My point is, why does the HDMI licencing mob care if the implementation is open or closed given that they will.get there royalty (or penalties from a court for companies that don't pay) for every port anyway?
That is the way with trademarks. X management has been very clear about stopping to use the name Twitter;
which means they won't use it anymore, therefore, they have no business continuing to claim a trademark.
That said the artists who drew the Twitter icon still get the copyright to their Logo and art assets, so another company shouldn't be able to just start using those. They will need to have to have their own art created.
If Elon really cared about the Twitter mark it would be, or would have been extremely easy; to keep a service Live using the mark.
Such as a Testbed website for X, for example, or an extra service to still be marketed under the Twitter name.. so called "Token use" wouldn't be sufficient, But you only need to have one actual service still using the branding to prevent it from being "abandoned". You can have a limited service with 100 customers, and still have the rights to your trademark. So If Elon/Twitter/X cares about this in the slightest; they should be able to easily block this proceeding. And you just need to resume use of it within 3 years to avoid it being abandoned under US law. So it's odd for them to petition the trademark office so early.. X can apply a new use of the mark within any schedule they want before that date. The attempt to usurp their IP would easily be blocked if X still cares in the slightest.
My understanding is that if you want to make a HDMI device you need to pay a license fee (covering patents and etc) and that the HDMI people can and will use you if you use HDMI without paying.
And if they control IP rights that allow them to force everyone to pay up, why would this stuff (which isn't even the full spec, just the bits bring done in the driver rather than the firmware or hardware) bring open cause a problem?
Forget the kids, they don't vote so they can be safely trod upon.
I care about the kids, and I don't think this is treading on them, I think it's pushing them to have IRL relationships, and that's a good thing. I say that as a nerd who had few friends when I was a teen (in the 80s), but even normal, social kids today have far fewer real friendships and many of the geeky kids like I was now have none at all.
We're a social species, we need and crave socialization, but social media is to real relationships like drugs are to the normal joys of life; a false but massively-amped substitute for the real thing, addictive and harmful. It's perfectly possible to get high or drunk from time to time and still enjoy real life, but you have to use the artificial happiness in moderation and control. There are really good reasons why we try to keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, and keep adults away from the really powerful and addictive stuff, and get them into treatment when they get hooked (well, in the US we mostly just put them in prison, but some parts of the world are getting smarter and focusing on treatment).
The same logic applies to social media. We need to figure out how to tame its effects on adults, especially those who are for some reason especially vulnerable and get very warped by it. IMO, it makes perfect sense to just try to keep kids off of it entirely, especially since we don't really understand it yet.
Drinking age is a whole other cattle of fish, and it gas more to do with colture + tradition than anything so let's not start down that rathole
True. If we were to make the decision based on medical and scientific bases, the drinking age would be 25.
Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell