New laws in the US just mean more people from outside the US will be hacking US servers. "But the FBI will haul their asses in." Yea right. Let's see the FBI arrest someone from Cuba, China, or Russia! *[Ooooh we're breaking US laws!] *translated from Mandarin Actually, back in the early 90s, the U.S. passed a controversial law that basically says that the FBI _does_ have the power to go to other countries and arrest people who, say, smuggle drugs into the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is the only country in the world (to my knowledge) that claims police jurisdiction outside its borders. [This is all from memory. Anyone who can correct me/ provide more information, please speak up.] Beyond that nasty bit of foreign policy awkwardness, there are such things as extradition treaties, Interpol, etc. Basically, if you're a cracker working against U.S. targets (including the assets of U.S. corps in foreign lands), you probably fall into three categories: 1) Working for a government. You are a spy/ cyber-commando. Your deeds are acts of espionage and/or war. 2) Working for a corporation. You are a corporate hacker and subject to laws that govern such things. Since you're working for a corporation that bothers to, say, hack AOL's servers for information on their customers, you probably aren't working in the type of country that doesn't collaborate with the U.S. authorities to punish people like you. 3) Working on your own. You are a common thief, or possibly a terrorist, and your government probably won't protect you. The U.S., and other countries, have laws and methods to deal with all three. Computers are the tool. In the U.S.'s eyes, spies and terrorists are the users of that tool. The U.S. has spent the last 10 years throwing a lot of muscle at spies, terrorists, and smugglers-- foreign and domestic.
There is no implication that a similar number of.com sites are blocked. The only way to determine that is to do what Peacefire did with.coms.
The reasons.edu is a good target for Peacefire are: 1) k12.edu sites often have pages made for group projects by kids under 18, the ones who are supposedly being protected. 2) These same kids will probably end up looking at university sites (or the Smithsonian, if their project is on George Lucas's use of mythology...blah) for those same projects. Doing a report on Diocletian? Go to that Calvin College site and grep (or "find" in Netscape) for his name. Unless, that is, the pages are blocked. 3) The signal/noise ratio on.edu sites must be relatively good--.com has too many sites, and too many lousy/ trivial sites, to be a good test subject. Sure, there are lots of pointless student homepages, but most students don't have time to completely fill up their 5 MB with pictures of their friends. Moreso,.edus must have very strict rules governing what students can put up-- most student-run porn sites on a Uni server will go down really quickly. Finally,.edu sites tend to be well-indexed by search engines, including their own internal engines (meta-crawlers get a lot of.edu hits). 4) If you are out to Prove Something, like Peacefire, Greek and Roman histories/ literature translated into English SGML are valuable statistics-boosters. I haven't gotten to Vol. IV of Gibbon yet, but I would venture that any good translations of Sophocles's plays have frequent use of words like "bitch." Despite this, who's going to argue that high schoolers shouldn't read Sophocles? (Thomas Bowlder would, but he's dead.) It's very convincing to point a figure at the percentage of.edu blocked.
Remember that, at least according to the Al Gore types, the Big Use for the Internet is.edu. That's what Internet 2 is supposed to be-- returning the bandwidth to.edu and.gov. So, it seems reasonable to plant the battle flag on.edu
--Kevin T.
another long slashdot review
on
Database Nation
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, folks, but...
Why are all the "reviews" on Slashdot: 1) Really long; 2) Usually just [really long] chapter-by-chapter summaries of the book, rather than analytical reviews that tell you why you should read the book; 3) Biased...no one on Slashdot reviews a book he or she didn't like in the first place.
To add insult to injury, when two people review the same piece, the editors print both, rather than making an attempt to decide between them (or concatenate them).
Oh, give me a break. Don't you guys ever think before you post your drool? This thing's not a Beowulf: it's the Dragon.
Linux is great for a lot of things, but if you're shelling out the money for 2000+ alpha chips, you're not going to run Linux. You're either going to run a custom OS designed just for this task-- and I doubt the French will open source it-- or *BSD with a customized kernel.
Somewhere else on the net, some asshole read the same article and said, "Cool! Too bad it won't run NT." Don't be that asshole's linux-using brother.
--Kevin
Re:Turning up the heat on Motorola
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 1
As nice a story as this is, I believe that another possibility is more likely. Apple's relationship with Motorola has often been strained. By issuing this rumor, they hoping to pressure Motorola a bit more.
I agree with this analysis. Additionally, in this case, Apple gets to attract attention from a market they are playing for. Two types of people should be interested in Crusoe:
1) Mobile computing freaks 2) Those who have followed all of the transmeta rumors on slashdot for the past year (most of these rumors were about as good as the ones from macosrumors.com, BTW).
So, the ears perk up in the consumer market, people who normally wouldn't be interested in a PowerPC-only OS start taking more interest. Apple releases insignficant portions of the Darwin code for Crusoe as open source. Then, they turn around and tell us all of their master plan: Mac OS X on a palmtop device that uses Crusoe, or some other such nonsense.
In the long run, you may end up with Crusoe-powered low-end mobile devices which tickle power users so much that they buy a big, fat G4 server from Apple.
Remember, Apple makes all their money on hardware, so anything they do that doesn't obviously directly benefit their hardware sales is either a dumb decision, or there is more to it than there seems to be.
Learn a new language and make your irresponsible ravings in that. Language is acquired by age five, and those patterns that you have are identical with the patterns of your parents, older siblings, and the others who were around you speaking your native tongue.
If I were to learn French or Spanish, the patterns would be of the Berlitz language company, or the Barron's education company, or whatever, and would be bland from a stylistic point of view.
I'm not entirely sure b/c I read the Foster book a month ago but I believe he addresses this and would disagree with you. Foster would figure out, from your "bland" foreign language writings, how long you have studied the language, possibly where/how and for what reason (lots of commercial jargon in your Spanish? Or many references to Don Quioxte?), what regions/dialects of the language(s) you are familiar with, and to what extent, what language you grew up with, and many other factors.
Also, there is evidence in the recent world of literature that many authors (Conrad, Joyce, Nabokov, Beckett) working with foreign languages (Joyce appropriating them for English work, the others actually working in foreign languages) do maintain certain stylisitic and contentual similarities between their native and foreign language writings.
Imagine something like a travesty generator that can decompose your writing, sentence by sentence. Then, armed with a built-in thesaurus, grammatical rules, etc, it could re-cast your words into someone else's mold.
I've noticed on Slashdot, and other WWW forums, that occasionally someone posts a bunch of text from one of these filters, or something like The Postmodern Essay Generator. I usually spot the computer-generated randomness in the text after the first paragraph, and then stop reading.
If you're hiding, no one will notice you, so why bother writing at all?
> Apple is no better then MS. If they had MS's > > market share thay would be worse. God help you > > if you make anything for the Mac with out > > checking with Apple 1st. Remember the clones?
A lot of people simply don't understand Apple's market strategy. They aim to produce quality products for professional niche markets (education, design) and the home-user who wants to _produce_ something with his or her computer without learning the technical aspects of computer operation. Steve Jobs has said in the past that "the world doesn't need another Compaq."
Apple does a lot of business with small customers who damn well expect to be getting quality products with, for example, a consistent human interface. That's why you have these strict human interface guidelines for Apple developers. And, you know what? They work.
So, the point of all this is: 1) Apple doesn't want Wintel's market share. 2) The leadership at Apple is very sensitive about quality control, as well as the protection of their trademarks. Consider how sensitive the average GNU user is about the use of the term "open source" by everyone else in the world, ranging from Apple to Al Gore.
This doesn't justify belligerence toward skin makers, but it does explain why Apple would be a little testy.
Often, in litigation strategy, you have to go after the little guy who's not making money by copying you in order to establish precedent against the eventual AquaWebPC that's going to be one year down the road.
Though Apple may be a bunch of two-face jerks-- wearing an "Underdog" T-shirt and "Moneygod" hat-- I think a lot of people on Slashdot could learn a thing or two from them. Why does everyone here post, at least once a day, about how cool it would be if Linux were EVERYWHERE? I'm not sure if its really enthusiasm for Linux that drives this thinking, or a MS-based viewpoint of the world.
I've never been able to figure out exactly what happened with the "look and feel" lawsuit, especially re: Xerox's involvement. Can anyone provide any citations to legal or journalistic sources? I'm not interested in computer advocacy sites on the Web or FAQs.
I've never taken a course in engineering, but let me ask you guys-- is the idea of "designing in a way that augments our lives, not living in a way that validates our design" really so radical? Do professors still teach that "man conforms" to technology? Do programmers still expect users to learn a new input behavior for each application?
I refuse to trust anyone's opinions on Apple vs. Linux vs. anything if they can't figure out the difference between OS X, OS X Server, and Darwin (page three of the article, first paragraph). Why are so many journalists just sloppy? Perhaps because they don't care....
I'd like to point out that George C. Scott also supplied the "Voice of Drugs" in _Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue_, a Bush-era special in which every Sat morning cartoon character in the world vies against Mr. Scott's character for the soul of a 12 year old boy whose friends want him to try crack.
It's great, especially since you can tell that the cartoonists resented their assigment. They compensate with a few background gags.
Personally, I'd rather have an expensive palm top device that dispenses meaningless trivia and advice on what cocktails can be made with the remnants of my smouldering, broken-down automobile/ laptop/ hotel room, than have an expensive palm top device that dispenses meaningless blather submitted by a bunch of jerks web-wide. The content on the Guide should be edited, not moderated. The editors should be a crack international team of dedicated lunatics and drunkards.
Any attempt to make the Guide more useful than amusing will Miss the Point. If you press the "Where Am I?" button, it should not give you lattitude and longitude. It should say "Earth," or possibly "Milky Way, western spiral arm."
It should also come with a (small and slightly worn) towel and a TI-81 reprogrammed to function as the I Ching Calculator from The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, which will cast your fortune, but reports any result that has an absolute value greater than 2 as "A Suffusion of Yellow."
This was a terrible movie. Poorly filmed, lousy dialog, and liberties were taken with the truth which teeter on the brink of libel.
Those of you who are interested in the history of personal computing should READ BOOKS. Or at least websites, if you prefer. You can learn nothing from watching Turner Network Television.
The article mentions that they offered the machine to Steve Jobs, but they didn't mention Steve Wozniak. I guess his current position of grade school teacher doesn't give him the prestige (or salary) to be offered a $40,000 antique machine. Or perhaps they just know that he'd refuse to buy back something he built with his own hands, and could still build today, given the proper tools and components.
Steve Jobs is a good businessman, but the Woz is a great hacker.
They should give the machine back to the Woz and let him auction it off for charity, or keep it, or trash it, or whatever he wants to do with it. The Apple computer was his brainchild. Apple Computers, Inc. was Steve Jobs' creation.
--Kevin T.
bladerunner references are thick today
on
The Onion on AIBO
·
· Score: 1
Shallow Grave comics (http://www.polyn.com/) had a robot pal in today's strip, albeit a much scuzzier and less marketable one than AIBO. Must be a popular trend these days.
I agree that Be, at this point, seems content to not be a desktop OS, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a great desktop OS.
A few years ago, my friends were just beginning to discover Linux, and running it as a server OS. They saw Linux as a hacker's toy and a good way to run MUDs on spare 486 boxes. They probably didn't think Linux would, only three years later, become a viable desktop OS for office users or Quakers.
To a certain extent, Be needs to start looking beyond the multimedia/ developers market. However, a lot of work could also be done by developers (both hardware and software). The main complaints about Be are that it doesn't support a lot of hardware (various cards, PPC 750 processors) and has very few useful desktop apps. This could change, quickly, if vendors thought it was worth their while.
Vendors probably won't think it's worth their while, however, until journalists and on-the-street geeks start talking positively about Be's many advantages and stop pigeonholing it. That's right, folks-- the market is driven by public perceptions and media forces, not by technical qualifications.
Hmm, I'm not sure if Lucas is being smart by not delivering the prints to theaters until ~1-4 am. Everyone I know who works at a movie theater will probably be like this Anonymous Coward and go without sleep for a pre-dawn screening, which leads us to disaster:
I myself am wondering about Lucas's plans to re-edit and tune the movie up to the release week. Will we see different versions of the movie during different weeks, ridden by splices applied by the projectionist, a la Kubrick's re-edits of _2001_?
Slashdot Mirror
New laws in the US just mean more people from outside the US will be hacking US servers. "But the FBI will haul their asses in." Yea right. Let's see the FBI arrest someone from Cuba, China, or Russia! *[Ooooh we're breaking US laws!] *translated from Mandarin Actually, back in the early 90s, the U.S. passed a controversial law that basically says that the FBI _does_ have the power to go to other countries and arrest people who, say, smuggle drugs into the U.S. In fact, the U.S. is the only country in the world (to my knowledge) that claims police jurisdiction outside its borders. [This is all from memory. Anyone who can correct me/ provide more information, please speak up.] Beyond that nasty bit of foreign policy awkwardness, there are such things as extradition treaties, Interpol, etc. Basically, if you're a cracker working against U.S. targets (including the assets of U.S. corps in foreign lands), you probably fall into three categories: 1) Working for a government. You are a spy/ cyber-commando. Your deeds are acts of espionage and/or war. 2) Working for a corporation. You are a corporate hacker and subject to laws that govern such things. Since you're working for a corporation that bothers to, say, hack AOL's servers for information on their customers, you probably aren't working in the type of country that doesn't collaborate with the U.S. authorities to punish people like you. 3) Working on your own. You are a common thief, or possibly a terrorist, and your government probably won't protect you. The U.S., and other countries, have laws and methods to deal with all three. Computers are the tool. In the U.S.'s eyes, spies and terrorists are the users of that tool. The U.S. has spent the last 10 years throwing a lot of muscle at spies, terrorists, and smugglers-- foreign and domestic.
There is no implication that a similar number of .com sites are blocked. The only way to determine that is to do what Peacefire did with .coms.
.edu is a good target for Peacefire are: .edu sites must be relatively good-- .com has too many sites, and too many lousy/ trivial sites, to be a good test subject. Sure, there are lots of pointless student homepages, but most students don't have time to completely fill up their 5 MB with pictures of their friends. Moreso, .edus must have very strict rules governing what students can put up-- most student-run porn sites on a Uni server will go down really quickly. Finally, .edu sites tend to be well-indexed by search engines, including their own internal engines (meta-crawlers get a lot of .edu hits). .edu blocked.
.edu. That's what Internet 2 is supposed to be-- returning the bandwidth to .edu and .gov. So, it seems reasonable to plant the battle flag on .edu
The reasons
1) k12.edu sites often have pages made for group projects by kids under 18, the ones who are supposedly being protected.
2) These same kids will probably end up looking at university sites (or the Smithsonian, if their project is on George Lucas's use of mythology...blah) for those same projects. Doing a report on Diocletian? Go to that Calvin College site and grep (or "find" in Netscape) for his name. Unless, that is, the pages are blocked.
3) The signal/noise ratio on
4) If you are out to Prove Something, like Peacefire, Greek and Roman histories/ literature translated into English SGML are valuable statistics-boosters. I haven't gotten to Vol. IV of Gibbon yet, but I would venture that any good translations of Sophocles's plays have frequent use of words like "bitch." Despite this, who's going to argue that high schoolers shouldn't read Sophocles? (Thomas Bowlder would, but he's dead.) It's very convincing to point a figure at the percentage of
Remember that, at least according to the Al Gore types, the Big Use for the Internet is
--Kevin T.
I'm sorry, folks, but...
Why are all the "reviews" on Slashdot:
1) Really long;
2) Usually just [really long] chapter-by-chapter summaries of the book, rather than analytical reviews that tell you why you should read the book;
3) Biased...no one on Slashdot reviews a book he or she didn't like in the first place.
To add insult to injury, when two people review the same piece, the editors print both, rather than making an attempt to decide between them (or concatenate them).
Feh!
Oh, give me a break. Don't you guys ever think before you post your drool? This thing's not a Beowulf: it's the Dragon.
Linux is great for a lot of things, but if you're shelling out the money for 2000+ alpha chips, you're not going to run Linux. You're either going to run a custom OS designed just for this task-- and I doubt the French will open source it-- or *BSD with a customized kernel.
Somewhere else on the net, some asshole read the same article and said, "Cool! Too bad it won't run NT." Don't be that asshole's linux-using brother.
--Kevin
As nice a story as this is, I believe that another possibility is more likely. Apple's relationship with Motorola has often been strained. By issuing this rumor, they hoping to pressure Motorola a bit more.
I agree with this analysis. Additionally, in this case, Apple gets to attract attention from a market they are playing for. Two types of people should be interested in Crusoe:
1) Mobile computing freaks
2) Those who have followed all of the transmeta rumors on slashdot for the past year (most of these rumors were about as good as the ones from macosrumors.com, BTW).
So, the ears perk up in the consumer market, people who normally wouldn't be interested in a PowerPC-only OS start taking more interest. Apple releases insignficant portions of the Darwin code for Crusoe as open source. Then, they turn around and tell us all of their master plan: Mac OS X on a palmtop device that uses Crusoe, or some other such nonsense.
In the long run, you may end up with Crusoe-powered low-end mobile devices which tickle power users so much that they buy a big, fat G4 server from Apple.
Remember, Apple makes all their money on hardware, so anything they do that doesn't obviously directly benefit their hardware sales is either a dumb decision, or there is more to it than there seems to be.
Learn a new language and make your irresponsible ravings in that. Language is acquired by age five, and those patterns that you have are identical with the patterns of your parents, older siblings, and the others who were around you speaking your native tongue.
If I were to learn French or Spanish, the patterns would be of the Berlitz language company, or the Barron's education company, or whatever, and would be bland from a stylistic point of view.
I'm not entirely sure b/c I read the Foster book a month ago but I believe he addresses this and would disagree with you. Foster would figure out, from your "bland" foreign language writings, how long you have studied the language, possibly where/how and for what reason (lots of commercial jargon in your Spanish? Or many references to Don Quioxte?), what regions/dialects of the language(s) you are familiar with, and to what extent, what language you grew up with, and many other factors.
Also, there is evidence in the recent world of literature that many authors (Conrad, Joyce, Nabokov, Beckett) working with foreign languages (Joyce appropriating them for English work, the others actually working in foreign languages) do maintain certain stylisitic and contentual similarities between their native and foreign language writings.
Imagine something like a travesty generator that can decompose your writing, sentence by sentence. Then, armed with a built-in thesaurus, grammatical rules, etc, it could re-cast your words into someone else's mold.
I've noticed on Slashdot, and other WWW forums, that occasionally someone posts a bunch of text from one of these filters, or something like The Postmodern Essay Generator. I usually spot the computer-generated randomness in the text after the first paragraph, and then stop reading.
If you're hiding, no one will notice you, so why bother writing at all?
> Apple is no better then MS. If they had MS's > > market share thay would be worse. God help you > > if you make anything for the Mac with out > > checking with Apple 1st. Remember the clones?
A lot of people simply don't understand Apple's market strategy. They aim to produce quality products for professional niche markets (education, design) and the home-user who wants to _produce_ something with his or her computer without learning the technical aspects of computer operation. Steve Jobs has said in the past that "the world doesn't need another Compaq."
Apple does a lot of business with small customers who damn well expect to be getting quality products with, for example, a consistent human interface. That's why you have these strict human interface guidelines for Apple developers. And, you know what? They work.
So, the point of all this is:
1) Apple doesn't want Wintel's market share.
2) The leadership at Apple is very sensitive about quality control, as well as the protection of their trademarks. Consider how sensitive the average GNU user is about the use of the term "open source" by everyone else in the world, ranging from Apple to Al Gore.
This doesn't justify belligerence toward skin makers, but it does explain why Apple would be a little testy.
Often, in litigation strategy, you have to go after the little guy who's not making money by copying you in order to establish precedent against the eventual AquaWebPC that's going to be one year down the road.
Though Apple may be a bunch of two-face jerks-- wearing an "Underdog" T-shirt and "Moneygod" hat-- I think a lot of people on Slashdot could learn a thing or two from them. Why does everyone here post, at least once a day, about how cool it would be if Linux were EVERYWHERE? I'm not sure if its really enthusiasm for Linux that drives this thinking, or a MS-based viewpoint of the world.
Huh.
I've never been able to figure out exactly what happened with the "look and feel" lawsuit, especially re: Xerox's involvement. Can anyone provide any citations to legal or journalistic sources? I'm not interested in computer advocacy sites on the Web or FAQs.
--Kevin T.
kevin@useless.net
I've never taken a course in engineering, but let me ask you guys-- is the idea of "designing in a way that augments our lives, not living in a way that validates our design" really so radical? Do professors still teach that "man conforms" to technology? Do programmers still expect users to learn a new input behavior for each application?
To pick a nit...
I refuse to trust anyone's opinions on Apple vs. Linux vs. anything if they can't figure out the difference between OS X, OS X Server, and Darwin (page three of the article, first paragraph). Why are so many journalists just sloppy? Perhaps because they don't care....
I'd like to point out that George C. Scott also supplied the "Voice of Drugs" in _Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue_, a Bush-era special in which every Sat morning cartoon character in the world vies against Mr. Scott's character for the soul of a 12 year old boy whose friends want him to try crack.
It's great, especially since you can tell that the cartoonists resented their assigment. They compensate with a few background gags.
Personally, I'd rather have an expensive palm top device that dispenses meaningless trivia and advice on what cocktails can be made with the remnants of my smouldering, broken-down automobile/ laptop/ hotel room, than have an expensive palm top device that dispenses meaningless blather submitted by a bunch of jerks web-wide. The content on the Guide should be edited, not moderated. The editors should be a crack international team of dedicated lunatics and drunkards.
Any attempt to make the Guide more useful than amusing will Miss the Point. If you press the "Where Am I?" button, it should not give you lattitude and longitude. It should say "Earth," or possibly "Milky Way, western spiral arm."
It should also come with a (small and slightly worn) towel and a TI-81 reprogrammed to function as the I Ching Calculator from The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul, which will cast your fortune, but reports any result that has an absolute value greater than 2 as "A Suffusion of Yellow."
This was a terrible movie. Poorly filmed, lousy dialog, and liberties were taken with the truth which teeter on the brink of libel.
Those of you who are interested in the history of personal computing should READ BOOKS. Or at least websites, if you prefer. You can learn nothing from watching Turner Network Television.
The article mentions that they offered the machine to Steve Jobs, but they didn't mention Steve Wozniak. I guess his current position of grade school teacher doesn't give him the prestige (or salary) to be offered a $40,000 antique machine. Or perhaps they just know that he'd refuse to buy back something he built with his own hands, and could still build today, given the proper tools and components.
Steve Jobs is a good businessman, but the Woz is a great hacker.
They should give the machine back to the Woz and let him auction it off for charity, or keep it, or trash it, or whatever he wants to do with it. The Apple computer was his brainchild. Apple Computers, Inc. was Steve Jobs' creation.
--Kevin T.
Shallow Grave comics (http://www.polyn.com/) had a robot pal in today's strip, albeit a much scuzzier and less marketable one than AIBO. Must be a popular trend these days.
I agree that Be, at this point, seems content to not be a desktop OS, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a great desktop OS.
A few years ago, my friends were just beginning to discover Linux, and running it as a server OS. They saw Linux as a hacker's toy and a good way to run MUDs on spare 486 boxes. They probably didn't think Linux would, only three years later, become a viable desktop OS for office users or Quakers.
To a certain extent, Be needs to start looking beyond the multimedia/ developers market. However, a lot of work could also be done by developers (both hardware and software). The main complaints about Be are that it doesn't support a lot of hardware (various cards, PPC 750 processors) and has very few useful desktop apps. This could change, quickly, if vendors thought it was worth their while.
Vendors probably won't think it's worth their while, however, until journalists and on-the-street geeks start talking positively about Be's many advantages and stop pigeonholing it. That's right, folks-- the market is driven by public perceptions and media forces, not by technical qualifications.
"[this column is]...a weekly feed of technology and media news commentary _and satire_...some fictional statements may, in fact, be true."
Hmm, I'm not sure if Lucas is being smart by not delivering the prints to theaters until ~1-4 am. Everyone I know who works at a movie theater will probably be like this Anonymous Coward and go without sleep for a pre-dawn screening, which leads us to disaster:
Angry Mob: "Hey! Focus! FOOOOCUSSSSS!"
Projectionist: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzLeiazzzz."
I myself am wondering about Lucas's plans to re-edit and tune the movie up to the release week. Will we see different versions of the movie during different weeks, ridden by splices applied by the projectionist, a la Kubrick's re-edits of _2001_?
If I've understood correctly....
Apple, IBM, and Motorola collaborate on the architecture/ design of the chips. This alliance is called AIM.
Motorola builds the G3 chips.
IBM owns the trademark to the term "PowerPC." This is not the same as having a patent for the chips themselves.