Why Google Wanted Open Access

If Google's goal is to gain wireless spectrum to be able to provide a connection to people, open access rules are right up its alley.  Google has little interest in the business model of the old telcos.  But, if the licenses are auctioned with the same rules that the old telcos bought them under, they will be very expensive.  Their price will be so high because the old rules allow for the owners to gain oligopoly profits.  If Google had its way, the new licenses would ensure that companies received near competitive market profits - which are very low compared to oligopoly profits.

That means that the licenses would be a lot cheaper for Google to buy.  Think of it this way, if you're Google and you want spectrum, you want it as cheaply as you can get it.  By making it less attractive to others (eliminating the possibility of oligopoly profits), you make it so that others won't bid as much.  Google was trying to reduce the value of the license - reduce it for others in a way that they didn't want to use it.

So, it is still likely that Google will purchase the spectrum.  If they wanted it before, they still want it now.  They'll just be a bit peeved that they have to pay more than they would under the open access rules they wanted.  Remember, the winner of the license can make the spectrum as open as they want.

Linux and Voided Warranties

Linux.com recently ran an article about someone who saw their HP warranty voided by installing Linux on it. It's really crappy that she's getting nowhere with HP, but it's important (if even just to be able to use that information to put yourself in a better position) to understand HP's position.

The fact is that HP doesn't support Linux on their laptops. While most software can't cause hardware problems, an operating system can. As someone that has run Linux on an HP laptop before ACPI power-management supported it, you can do a lot of real damage (I melted part of my case).

Also, it was a Best Buy rep (i.e. a low-paid worker who don't completely know what he/she's talking about and is in no way associated with HP) who ensured her that it was perfect for Linux. It isn't like HP had a written policy of saying Linux was golden and then reversed it on her. Maybe I'm a little cynical, but today I get everything in writing. It isn't even that people are less trustworthy today. It's that our economy has changed. 50 years ago, if you bought something from the store, you'd be able to go back and find one of the same 5 workers from that store who are still working there. With Best Buy, workers turn-over FAST and there are just so many of them. Likewise, HP can't commit to something some random person promised you. You need to look for it in official writing.

Linux.com is quick to blame Microsoft's "tentacles" that are "chocking a free marketplace". I agree that they are, but this isn't an example of it (if you want to see it, read an OEM contract). HP has real reasons (if not that compelling to you) for not wanting to warranty a device with different operating systems. While Linux's power-management has gotten a lot better since when I melted the bottom of my case, there have been times that, while supported, I had to configure the power-management myself. If I didn't, it would have been damaging to my computer.

If there is any moral to this story, it's that everyone has reasons for doing things and that to dismiss those reasons isn't smart. While you might not come to the same conclusion as they do, realizing how they got to their conclusion makes you more powerful.

Oh, that and don't tell HP you put Linux on your laptop.

P.S. The same goes for things like hardware upgrades and the like. Always pretend that you're an average user when looking for warranty repairs. While it's unlikely that you fsck'd up your computer, it gives them a great excuse to write it off as a user caused fault.

Why Apple has a Defense Against Cisco

While Cisco did buy the registered trademark "iPhone", it might not actually be their trademark to use. Trademark law doesn't allow one to simply apply for all sorts of trademarks and then allow the owner to enforce them in arbitrary ways. Trademark law is actually very restrictive in what one must to to get and maintain a trademark.


Descriptive Marks. The trademark iPhone falls under the trademark category of descriptive marks. That means that the mark describes the underlying product in the way that "All Bran" or "Holiday Inn" describe what their products are. Being a descriptive mark, it only becomes valid after it acquires a secondary meaning. Apple could easily argue that the "iPhone" trademark acquired that secondary meaning for their product well before it referred to Cisco's VoIP solution (which now looks like an underhanded attempt at extorting money).

Abandonment. Under US Trademark law, trademarks can be lost through abandonment. Generally speaking, non-use of a trademark for three consecutive years is regarded as compelling evidence of abandonment of a trademark. This is a protection in our trademark system so that someone can't go through and, say, register iDesk, iLamp, iEverything and just see if it would be useful to Apple someday in the future. Since the iPhone trademark that Cisco has was acquired in 2000 and they have done nothing with it for 6 years, there is quite an argument for abandonment of trademark.

Likelyhood of Confusion. This is where Cisco needs to prove its case should a court determine that "iPhone" is a legitimate trademark despite its lack of secondary meaning and abandonment for the better part of a decade. Here a court will look at, among other things, the strength of their trademark. Even here, Cisco faces an uphill battle. Their use of the iPhone trademark is amazingly weak. If you asked 1,000 people, how many would know that Cisco made an iPhone? Further, Apple can argue that by not enforcing its trademark against sites like Digg, Reddit, and countless blogs, Cisco did abandon the trademark by allowing it to be associated with a different product. Apple's lawyers will likely request any and all letters of trademark infringement that Cisco sent in response to the thousands upon thousands of postings linking the iPhone with Apple. A trademark holder is required to defend their trademark against being associated with competing products and companies. Cisco has completely neglected this duty and has probably hoped that the iPhone's association with Apple would help bring them some money - something a trademark holder is not allowed to do. If Cisco cannot prove that they have defended their trademark from being associated with another product, the trademark ceases to be valid. For any Digg readers who may come upon this, I'm sure you remember the Digg Blog entry lamenting the fact they they had to enforce their trademark against others using the term "Digg" or loose the trademark.

Lucky for Apple, our trademark system has many protections built in to it to prevent trademark holders from making a quick buck. Cisco will have to prove that it has a valid trademark to begin with, that it didn't abandon it, and that it took steps to defend that trademark when countless postings online used it in conjunction with Apple. Even if Cisco is able to fight those battles and win, they still face one more challenge - the iSomething challenge. Apple can argue that the lowercase "i" followed by the capital letter of a product is a distinctive mark belonging to them and that iPhone plays off the popularity of iMac, iBook, iPod and that when something is labeled iSomething, consumers naturally associate it with Apple. Will Cisco be able to defend iPhone as a trademark? They haven't so far, but I guess time will tell.

EDIT: CNET's News.com uses these arguments.