George Lucas (looking over CGI animator's shoulder): According to my notes, Grevious is supposed to be cold. Animator: Uh, you mean "cold" as in heartless, right? GL (consulting notes): Hmm. No he's got a heart. (Tapping on screen with a pencil) It's that red thing here I asked you to put in. Animator (slightly miffed): OK, then, I suppose I could make him...shiver if that's what you mean by cold (rolls eyes). GL (scratching beard a la Indy Jones or Mace Windu, his favorite "direction" natch): No, I don't want him to shiver. That might look like a print error. How about a cough? Animator: Cough. Because he's cold? GL (looking at notes again): No, I must've meant he had a cold. So yeah, make him cough now and then. Animator: Right. Anything else? GL (hit by a sudden attack of Narcolepsy): Zzzzzzz.
The eSellerate system is flexible enough to allow the author to decide the rights management rules. So, though one author may allow "one machine only" another may allow multiple machines installs.
Design is evolutionary, not revolutionary
on
From TR-1 to iPod mini
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is hardly surprising. Design has always been an attempt to define the current cultural atmosphere, but the truth is, there are some colors, shapes, patterns that humans covet, and others they don't -- this subset is constantly re-used and re-invented. "Trendiness" is short-lived, and thus design movements are simply a shift from one family of design to another: the result is something that "feels" new but is not. One can see this trend in every consumer product, from sofas, to automobiles, to dresses, to watches, and yes, even to electronic gadgets.
Just about every "trend" in design today can be found in some form or another existing over the past 100 years (possibly multiple times).
What will it cost? Microsoft hasn't yet specified.
Translation: prepared to be raked over the coals for failing to upgrade from Office 97 for all these years. You don't think those dinosaur ads pay for themselves do you?
One Project Manager...to write up the requirements. One MBU Intern...to report on how Apple engineers did it in Tiger. One Marketing Droid...to call CNet and tell Ina Fried that it'll be changed in an innovative and exciting new way in Windows Vista. One Software Engineer...to begin work on it and then take a job at Google implementing Lightbulb Beta. One CEO...to throw his chair around his office when he finds out. One PR Flack...to explain to Bob Enderle how "although the lightbulb won't be changed in Windows Vista, it will be released in 2007 as a separate, more refined technology."
And Paul Thurrot, who will receive a private demostration of the lightbulb, devote one week on SuperSite explaining that Apple's lightbulb in Tiger is dimmer, Google's Lightbulb Beta is "limited," and MS's solution, while late, is indeed superior and "Highly recommended."
They release the same products over and over again, with identical functionalities, hoping that people will be vain or stylish enough to want something that looks sleeker.
Hoping? Judging from their 6 million units sold last quarter, hoping is the probably the last thing going on at Apple.
Apple is milking this market, and rightly so: iPods are clearly now "lifestyle" products, and as such, just like clothes and other fashion accessories, small improvements (even in form alone) can sustain their viability in the space.
If Apple were to "reinvent" the iPod every quarter, they'd confuse their product line and would be much more likely to be taken down by a competitor.
Hoping? Hardly. It sounds like Steve and the other marketing folks at Apple know exactly what they're doing.
It's a Motorola/Cingular product that has an exclusive license.
(and regardless, according to the USPTO, the IPHONE trademark is live for at least two registered companies—both marks involve phones, natch— so Apple's claim to such a mark is tenuous)
I find a lot of people that are mad at Microsoft because they somehow feel Windows stole the GUI from Apple. This is fairly far from the Truth, as Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time as the Apple GUI
Your timeline is a bit messed up. Yes, Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time, but Microsoft licensed from Apple the rights to use the "visual displays" in their in-development Word and Excel for the Mac, for use in Windows 1.0. So, in fact, Apple had no problem with Windows 1.0 because they had licensed the tech to them. Windows 1.0 has nothing to do with the "stealing" you're talking about.
Per Andy Hertzfeld's folklore write-up: "Microsoft didn't manage to ship a version of Windows until almost two years later, releasing Windows 1.0 in the fall of 1985. It was pretty crude, just as Steve had predicted, with little of the Mac's thoughtful elegance. It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling". When its utter rejection became apparent a few months later, Bill Gates fired the implementation team and started a new version from scratch, led by none other than Neil Konzen. "
So, only after Windows 2.0 was released, which was based on an entirely new codebase, and contained many features similar to the Macintosh did Apple believe their ideas were stolen. Why? Because Apple thought the license was only for Windows 1.0, and not for future versions.
Thus the "look-and-feel" lawsuit was filed in 1988.
And Apple lost, not because the court found Apple didn't "own" the look-and-feel, but rather because the language in the contract did state that Microsoft had a license for future versions of Windows.
Actually, Apple's loss of the look-and-feel case was primarily due to an error in contract language, not a failure to protect.
From Wiki (emphasis mine): "As it happened, the court's approach seemed to invalidate the copyrighting of a broad "look and feel" of a piece of software, though this was not decisively stated in the court's ruling. The fact that Apple and Microsoft had entered into the licensing agreement for Windows 1.0 made a large part of the case a mere contractual matter rather than a matter of copyright law -- much against Apple's preference -- so it was not necessary for the court to set a precedent in its ruling."
Apple's language in the contract was construed to mean a license to Windows 1.0 and all derivate versions. It was one bad sentence in a contract that screwed Apple, not a failure to protect.
Interestingly, the matter did appear to imply uncertainty in protection of user interfaces via copyright, and thus Design Patents (such as this one) became the preferred area of IP to seek protection.
Between the 83 occurences of "x86" in Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines and the x86 chip architecture in the Development Transition Kits, how could it not be an x86 chip?
Anyway, I thought the speculation was over now that Intel has revealed its roadmap.
He means OS X installed on an iPod simply as a distribution medium (the iPod also functions as a removable storage device), not OS X installed and running on an iPod.
His idea is: "buy this iPod, get a free OS for your PC" (some assembly required: copy the OS X Installer off your iPod and run it).
More people have been victim to poor and defective MS software for over a decade...where's the class action lawsuit there?
I guessed you missed the news two years ago (and the boat, since the claim period is closed):
Microsoft settled with most of the fifty states and District of Columbia for (place pinky against mouth) 1.1 billion dollars in a class action suit for "overcharging" for MS Windows and MS Office. I have my $30 coupon (good towards any company's hardware or software) right here.
As with most class actions, the claimants are usually far fewer than theoretically possible because people (like yourself) fail to learn about these settlements during the claim period.
Per the Claim Form, "Proof" for the 3rd generation replacement includes an invoice, cancelled check, credit card or debit statement (either specifically showing the iPod transacation or not).
So, if you keep any records at all, then you're likely in the clear.
IMHO using "Linux" on a product that's running Linux is fair use
"Fair use" only applies to copyright. Trademarks work exactly as you describe: you cannot creating a product in the same market (e.g. computer software) with the term Linux. Period. It doesn't matter if its "a context that's not associated with Linux" or not.
Besides all that, having a trademark on a commonly used word is also pretty useless, as Microsoft found out the hard way in several countries: MS Windows (R) can be trademarked, but Windows could not since it is a too general word.
How "general" a word has nothing to do with it. Any "commonly used word" can make a great (and very protectable trademark) as long as it's not generic in its market.
Thus, "Scope" would fail to receive protection for a telescope product. But, it makes a killer trademark for a mouthwash.
I worked at Bell Labs in Murray Hill from 1985 through 1989, and though I did not work in Dept 1127, I did get the amazing chance to see what Bell Labs was all about: the incredible, vibrant home to tremendously talented scientists from the UNIX gurus to the low temperature physics gods. As a young high school and then college student, aspiring to join their ranks full time, I was mesmerized by the environment where a 2pm coffee break could evolve into a deep discussion of networking theory and then reflect sincerely on the goings-on in the world. Bell Labs was a magical place, and hopefully, the seeds of similar pure research incubators are being sewn in today's tech powerhouses such as Google.
Slashdot Mirror
No words yet on the release date of emacsPod.
Oh please, the bloated emacsPod can't hold a candle to the streamlined viPod.
OK, here's the true story behind this enigma:
George Lucas (looking over CGI animator's shoulder): According to my notes, Grevious is supposed to be cold.
Animator: Uh, you mean "cold" as in heartless, right?
GL (consulting notes): Hmm. No he's got a heart. (Tapping on screen with a pencil) It's that red thing here I asked you to put in.
Animator (slightly miffed): OK, then, I suppose I could make him...shiver if that's what you mean by cold (rolls eyes).
GL (scratching beard a la Indy Jones or Mace Windu, his favorite "direction" natch): No, I don't want him to shiver. That might look like a print error. How about a cough?
Animator: Cough. Because he's cold?
GL (looking at notes again): No, I must've meant he had a cold. So yeah, make him cough now and then.
Animator: Right. Anything else?
GL (hit by a sudden attack of Narcolepsy): Zzzzzzz.
The eSellerate system is flexible enough to allow the author to decide the rights management rules. So, though one author may allow "one machine only" another may allow multiple machines installs.
This is hardly surprising. Design has always been an attempt to define the current cultural atmosphere, but the truth is, there are some colors, shapes, patterns that humans covet, and others they don't -- this subset is constantly re-used and re-invented. "Trendiness" is short-lived, and thus design movements are simply a shift from one family of design to another: the result is something that "feels" new but is not. One can see this trend in every consumer product, from sofas, to automobiles, to dresses, to watches, and yes, even to electronic gadgets.
Just about every "trend" in design today can be found in some form or another existing over the past 100 years (possibly multiple times).
What will it cost?
Microsoft hasn't yet specified.
Translation: prepared to be raked over the coals for failing to upgrade from Office 97 for all these years. You don't think those dinosaur ads pay for themselves do you?
...to change a lightbulb?
Seven.
One Project Manager...to write up the requirements.
One MBU Intern...to report on how Apple engineers did it in Tiger.
One Marketing Droid...to call CNet and tell Ina Fried that it'll be changed in an innovative and exciting new way in Windows Vista.
One Software Engineer...to begin work on it and then take a job at Google implementing Lightbulb Beta.
One CEO...to throw his chair around his office when he finds out.
One PR Flack...to explain to Bob Enderle how "although the lightbulb won't be changed in Windows Vista, it will be released in 2007 as a separate, more refined technology."
And Paul Thurrot, who will receive a private demostration of the lightbulb, devote one week on SuperSite explaining that Apple's lightbulb in Tiger is dimmer, Google's Lightbulb Beta is "limited," and MS's solution, while late, is indeed superior and "Highly recommended."
Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that.
char* slogan = "Don't Be Evil";
char* corporateSlogan;
if(corporateID == GOOGLE)
corporateSlogan = slogan;
else if(corporateID == MICROSOFT)
corporateSlogan = &(slogan[6]);
"I liked the idea so much, that I stole it!"
It's more likely that they simply chose the current best selling song on iTunes (the very Kanye West track pictured).
They release the same products over and over again, with identical functionalities, hoping that people will be vain or stylish enough to want something that looks sleeker.
Hoping? Judging from their 6 million units sold last quarter, hoping is the probably the last thing going on at Apple.
Apple is milking this market, and rightly so: iPods are clearly now "lifestyle" products, and as such, just like clothes and other fashion accessories, small improvements (even in form alone) can sustain their viability in the space.
If Apple were to "reinvent" the iPod every quarter, they'd confuse their product line and would be much more likely to be taken down by a competitor.
Hoping? Hardly. It sounds like Steve and the other marketing folks at Apple know exactly what they're doing.
Because it's not an Apple product.
It's a Motorola/Cingular product that has an exclusive license.
(and regardless, according to the USPTO, the IPHONE trademark is live for at least two registered companies—both marks involve phones, natch— so Apple's claim to such a mark is tenuous)
Can be found here.
I bet you my bunny the former Soviet union could have designed a better operating system GUI than any of the software vendors of today.
Yes, but then the User Interface would be controlling us.
I find a lot of people that are mad at Microsoft because they somehow feel Windows stole the GUI from Apple. This is fairly far from the Truth, as Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time as the Apple GUI
Your timeline is a bit messed up. Yes, Windows 1.0 was in development at the same time, but Microsoft licensed from Apple the rights to use the "visual displays" in their in-development Word and Excel for the Mac, for use in Windows 1.0. So, in fact, Apple had no problem with Windows 1.0 because they had licensed the tech to them. Windows 1.0 has nothing to do with the "stealing" you're talking about.
Per Andy Hertzfeld's folklore write-up:
"Microsoft didn't manage to ship a version of Windows until almost two years later, releasing Windows 1.0 in the fall of 1985. It was pretty crude, just as Steve had predicted, with little of the Mac's thoughtful elegance. It didn't even have overlapping windows, preferring a simpler technique called "tiling". When its utter rejection became apparent a few months later, Bill Gates fired the implementation team and started a new version from scratch, led by none other than Neil Konzen. "
So, only after Windows 2.0 was released, which was based on an entirely new codebase, and contained many features similar to the Macintosh did Apple believe their ideas were stolen. Why? Because Apple thought the license was only for Windows 1.0, and not for future versions.
Thus the "look-and-feel" lawsuit was filed in 1988.
And Apple lost, not because the court found Apple didn't "own" the look-and-feel, but rather because the language in the contract did state that Microsoft had a license for future versions of Windows.
Actually, Apple's loss of the look-and-feel case was primarily due to an error in contract language, not a failure to protect.
From Wiki (emphasis mine):
"As it happened, the court's approach seemed to invalidate the copyrighting of a broad "look and feel" of a piece of software, though this was not decisively stated in the court's ruling. The fact that Apple and Microsoft had entered into the licensing agreement for Windows 1.0 made a large part of the case a mere contractual matter rather than a matter of copyright law -- much against Apple's preference -- so it was not necessary for the court to set a precedent in its ruling."
Apple's language in the contract was construed to mean a license to Windows 1.0 and all derivate versions. It was one bad sentence in a contract that screwed Apple, not a failure to protect.
Interestingly, the matter did appear to imply uncertainty in protection of user interfaces via copyright, and thus Design Patents (such as this one) became the preferred area of IP to seek protection.
No. Patent Name
1 6,935,954 Nintendo-Patent [max 1] died in the USPTO. Killed by Prior Art.
Clearly, it does.
Between the 83 occurences of "x86" in Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines and the x86 chip architecture in the Development Transition Kits, how could it not be an x86 chip?
Anyway, I thought the speculation was over now that Intel has revealed its roadmap.
No, no, no.
He means OS X installed on an iPod simply as a distribution medium (the iPod also functions as a removable storage device), not OS X installed and running on an iPod.
His idea is: "buy this iPod, get a free OS for your PC" (some assembly required: copy the OS X Installer off your iPod and run it).
More people have been victim to poor and defective MS software for over a decade...where's the class action lawsuit there?
I guessed you missed the news two years ago (and the boat, since the claim period is closed):
Microsoft settled with most of the fifty states and District of Columbia for (place pinky against mouth) 1.1 billion dollars in a class action suit for "overcharging" for MS Windows and MS Office. I have my $30 coupon (good towards any company's hardware or software) right here.
As with most class actions, the claimants are usually far fewer than theoretically possible because people (like yourself) fail to learn about these settlements during the claim period.
Per the Claim Form, "Proof" for the 3rd generation replacement includes an invoice, cancelled check, credit card or debit statement (either specifically showing the iPod transacation or not).
So, if you keep any records at all, then you're likely in the clear.
reverse the biological and behavioral effects of sleep deprivation ...was this drug developed in Soviet Russia?
IMHO using "Linux" on a product that's running Linux is fair use
"Fair use" only applies to copyright. Trademarks work exactly as you describe: you cannot creating a product in the same market (e.g. computer software) with the term Linux. Period. It doesn't matter if its "a context that's not associated with Linux" or not.
Besides all that, having a trademark on a commonly used word is also pretty useless, as Microsoft found out the hard way in several countries: MS Windows (R) can be trademarked, but Windows could not since it is a too general word.
How "general" a word has nothing to do with it. Any "commonly used word" can make a great (and very protectable trademark) as long as it's not generic in its market.
Thus, "Scope" would fail to receive protection for a telescope product. But, it makes a killer trademark for a mouthwash.
In a way, it's a working version of R2D2s holographic projection system.
This is simply 2D projection onto a moving air stream, so "in a way" it's nothing like a hologrpahic projection system.
From their site: Although the HelioDisplay uses lasers, the images are not holographic
It is pretty nifty though.
I worked at Bell Labs in Murray Hill from 1985 through 1989, and though I did not work in Dept 1127, I did get the amazing chance to see what Bell Labs was all about: the incredible, vibrant home to tremendously talented scientists from the UNIX gurus to the low temperature physics gods. As a young high school and then college student, aspiring to join their ranks full time, I was mesmerized by the environment where a 2pm coffee break could evolve into a deep discussion of networking theory and then reflect sincerely on the goings-on in the world. Bell Labs was a magical place, and hopefully, the seeds of similar pure research incubators are being sewn in today's tech powerhouses such as Google.