Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 24th May 2010 10:45 UTC
Legal Nero AG, a company with one of the most fitting names ever (can you imagine a company called Hitler or Stalin 2000 years from now?), has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the MPEG-LA. The German technology company claims the licensing body has abused its monopoly power, and that is has not honoured agreements made with the US Department of Justice. There's some juicy stuff in here.
Thread beginning with comment 426382
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not a company, but...
by manjabes on Tue 25th May 2010 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a company, but..."
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

Offtopic rant:
Why the stigma? For Western Europe and the United States, Stalin was "good old uncle Joe", who helped us win the war against them goddamn nazis, until, sadly he became the adversary afterwards. Moreso, if you were a communist in that part of the world. Therefore, the name carries only a historical value, just the same as, say, Nero.
Not for us pesky Eastern Europeans for whom the name has a bit...more delicate sense, to say the least.
Now, if somebody in France or US would name their pet project "Hitler", that'd raise some eyebrows...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Not a company, but...
by Neolander on Tue 25th May 2010 07:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Not a company, but..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Not for us pesky Eastern Europeans for whom the name has a bit...more delicate sense, to say the least.
Now, if somebody in France or US would name their pet project "Hitler", that'd raise some eyebrows...

Errr... I'm sure that this as already been done. Be it only for the sake of making a Godwin point

(After all, NVidia copyrighted Fermi's name without anyone raising an eyebrow, so everything is possible in the world of naming)

Edited 2010-05-25 07:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not a company, but...
by Kalessin on Tue 25th May 2010 16:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Not a company, but..."
Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

He might have been thought of fairly well during WWII, but after he essentially became the enemy post-WWII and it became clear to the general public just how nasty he was (I'm not sure how well it was known to the other Allied government officials), he was definitely not thought of positively in the US. I've heard it said many times that Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. And I think that most historical accounts that you'd run into these days talking about allying with Russia in WWII will say that the US didn't expect to be on good terms with Russia post-WWII and that they allied with them pretty much out of necessity.

I don't think that Stalin is viewed anywhere near as negatively as Hitler at this point, but he's definitely viewed as a tyrant and quite negatively in the US - enough so that I wouldn't expect anyone to use the name for anything.

Nero, on the other hand, is so far back in history, that your average American is lucky to even realize that he was an Emperor of Rome or associate him with it burning. The more educated will likely know, but he's pretty much purely historical at this point. Stalin, on the other hand, is too recent and was too nasty for him to be viewed purely historical yet - though I imagine that it will happen to him far sooner than Hitler.

Reply Parent Score: 2