Tech Scoop - Hot Technology Gossip

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars: But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars: But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As many of you probably know (especially if you live in the UK), you have to buy a license to have a TV (or even a TV tuner card for a computer). The license fees go to pay the BBC to operate. Apparently, the BBC has some secret "TV detector" vans that can sit outside your house and determine if you have an illegal TV (I only wish I were making this up). Someone filed a Freedom of Information request to find out how these supposed detector vans worked, but the request has been denied, and these magic detector vans shall remain a state secret. The BBC claimed that it could not reveal the details of the van "because if it did so it would damage the public's perception of the effectiveness of TV detector vans." I'm not sure, but I think that statement alone destroys the public's perception of the effectiveness of the TV detector vans. I'm guessing that the vans are totally empty but someone drives by your place at night and looks for the flickering glow.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As many of you probably know (especially if you live in the UK), you have to buy a license to have a TV (or even a TV tuner card for a computer). The license fees go to pay the BBC to operate. Apparently, the BBC has some secret "TV detector" vans that can sit outside your house and determine if you have an illegal TV (I only wish I were making this up). Someone filed a Freedom of Information request to find out how these supposed detector vans worked, but the request has been denied, and these magic detector vans shall remain a state secret. The BBC claimed that it could not reveal the details of the van "because if it did so it would damage the public's perception of the effectiveness of TV detector vans." I'm not sure, but I think that statement alone destroys the public's perception of the effectiveness of the TV detector vans. I'm guessing that the vans are totally empty but someone drives by your place at night and looks for the flickering glow.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A few years back, in settling a civil lawsuit against Microsoft for its monopolistic practices, Microsoft agreed to pay out $250 million to California schools, in the form of vouchers. Now, there are some who might point out that this sort of "settlement" makes good business sense, in that many will use the vouchers on PCs with Microsoft software, thereby getting a new generation of kids hooked on Microsoft products (it's worth pointing out that the vouchers can be used on non-Microsoft software as well). However, that's hardly the biggest issue, apparently. Instead, people are realizing that the vast majority of the $250 million is not being used by the schools. Some are pointing out that their budgets are being slashed, and since they have to pay for the equipment upfront and then request money back later, it's just too much trouble. Others are saying it just hasn't been a priority, even though they know the money is available.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It did seem a little odd that Universal Studios was trying to bully Redbox into an agreement that would kill off the DVD vending machine company. After all, having Redbox out there renting some movies (which it paid for) certainly seems better than it not even being an option. Initially, we just chalked it up to Universal trying to make sure it had more control over the rental market -- but a bunch of readers this morning are pointing out that there may be a much more direct reason. It turns out that Universal Studios is launching its own DVD kiosk system. Initially, it's in the UK, but it's likely there are plans to offer them in the US as well. So now the ridiculous "take it or leave it" bullying threat from Universal Studios to Redbox makes a lot more sense: it was designed to force a competitor out of business so Universal could have the market to itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reader Ido alerts us to the news coming out of Israel, that the Senate there has moved forward on a bill that would create a huge biometric database including data on all Israelis, and refusing to provide such data could land anyone a year in jail. As the article notes, there's a rather loud uproar about this, as many Israelis fear not only for their own privacy and civil liberties, but wonder just how such a database will be abused -- either by gov't officials or by hackers. It sounds like the bill still has a ways to go before becoming law, but this appears to be yet another move by a government to mistakenly assert that taking away people's privacy somehow makes them more secure.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It seems that every few years we have some sort of story of a major internet provider cutting off another major internet provider over a disagreement concerning peering arrangements. More often than not, one of the companies involved in such disputes is Cogent, who seems to get on a lot of other firms nerves by (they claim) using more than their fair share. It's happening again, as Sprint has cut off Cogent, meaning that plenty of broadband users are having trouble reaching certain websites.

Every time this happens, it reminds us all how fragile the internet is, not because of any bandwidth crunch, but because the overall network really only works thanks to the fact that all of the big internet providers agree to share traffic across their networks through "peering" arrangements, some of which are more informal than others. The problem is that these peering arrangements are supposed to be just that: about "peers" agreeing to share traffic for the betterment of everyone. But, when you have a company like Cogent, who focuses on being just a dumb pipe that sells as much bandwidth as possible at very low levels, then the other peers start to feel that it's unfair. Cogent ends up dumping a lot more traffic on them than they do on Cogent. In this case, Sprint is claiming that Cogent failed to meet the terms of a signed agreement for peering, and has since refused to pay to keep connecting to its network, hence the shut off. Cogent, for its part, is using this mess as something of a PR opportunity, offering free internet connections to Sprint customers during this Sprint outage and saying that all other major carriers have full connectivity to Cogent.

In the end, like all of the other disputes, this one will get worked out and the internet will continue to function -- but it still is worrisome that much of the internet really is reliant on these companies agreeing to continue to play nice with each other.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It seems that every few years we have some sort of story of a major internet provider cutting off another major internet provider over a disagreement concerning peering arrangements. More often than not, one of the companies involved in such disputes is Cogent, who seems to get on a lot of other firms nerves by (they claim) using more than their fair share. It's happening again, as Sprint has cut off Cogent, meaning that plenty of broadband users are having trouble reaching certain websites.

Every time this happens, it reminds us all how fragile the internet is, not because of any bandwidth crunch, but because the overall network really only works thanks to the fact that all of the big internet providers agree to share traffic across their networks through "peering" arrangements, some of which are more informal than others. The problem is that these peering arrangements are supposed to be just that: about "peers" agreeing to share traffic for the betterment of everyone. But, when you have a company like Cogent, who focuses on being just a dumb pipe that sells as much bandwidth as possible at very low levels, then the other peers start to feel that it's unfair. Cogent ends up dumping a lot more traffic on them than they do on Cogent. In this case, Sprint is claiming that Cogent failed to meet the terms of a signed agreement for peering, and has since refused to pay to keep connecting to its network, hence the shut off. Cogent, for its part, is using this mess as something of a PR opportunity, offering free internet connections to Sprint customers during this Sprint outage and saying that all other major carriers have full connectivity to Cogent.

In the end, like all of the other disputes, this one will get worked out and the internet will continue to function -- but it still is worrisome that much of the internet really is reliant on these companies agreeing to continue to play nice with each other.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this year, we pointed out that it was silly for companies to block Facebook at work, because it's merely a communications tool. It can be misused, but that would show up in the performance of the employee. Instead, embracing Facebook and recognizing that it's just a communications platform -- like the telephone or like email (both of which some companies wanted to ban when they first became popular), it can be a very valuable tool.

It's good to see a new study agreeing on that point and encouraging management execs to learn how to embrace social networking, rather than ban it completely:

They are part of the way in which people communicate which they find intuitive. Banning Facebook and the like goes against the grain of how people want to interact. Often people are friends with colleagues through these networks and it is how some develop their relationships.... Allowing workers to have more freedom and flexibility might seem counter-intuitive, but it appears to create businesses more capable of maintaining stability."

Now, of course, some people are going to show up here and start commenting about how much time they (or others they know) waste on Facebook during the workday. However, as we said, it's no secret that some people abuse access to those systems -- but the focus should be punishing for the abuse, not punishing everyone and throwing out the good with the bad. Others will (as they always do) say something along the lines of "if you're at work, you should be working -- using a social network should never ever be allowed." Again, similar things were said originally about the telephone and email, and those have turned out to be very productive tools. Letting people communicate in the way they find most efficient and effective is a huge part of making sure a business is functioning well -- even if it includes letting employees spend some time on Facebook.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story