I'd contend that it is easier to sell a GPL app for a profit in a controlle marketplace like the Android Market and Apple App Store.
If I want to install a GPL game on my iPhone, I have to purchase it through the store. I can't simply compile the app on my one, and install it as I see fit, unless I pay for a developer license, or jailbreak my phone.
If I was a developer of a GPL game, I'd certainly look to Android, Blackberry, Palm and iPhone app stores as a source of revenue. Where as it might be considerably more difficult to charge for the game on the PC where anyone can obtain it for free.
Most trademark cases I've read about are for two very different products with similar names. For instance, all the Husker trademark cases in Nebraska. The "Huskers" are athletic programs at the University of Nebraska, yet they have successfully leveraged their trademark over anything named "Husker" in the state.
The Wikipedia entry isn't clear if you need all 8 criteria, or merely a combination of them.
In the Apple case, you aren't simply grabbing a common name, you're grabbing the exact name of a well known brand, and copying the logo at the same time. That is pretty damning.
Wouldn't it be fair to assume anyone running a 64-bit distro has a procesor capableof SSE4 insturctions? Write the code to take advantage of these instruction sets, but only enable them on your 64-bit binaries then.
I'm no low level programmer, but I assume IO and CPU scheduling are math intensive enough. If SSE instructions really boost video encoding, what about encryption algorhythms, or file systems?
I seriously doubt anyone in the Slashdot crowd will defend Microsoft. No doubt this entire story will fill up with comments about how Microsoft is evil and doesn't respect trademarks (as it already is).
I'm drawing a comparison to a company that seems to be well loved by the Slashdot crowd that is doing the same thing.
If we're going to call out Microsoft for not respecting trademarks, why does Apple get a free pass?
I already replied, but I realize I wasn't as clear as I should be.
Technically two companies named Bing can have seperate trademarks basically if they agree to do so. If neither tries to establish and enforce its trademark exclusively, everything is fine.
Bing! has a right to try and enforce Bing exclusively as a trademark. Both sides have a bit of case here it seems, given that Bing! existed first, but they didn't truly start to enforce their trademark until after Microsoft started to advertise their Bing service.
I just made a comment about that myself. Apple Computers signed a contract promising not to get into the music business and then breached it. Those Brits at Apple Records are just too nice to get really nasty over the whole affair.
Effectively Apple Records allowed Apple Computers to infringe on their trademark. But Apple Records was within their right to blast Apple Computers from not only stealing their trademarked name, but also their trademarked logo.
Trademarks are different from patents in that they only have as much weight as you enforce them.
Only if you have the money for afford lawyers in the first place.
AOL threatened to sue all the GAIM developers to kingdom come. It didn't matter that AOL was in the wrong. They can afford lawyers, and the GAIM developers were poor college students. GAIM was renamed Pidgin.
My mother recently got screwed over pretty bad by a big company. She was completely legally in the right, but it doesn't matter when only one side can afford a lawyer.
It's not how that works. I can't just open a new business called General Motors All Donkey Erotica, because General Motors has a trademark on General Motors (though I assume my business would be far more profitable than the real General Motors right now).
Where I live in Nebraska, the University of Nebraska strongly enforces the "Husker" trademark. If you open a shop called Husker Glass to replace windshields, the University will come after you and demand you license the trademark. And they will all of these cases.
This reminds me. Apple Computers blatantly stole their name and logo from Apple Records. Apple Records agreed not to sue them into oblivion so long as Apple Computers promised not to get into the music business. That was nice of them.
Apple Computers did get into the music business, and are now the #1 retailer of music. Apple Records said this was a clear breach of their contract. Apple Computers replied with "get bent, and we'll do whatever the fuck we want."
Time and time again, Apple does all the evil things that Microsoft gets blasted for. Why exactly does Apple get a free pass?
The GPL doesn't have a "thou shall not make a profit" license. That being said, I think both GPL-style and BSD-style licenses have their uses.
If anything, in Chrome's very permissive licenses, they're inviting Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple and all other competitors to steal from Chrome without giving anything back.
Perhaps at times, the motive isn't profit, but rather advocating good code. One can argue perhaps that making the web a safer place leads to increasing consumer's trust, which helps Google's business model. But it is very nice to see a mamoth corporation just gives years of development away and tell people to do with it as they will.
Intel has been tearing apart their Linux graphics stack and rewritting it for the future. For a while, that meant poor performance during the rewrite, but it really is getting better. Intel is really helping push DRI2, GEM, TTM, UXA, etc.
At least Intel does their development in the open. Didn't Intel also contribute code to Moblin to optimize Moblin performance on their hardware? I'd like to see some more general kernel enhancements for these processors. Any speed increase over Windows on the most common netbook processor is a huge win.
Chrome OS is already fast. If Intel can help make it faster when comparing it side-by-side to 7, it only helps Linux adoption on the whole.
I also have a small tangental question. I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets. I also hear that almost no one does write code to take advantage of these instruction sets. If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?
Microsoft is evil because they want to enforce vendor lock in! How dare they try to push an all Microsoft ecosystem! Microsoft is evil because they aren't very interoperable!
What? You want to run proprietary apps on FOSS? We can't have that. We want to enforce a lock in strategy where you have to have this entire ecosystem of 100% free apps, or nothing else! And if someone dares suggest interoperability with Microsoft products (such as when OpenOffice contraversally added support for MS Office 2007 documents) I'll blast them for it! How dare they!
(If you think I'm exaggerating, read the Boycott Novell blog, which does in fact blast Novell for working on interoperability with Microsoft,)
[quote]Gaming will work itself out if Wine continues apace.[/quote]
I really applaud the efforts of the Wine developers. I think their product is truly amazing.
It will always be playing catch up however. And last time I checked, The Sims is the best selling PC title of all time. It is also an old game that the Wine developers still haven't gotten to work. If they can't get the best selling game of all time to work, that seriously hurts your reputation as a true alternative to Windows for gaming.
I love me some Linux, but I rarely bother with Wine. Most of the games I got to work with Wine, I had to use a crack to remove DRM first. Most end users aren't capable of doing this, and technically it is illegal in the US. I keep a Windows partition exclusively for gaming because of this.
Would you rather the entire phone system remain proprietary?
Is this really a terrible situation that atleast the phone's core OS is FOSS, and that there is a nice framework for open development?
This is a good thing.
Please don't bother insisting that you're either 100% "free" or not at all. True freedom is choice. Telling people that they shouldn't have the freedom to run proprietary apps on top of FOSS under-pinnings really doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Linux is making more and more in-roads. I'd rather avoid the zealotry that gives FOSS a bad name. It really is counter-productive. If you care about FOSS and truly want to advocate for the growth and adoption of FOSS, then please tone it down just a little bit. Instead of attacking companies like Google which really push FOSS (releasing MySQL and Wine patches, paying for Summer of Code, constantly opening up the source to a number of projects, creating Android, creating Chrome browser, creating Chrome OS, funding Mozilla, etc), how about we support them.
This was the EXACT same argument with Firefox. Stallman and the FSF attacked Firefox because it allowed proprietary extensions. I wouldn't be shocked if the majority of Firefox extensions are proprietary. He encouraged people to boycott Firefox. Doing so would only benefit IE. Adopting Firefox has done wonders for FOSS. It was a gateway to FOSS for many people who had never heard of it before, or would never consider it before.
Except when the records are seized by the govenrment, used in court, and then become public record. Then it is suddenly quite transparent what their policies are.
And amazingly enough, the Orkut case showed their log anonymization policy was exactly what they claimed to be.
You're insisting that Google is lying. You seem so certain. Surely you have some proof. Show me that Google has lied on a major policy even once.
Google's entire business model is based on giving away services to end users for free, establishing trust, and mining data so they can target ads. If Google violated their policies and lost people's trust, their entire business model would be ruined.
Please show me evidence that a company with the track record and history of Google would go against their company creedo of "Don't Be Evil" to senselessly be both evil, and stupid, risking their fortune and business model.
1 - When Bush stated publicly that the federal government should have all search data tied to IP addresses, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft handed it over without any official government mandate or court order. They just volunteered your private information. Google refused.
2 - At the same time several of these issues were coming to a head at once (Bush's statement, Yahoo turning in a Chinese blogger, Google being forced by Brazil to give out details on a child pornography ring on Orkut) Google announced they were changing their policies and anonymizing logs sooner to protect people's privacy. They said their new anonymization policy was better than anyone else out there. I haven't read them all, so I can't say for certain.
So one company has shown they will fight to protect your privacy until they are absolutely forced (Google didn't even hand information over to Brazil when a judge ordered them to do so initially), and they anonymize their logs sooner.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd contend that it is easier to sell a GPL app for a profit in a controlle marketplace like the Android Market and Apple App Store.
If I want to install a GPL game on my iPhone, I have to purchase it through the store. I can't simply compile the app on my one, and install it as I see fit, unless I pay for a developer license, or jailbreak my phone.
If I was a developer of a GPL game, I'd certainly look to Android, Blackberry, Palm and iPhone app stores as a source of revenue. Where as it might be considerably more difficult to charge for the game on the PC where anyone can obtain it for free.
Most trademark cases I've read about are for two very different products with similar names. For instance, all the Husker trademark cases in Nebraska. The "Huskers" are athletic programs at the University of Nebraska, yet they have successfully leveraged their trademark over anything named "Husker" in the state.
The Wikipedia entry isn't clear if you need all 8 criteria, or merely a combination of them.
In the Apple case, you aren't simply grabbing a common name, you're grabbing the exact name of a well known brand, and copying the logo at the same time. That is pretty damning.
Wouldn't it be fair to assume anyone running a 64-bit distro has a procesor capableof SSE4 insturctions? Write the code to take advantage of these instruction sets, but only enable them on your 64-bit binaries then.
I'm no low level programmer, but I assume IO and CPU scheduling are math intensive enough. If SSE instructions really boost video encoding, what about encryption algorhythms, or file systems?
I seriously doubt anyone in the Slashdot crowd will defend Microsoft. No doubt this entire story will fill up with comments about how Microsoft is evil and doesn't respect trademarks (as it already is).
I'm drawing a comparison to a company that seems to be well loved by the Slashdot crowd that is doing the same thing.
If we're going to call out Microsoft for not respecting trademarks, why does Apple get a free pass?
I think it is a valid question.
I already replied, but I realize I wasn't as clear as I should be.
Technically two companies named Bing can have seperate trademarks basically if they agree to do so. If neither tries to establish and enforce its trademark exclusively, everything is fine.
Bing! has a right to try and enforce Bing exclusively as a trademark. Both sides have a bit of case here it seems, given that Bing! existed first, but they didn't truly start to enforce their trademark until after Microsoft started to advertise their Bing service.
I just made a comment about that myself. Apple Computers signed a contract promising not to get into the music business and then breached it. Those Brits at Apple Records are just too nice to get really nasty over the whole affair.
Effectively Apple Records allowed Apple Computers to infringe on their trademark. But Apple Records was within their right to blast Apple Computers from not only stealing their trademarked name, but also their trademarked logo.
Trademarks are different from patents in that they only have as much weight as you enforce them.
Only if you have the money for afford lawyers in the first place.
AOL threatened to sue all the GAIM developers to kingdom come. It didn't matter that AOL was in the wrong. They can afford lawyers, and the GAIM developers were poor college students. GAIM was renamed Pidgin.
My mother recently got screwed over pretty bad by a big company. She was completely legally in the right, but it doesn't matter when only one side can afford a lawyer.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/video-introducing-bing-the-better-way-to-google/
It's not how that works. I can't just open a new business called General Motors All Donkey Erotica, because General Motors has a trademark on General Motors (though I assume my business would be far more profitable than the real General Motors right now).
Where I live in Nebraska, the University of Nebraska strongly enforces the "Husker" trademark. If you open a shop called Husker Glass to replace windshields, the University will come after you and demand you license the trademark. And they will all of these cases.
This reminds me. Apple Computers blatantly stole their name and logo from Apple Records. Apple Records agreed not to sue them into oblivion so long as Apple Computers promised not to get into the music business. That was nice of them.
Apple Computers did get into the music business, and are now the #1 retailer of music. Apple Records said this was a clear breach of their contract. Apple Computers replied with "get bent, and we'll do whatever the fuck we want."
Time and time again, Apple does all the evil things that Microsoft gets blasted for. Why exactly does Apple get a free pass?
The GPL doesn't have a "thou shall not make a profit" license. That being said, I think both GPL-style and BSD-style licenses have their uses.
If anything, in Chrome's very permissive licenses, they're inviting Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple and all other competitors to steal from Chrome without giving anything back.
Perhaps at times, the motive isn't profit, but rather advocating good code. One can argue perhaps that making the web a safer place leads to increasing consumer's trust, which helps Google's business model. But it is very nice to see a mamoth corporation just gives years of development away and tell people to do with it as they will.
Intel has been tearing apart their Linux graphics stack and rewritting it for the future. For a while, that meant poor performance during the rewrite, but it really is getting better. Intel is really helping push DRI2, GEM, TTM, UXA, etc.
At least Intel does their development in the open. Didn't Intel also contribute code to Moblin to optimize Moblin performance on their hardware? I'd like to see some more general kernel enhancements for these processors. Any speed increase over Windows on the most common netbook processor is a huge win.
Chrome OS is already fast. If Intel can help make it faster when comparing it side-by-side to 7, it only helps Linux adoption on the whole.
I also have a small tangental question. I always hear about huge performance gains that can come from properly writing code to take advantage of SSE2,3,4,etc instruction sets. I also hear that almost no one does write code to take advantage of these instruction sets. If Intel really wants to push their hardware, why not write such optimizations for the Linux kernel?
Microsoft is evil because they want to enforce vendor lock in! How dare they try to push an all Microsoft ecosystem! Microsoft is evil because they aren't very interoperable!
What? You want to run proprietary apps on FOSS? We can't have that. We want to enforce a lock in strategy where you have to have this entire ecosystem of 100% free apps, or nothing else! And if someone dares suggest interoperability with Microsoft products (such as when OpenOffice contraversally added support for MS Office 2007 documents) I'll blast them for it! How dare they!
(If you think I'm exaggerating, read the Boycott Novell blog, which does in fact blast Novell for working on interoperability with Microsoft,)
Don't tell anyone, but Android is Linux. It's a huge secret!
Google has shown lately that they are more likely to lean towards very permissive, BSD-type licenses than restrictive ones.
[quote]Gaming will work itself out if Wine continues apace.[/quote]
I really applaud the efforts of the Wine developers. I think their product is truly amazing.
It will always be playing catch up however. And last time I checked, The Sims is the best selling PC title of all time. It is also an old game that the Wine developers still haven't gotten to work. If they can't get the best selling game of all time to work, that seriously hurts your reputation as a true alternative to Windows for gaming.
I love me some Linux, but I rarely bother with Wine. Most of the games I got to work with Wine, I had to use a crack to remove DRM first. Most end users aren't capable of doing this, and technically it is illegal in the US. I keep a Windows partition exclusively for gaming because of this.
Would you rather the entire phone system remain proprietary?
Is this really a terrible situation that atleast the phone's core OS is FOSS, and that there is a nice framework for open development?
This is a good thing.
Please don't bother insisting that you're either 100% "free" or not at all. True freedom is choice. Telling people that they shouldn't have the freedom to run proprietary apps on top of FOSS under-pinnings really doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Linux is making more and more in-roads. I'd rather avoid the zealotry that gives FOSS a bad name. It really is counter-productive. If you care about FOSS and truly want to advocate for the growth and adoption of FOSS, then please tone it down just a little bit. Instead of attacking companies like Google which really push FOSS (releasing MySQL and Wine patches, paying for Summer of Code, constantly opening up the source to a number of projects, creating Android, creating Chrome browser, creating Chrome OS, funding Mozilla, etc), how about we support them.
This was the EXACT same argument with Firefox. Stallman and the FSF attacked Firefox because it allowed proprietary extensions. I wouldn't be shocked if the majority of Firefox extensions are proprietary. He encouraged people to boycott Firefox. Doing so would only benefit IE. Adopting Firefox has done wonders for FOSS. It was a gateway to FOSS for many people who had never heard of it before, or would never consider it before.
Except when the records are seized by the govenrment, used in court, and then become public record. Then it is suddenly quite transparent what their policies are.
And amazingly enough, the Orkut case showed their log anonymization policy was exactly what they claimed to be.
You're insisting that Google is lying. You seem so certain. Surely you have some proof. Show me that Google has lied on a major policy even once.
Google's entire business model is based on giving away services to end users for free, establishing trust, and mining data so they can target ads. If Google violated their policies and lost people's trust, their entire business model would be ruined.
Please show me evidence that a company with the track record and history of Google would go against their company creedo of "Don't Be Evil" to senselessly be both evil, and stupid, risking their fortune and business model.
Why in the world would do they do such a thing?
Your assertations are asinine at best.
Would Microsoft fund Mozilla? Initially I want to say no, but I think Ballmer would do anything to spite Google.
Two things to consider:
1 - When Bush stated publicly that the federal government should have all search data tied to IP addresses, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft handed it over without any official government mandate or court order. They just volunteered your private information. Google refused.
2 - At the same time several of these issues were coming to a head at once (Bush's statement, Yahoo turning in a Chinese blogger, Google being forced by Brazil to give out details on a child pornography ring on Orkut) Google announced they were changing their policies and anonymizing logs sooner to protect people's privacy. They said their new anonymization policy was better than anyone else out there. I haven't read them all, so I can't say for certain.
So one company has shown they will fight to protect your privacy until they are absolutely forced (Google didn't even hand information over to Brazil when a judge ordered them to do so initially), and they anonymize their logs sooner.
So why in the world is Bing better for privacy?
Expansion is difficult, and the setup is very expensive to begin with.
I wonder how this compares cost-wise with Google's offshore data centers.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/09/06/google-planning-offshore-data-barges/
I believe they are using automated fuzzy image searches.
What if they want to just use Lala as a gateway for directing people to buy music off iTunes?
People search for music. They get the Lala sample, and then iTunes swoops in for the sale.
Seems very logical to me.
bogaboga was complaining Google wasn't doing anything about PDF as a web functionality.
My point is that Google already takes care of PDF web functionality.
And actually, if someone mails me a PDF, they're sending it to Gmail, and Gmail will render the PDF as HTML.
With HTML 5 (which Google is helping push for) you won't need Flash so much anymore.
I don't need a PDF reader anymore given that Google will take a PDF on the web, and rerender it as HTML for me automatically.