Thanks for the response. Another thing people don't seem to realise is that the goal of trademarks is to protect consumers. For example, people might refer to your Perl book as "the camel book" when someone is asking for a good book about Perl. If there was another (but crappy) Perl book with the camel on it, someone might be tricked into buying it instead of the other book they actually wanted.
I blame the use of the term "Intellectual Property" for people thinking of trademarks as bad. People know that copyright laws have become ridiculous, they know that some patents severely impede progress, and since both copyrights and patents are often lumped together with trademarks and described as "intellectual property", people think of trademarks as being bad, too. Trademarks really should be lumped together with other "consumer protection" laws rather than "intellectual property" laws, anyway.
Wait, wait, wait... You're jumping to conclusions here. Perhaps Microsoft told them to drop it because Microsoft would rather have their license evaluated by the Free Software Foundation, instead. I mean, I can understand that. I don't care much for "open source", but I do value my freedom. Maybe Microsoft values freedom, too?
You're right, but I think the idea of overthrowing the Windows empire is often played down. It would definitely benefit Free Software if there was a greater diversity of operating systems being used by the general population. All of a sudden every document being in Microsoft Word's format wouldn't be acceptable, and open standards might become important.
Proprietary software isn't a threat to Free Software, but proprietary standards are, because then Free Software users begin to be excluded from the rest of the population. Open standards are an issue of fairness and equality.
You're misunderstanding the stance of the Free Software community. Even the FSF says that it should be up to people to choose whether they will accept proprietary software. They say that they have chosen not to, except in certain circumstances that usually don't arise anymore. What they do say is that people should not be forced into using proprietary software.
There's a huge difference, though. People who have software released under the GPLv2 are also entitled to source code. This means that they don't depend on any single organisation for their patches. If Microsoft gave this guy the source code to Windows, it would be more acceptable for them to release patches under a different EULA.
Secondly, people usually don't pay for GPL'ed programs. Sometimes they do (when they buy from Red Hat, for example), but in those cases it is up to the organisation they bought the software from to provide patches under the original EULA, not the FSF or the people who wrote the software.
1: Don't accept EULA, go unpatched, be a zombie. 2: Accept the EULA, patch. 3: Don't accept the EULA, run some other operating system with a noninvasive EULA.
He doesn't have a choice. #1 is obviously unacceptable. #2 is one thing that he could do. #3 is unacceptable unless Microsoft is willing to provide him with a refund for his copy of Windows.
The RIAA don't seem to mind too much if things are no-cost. They are more concerned with things they have no control over, so they usually require DRM.
As far as I can tell, YouTube's flash videos are more or less DRM. While they're not conventional DRM, they do have the same effect as DRM.
If that happened, Yahoo would be able to use the word "Google" in their advertising. Trademark laws are actually in place to protect consumers. Imagine if Yahoo were able to advertise and say things like "Come use our Google Search at yahoo.com!"
People know about Google and know they want Google, so if Yahoo were able to use "Google" in their advertising, people could end up being tricked into using something that isn't what they want.
What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it."
There's no need to speculate. That's exactly what they're claiming!
"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."
Yeah, but this case is slightly different because the threat isn't coming from Microsoft. They initially made the threat possible, the defect is exposed at around the same time as the threat emerging, Microsoft then offer to fix the defect that would allow the threat to affect you.
In my opinion, the contract should still be void, but I do feel that this is a different situation since the threat isn't coming directly from Microsoft.
There is one important difference between (most) legalese and so-called "real problems". Real problems affect everyone, whereas legalese often affects different people in different ways. People are divided and conquered. Most people don't even think of blaming lawmakers. Their immediate reaction is that whoever screwed them over with a legal agreement is the bastard.
When the same problem affects everyone, people are good at reacting. Unfortunately, people do not care enough about the problems of others, so everyone loses...
One big difference is that Free Software developers have a lot more freedom to speak their mind. Whilst one person might make the decisions, discussions can take place that would never be able to take place in a company where people have to be afraid of losing their job.
I think you're completely missing the point, here.
He's not disputing the fact that he needs to install the patches for security reasons. He's upset because this puts him in a situation where he has no other choice other than to agree to the new contract. This is an unfair situation. Microsoft should be providing the patches without any additional conditions.
You're ignoring the fact that the patch exists to fix flaws that are defects in the original product. The patch is released because the original was not as it was supposed to be.
You sound like a tin-foil hatted nutjob, to me!... well, not really. You're exactly right. I'm probably a part of the generation that you're talking about. I'm not sure why we're like this. (I like to think that I'm not)
I think part of the problem is that we've already lost power. Anyone who gets too vocal or decides to stand up for themselves against government or a big company will be thrown in prison, labelled a terrorist, and none of their fellow citizens will stand by them.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the response. Another thing people don't seem to realise is that the goal of trademarks is to protect consumers. For example, people might refer to your Perl book as "the camel book" when someone is asking for a good book about Perl. If there was another (but crappy) Perl book with the camel on it, someone might be tricked into buying it instead of the other book they actually wanted.
I blame the use of the term "Intellectual Property" for people thinking of trademarks as bad. People know that copyright laws have become ridiculous, they know that some patents severely impede progress, and since both copyrights and patents are often lumped together with trademarks and described as "intellectual property", people think of trademarks as being bad, too. Trademarks really should be lumped together with other "consumer protection" laws rather than "intellectual property" laws, anyway.
Wait, wait, wait... You're jumping to conclusions here. Perhaps Microsoft told them to drop it because Microsoft would rather have their license evaluated by the Free Software Foundation, instead. I mean, I can understand that. I don't care much for "open source", but I do value my freedom. Maybe Microsoft values freedom, too?
You're right, but I think the idea of overthrowing the Windows empire is often played down. It would definitely benefit Free Software if there was a greater diversity of operating systems being used by the general population. All of a sudden every document being in Microsoft Word's format wouldn't be acceptable, and open standards might become important.
Proprietary software isn't a threat to Free Software, but proprietary standards are, because then Free Software users begin to be excluded from the rest of the population. Open standards are an issue of fairness and equality.
You're misunderstanding the stance of the Free Software community. Even the FSF says that it should be up to people to choose whether they will accept proprietary software. They say that they have chosen not to, except in certain circumstances that usually don't arise anymore. What they do say is that people should not be forced into using proprietary software.
Tell them it is because of the patent system. They need to know that.
Meanwhile, contributors to such projects would be limited to people from only certain parts of the world...
Why wouldn't you trust the researchers in this case? Apple has something to lose by admitting a flaw.
How does the DMCA define "technology"?
If the GPL could be considered "technology", then anything that prevents copying (DRM systems) could be classified as a "circumvention device".
It is the most ridiculous argument. I'm surprised they're crazy enough to even try it.
Why would they? They're already making tonnes off their ads. They'd probably make less money if they started asking for a fee.
There's a huge difference, though. People who have software released under the GPLv2 are also entitled to source code. This means that they don't depend on any single organisation for their patches. If Microsoft gave this guy the source code to Windows, it would be more acceptable for them to release patches under a different EULA.
Secondly, people usually don't pay for GPL'ed programs. Sometimes they do (when they buy from Red Hat, for example), but in those cases it is up to the organisation they bought the software from to provide patches under the original EULA, not the FSF or the people who wrote the software.
He does have a choice.
1: Don't accept EULA, go unpatched, be a zombie.
2: Accept the EULA, patch.
3: Don't accept the EULA, run some other operating system with a noninvasive EULA.
He doesn't have a choice. #1 is obviously unacceptable. #2 is one thing that he could do. #3 is unacceptable unless Microsoft is willing to provide him with a refund for his copy of Windows.
Why do you sound surprised about patents on a file format? Most file formats/codecs/protocols have patents on them. MP3 is another example.
What are you talking about? Helix won't play media from the BBC.
I'm curious about how they intend to deal with the patent issues.
The RIAA don't seem to mind too much if things are no-cost. They are more concerned with things they have no control over, so they usually require DRM.
As far as I can tell, YouTube's flash videos are more or less DRM. While they're not conventional DRM, they do have the same effect as DRM.
Me too, but after putting in my PPID it says I'm not affected.
If that happened, Yahoo would be able to use the word "Google" in their advertising. Trademark laws are actually in place to protect consumers. Imagine if Yahoo were able to advertise and say things like "Come use our Google Search at yahoo.com!"
People know about Google and know they want Google, so if Yahoo were able to use "Google" in their advertising, people could end up being tricked into using something that isn't what they want.
What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it."
There's no need to speculate. That's exactly what they're claiming!
"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."
Yeah, but this case is slightly different because the threat isn't coming from Microsoft. They initially made the threat possible, the defect is exposed at around the same time as the threat emerging, Microsoft then offer to fix the defect that would allow the threat to affect you.
In my opinion, the contract should still be void, but I do feel that this is a different situation since the threat isn't coming directly from Microsoft.
There is one important difference between (most) legalese and so-called "real problems". Real problems affect everyone, whereas legalese often affects different people in different ways. People are divided and conquered. Most people don't even think of blaming lawmakers. Their immediate reaction is that whoever screwed them over with a legal agreement is the bastard.
When the same problem affects everyone, people are good at reacting. Unfortunately, people do not care enough about the problems of others, so everyone loses...
One big difference is that Free Software developers have a lot more freedom to speak their mind. Whilst one person might make the decisions, discussions can take place that would never be able to take place in a company where people have to be afraid of losing their job.
I think you're completely missing the point, here.
He's not disputing the fact that he needs to install the patches for security reasons. He's upset because this puts him in a situation where he has no other choice other than to agree to the new contract. This is an unfair situation. Microsoft should be providing the patches without any additional conditions.
You're ignoring the fact that the patch exists to fix flaws that are defects in the original product. The patch is released because the original was not as it was supposed to be.
You sound like a tin-foil hatted nutjob, to me! ... well, not really. You're exactly right. I'm probably a part of the generation that you're talking about. I'm not sure why we're like this. (I like to think that I'm not)
I think part of the problem is that we've already lost power. Anyone who gets too vocal or decides to stand up for themselves against government or a big company will be thrown in prison, labelled a terrorist, and none of their fellow citizens will stand by them.