Jackdaniels

TennSeven

On The Verge since May 31, 2012

  • 0 posts
  • 230 comments

TennSeven

On The Verge since May 31, 2012

Most
recent
  • Comment

    It does on my PC ("NVidia" graphics setting). I am constantly amazed and how damn good that game looks, especially with the "god rays" effect when you see sunlight filtering through the leaves.

  • Comment

    It would be pretty crazy if GTA IV won GOTY since it was released in 2008. Really The Last Of Us shouldn’t even be eligible either since it was released on its original platform in 2013.

    1 recommend
  • Comment

    We have a saying in the IP legal industry that copyright term is "the age of Mickey Mouse plus 30 years," since Disney is always a major player in lobbying to get Copyright terms extended as the copyright on Mickey Mouse comes closer to expiring.

    The Baby Boomer generation truly is the first generation to deny itself access to its own culture (and, by default, each later generation will also have no access to its own culture, either).

  • Comment

    You don’t have to have consideration for the entire life of the contract, consideration is only important for the formation of the initial contract. If I contract with someone now to fix my house for a payment I am to make six months later I can’t then say, "oh, you already fixed my house, so now if I give you payment you have no further consideration to give me, therefore I can back out of the contract."

    Consideration in this case for the inventor was giving up his patent to Marvel in exchange for Marvel’s consideration of giving him indefinite payments on the money made from the invention. In contract law this agreement is perfectly valid as far as consideration goes.

  • Comment

    Your reading of the issue is entirely wrong.

    The contract in this case would not "indefinitely extend" the inventor’s patent rights at all. First off, the guy doesn’t even own the patent anymore, Marvel does, so he would not and has not had any IP rights over the property anyway. Furthermore, though Marvel would have to keep paying royalties to the inventor on sales, but the invention itself would now be public domain, so any other company could make the same product and not pay royalties.

    Marvel’s continuing responsibility for royalties would simply be the price Marvel agreed to for getting exclusive use of the invention before anyone else. Additionally, since Marvel bought the patent in this case, it also had the right to license it out to other entities during the lifetime of the patent (assuming this right was not limited by contract).

    Marvel agreed to pay a price for what it got, which was continuing royalties, and the original inventor agreed to give up his rights at the bargained-for price. Therefore, Marvel should have to pay the price that both parties agreed to.

  • Rec
  • Comment

    Nice find! Definitely getting a Cobrastan notebook.

  • Rec
  • Comment

    If you are going to enforce the so called "spirit of the law," then laws really mean nothing. I can twist the "spirit" of a law to mean anything I want it to, and thus a government would be able to prosecute anyone it wants to.

    It is not up to the public to figure out what the "spirit" of the law is, it is up to lawmakers to write clear, concise, and fair laws to further their goals (which should be in the public’s interest). If you have a law that was intended to do something and there is a "loophole" that gets around that, then you merely have a case where lawmakers did not properly perform their duty.

    It would be tyrannical to force those who are subjugated to the law to try to guess at what lawmakers really wanted to accomplish and then hold them to that standard instead.

    1 reply 2 recommends
  • Rec
  • Rec
  • Rec
  • Comment

    Again, no. First, the "sponsored ads" are ads paid for by other companies, not ads for Google services. Secondly, they are not part of the main body of search results. Ads and results are clearly demarcated on the page, so the user has an informed choice of clicking either on a result that is there because it was paid for, or a result that is there because it had the highest relevant. I know, "freedom of choice" is a tough concept to get, but really it means that there is no harm to the consumer at all.

    1 reply
  • Comment

    Uh no, it is not part of the issue at all. The EU’s complaint here is that Google could use its search engine to offer its own services as legitimate results above other companies’ services even if technically Google’s algorithm should have put the lower results first. Again, Google is not doing this. All ads are clearly marked as being ads and legitimate search results are clearly identifiable as being legitimate search results.

    As an aside, that article is completely ridiculous. There is no such thing as a "fold" on a website. Of course if you’re running 800×600 like in the article then any ad or banner at the top of the page is going to dominate your screen. However, that same screen shot on any real-world computer running real-world resolution is going to show a portion of the search results as well (on my computer using the same search I get two ads, the bordered box and the top four search results without scrolling down). Every discussion about SEO is talking about getting on the first page of a search engine’s results, not getting in the top 120 pixels of the page.

  • Comment

    And if Here was actually the best service and Google did not show it at the top of searches for maps applications then other searches, like Bing, would, and people would use that instead. You use a location search in your example, which I think is irrelevant. Of course I would expect a location search in Google to show the location in Google Maps, just like I would expect a location search in Here would show me the location in Here’s own maps or a location search in Bing to show me the location in Bing’s maps.

    And yeah, repeat the marketing thing all you want, but by the time Google was rated number one among search engines (in 1999-2000, and BEFORE its Yahoo deal), it didn’t have "billions of dollars" to spend on marketing, and it wasn’t being used in every (or I think any) major browser (which I think was pretty much IE and Firefox at the time, maybe Netscape as well?) Companies started making deals with Google because its product was the best. If it wasn’t the best (e.g., if Bing had existed back then and it was better), then those deals would have been made with the best product instead and Google would have gone the way of Excite, WebCrawler, AltaVista, and the other 12 or so search engines that had way more money and marketing than Google before Google started to eat their lunch.

    1 reply
  • Comment

    Maybe you should educate yourself first. The definition of a natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which a monopoly is most efficient. So a) the term "natural monopoly" has nothing to do with what we are talking about here; and b) a true natural monopoly actually does NOT have the same inefficiencies that any other monopoly has.

    And I never said that a monopoly is illegal in Europe, I just said that European countries take the stance that monopolies are inherently bad, whereas in the US we do not take that stance. Therefore, you see actions in Europe to curb monopolies even in the absence of abuse, whereas in the US the government cannot take action against a company unless it can prove actual abuse.

    Learn some reading comprehension and then get back to me about spouting "utter garbage".

    1 reply
  • Comment

    It’s amusing that you actually believe that. All of the major tech companies (all major companies in all industries) lobby for their own benefit, but few of them actually finance fake grassroots movements to persuade governments to go after their competitors for them. If all major tech companies did this then you would hear about it much more often, because it’s pretty hard to hide something like that (hence why everyone knows what Microsoft has been up to).

  • Comment

    iPhone has certainly come out first in unit market share many times since the iPhone was introduced. iOS (and thus Apple) also dominates every other mobile OS (and thus every other mobile company) in revenue market share since forever.

    And how is my question an absurd extrapolation? I simply commented that if a) Here is actually a better mapping service; or b) someone else can actually make a better search engine then either Here will rise to the top of Google’s search results as more and more people use it or the better search engine will gain more market share than Google, so there is no need to punish Google just because it’s the market leader.

    You counter that "it doesn’t work that way" (it actually does), because being better isn’t enough to unseat a market leader (it actually is). Therefore, I think it is an entirely valid inference that you would like to punish a market leader just for being a market leader. I, on the other hand, believe in a free market in which government may intervene only when a company is actually, actively doing something to hurt consumers. I guarantee that the moment Google’s search results become irrelevant because Google is pushing its own products is the moment the majority of the market will switch to a different search engine.

    All this ignoring that OP’s comment is completely absurd anyway, since contending that Here is the "best" service and therefore should be on the front page is completely subjective.

    1 reply
  • Comment

    No, they don’t. The travel booking results you are talking about (the ones competitors have complained about) are specifically at google.com/flight, a service to search specifically for Google flights.

    If you search in plain Google for "flights from new york to san francisco" for example, the top search result (for me) is from Kayak.com, one of the competitors that was complaining. There is an ad for Google’s travel services above the search results, but it is bordered off and clearly state that it is a sponsored ad. Google is clearly not favoring its own travel services over anyone else’s in the search engine.

    2 replies 1 recommend
  • Comment

    It’s not really, and it worked great for Google back in 2000 (also worked for Apple when it introduced the iPad and iPhone, for MS when it introduced Windows, and pretty much ever other company that is first in its industry).

    Even taking your statement as true (which it is not), are you proposing that we should just kill every market leader by putting it at an extreme disadvantage, because there might be a competitor that is better but cannot get its shit together enough to actually gain market share?

    1 reply
  • Comment

    Must have blinked and missed the "fantastic" part.

  • Rec
  • Comment

    Good read, thank you.

  • Rec
  • Comment

    You actually think the Yahoo deal had something to do with Google’s traction in the marketplace? First off, the deal was only for providing "secondary results," and since Yahoo eventually fell by the wayside one can only assume that these secondary results were much better than Yahoo’s primary results. Secondly, that deal happened in 2000, at which point Google was already polling as the top search engine in existence (source: http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/study/2066171/yahoo-partners-with-google).

    Google got other high-profile partnerships around the same time (AOL, etc.), but while you argue that Google was "in the right place at the right time," I think a more compelling argument would be that companies like Yahoo and AOL chose to partner with Google because it had the best search engine at the time, bar none.

    I for one remember just how much more relevant Google’s search results were when compared to the competition at the time. Google’s PageRank technology completely changed the search engine landscape forever (and for the better).

  • Rec
  • Rec
  • Rec
  • Rec
  • Comment

    Why would stopping Microsoft from building a working YouTube app for WP be anticompetitive (not to mention the fact that Google did NOT stop Microsoft from building an app)? Is Google required to support every OS out there? Why isn’t Microsoft then required to create MS Office for Linux, or Visual Studio for OSX?

Back to top ^
X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot username?

We'll email it to you.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Try another email?

Forgot username?

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.
Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_5345_tracker