Did TechCrunch materially contribute to the production of the Crunchpad (nee JooJoo)?
Arrington lays out pretty convincing arguments. He notes the idea was conceived and developed to at least the point of Prototype A without the involvement of Fusion Garage at all. Then, at various points, TC directly paid money owed by FG, as well as providing a place for them to stay when FG's development team flew out to SF to work with TC. He (quite rightly) asserts that there is no reason for FG to have flown to the states if they indeed were the sole developers of the CP.
There are some ancillary points (false advertising for the JooJoo that it's FG's to sell, solely developed, misrepresentation by FG that they were developing a browser-based OS [they weren't], and a few other misrepresentation claims), but reading the e-mails attached as exhibits there is another strange thing. There are two competing narratives here: One, advanced by Arrington, is a joint project. The other, advanced by FG CEO Chandra Rathakrishnan, argues that FG developed the entire thing. CR's version has been repeated to the press as well as in private e-mails to his investors -- which were sent after he agreed (via e-mail) for FG to be acquired by TC for 35%, at least 5% lower than he would have preferred.
Thus far, I haven't read of any evidence that FG's story is correct, and there is nothing that refutes the assertions made by Arrington. Thus, for now, I have to come down his side. But hopefully the court case will make everything clear.
Re:Another craptastic bestseller
on
The Magicians
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't dismiss so readily as that. I found the book more to be a gritty, realistic re-imagining of fantasy archetypes rather than straight-out repappropriation. If you're looking for something completely original that's never been done, this isn't the book for you. If you're looking for a markedly skewed take on traditional stories, give it a shot.
Not if Google can prove Viacom's employees were doing the same thing they're accusing Google employees of doing (see Pot v. Kettle).
In all seriousness, if Google can prove it's a common practice undertaken by the plaintiff themselves, it has a fairly substantial argument in its favor.
Competition? What competition? Competition implies a different product. A different product would be the commentary associated with the story (if there in fact is any, and in some of the cases there's not). If Drudge Retort would remove the parts directly quoted from the article, or even source them properly, then you could claim AP is squashing competition. Otherwise, they're squashing people ripping off their intellectual property.
Use the example quoted in the Workbench post. He claims the article reproduces 18 words and a 32-word quote.
The "post"
Hillary Rodham Clinton says she expects her marathon Democratic race against Barack Obama to be resolved next week, as superdelegates decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall. "I think that after the final primaries, people are going to start making up their minds," she said. "I think that is the natural progression that one would expect."
Relevant portions of the AP article
"Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she expects uncommitted superdelegates to begin making the choice that will decide her marathon Democratic primary race against Barack Obama soon after the Tuesday's primaries... Clinton said superdelegates -- the party and elected officials who can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses -- will have to decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall to run against Republican John McCain...
Similarities:
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Marathon Democratic race
superdelegates will have to decide who is the stronger candidate in the fall
"Original" (only those completely unique words) from the post:
says ; resolved* *In a Clinton quote
You can say it's a summary, but in any school in the world, that's plagiarism. But ooh, they're using the DMCA, so everything is evil right? Come on, guys, at least look at this crap a little bit. The AP makes their money by SELLING THEIR STORIES for other people to run. If you just run the words verbatim without paying for it, you're just stealing the service they provide for a fee to member papers.
Except Linux is a name, and thus not subject to normal endings. E.G. Phil Falux's family is not the Faluces. It's the Faluxs. Thus, Linuxs is probably the most correct form, though Linuxes wouldn't be in very bad taste.
There are so many things wrong with this post it's mind-boggling. Not just like "hey I have a difference of opinion," but clear, factual errors. A few:
* I can't easily change my icon theme without buying third party software.
Go to any icon on the Mac. Cmd-I or ctrl-click and "Get Info." Click on the icon. Ctrl-C to copy it. You can now ctrl-P to paste that icon and use it for any other icon. You can usually do this with.jpgs as well (open an image in Preview. Select all, copy. Click on the icon you want to change in "Get Info" box. Paste) but.pngs are a bit hit-and-miss.
* I can't find an easy way to uninstall GarageBand
Drag app to trash. Done!
* I need third party software to have an automatically changing desktop wallpaper.
This one's a toughie. Open up the desktop & screensaver system preferences, and at the bottom of the list there's a checkbox that says "Change Picture:" followed by a drop-down list of times. Now, you have to mouse over the check box and CHECK it.
* I can't find a way to move windows between desktops ("spaces")
Provided you set it up properly, grab the window and move it to the edge nearest the window you want it to move to. It automagically moves it.
I know this isn't an exhaustive critique, and some of your points were valid. But Christ man, think before you post. It sounds like you don't want to learn, so you haven't bothered.
I work for IT for a decent-sized department at a university -about 200-300 machines. All purchase requests go through us, but we usually get what they ask for (as long as it's a Dell or an Apple, but mostly because we have institutional deals with them and they're on the cheap). We set up XP (Vista only if the user wants it). We lock down antivirus and things like that, but for the most part the sub-group they're in has admin privileges on all their machines - but no one else's. When things get fubar'd, they call us to fix it. If it's something they could have avoided, we'll try as hard as we can to fix it. If it's something stupid ("I opened an e-mail attachment") it may take us a while to get to it.
YMMV.
This should not, in any way, be construed as Yahoo standing up to Microsoft.
They're going to sell. They have to sell. If they outright refuse these offers by Microsoft, the shareholders will revolt, take them to court, then they'll sell.
The only thing in question is how much Microsoft's willing to pay for Yahoo. Not whether or not it's going to happen.
The Wii has not revolutionized the way people interact with their console, at least not yet. Until direct motion-capture is functional, all you're doing on the Wii is translating the push of a button to a predetermined movement that bears only a passing similarity to the action being performed on screen. Go ahead, try playing any of the Wii Sports games like you're actually playing the games in real life. Vastly dissimilar experiences (and a horrible score) will result.
Please note that this is different than the Guitar Hero argument. I'm not saying that they need to go out and play real games - I'm saying that the Wii does not accurately represent motions made with the controller on the screen, and thus the only difference is instead of pushing "A" you're moving your wrist from left to right.
Wow. A company that advertises its products as "hip" and scorns those who don't buy them. What an innovative strategy Apple has, being the only corporation every to employ this mind-bottling new advertising paradigm.
Why does this get modded "Insightful?" You have the complaint quoted: "Defendents misappropriated and exploited Mr. Norris' name and likeness without authorization for their own commercial profit." This has nothing to do with whether or not the author actually wrote the jokes. The issue in question is whether or not it's legal for Penguin to use Norris' name, and as others have pointed out it's clearly satire. You're allowed to use names and likenesses in satire, especially when the person in question is a public figure.
Norris has absolutely no standing to sue the publishers over their plagiarism - while I don't necessarily like it (and Penguin's been doing this for years, creating compendiums of internet jokes), it has no bearing whatsoever on this case.
WSU student here, I've been to a LUG meeting before and sausage-fest doesn't begin to describe it. Those hideous chuds will be lucky if they can make more than $10, especially from sorority girls. Sororities aren't stupid, they let the "less-than-supermodel" girls in who have usable skills, especially in regards to computers. The amazing story here is that somehow this made the AP wire.
Yes, only one of the types of censorship you wrote about is illegal. However, just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's right.
> Frankly, I'm not sure what you'd propose as an alternative. Do you want the government to require that retailers who sell any video games must sell all video games out there, regardless of their rating, sexual content, violence level, or even based on whether it's any fun or not? And you think that's an improvement over the free market where a company decides on its own which products to sell? While you're at it, maybe you should get the government to force all video retailers to carry all NC-17 videos. And maybe they should also require all booksellers to sell all X-rated books and magazines that exist.
You're completely missing the point. It's not about the government forcing retailers to carry products; it's about the retailers carrying all products to let the consumer make the decision. Yes, you can go on about how Gamestop is a private company and they can take their ball and go home if they want to: no one's disputing this. We just want to see companies like Gamestop actively make the decision to let the customer choose what they want to buy, rather than Gamestop. If a game is rated AO, only those older than 17 can buy it: why the hell wouldn't you stock it? What's to be afraid of? That people might buy it?
> We should get rid of the "sex is bad" crowd
Right! We need to censor those guys! Er... hang on...
I realize that this comment was meant to be funny, but your word usage is incorrect. He's not talking about censoring the "sex is bad" crowd: if they don't want to buy Leisure Suit Larry, they don't have to buy it. They can picket the company's headquarters all they want. But their squeamishness over sexuality shouldn't prevent me from being able to walk in and buy it should I want to play a shitty game with titties... That doesn't involve volleyball or wrestling, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the lawsuit. IANAL, et. al., but it seems to come down to a fundamental question: Did TechCrunch materially contribute to the production of the Crunchpad (nee JooJoo)? Arrington lays out pretty convincing arguments. He notes the idea was conceived and developed to at least the point of Prototype A without the involvement of Fusion Garage at all. Then, at various points, TC directly paid money owed by FG, as well as providing a place for them to stay when FG's development team flew out to SF to work with TC. He (quite rightly) asserts that there is no reason for FG to have flown to the states if they indeed were the sole developers of the CP. There are some ancillary points (false advertising for the JooJoo that it's FG's to sell, solely developed, misrepresentation by FG that they were developing a browser-based OS [they weren't], and a few other misrepresentation claims), but reading the e-mails attached as exhibits there is another strange thing. There are two competing narratives here: One, advanced by Arrington, is a joint project. The other, advanced by FG CEO Chandra Rathakrishnan, argues that FG developed the entire thing. CR's version has been repeated to the press as well as in private e-mails to his investors -- which were sent after he agreed (via e-mail) for FG to be acquired by TC for 35%, at least 5% lower than he would have preferred. Thus far, I haven't read of any evidence that FG's story is correct, and there is nothing that refutes the assertions made by Arrington. Thus, for now, I have to come down his side. But hopefully the court case will make everything clear.
I wouldn't dismiss so readily as that. I found the book more to be a gritty, realistic re-imagining of fantasy archetypes rather than straight-out repappropriation. If you're looking for something completely original that's never been done, this isn't the book for you. If you're looking for a markedly skewed take on traditional stories, give it a shot.
My take on it can be found here.
Please note that Johnny Depp does not count.
Not if Google can prove Viacom's employees were doing the same thing they're accusing Google employees of doing (see Pot v. Kettle).
In all seriousness, if Google can prove it's a common practice undertaken by the plaintiff themselves, it has a fairly substantial argument in its favor.
Competition? What competition? Competition implies a different product. A different product would be the commentary associated with the story (if there in fact is any, and in some of the cases there's not). If Drudge Retort would remove the parts directly quoted from the article, or even source them properly, then you could claim AP is squashing competition. Otherwise, they're squashing people ripping off their intellectual property.
Use the example quoted in the Workbench post. He claims the article reproduces 18 words and a 32-word quote.
The "post" Relevant portions of the AP articleSimilarities:
"Original" (only those completely unique words) from the post:
says ; resolved**In a Clinton quote
You can say it's a summary, but in any school in the world, that's plagiarism. But ooh, they're using the DMCA, so everything is evil right? Come on, guys, at least look at this crap a little bit. The AP makes their money by SELLING THEIR STORIES for other people to run. If you just run the words verbatim without paying for it, you're just stealing the service they provide for a fee to member papers.
Except Linux is a name, and thus not subject to normal endings. E.G. Phil Falux's family is not the Faluces. It's the Faluxs. Thus, Linuxs is probably the most correct form, though Linuxes wouldn't be in very bad taste.
There are so many things wrong with this post it's mind-boggling. Not just like "hey I have a difference of opinion," but clear, factual errors. A few: * I can't easily change my icon theme without buying third party software. Go to any icon on the Mac. Cmd-I or ctrl-click and "Get Info." Click on the icon. Ctrl-C to copy it. You can now ctrl-P to paste that icon and use it for any other icon. You can usually do this with .jpgs as well (open an image in Preview. Select all, copy. Click on the icon you want to change in "Get Info" box. Paste) but .pngs are a bit hit-and-miss.
* I can't find an easy way to uninstall GarageBand
Drag app to trash. Done!
* I need third party software to have an automatically changing desktop wallpaper.
This one's a toughie. Open up the desktop & screensaver system preferences, and at the bottom of the list there's a checkbox that says "Change Picture:" followed by a drop-down list of times. Now, you have to mouse over the check box and CHECK it.
* I can't find a way to move windows between desktops ("spaces")
Provided you set it up properly, grab the window and move it to the edge nearest the window you want it to move to. It automagically moves it.
I know this isn't an exhaustive critique, and some of your points were valid. But Christ man, think before you post. It sounds like you don't want to learn, so you haven't bothered.
I work for IT for a decent-sized department at a university -about 200-300 machines. All purchase requests go through us, but we usually get what they ask for (as long as it's a Dell or an Apple, but mostly because we have institutional deals with them and they're on the cheap). We set up XP (Vista only if the user wants it). We lock down antivirus and things like that, but for the most part the sub-group they're in has admin privileges on all their machines - but no one else's. When things get fubar'd, they call us to fix it. If it's something they could have avoided, we'll try as hard as we can to fix it. If it's something stupid ("I opened an e-mail attachment") it may take us a while to get to it. YMMV.
Yahoo is being sued by its shareholders.
This should not, in any way, be construed as Yahoo standing up to Microsoft. They're going to sell. They have to sell. If they outright refuse these offers by Microsoft, the shareholders will revolt, take them to court, then they'll sell. The only thing in question is how much Microsoft's willing to pay for Yahoo. Not whether or not it's going to happen.
Bad news: Verizon does the same thing on their DSL.
The Wii has not revolutionized the way people interact with their console, at least not yet. Until direct motion-capture is functional, all you're doing on the Wii is translating the push of a button to a predetermined movement that bears only a passing similarity to the action being performed on screen. Go ahead, try playing any of the Wii Sports games like you're actually playing the games in real life. Vastly dissimilar experiences (and a horrible score) will result. Please note that this is different than the Guitar Hero argument. I'm not saying that they need to go out and play real games - I'm saying that the Wii does not accurately represent motions made with the controller on the screen, and thus the only difference is instead of pushing "A" you're moving your wrist from left to right.
Wow. A company that advertises its products as "hip" and scorns those who don't buy them. What an innovative strategy Apple has, being the only corporation every to employ this mind-bottling new advertising paradigm.
Why does this get modded "Insightful?" You have the complaint quoted: "Defendents misappropriated and exploited Mr. Norris' name and likeness without authorization for their own commercial profit." This has nothing to do with whether or not the author actually wrote the jokes. The issue in question is whether or not it's legal for Penguin to use Norris' name, and as others have pointed out it's clearly satire. You're allowed to use names and likenesses in satire, especially when the person in question is a public figure.
Norris has absolutely no standing to sue the publishers over their plagiarism - while I don't necessarily like it (and Penguin's been doing this for years, creating compendiums of internet jokes), it has no bearing whatsoever on this case.
WSU student here, I've been to a LUG meeting before and sausage-fest doesn't begin to describe it. Those hideous chuds will be lucky if they can make more than $10, especially from sorority girls. Sororities aren't stupid, they let the "less-than-supermodel" girls in who have usable skills, especially in regards to computers. The amazing story here is that somehow this made the AP wire.
Yes, only one of the types of censorship you wrote about is illegal. However, just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's right.
> Frankly, I'm not sure what you'd propose as an alternative. Do you want the government to require that retailers who sell any video games must sell all video games out there, regardless of their rating, sexual content, violence level, or even based on whether it's any fun or not? And you think that's an improvement over the free market where a company decides on its own which products to sell? While you're at it, maybe you should get the government to force all video retailers to carry all NC-17 videos. And maybe they should also require all booksellers to sell all X-rated books and magazines that exist.
You're completely missing the point. It's not about the government forcing retailers to carry products; it's about the retailers carrying all products to let the consumer make the decision. Yes, you can go on about how Gamestop is a private company and they can take their ball and go home if they want to: no one's disputing this. We just want to see companies like Gamestop actively make the decision to let the customer choose what they want to buy, rather than Gamestop. If a game is rated AO, only those older than 17 can buy it: why the hell wouldn't you stock it? What's to be afraid of? That people might buy it?
> We should get rid of the "sex is bad" crowd
Right! We need to censor those guys! Er... hang on...
I realize that this comment was meant to be funny, but your word usage is incorrect. He's not talking about censoring the "sex is bad" crowd: if they don't want to buy Leisure Suit Larry, they don't have to buy it. They can picket the company's headquarters all they want. But their squeamishness over sexuality shouldn't prevent me from being able to walk in and buy it should I want to play a shitty game with titties... That doesn't involve volleyball or wrestling, of course.