431–440 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trademarks require intent to mislead Is this a legal requirement?
I meant trademark violations . My bad. I edited the post and added the missing word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“We must” is nonsense on the part of Kik. That’s part of the corporate b/s where people make it seem like things are “out of our hands.” If he was releasing a messenger app called KikAss, then sure, they “must” enforce the Kik trademark. But if I release a brand of shoes called Kik, with an api that allows users to poll how many steps a user has taken that day, that’s not a trademark violation. Trademark violations r…
> Trademark violations require intent to mislead No, they don't, only probability of customer confusion. Criminal counterfeiting charges require intent, IIRC.
> or they could be unintentionally confusing [to the customer]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCP most certainly does have support engineers available! https://cloud.google.com/support There's a variety of different tiers to suit your required level of support, and some products (e.g. G Suite) come with free in-built support. (I work as part of Google Cloud support organisation).
Hi, I currently use Azure which has strict lines between organisation tenancies/domains/accounts and personal ones. This means I know that my liability is limited to my business. Can you assure me that if I move to GCP, have a VM get infected and you ban my GCP account, my personal account will never get banned too? Or that of my next employer? Because I keep reading about that happening...
So for example - say I have a personal Gmail account (e.g. cute-boy-88@gmail.com)
But if I was working for a company that had spun up GCP infrastructure - my work would likely provide me with a work email address (e.g. trevor.jacobs@bankofengland.co.uk) - which I would use, rather than cute-boy-88@gmail.com.
This also covers the use-case that for example, you leave the company (in which case the company still controls those accounts), or an employee goes rogue and tries to takeover their work account.
In general, you would try to keep your work/personal accounts separate - you're not going to put your personal account as the recovery email for your work account for example. Your system administrator (or IT team at work) is going to be the one who resets your password, or recovers your account - and they're not going to send private work passwords to a personal email account (or they shouldn't).
Hopefully the above helps.
I get it, Google loves to automate stuff to save money. Makes sense, I agree. But I'm seriously wondering if all the people in charge of automating such processes are those delusional ego-programmers who think they can solve anything with machine learning, aka "AI". Really, I cannot understand that there aren't basic safeguards in place like "hey this extension got repeatedly flagged and when a human finally reviewed…
The other explanation is that they don't really want users to have most browser extensions. The browser extensions either become features that google wants to embed in the browser, or things they don't want, for business reasons. In either case it is better if the extension dies after a year or so. BTW, this doesn't have to be a conscious choice of anyone at Google, it could just be the way the incentives turn out.
Exactly. This is basically a replay of the way Microsoft treated developers of third-party Windows programs in the 1990s. Only the time scale was different; you typically had at least a few years before MS either integrated your killer feature into Windows, or changed something about the Windows internals that broke your program, either way killing your business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absence of an appeals process for online forums and stores is one of the great threats to public life today.
Most societies actually have something to solve such disputes: courts of law . The real tragedy is that we decided to let corporations grow so big that they can say "fuck you" to courts and people alike with no repercussions. Twitter is famous for this, ever tried to appeal a ban?
This isn't about companies being too big, it's about an absence of rule making. If there were some rules defining the rights, then the courts could, indeed, be involved; but courts can't be brought into something just because it is "wrong". People agree to the ToS when they submit an app to the store; and the ToS more or less say, it's Gapplsoft's platform and they may do what they like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy made a very valid point: We must pursue our trademarks or risk losing them. We must. So can we make this amicable instead of hostile? The maintainer could have requested things like "Okay can I make some blog posts and you help me with some SEO to make sure people are aware of the changes to my project name?" etc. Sounds like Kik was willing to be reasonable and help where they could. Clearly they could have…
“We must” is nonsense on the part of Kik. That’s part of the corporate b/s where people make it seem like things are “out of our hands.” If he was releasing a messenger app called KikAss, then sure, they “must” enforce the Kik trademark. But if I release a brand of shoes called Kik, with an api that allows users to poll how many steps a user has taken that day, that’s not a trademark violation. Trademark violations r…
How do you know unintentional confusion did not occur?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would have loved that though! I mean Steam was made as a panicked reaction when Microsoft announced its Windows store. People in the industry knew very well what they were trying to do.
Steam predates any windows app store stuff by almost a decade, it wasn't a "panicked reaction" to anything.
I may recall it badly but I am pretty sure they opened it to general companies and indie studios as a reaction to Windows 8 built-in app store: