Why wouldn't Apple make sure they can get a clear trademark before they choose a name? Because any conflict is just more free publicity. Even if they end up having to change the name... more publicity.
Dan J. is correct, there's a huge difference to a wireless infrastructure between multicasting a single stream vs. forwarding many streams on a one-to-one basis.
Buy our almost-a-netbook! It would be a netbook, if the bozos who hold the trademark on the term "netbook" wouldn't sue us for using the term netbook to refer to our small notebook computer that's optimized for the 'net. But even though the netbook trademark owners aren't actually selling anything called a netbook anymore, they threaten to sue anyone else who refers to a mini-notebook computer as a netbook, despite the fact that the term netbook is now a generic term. So, legally we can't call our product a netbook. We would call it a netbook if we could call it a netbook, but we can't call it a netbook, even if everyone else, such as yourself, calls it a netbook.
When Ebay Canada clicks to fetch the data to use that data as part of their business processes, the data is on Canadian computers and subject to Canadian laws. The fact that it is stored on in RAM while on Canadian computers and the long term (hard-drive) storage is farmed out to servers outside the country is misleading. Canada has a right to the data that is used by Canadian computers for Canadian businesses. Where that data is stored long term is irrelevant.
Basically, it's admitting that Microsoft hasn't been able to compete with Google in terms of overall user experience and now has to resort to paying users instead.
Not necessarily. I haven't used a Microsoft search engine in years. If they've made searching at least as good as Google, then bribing me might get me to try them again. If it's as good as Google, but no better, I might as well use Microsoft. If it's better than Google, I'll switch to Microsoft. I don't expect anyone other than hackers to make a lot of money off of it, but it's something to grab a headline and get some bloggers to write about it...
Advertising is expensive. Since you usually don't have to pay punitive damages for suing someone as long as you have a remotely justifiable legal premise, suing someone is cheap. The more absurd your suit, the more attention it gets. Hence, you can build your name recognition at a much lower cost by getting a trademark and suing for the most tenuous supposed infringements. Much less expensive than advertising, and it supports the poor legal industry, which suffers from already-too-many-lawyers-and-increasing-every-day syndrome.
Argue for anonymous Internet access all you want, but it is not a first amendment issue unless Congress is setting the rules of computer use for that library.
(Repeat) First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Not everyone wants an iPhone. For instance, I wouldn't use one if they were free. I prefer my trusty Treo 650, where I can load applications I write myself. So, there are multiple cell phone markets, and Apple made a big splash because they tapped a particular market that had not been well served before.
Other cell phone companies can continue to improve existing models and serve the market segments they've been serving all along. If they want, they could try to create new models to compete with Apple in the market they've brought to light, but it would be a mistake to switch completely to an iPhone-like product line and abandon the markets that don't appreciate the iPhone design.
Instead of being sensitive to the "wireless" spectrum of electomagnetic radiation, perhaps these people are sensitve to neutrinos. That's why the fail the double-blind studies, because trillions of neutrinos pass through the Earth and their bodies every second of every day. If that's the case, we can simply pass a new law to make the Sun stop emitting those nasty neutrinos.
On the post: Don't Put The Words 'Rugby' 'World' And 'Cup' Together In New Zealand, Or You Might Get Fined
Ybgur!
On the post: Others Claim To Hold The Trademark On iPad. Is There An App For That?
It's all good...
On the post: Barry Diller Is A Myth
No Myths...
On the post: If AT&T Mobile Broadband Banned TV Streaming, Why Does It Allow MLB Streaming?
Re: Re:
On the post: Amazon Kindle DRM Strikes Again: You Don't Really Own Your eBooks
No publisher DRM choices at AmazonDTP
On the post: Mark Helprin Stole From Techdirt Commenters (Using The Logic Of Mark Helprin)
Mark who?
On the post: Psion Gets Google To Ban 'Netbook' In Ads
Here's my ad...
On the post: eBay Has To Turn Over Info On Canadian PowerSellers
Re: Juisdiction
On the post: Time For A Moron In A Hurry To Explain The Difference Between Microprocessors And A Trip To China
Intel's lawyers
On the post: US Gov't: Do Not Carry Your Social Security Number; US Gov't: You Must Carry Your Social Security Number
How to avoid SSN on checks to IRS
Don't send them any checks.
On the post: We Can't Quote The AP... But Can Embed Its Videos?
Who said their policies were supposed to be consistent or make sense?
On the post: Desperation Sets In: Bill Gates Finally Launching His Plan To Bribe Users
Mindshare
Not necessarily. I haven't used a Microsoft search engine in years. If they've made searching at least as good as Google, then bribing me might get me to try them again. If it's as good as Google, but no better, I might as well use Microsoft. If it's better than Google, I'll switch to Microsoft. I don't expect anyone other than hackers to make a lot of money off of it, but it's something to grab a headline and get some bloggers to write about it...
On the post: Can We Send A Moron In A Hurry With A Mini Golf Club Over To Monster Cable?
Perfectly rational
On the post: Cablevision Caught Blatantly Lying To Customers About Digital TV Switch
Perp-walk
On the post: What Could A Google Exec Do If He Ran A Major Record Label?
Speaking of markups...
On the post: Is It Unconstitutional To Restrict Time On A Library Computer?
Re: [Charming Charlie]
Argue for anonymous Internet access all you want, but it is not a first amendment issue unless Congress is setting the rules of computer use for that library.
(Repeat) First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
On the post: IBM Banned From Federal Contracts; No One Saying Why
The other side of the coin...
On the post: What's Wrong With A Little Exaggerating The Size Of The Mobile Porn Market?
Mobile Porn?
On the post: Competitors Response To The iPhone? Can We Talk About Something Else Please!
No iPhone - Not wanted
Not everyone wants an iPhone. For instance, I wouldn't use one if they were free. I prefer my trusty Treo 650, where I can load applications I write myself. So, there are multiple cell phone markets, and Apple made a big splash because they tapped a particular market that had not been well served before.
Other cell phone companies can continue to improve existing models and serve the market segments they've been serving all along. If they want, they could try to create new models to compete with Apple in the market they've brought to light, but it would be a mistake to switch completely to an iPhone-like product line and abandon the markets that don't appreciate the iPhone design.
On the post: Cell Towers Making People Sick Is All In The Mind
Wrong suspect?
Next >>