Summary: Google does the right thing when it comes to codecs; it already converts vast amounts of video and it is going to defend free codecs from software patents, which in turn would possibly eradicate Flash and Silver Lie (if all goes according to plan)
YESTERDAY we alluded to the exciting news from Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and presented the FFII's response, which was mostly enthusiastic.
Google’s VP8 is not perfect (no codec can be perfect), but it works decently and it shall be Free software to be supported by the major Web browsers, apparently even Microsoft’s (“Don’t forget that Microsoft basically does not have an option,” Oiaohm remarks about the news). Here is the “first in-depth technical analysis of VP8″ (it is the author’s claim that it’s the first). In conclusion it says:
VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It’s not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved.
VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft’s VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot, but not via conventional means.
VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg’s H.264. This probably can’t be improved that much.
Patents are the issue many Web sites are discussing right now. These are of course software patents, mostly mathematical (compression, matrices, etc.) and Google might be addressing the issue by buying Global IP Solutions and eying the VoIP market (watch out, Skype).
“This is great news,” said Christopher “Monty” Montgomery, founder of the Xiph.org Foundation, when I reached him by phone right after the announcement. Montgomery is spearheading the development of Ogg Theora and is a Theora developer himself, but he called VP8 going open source “absolutely wonderful” and sounded honestly stoked about the initiative. Montgomery did mention that Google didn’t make too much of an effort to reach out to open source developers ahead of the official announcement. He was notified of the development, but many others weren’t. “We have to see how it’s going to play out in the open source community,” he told me, adding that it will be a while until VP8 will really have an impact.
However, Gay is skeptical that Google’s plans to open-source its VP8 video codec will be able to fundamentally change this situation, cautioning that it may be impossible to build open-source codecs that don’t infringe on someone’s patents.
Here we go. The “P” word again. Microsoft, Nokia, and Apple love bringing that one up, as we mentioned in:
Flash’s co-creator (or Adobe) is worried about VP8 because it complements HTML5 and may ultimately send Flash back to the dark ages. Silver Lie too is already suffering. TechCrunch‘s new headline states that “Netflix Is The Latest To Talk The HTML5 Talk”
As we all know, the battle between Flash and HTML5 for the future of online video is raging. But what about that other plugin some sites use for video? You know, the one made by Microsoft — Silverlight? A new posting tonight may call that platform’s future in video into question as well. Because arguably their most important client is looking to jump on the HTML5 video bandwagon: Netflix.
That’s excellent news. Will they use Ogg Theora? VP8? Hopefully not H.264, which would potentially put a form of tax on GNU/Linux [1, 2].
Google’s Tim Bray wrote about video publishing just days before Google’s anticipated announcement (people already knew that it was coming) and the press characterises Google’s move as a “gift” [1, 2] (even if it’s a self-serving one).
It is probably safe to say that the winners here are Google and the public, whereas the losers are companies like Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft. It’s a sad day for software patents maximalists and a wonderful day for the rest.
Google’s new codec could become the lingua franca of video on the web. From there it could influence all manner of gadgets connected to the web and render the polyglot of codecs antiquated. I would not be surprised if it became popular on CDs as well. What conserves bandwidth on the web can also save space on hard drives and CDs.
Electronistasays that “WebM’s royalty-free HTML5 video raises patent issues” and Florian Müller argues that “The risk concerning WebM isn’t a matter of Google’s own patents. What about third-party patents?”
Red Hat’s Wildeboer responds to this pessimism by saying: “we should adopt webM and adopt it everywhere. Don’t be afraid of patent threats.”
“Google backs open codec against patent trolls,” heraldsThe Register.
Google is “very confident” that the newly open-sourced VP8 video codec will stand up to the sort of patent attack Steve Jobs warned of when he defended Apple’s decision to shun VP8′s predecessor, the open-source Ogg Theora.
[...]
In a private email, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs even went so far as to say that unnamed forces were putting together a patent pool to “go after” Ogg Theora. Today, when The Reg asked if VP8 was vulnerable to patent attack, Google product manager Mike Jazayeri indicated this isn’t a big concern for the company.
“We have done a pretty through analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that’s why we’re open sourcing,” he said.
But wait. It gets better. A week or two ago, ARM complained that Flash was standing in the way of delivering sub-notebooks with GNU/Linux to the market. Watch this new report from the EE Times:
Chip makers back Google’s open source codec
A handful of mobile chip makers–including ARM, MIPS, Nvidia and Texas Instruments–said they will support Google’s move to establish V8, a video codec it acquired with On2 Technologies in August.
Google announced at its annual Google I/O event in San Francisco it will make the V8 codec available as open source code with a royalty free license as part of a new WebM project. Google said it will pair V8 with the Vorbis open source audio codec and support the two in its Chrome browser and YouTube service. Browser makers Mozilla and Opera also said they will support the codecs.
This would obviously help Google sell tablets, sub-notebooks, and other form factors with ARM/MIPS chips and Android/Chrome OS on them. So again, Google is acting to advance its own interests, but GNU and Linux may benefit as well.
As we pointed out in the latest news summary, Mozilla has reasons to be happy and to be sad about Google. On the one hand, Google threatens Firefox in more ways than it helps Firefox (competition), but on the other hand, Google is a vital source of income to Mozilla and it now removes a patents barrier that recently led to this Firefox fork which we wrote about in [1, 2]. If many parties commit to VP8, then Mozilla will no longer need to worry about codecs. Neither will GNU/Linux distributors. █
“If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough–you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. In other words, you need to be “pragmatic.””
Summary: Initial announcement, interpretation, and comments about the good news from Google
WITH Microsoft and Apple opposing Theora, while Google insinuated that it would support Free software, the following announcement from Google was inevitable and expected. VP8 is being liberated and regardless of the consequences (for Theora, for example), it is good news which is welcomed by opposers of software patents. Techrights too would like to thank Google (more detailed coverage coming soon).
Florian Müller has just mailed us some quick comments regarding Google’s WebM codec initiative and patents. He writes:
As the founder of the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign and author of the FOSS Patents blog http://fosspatents.blogspot.com (covering open source patent topics), I have some quick comment for you concerning Google’s unveiling of the WebM “open web media project” http://www.webmproject.org, which was announced today:
“Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there’s no assurance that Google’s patents are the only patents required. What about patents that third parties could assert? While it appears to be a nice gesture if a major player releases software on open source terms, it’s imperative to perform a well-documented patent clearance.”
“Developers should be provided with detailed explanations why Google believes that no one adopting WebM will have to fear allegations of patent infringement. Otherwise those developers might be exposed to a considerable risk. It wouldn’t be possible to check on millions of different patents but at the very least I think Google should look at the patents held by the MPEG LA pool as well as patents held by some well-known ‘trolls’ and explain why those aren’t infringed. Programmers have a right to get that information so they can make an informed decision for themselves whether to take that risk or not.
“It’s not unreasonable to ask Google to perform a well-documented patent clearance because they certainly have the resources in place while most open source developers don’t.”
“The situation surrounding Android shows that Google might opt to stand on the sidelines if those adopting its open source technologies — such as HTC — are sued by patent holders. I can’t find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology, so Google should at least help everyone to assess the risk.”
“We all know Steve Jobs’ recent email in which he said a patent pool was being assembled to go after open source codecs. So the patent question is really a critical one.”
I have previously called for this kind of patent clearance, in connection with the open source Theora codec as well as with VP8, on my blog, such as in this post:
About an hour ago, the FFII also released the following statement. █
FFII welcomes Google’s move to open VP8 video format
Berlin, May 19th 2010 — Today Google announced it would make the VP8 codec open source and royalty-free as part of their WebM project. The codec is on par with other video codecs for high video quality and can be used in the emerging HTML5 web standard for playing video content natively in a web browser. HTML5, the VP8 video codec and Vorbis audio codec are open standards and thus require no royalty-bearing patents license.
“The web is based on open standards, a patent-unencumbered world, allowing developers to create applications without patent toll gates”, explains FFII board member Stephan Uhlmann. “We are happy to see Google use its market force to keep the web open.”
“In the Web openness always prevails.” –André RebentischThe Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) had called on the company behind the video site Youtube to support a patent free video codec for the upcoming HTML5 technology. The video codec VP8 was acquired by Google together with On2 technologies.
HTML5 will be the next generation of the world wide web, but the standard has been delayed by a clash over streaming video patent licensing conditions. In a controversial move Microsoft and Apple indicated they would support the H.264 video codec only, which is encumbered by more than 1000 patents.
“Support for the VP8 video codec by their popular web browsers Internet Explorer and Safari is only a matter of time”, says FFII board member André Rebentisch. “In the Web openness always prevails”.
FFII Office Berlin
Malmöer Str. 6
D-10439 Berlin
Fon: +49-30-41722597
Fax Service: +49-721-509663769
Email: office (at) ffii.org http://www.ffii.org/
About FFII
The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 1000 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.
What does Google do? Google’s support of software patents is not acceptable and the company takes a similar approach to IBM's when it comes to them. Google just makes promises and concessions about its software patents, which might not be as effective as just working to abolish software patents for good (not that Google would necessarily want that).
Mobileblab is reporting that something very interesting has been found regarding Google’s Smart TV project while searching the Google Patent data base. What exactly could be so interesting? Well, according to the database, the new Smart TV will be Android powered, and come with a special Android app store with its own TV applications. This patent application was filled by Google and Sony for a “network media player with user-generated playback control.” That name sounds a little similar to their latest Android powered TV that should be announced soon.
What is Google thinking? Why spend so much effort assigning patents to the company at the expense of engineers’ time?
A New Social Workflow Patent from Apple Highlights Facebook
[...]
The target device may receive the user selection and transmit data 266 corresponding to the selection to the initiator device 10A. For example, the Facebook script may include instructions directing the target device to transmit the confirmation or rejection to the initiator device as the confirmation data. The initiator device may then receive the confirmation data and display the screen 232 indicating that the friend has been successfully added and that the workflow is complete. Although the specific screens displayed on the devices 10A and 10B may vary, the interaction between the initiator device and the target device may occur in a similar manner for each action within a workflow.
It is widely believed that Apple’s target is Google’s Linux-based Android which is making inroads into Apple’s smart phone territory. But Google might be too big for Apple to fight with. HTC, one of the core partners of Google, seemed to be an easy target for Apple.
Apple’s disparaging (at times terrorising) remarks about Theora are a promotion of H.264 and just look at the consequences. A few days ago we wrote about Wild Fox and explained why Apple was harming Mozilla Firefox (Apple has the proprietary Safari), which has essentially just been forked [1, 2, 3, 4]. OStatic writes:
Most of us users of Mozilla’s Firefox browser are used to getting new versions of Firefox from Mozilla, but, like many open source projects, Firefox has already been forked into other versions. Now, as OSnews reports, a new fork of the browser is taking shape. Dubbed Wild Fox, one of the more interesting new aspect of it is that it supports the H.264 coded for video. However, the way the new fork treats patents could cause trouble.
Had Apple (and Google or even Microsoft) actually helped promote Theora, none of this would be necessary. But being the software patents proponents that they are, they seem resistant to free/libre codecs. Google has made some commitments, but it still offers nothing but H.264 (or other patent-encumbered codecs) in its huge number of videos.
Situation in Europe
Formally, software patents are not legal in Europe but in practice they seem to be. In order to resolve this bizarre situation once and for all, the EPO consulted the EBoA, whose decision finally came some days ago [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], pretty much to say that they could make no decision.
Isn’t that grand? They only increase this state of vagueness and the EPO has opposers of software patents hanging on and relying on nothing substantial. It’s like a delaying tactic and the head of the EPO meanwhile escapes her position on a higher note.
The spin machine of the European Patent Office in Munich in full motion. Its Enlarged Board of Appeal declared the referred questions of EPO-President Alison Brimelow inadmissible. A court would stop here but the EBoA is no Court but just an administrative appeals chamber and not bound by judicial standards, so they also discuss the substance.
“Over time, more and more companies would have to join the DPL, but the big patent holders would continue to just pay a lot of money to trolls rather than joining such a defensive alliance.” –Florian MüllerFlorian Müller, one of the leaders of the move to abolish an EU software patents directive in 2005, elaborates on his previous/latest post. He has more to say about “the Defensive Patent License and the ‘Fair Troll’ business model” and on the basis described in his previous post, he now argues: “I do believe the Defensive Patent License, due to be published soon, could become amazingly effective. The basic idea would be for the software developer community (especially but not only the open source community) to feed “fair” patent trolls — who would have to commit to the terms of the DPL or else the community wouldn’t support them — with patentable ideas and those would then go after companies who don’t want to support the DPL. Over time, more and more companies would have to join the DPL, but the big patent holders would continue to just pay a lot of money to trolls rather than joining such a defensive alliance. It would be a way for the open source community to beat the supporters of software patents at their own game. So there’s money to be made while contributing to the good cause of making more and more companies join the DPL alliance and reduce the threat patents pose to the members of the alliance.”
Florian has told us that he is now working with some of the parties involved to ensure that DPL won’t harm some of the innocent players, including some of those which FOSSBazaar mentioned earlier this week:
In one recent deal we were left with the thorny problem of Indemnity and who pays for it. Typically, if you are using proprietary code you are buying a pig in a poke (buying something in a black sack that the vendor says will do the job). The case of indemnity arises if a patent troll claims ownership and then sues the user for a multi-million dollar sum.
Does anyone still think that patents have anything to offer to small businesses? Patent trolls don’t qualify as “small businesses” because they have no products and they don’t do business; they do lawsuits and they engage in intimidation (for settlements), just like Microsoft. Rui Seabra has just passed on Glyn Moody’s words on the Salesforce case and wrote about Microsoft: “new business model: Patent troll?” █
A California judge Friday ordered the unsealing of the search warrant affidavit that led to a police raid on the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, who paid $5,000 for a prototype 4G iPhone.
It turns out that Apple had direct involvement in police action and threats from the top, going as high as Steve Jobs. Regarding this article, Pamela Jones wrote in Groklaw: “The affidavit clarifies some things I’ve wondered about. First, that Jobs tried to solve the matter quietly and directly first. And two, that the affidavit includes at least two sentences that seem, to me, to indicate they were at least looking into the possibility that the journalist also may have done something they considered wrong also: ‘Upon receiving the stolen property, Chen disassembled the iPhone, thereby causing it to be damaged. Chen created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video, which were subsequently published on the Internet based magazine Gizmodo.com’”
Apple CEO Steve Jobs intervened in the Case of the Purloined iPhone, personally contacting Gizmodo editor Brian Lam to ask for the return of the missing iPhone 4G prototype.
That tidbit – told by Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell to Detective Matthew Broad of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office – was revealed today by the unsealing of the search warrant behind the search of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen’s home. A copy of the full set of search warrant documents can be found here (thanks, Wired).
Apple pressed local police to investigate the loss of a next-generation iPhone a day after Gizmodo published photographs, telling investigators that the prototype was so valuable, a price could not be placed on it, according to court documents made public Friday.
Apple will share a few pennies with people who enrich its environment
Summary: 80% of developers who target Apple’s platform (hypePhone App Store) are said to feel betrayed; thus, the value of software freedom is hopefully realised
“Apple rejects Wi-Fi sync app,” says this new article which reminds us that the “i” in Apple’s hype-labeled devices means “I” as in Apple’s (or Steve Jobs’). It’s all just extremely Apple-centric and only the gullible will run to Apple (and later feel betrayed).
Evans Data is one source which we consider to be quite reliable based on past output. According to some new work from Evans, as many as 4 out of 5 people who partnered with Apple as developers actually feel betrayed (it depends on how questions are phrased)
Eighty per cent of North American developers believe that the iPhone App Store’s revenue split is unfair, according to a new study from research outfit Evans Data.
How do people who manufacture hypePhones feel? Well, it would be harder for Evans Data to ask them because they live in a prison/factory where access is restricted and many of them commit suicide out of misery. Here is another new example:
Another suicide at Apple’s Chinese supplier
[...]
The Associated Press reports that the 24 year-old woman’s death brings the total of suicidal Foxconn workers to eight for the year. Bloomberg puts the total at six. The Taipei Times notes that two other Foxconn employees tried to take their own lives this year, but failed.
To be fair, it’s not just an Apple supplier. Microsoft too has something to do with it. Either way, people who work for Microsoft and Apple are often left betrayed and exploited. Those who work for Free software enjoy radical freedom and true control, which makes it harder for them to be disempowered and feel depressed. The manufacturing dilemma is partly resolved through reuse (no planned obsolescence). █
Mossberg loves dancing with the stars and he was on the Charlie Rose show praising Jobs’ questionable creation (photo by Joi)
Summary: How Apple interacts with the media and with the world in order to ensure it gets positive reviews
Apple relies on a certain dosage of fake hype. It’s like those AstroTurfers of Microsoft whose job is similar to audience managers (or ‘plants’ or extras) in comedy-filming studios where they stimulate laughs among the crowd. We wrote about that around yesterday or the day before that (depends on time zones) and HypePad too was a good example of hype generation through selective gifting.
And, more recently, there were some concerns over the NY Times’ lack of disclosure concerning its relationship with Apple when reporting on the iPad.
Here is the older corresponding post from TechDirt.
Dan Gillmor shares these concerns, but notes an even more concrete conflict of interest — Apple’s advertising of the iPad consistently features a screenshot of the New York Times app, including of course the Times’ logo. Although Apple no doubt hopes to show that its device can be used to read the Times, surely attractive content to many of its target consumers, the image is also terrific advertising for the New York Times. Gillmor indicates that he has no doubt that Times’ reviewers truly believe the contents of their swooning coverage of the iPad, but argues that the benefit that the Times is receiving is a conflict of interest that ought to be overtly acknowledged and discussed by Times management. Yet, he reports, nobody from the Times has been willing to respond to his questions about the issue, such as whether the Times has received any compensation for the display of its logo on the iPad as shown in the ads. Gillmor raised these concerns a week ago, and the Times has yet to address publicly the possible conflict.
Now, watch this new post from Joe Wilcox, the Microsoft watcher who some years ago said “I’m a huge fan of guerrilla marketing.”
He argues that “Microsoft pays for enthusiasts Apple gets for free,” but it’s not entirely true that Apple gets all enthusiasts for free. Some of them are paid and Apple too has this job title called “evangelist” (which is akin to being an AstroTurfer).
On the one hand, I commend Microsoft for using company blogs as marketing tools and for doing some aggressive evangelism around Windows 7 products. Microsoft critics are quick to wave the monopoly flag — arguing that Windows sales are automatic. Oh yeah? Then explain the Windows Vista fiasco in terms of monopoly might. The majority of Windows XP users stayed put. Now their PCs creak at the bones and it’s time for some fresh Windows 7 blood. Given the large number of Windows XP users who should be easy Windows 7 upgrades — at least according to the monopoly might theory — Microsoft should be able to sit back and collect the license fees. Instead, Microsoft is marketing the hell out of Windows 7, which is evidence enough that monopoly has more limited benefits than critics admit.
[...]
But that was decades ago. Today, Microsoft engages enthusiasts from its Websites and by using social networking and sharing tools. The approach is good, but larger Microsoft brand and product problems hamper the work. Enthusiasts are any company’s best evangelists. Microsoft’s number has dwindled over the years, while Apple’s numbers increased — at least as measured by the volume hype. Noise about Apple is so much louder than for Microsoft.
In summary, hype is coming from agents of Microsoft and Apple too. In some cases, Apple receives reviews from people whom it pays in one way or another. Apple is nowhere near as bad as Microsoft, but it does require vigilance. A lot of Apple hype is fake or exaggerated. █
Summary: As Apple’s fight against Linux continues, new lawsuits against Apple arrive, new patents are granted, and Theora is affected too (Mozilla employees who uses Macs ought to rethink their choice of relationships)
IN THE mobile industry, everyone is suing everyone else these days (Fennec is potentially affected). As we mentioned the other day, Wired highlights this serious issue because there are no winners here except the lawyers. It makes no sense. Apple is among the aggressors, not the defenders. Nokia is the same and its case against Apple we have already covered in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
There are some articles out there which describe HTC’s counter action against Apple as offensive. The Inquirer‘s headline says “HTC sues Apple again” (not again, that’s for sure). HTC is not the aggressor, but a lot of the mainstream press — MSBBC included — paints it that way. In the following video, the people in the studio get it wrong, but the lady whom they speak to corrects them.
Please someone explain how casio linux Qt-based pdas 12 years ago with touch screens did not infringe patents but todays Qt-based Nokias and Andriod Nexus does?
* Patent #6,999,800 – Method for power management of a smartphone
* Patent #5,541,988 – Telephone dialer with a personalized page organization of telephone directory memory
* Patent #6,058,183 (PDF) – Telephone dialer with a personalized page organization of telephone directory memory
* Patent #6,320,957 – Telephone dialer with easy access memory
* Patent #7,716,505 (PDF) – Power control methods for a portable electronic device
Apple has filed a patent to enable info and apps to be automagically loaded onto your iPhone/Pod/Pad based on your location – but exactly how it would affect location-based ads remains fuzzy.
The patent application, “Location Specific Content”, was published by the US Patent and Trademark office this Thursday, after originally being filed in November of 2008.
As the web format battle between HTML5 and Adobe’s Flash heats up, the creators of an ad-building tool called Virtual Iris say they can deliver the rich media experience of Flash in HTML.
Much of the interest in HTML5, which is the latest update of the basic format of the web, has been fueled by Apple, which doesn’t support Flash on the iPhone and the iPad (leading to back-and-forth insults between Apple and Flash-maker Adobe). Apple has also announced an ad-building service called iAd, which will feature HTML5 video. Not wanting to be left off by Apple’s devices, startups like Scribd have abandoned Flash for HTML5, and ad-building startup Sprout, which was initially all about Flash, now supports both formats.
Apple uses these offensively and it also fights against Theora — a move that in turn harms GNU/Linux and Mozilla for reasons that we mentioned in:
“The Firefox project has opted to exclude certain features due to software patents,” posts the FFII’s president who points to this new article.
Wild Fox: Firefox Fork with H.264 Support
[...]
Mozilla, sticking to its ideals of the open web, decided long ago that support for the patent-encumbered H264 codec would not be included in any of its products. Not only is H264 wholly incompatible with the open web and Free software, it is also incredibly expensive. Mozilla could use one of the open source implementations, but those are not licensed, and the MPEG-LA has been quite clear in that it will sue those who encode or decode H264 content without a license. Software patents, however, are only valid in some parts of the world, so an enterprising developer has started a project that was sure to come eventually: Firefox builds with H264 support.
Wild Fox may be valuable (and legal) outside the US and Japan, but its main problem is that it would encourage webmasters not to choose and to spread Ogg Theora. Mozilla would have to pay about $5 million per year for MPEG-LA licences (mostly covering places where software patents are not legal) rather than use the same amount of money to pay 50-100 more programmers.
The quality of this video is considerably high. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Theora.
As a bonus point for Apple, the Theora FUDMeister and saboteur, here is another lawsuit that might teach them a lesson if not anger them:
Bear and Monkey smack Apple with patent suit
[...]
Apple has been slapped with another patent infringement lawsuit – but the suit says more about the festering sore that is the US patent system than it does about the individual patents involved.
The lawsuit was filed by Austin, Texas inventor Eric Gould Bear, President and CEO of interface design firm MonkeyMedia. The core of his infringement claim is that his patents cover a user-interface concept that he calls “Seamless Contraction” – essentially a set of techniques to narrow the display of information to that which is most “salient,” to use his term, to the user’s needs.
Might Apple ever join the fight against software patents? It’s extremely unlikely. Apple actively uses those patents to harm competition, notably Linux/Android at the moment. █
Summary: WePad mysteriously renamed “WeTab” and reasonable speculation grows that Apple had something to do with it
AS PEOPLE MAY recall, Apple’s hypePad was a case of trademark violation that Apple eventually sorted out. While we cannot confirm that Apple has pressured the Linux-powered WePad to change its name (WePad is about us the customers, whereas hypePad is about “I”, Apple that is, due to restrictions abundance), it seems like a defensible guess.
“Jobs also tried to extort Sun over a project it made available to GNU/Linux.”For quite some time Apple has been bullying companies over the use of the “i”. Another example in Australia appeared last year, so despite Apple firing warning shots, some companies still try it and Apple hunts them down. iHate Apple? Sue me, Apple. iInsist.
Anyway, if it can be proven that WePad changed its name to WeTab only after Apple had contacted the company and made veiled threats, then Apple is going way too far. In Wikipedia, “wePad” already redirects to “WeTab”. Who owns “Pad” now? Could Apple have had a role in the following:
Then I found this. They’ve changed the name from WePad to WeTab. Speculation is that they are pre-emptively avoiding entanglements with a certain company that seems a bit more eager to sue competition.
In a statement, the German company said the name change was to “clearly differentiate our products within the international market for tablet computers.” A WeTab representative declined to comment on whether Apple influenced the name change.
Did they recieve a phone call from Steve Jobs? It’s not ideal to rename a product AFTER presenting it to the public, but I think they know for sure why they renamed it…
In a later part of this series we will show that Steve Jobs does make threatening phone calls. Jobs also tried to extort Sun over a project it made available to GNU/Linux. What an aggressive guy. For someone who was rescued by an organ donation, he sure could use some morals and ethics because he is suing Linux for no good reason. But anyway, that’s the subject of the next part. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA