What do you mean "third party apps"? The summary and TFA claim that this one is in the official Google Play store.

Good point. Mind you, that kinda makes anyone who installs it even dumber than I would have thought.

Easy: Don't. Fucking. Install. It.

This is yet another piece of software which the user needs to download, enable installation of third-party apps, and install. Or the user might've installed it from a dodgy app store (in which case their device is likely already a teeming mess of malware).

Either way, the user needs to do something we've spent the last umpteen years trying to indoctrinate people against.

Wake me up when someone starts injecting this stuff through advertisements in web pages.

This is not a free speech issue. You are allowed to say and write "redskin" anywhere you wish. You just can't trademark it.

Yes, you can. This decision explicitly doesn't revoke the team's right to use the trademark "Redskins". It removes it from the USPTO primary registry, but it doesn't revoke the trademark (in other words, what was an (R) is now a (TM)).

They can't. The plaintiffs were specifically chosen as people who had recently turned 18 and were still eligible to challenge.

They had a trademark on their brand. The feds decide they don't like the mark so they take it away. The owners end up being harmed economically all because the government didn't like the descriptive nature of the brand. They've effectively stifled the free speech of the owner by denying them the use of the mark.

Please read the decision. They have done no such thing, and haven't cancelled the trademark. They've removed it from the primary registry. The team still has full protected (TM) rights, and third parties won't be allowed to make knockoff jersey with the name on it or anything like that. It's just not a registered (R) trademark anymore.

From the decision:
This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks. See, e.g., In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662, 664 (CCPA 1979).

The trademark exists to protect their business interest in the brand name. The feds aren't canceling the mark because other business entities want to use it, they're canceling the mark because the feds don't like it.

This is wrong. The feds aren't canceling the trademark, period. They are canceling its presence on the USPTO primary registry (where it's not allowed to be under the Lanham act), but it'll still be a (TM) trademark with court protection (just not an (R) registered trademark).

From the decision itself:

This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks. See, e.g., In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662, 664 (CCPA 1979).

The government is not restricting speech at all. The summary is hopelessly dumb: the decision doesn't strip the team of their trademarks, it simply removes them from the USPTO registry as required by the Lanham act. They'll still be protected (TM) trademarks that nobody except the owner is allowed to use, they just aren't (R) registered (which has implications on venue and damages).

From the decision itself:

This decision concerns only the statutory right to registration under Section 2(a). We lack statutory authority to issue rulings concerning the right to use trademarks. See, e.g., In re Franklin Press, Inc., 597 F.2d 270, 201 USPQ 662, 664 (CCPA 1979).

Perhaps if your PC runs on an ARM processor, it would be simple.

ARM emulation under x86 is feasible. Google "libhoudini". Whether it's simple is another question, but the pieces are there.

What if Google also opened a subsidiary in a country that banned garb like that required by Saudi Arabian law? How do they follow both laws at once across their entire organization?

Generally speaking, if the corporation can demonstrate that it's not possible to implement the law of all countries it operates in, and within any one country it *does* follow the laws of that country, that's good enough.

The problem is, if you actually read this particular ruling, Google didn't actually demonstrate that. Their argument was, in a nutshell, "we're a global operation, the database is hosted outside your country, so your order doesn't apply to anything except .ca".

Where the database is hosted doesn't matter because it's pretty much a given that google.ca and google.com and google.* are essentially the same place. If google.ca can have a result blocked, that same flag can be applied globally. So that argument doesn't really pass the giggle test.

The fact that Google (or Twitter, or Facebook, or...) normally only blocks certain content in the country that ordered the block is a corporate policy decision, not a technical or legal limitation. Child porn, for example, is something they can and will block globally. But corporate policy is not the law in any particular country.

So, that leaves the "we're a global operation" argument. And the judges response to that argument was, pretty much, "Good. Then you can block it globally, too."

In other words, someone made an assumption that all you have to do to stop a court ruling at the border is to point out that there's a border. The judge didn't buy it. Better luck in appeals court.

In other words, in this judge's opinion, since Google works on a global scale, they should be subject to the laws of all nations at once.

I think it's more that Google has a physical and legal presence in Canada (and many other countries to some degree or another), and hence a Canadian court order can apply to their entire business. The consequence of not following that order is that there are Google people in Canada who can be jailed for not following that order.

Companies who are only physically present in one country but have a web presence wouldn't be affected by court orders outside of their own country since that leverage doesn't exist, and many (if not most) foreign courts would likely toss a case due to lack of jurisdiction. In countries where a multi-national might have a small and/or expendable presence (i.e. a local shell company staffed by contractors), they could get away with ignoring a local court order with minimal risk (i.e. they might lose their .xx TLD).

No doubt Google Canada is set up as a separate subsidiary corporation and they think that there should be some sort of legal firewall at the political boundaries, but the funny thing about multi-national corporations is that these firewalls are always quite permeable when it comes to money flowing in a particular direction. So, why can't court orders follow the money?

If you have a CPU-intensive thing, you can use shared memory and binary structs to share it, no need to turn everything into a string.

And that do you really want to put your information into a service that may well go away, rather than trying to work out some way to use it locally.

I can live with the risk; I don't keep data online that I don't have local copies of or would be bothered if it went away.

I'd estimate that at least 50% of the services I use daily now won't be around in another 5-10 years, and 90% of the devices I use now won't be usable in another 5 years. That's the nature of modern technology, and it's not specific to Google.

Is there any way to retrieve my Google Health data from Google?

For approximately a 6 month period prior to the deletion date, people could download their data in a whole whack of formats. See the original announcement. Say what you will about Google, but they are good about giving lead time and tools to extract your information prior to a service shutdown.

That being said, being able to download your information and being able to do anything with it is a whole other thing. In the case of Google Reader, at least the output format was a standard format (OPML), so migrating elsewhere was relatively trivial (and Feedly pretty much turned it into a one-click experience). I'm not sure any competitors bothered to handle the Google Health formats.