Linked by Kroc Camen on Sat 29th May 2010 20:41 UTC
Apple I've been meaning to write this for some time, and for all the time I delayed the more poignant the point I wanted to make started to become as new news came out further solidifying my angle. When I begun writing this article the iPad had not yet been revealed, iPhone OS 4 was not on the map and Apple had not yet purchased Lala. You've probably just noticed that all of these events in fact point toward Apple embracing the web more and in this article I will point out why this is not the case because I believe Apple's agenda here is similar to something we've already seen in recent history.
Permalink for comment 427277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Open Webkit
by lemur2 on Mon 31st May 2010 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Webkit"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"I don't know whether this relates to your comment, and you're probably already aware, but, FWIW, AAPL has already filed for a patent on webkit: http://pulse2.com/2010/05/23/apple-files-patent-for-webkit/
Whomever runs that site is an idiot. If s/he spent 5 minutes fact checking s/he would realize that Apple applied for a trademark, not a patent. "

Now that makes more sense. A lot more sense.

All that a trademark means that if someone forks webkit, for whatever reason, and produces a slightly different version from Apple's version, then the forked version cannot also be called webkit.

For other examples: this is the same as the situation where Swiftfox and Iceweasel cannot be called Firefox, and MariaDB cannot be called MySQL.

There is nothing at all wrong with this. Apple are perfectly entitled to identify which version is their product, and which is not.

Edited 2010-05-31 03:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2