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.
Thread beginning with comment 427277
To view parent comment, click here.
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

RE[4]: Open Webkit
by kaiwai on Mon 31st May 2010 05:46 in reply to "RE[3]: Open Webkit"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


And Mozilla did it with good reason; there were scumbags selling hacked up versions of Firefox using Firefox as the brand even though they had no affiliation at all with the Mozilla foundation. Mozilla foundation had to do something to protect its brand from getting screwed over - by trademarking it, it allowed them to take those people to court who used the Firefox without the permission of the Mozilla Foundation. Same situation I'd say with Webkit where they've probably already heard of people trying to make money out of Webkit by calling it Webkit and sell it to unsuspecting end users.

Reply Parent Score: 2