Some words are bound to become household words. When you want to copy something you "xerox" it. When you need to blow your nose you use a "kleenex". And now when you want to search for something on the internet you "google" for it.
English changes with usage. Despite what Google's lawyers might want or think, people will use the word in whatever way they wish.
Google may own the trademark on the term Google when it comes to their intellectual property and their company, but they CANNOT stop the use of the word in other contexts *particulary* when it involves how people use the word "google". This is exacerbated by the fact that the word has been in the English parlance since 1938 (although spelled slightly differently):
googol
The number represented in base-ten by a
one with a hundred zeroes after it.
According to Webster's Dictionary, the name
was coined in 1938 by Milton Sirotta, the
nine-year-old nephew of American
mathematician, Edward Kasner.
Besides, doesn't this effectively help Google by giving them lots and lots of word of mouth advertising??
To the contrary. A recent case ruled that Microsoft cannot own the trademark on the Windows name since it is so general.
I'm sure if it ever went to court, Apple would loose in a similar fashion. Apple can own the phrase "Apple Computer" or "Apple Macintosh" when applied to their computers, but cannot control the use of the word Apple in other contexts, which is I believe what was at issue with the word "google" in this case.
Forgive my reply to my own article, but has anyone considered that this might be the impetus behind the owner of the UNIX trademark (namely Caldera/SCO) is suddenly looking into patent enforcement (not to mention hiring a high powered lawyer) when it comes to their UNIX related IP?
A better argument is to say that proprietary UNIX and UNIX-like implementations are on their way out.
GNU/Linux is currently undercutting many of these proprietary implementation in both cost and performance. This is why many of the old UNIX holdouts (namely HP, IBM, and SGI) are now embracing GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux *IS* a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux, if it gets even more industry support, WILL supplant all other UNIX implementations eventually. Later, GJC
Copyrights are the law and have been upheld for hundreds of years. Period.
Immutable facts:
1) It's illegal to steal 2) Copying someone else's copyrighted work without his/her express permission *IS* stealing according to current laws.
The artificial scarcity you refer to is *necessary* for two reasons:
1) It creates a market for such things 2) By creating a market it gives incentive to creative individuals to, well... CREATE!!
So your question of "where have I deprived you of ownership of your desk" is wholely irrelavent. You have deprived the copyright holder *DUE COMPENSATION* if the copyright terms for the design of the desk was not given freely.
When someone licenses something to you freely, under any of the licenses at creativecommons or under the GPL, that's a different story.The author is giving permission for the work to be copied modified and redistributed, depending on the license terms.
You can continue to live in a pie-in-the-sky world where artificial scarcity doesn't exist all you want. Such a world would be unattractive since no one would have any incentive to create other than the pure joy of it. While for some of us that might be enough, for many it's not.
It really pains me that so many people think that just because something is in digital form, that it's free.
I am a programmer. Some programs I write are sold for money and are proprietary. Some others are Free Software (free as in freedom) which I give away. Why? Because I choose to license them as such.
The VERY SIMPLE point that some people don't seem to get is that UNLESS THE AUTHOR GIVES YOU THE FREEDOM TO COPY HIS/HER WORK *YOU* *CAN'T* *DO* *IT*.
Take it in and stop whining about "your rights" when all you have been doing by downloading 600 MP3s a day is infringing on the rights of the VERY ARTISTS YOU LOVE.
Yes, the RIAA has lots of money and YES it's easy to see them as the bad guy. But that's just a COP OUT!!
It boils down to: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD MP3s FOR MUSIC YOU DON'T OWN. FULL STOP.
So, please spare us all the whining and the crying and the "I wonder why they're doing this to poor old us" routine.
Computer Science graduates command much higher salaries than those without a degree. Many positions that I have seen or have been hired for *require* a CS degree. I haven't seen many which want "equivalent experience" or "certifications". They usually say BS in CS AND X years of experience.
The point, quite simply is, that they get what they pay for. If you hire a Quack Doctor, you should expect low quality work, if you hire a professional you should expect HIGH quality work. IMNSHO, some of the people out there who don't have degrees in the IT field are out there for the buck or are attempting to fool either themselves or their employer.
When the bubble burst back in 2000 the first people let go were those who didn't have degrees, at least that's what I saw.
Suddenly website owners think they can sell space on my screen? Simply because I go to their website? I don't recall signing anything or agreeing to anything which forces me to bear the popups and the incessent full screen ads which I can't close.
The same w/ TV commercials. If I own a DVR and decide to zap the commercials in the privacy of my own home, that's not theft. It's fair use.
We are now in an era which will place consumer choice and corporate business model at odds with one another in ways never before concieved of, or even thought possible. The real question here is whether the Government will be asked by these corporations to shore up their old and tattered business models, or will they be forced to come up with a solution themselves?
There will, of course, like with Napster, be a fight over who has the right to dictate to you, the consumer (don't you love that word? Haven't you noticed how we're now considered "consumers" and not people?), what you will and will not see on television (this is one of the reasons I don't watch TV that much, just the news) or any other media and, as usual, it will be driven by the person/people/companies with the most antiquated business model who have been around for years and years who don't want to change.
Eventually, as with Napster, the corporations will put all of the new startups and such out of business by suing them until kingdom come and then start their own pale imitation of the same bloody thing (BMI, etc). Sounds like a conspiracy? Probably.
I don't think that file sharing is a right when the content is copyrighted, so don't get me wrong here folks. What I hate is the overriding need to control people's thoughts that some companies engage in to make themselves more money... the consequences to your rights be damned.
GJC
YASTQ: Did you ever think ST would last so long?
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Mr. Shatner,
When you first walked onto the set, did you have any appreciation for how much of a part of American Legend Star Trek was going to become?
Also, when did realize that it was going to have a profound effect on your career and life and how did that feel?:)
She cannot give you a bad review if you refuse to help *after* you've been laid off. She sounds a little unstable to begin with.
You should have discussed contract/fee up front *before* helping them. You have done them a favor by doing what you've done and they have taken time from you which could have been used to 1) look for another job or 2) help someone else on a contract basis for-pay.
If your ex-boss threatened you in any way (e.g. I'll give you a bad review.. This is your fault anyway... etc), then she is behaving unethically and you should avoid all future contact.
Slashdot Mirror
Some words are bound to become household words. When you want to copy something you "xerox" it. When you need to blow your nose you use a "kleenex". And now when you want to search for something on the internet you "google" for it.
English changes with usage. Despite what Google's lawyers might want or think, people will use the word in whatever way they wish.
Google may own the trademark on the term Google when it comes to their intellectual property and their company, but they CANNOT stop the use of the word in other contexts *particulary* when it involves how people use the word "google". This is exacerbated by the fact that the word has been in the English parlance since 1938 (although spelled slightly differently):
googol
The number represented in base-ten by a
one with a hundred zeroes after it.
According to Webster's Dictionary, the name
was coined in 1938 by Milton Sirotta, the
nine-year-old nephew of American
mathematician, Edward Kasner.
Besides, doesn't this effectively help Google by giving them lots and lots of word of mouth advertising??
Later, GJC
To the contrary. A recent case ruled that Microsoft cannot own the trademark on the Windows name since it is so general.
I'm sure if it ever went to court, Apple would loose in a similar fashion. Apple can own the phrase "Apple Computer" or "Apple Macintosh" when applied to their computers, but cannot control the use of the word Apple in other contexts, which is I believe what was at issue with the word "google" in this case.
Are you sure that you understand trademarks?
GJC
This is great. Now, if only other states would adopt similar legislation. :)
Also....
:)
Forgive my reply to my own article, but has anyone considered that this might be the impetus behind the owner of the UNIX trademark (namely Caldera/SCO) is suddenly looking into patent enforcement (not to mention hiring a high powered lawyer) when it comes to their UNIX related IP?
Just a thought...
Later, GJC
A better argument is to say that proprietary UNIX and UNIX-like implementations are on their way out.
GNU/Linux is currently undercutting many of these proprietary implementation in both cost and performance. This is why many of the old UNIX holdouts (namely HP, IBM, and SGI) are now embracing GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux *IS* a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux, if it gets even more industry support, WILL supplant all other UNIX implementations eventually.
Later, GJC
It's a noun describing a number. The lawyers haven't got a pot to piss in.
GJC
just look at all of the existent CVS repositories which carry web application code. They existed well before the patent.
Sorry guys... this patent is a bad one and just more evidence of the failing patent system.
When someone can patent swinging sideways while elicting a tarzan yell something is very wrong!
GJC
Apparently you've not heard of GNUstep. GNUstep is an implementation of the OpenStep API and includes most of Mac OS X's extensions.
:)
The GUI builder is almost done (I am the pricipal developer of it).
Take a look at http://www.gnustep.org.
GJC
Vader & Co.?? Empire, Inc.?? Vader, Palantine, and Tarkin, Inc??
GJC
Fear of his new corporation!!
Steven P. Jobs, current CEO of Apple, owns the controlling interest in Pixar. Not an Apple company, but it might as well be.
GJC
Copyrights are the law and have been upheld for hundreds of years. Period.
Immutable facts:
1) It's illegal to steal
2) Copying someone else's copyrighted work without his/her express permission *IS* stealing according to current laws.
The artificial scarcity you refer to is *necessary* for two reasons:
1) It creates a market for such things
2) By creating a market it gives incentive to creative individuals to, well... CREATE!!
So your question of "where have I deprived you of ownership of your desk" is wholely irrelavent. You have deprived the copyright holder *DUE COMPENSATION* if the copyright terms for the design of the desk was not given freely.
When someone licenses something to you freely, under any of the licenses at creativecommons or under the GPL, that's a different story.The author is giving permission for the work to be copied modified and redistributed, depending on the license terms.
You can continue to live in a pie-in-the-sky world where artificial scarcity doesn't exist all you want. Such a world would be unattractive since no one would have any incentive to create other than the pure joy of it. While for some of us that might be enough, for many it's not.
GJC
Yes, It is stealing. Clear?
It really pains me that so many people think that just because something is in digital form, that it's free.
I am a programmer. Some programs I write are sold for money and are proprietary. Some others are Free Software (free as in freedom) which I give away. Why? Because I choose to license them as such.
The VERY SIMPLE point that some people don't seem to get is that UNLESS THE AUTHOR GIVES YOU THE FREEDOM TO COPY HIS/HER WORK *YOU* *CAN'T* *DO* *IT*.
Take it in and stop whining about "your rights" when all you have been doing by downloading 600 MP3s a day is infringing on the rights of the VERY ARTISTS YOU LOVE.
Yes, the RIAA has lots of money and YES it's easy to see them as the bad guy. But that's just a COP OUT!!
It boils down to: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DOWNLOAD MP3s FOR MUSIC YOU DON'T OWN. FULL STOP.
So, please spare us all the whining and the crying and the "I wonder why they're doing this to poor old us" routine.
GJC
I have ever read on this site...
And they didn't publish my story about the evils of software patents??? Sheesh...
GJC
Computer Science graduates command much higher salaries than those without a degree. Many positions that I have seen or have been hired for *require* a CS degree. I haven't seen many which want "equivalent experience" or "certifications". They usually say BS in CS AND X years of experience.
The point, quite simply is, that they get what they pay for. If you hire a Quack Doctor, you should expect low quality work, if you hire a professional you should expect HIGH quality work. IMNSHO, some of the people out there who don't have degrees in the IT field are out there for the buck or are attempting to fool either themselves or their employer.
When the bubble burst back in 2000 the first people let go were those who didn't have degrees, at least that's what I saw.
GJC
Why should I buy your products when you are conspiring to hobble future technology to limit us?
I will help with the development of an Open BIOS to drive people like AMI out of business.
GJC
Just an observation.. :)
Suddenly website owners think they can sell space on my screen? Simply because I go to their website? I don't recall signing anything or agreeing to anything which forces me to bear the popups and the incessent full screen ads which I can't close.
The same w/ TV commercials. If I own a DVR and decide to zap the commercials in the privacy of my own home, that's not theft. It's fair use.
We are now in an era which will place consumer choice and corporate business model at odds with one another in ways never before concieved of, or even thought possible. The real question here is whether the Government will be asked by these corporations to shore up their old and tattered business models, or will they be forced to come up with a solution themselves?
There will, of course, like with Napster, be a fight over who has the right to dictate to you, the consumer (don't you love that word? Haven't you noticed how we're now considered "consumers" and not people?), what you will and will not see on television (this is one of the reasons I don't watch TV that much, just the news) or any other media and, as usual, it will be driven by the person/people/companies with the most antiquated business model who have been around for years and years who don't want to change.
Eventually, as with Napster, the corporations will put all of the new startups and such out of business by suing them until kingdom come and then start their own pale imitation of the same bloody thing (BMI, etc). Sounds like a conspiracy? Probably.
I don't think that file sharing is a right when the content is copyrighted, so don't get me wrong here folks. What I hate is the overriding need to control people's thoughts that some companies engage in to make themselves more money... the consequences to your rights be damned.
GJC
Mr. Shatner,
:)
When you first walked onto the set, did you have any appreciation for how much of a part of American Legend Star Trek was going to become?
Also, when did realize that it was going to have a profound effect on your career and life and how did that feel?
GJC
True enough. However, if she is as bad as he claims, then perhaps it wouldn't make a difference either way.
GJC
She cannot give you a bad review if you refuse to help *after* you've been laid off. She sounds a little unstable to begin with.
You should have discussed contract/fee up front *before* helping them. You have done them a favor by doing what you've done and they have taken time from you which could have been used to 1) look for another job or 2) help someone else on a contract basis for-pay.
If your ex-boss threatened you in any way (e.g. I'll give you a bad review.. This is your fault anyway... etc), then she is behaving unethically and you should avoid all future contact.
GJC
I would have happily signed up for such a unique opportunity. :)
GJC
Not really. It just provides a bridge for Windows users to start using Linux on the desktop.
;)
There is nothing wrong with maintaining compatibility with legacy systems.
GJC
changing the EULA to make it a violation to run MS Programs on any platform other than a Windows platform?
:)
I mean, considering all of the other ways they restrict their users, I'm not sure this falls outside the realm of possibility.
Just my paranoia showing...
GJC