And Yahoo Trudges On



  • After being in business for 20 years and still having no idea what their 'business' actually is, Yahoo will now get into original TV series, concert streaming and a digital magazine.

    The two comedy shows will launch on Yahoo Screen,
    the company's video portal, delivering 30-minute episodes that can be
    viewed either on the desktop or in the Yahoo Screen mobile app.

    Also on Monday, Yahoo announced a partnership with Live Nation, the
    country's largest concert promoter, to stream one concert live on Yahoo
    every day for a year. The cereal brand Kellogg is the first to announce
    it will sponsor the Live Nation channel.

    Yet another digital magazine, this one about travel, is also on the way, Yahoo said Monday.


     



  • So.. umm, do you... umm.. yahoo?

    Never did understand those commercials. Tried to make their company name a verb? Most places try to avoid that as trademarks can be lost that way, examples: hoover, xerox, and others.
    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law, they no longer have the word xerox as a trademark now they have their logo, Google fought against this for a long time also, trying to get people to not use google to be synonymous with search, not sure if they maintained it or not.



  • @KattMan said:

    Google fought against this for a long time also
    Yeah, I remember reading an Adobe about that once.



  • @KattMan said:

    So.. umm, do you... umm.. yahoo?

    It's pretty clear that the company has always been run by a bunch of yahoos.



  • And I will pay exactly as much attention to this as I have to anything else Yahoo has done in the last 10-15 years.



  •  I think the last specific positive thing I heard anyone say about anything Yahoo had to offer that wasn't part of the Yahoo Developer Network was back when ICQ was still one of the main instant messaging networks I heard about (I say that more to identify timeframe than anything else). I knew people who really liked Yahoo's one account/multiple profiles offering for instant messaging, as compared to ICQ and AIM and such where you were pretty much just you. Of course, I also knew people who thought that sounded like a horrible idea.

     

    No, wait...I also read a positive review of the ease and breadth of customization of the My Yahoo page, oh, about seven versions of it ago.

     

    The Yahoo Developer Network and its offerings have, in my experience, had an odd tendency to generate either positive buzz (possibly brief) or no buzz at all.



  • @KattMan said:

    So.. umm, do you... umm.. yahoo?

    Never did understand those commercials. Tried to make their company name a verb?

    In this case, the verb would seem mean "Using Yahoo!" not "doing a web search". They'd only really be at risk if people started using the word to mean something generic, like doing a web search. "Do you Yahoo!?" is probably safe.

    @KattMan said:

    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law

    [citation needed] Where has Xerox had its trademark invalidated? Not in the US.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @KattMan said:
    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law

    [citation needed] Where has Xerox had its trademark invalidated? Not in the US.


    It's not lost but it is used as an example of the threat of being genericised as the language made it a verb for copying so the company needs to be careful not to do so and has paid money to argue the point (as that is part of what caused problems with escalator).



  • I was with this right until I heard that they were tilting each video by 9 degrees, just to add a bit of whimsy.



  • I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @KattMan said:
    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law

    [citation needed] Where has Xerox had its trademark invalidated? Not in the US.


    It's not lost but it is used as an example of the threat of being genericised as the language made it a verb for copying so the company needs to be careful not to do so and has paid money to argue the point (as that is part of what caused problems with escalator).

    Sure, it's an example of a company that successfully fought and kept their trademark from being genericized. KattMann said they don't have the trademark, which is a lie.



  • @Cary Grant said:

    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..
    Is that like a printout or something?



  • I think xeroxing things lost out to wooden tabling things



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cary Grant said:
    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..

    Yeah, but that's because they instituted that anti-conterfeiting technology. Otherwise, there's not a lot of need for photocopying as the night manager of a Dunkin Donuts.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Cary Grant said:
    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..

    Yeah, but that's because they instituted that anti-conterfeiting technology. Otherwise, there's not a lot of need for photocopying as the night manager of a Dunkin Donuts.

    Well, not since SnapChat gave me a way to share images of my gentials without an incriminating paper trail.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Cary Grant said:
    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..

    Yeah, but that's because they instituted that anti-conterfeiting technology. Otherwise, there's not a lot of need for photocopying as the night manager of a Dunkin Donuts.

    Well, not since SnapChat gave me a way to share images of my gentials without an incriminating paper trail.


    It's not Xerox's fault you made so many photocopies of your junk that papers kept falling off the stack all the way to your underage paramour's parents' house.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Cary Grant said:
    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    I think they can have their name back.

    I don't think I've made a photocopy in over 10 years..

    Yeah, but that's because they instituted that anti-conterfeiting technology. Otherwise, there's not a lot of need for photocopying as the night manager of a Dunkin Donuts.

    Well, not since SnapChat gave me a way to share images of my gentials without an incriminating paper trail.

    You don't use Instagram for that any more? That's a shame; the sepia filter really did a good job covering up the jaundice.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    It's not Xerox's fault you made so many photocopies of your junk that papers kept falling off the stack all the way to your underage paramour's parents' house.

    Yeah, but it is their fault they print those fucking dots all over the paper which let the Feds track you down..



  • This thread is now about embarrassing photos of Marissa Mayer.









  • @morbiuswilters said:

    This thread is now about embarrassing photos of



  • @Ben L. said:

    [quote user="morbiuswilters"]This thread is now about embarrassing photos of
    [/quote]

    Man, I look like shit.



  • @KattMan said:

    So.. umm, do you... umm.. yahoo?

    Never did understand those commercials. Tried to make their company name a verb? Most places try to avoid that as trademarks can be lost that way, examples: hoover, xerox, and others.
    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law, they no longer have the word xerox as a trademark now they have their logo, Google fought against this for a long time also, trying to get people to not use google to be synonymous with search, not sure if they maintained it or not.

    What exactly is the problem of people using your company name as a verb? To me it sounds like free publicity.



  • @Zecc said:

    What exactly is the problem of people using your company name as a verb? To me it sounds like free publicity.
    You lose the trademark, which results in anybody (including competitors) being able to use your ex-trademark.



  • @ender said:

    @Zecc said:
    What exactly is the problem of people using your company name as a verb? To me it sounds like free publicity.
    You lose the trademark, which results in anybody (including competitors) being able to use your ex-trademark.
    " Bing is the best way to google the internet! "

    " Meet the new Ubuntu iPhone "

    Ok, I guess I can see it...

     



  • @Cary Grant said:

    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    What is a photocopier?



  • @Zecc said:

    " Bing is the best way to google the internet! "

    " Meet the new Ubuntu iPhone "

    Ok, I guess I can see it...

     

    Gonna open up GIMP so I can photoshop this face onto something else.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Cary Grant said:
    I haven't heard a photocopy being referred to as a xerox in over 10 years.

    What is a photocopier?

    Featured article please.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @KattMan said:
    So.. umm, do you... umm.. yahoo?

    Never did understand those commercials. Tried to make their company name a verb?

    In this case, the verb would seem mean "Using Yahoo!" not "doing a web search". They'd only really be at risk if people started using the word to mean something generic, like doing a web search. "Do you Yahoo!?" is probably safe.

    @KattMan said:

    And no, if you say Xerox still has that trademark, you really don't understand trademark law

    [citation needed] Where has Xerox had its trademark invalidated? Not in the US.


    Ok, my mistake there, Xerox is actually in the same boat as Google, in danger but so far successfully preventing the loss. For some reason memory had me mixing xerox with others that have been lost.
    Even if they had, a trademark is not just a name, it could be the symbol, the mark in whatever form that they do business under. Like McDonalds letter M, the M is not the trademark, but the way it is formed and the color used is, McDonald's also has more than one identifiable trademark, they actually can't use the name McDonald's as the trademark as it is a name of many people, but the way it is displayed is part of the trademark, hence the recent allowance of Taco Bell using many Ronald McDonald's in their commercial.
    Another example of things other than a word as trademark is UPS, one trade mark is their logo, the UPS shield, another is the particular color brown they use.



  • Here's an interesting trademark issue that exposes some of those issues with colour trademarks:

    This one does have a happy ending (read the first post before jumping to the 'update' mentioned in the edit at the top of the article.)



  • @KattMan said:

    they actually can't use the name McDonald's as the trademark as it is a name of many people, but the way it is displayed is part of the trademark,
    This is utterly false. "McDonald's" is a registered trademark of the corporation. Companies can trademark not just the logo -- the specific font and coloring of the name, but also the business name itself. It's called a "standard character claim." In the case of McDonald's, they have trademarks both on the name itself and the logo. Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @bstorer said:

    @KattMan said:
    they actually can't use the name McDonald's as the trademark as it is a name of many people, but the way it is displayed is part of the trademark,
    This is utterly false. "McDonald's" is a registered trademark of the corporation. Companies can trademark not just the logo -- the specific font and coloring of the name, but also the business name itself. It's called a "standard character claim." In the case of McDonald's, they have trademarks both on the name itself and the logo. Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.

    Also, in the commercial they display legal fine print explicitly noting that Ronald McDonald has no affiliation with McDonald's Corporation.



  • @bstorer said:

    Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.

    What law allows them to sell dog food watered-down with laxatives as food?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:
    Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.

    What law allows them to sell dog food watered-down with laxatives as food?


    If I had to guess, US food safety rules in general (amplified by lack of enforcement on the ones that do exist).



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    What law allows them to sell dog food watered-down with laxatives as food?
     

    The freedom law.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @bstorer said:
    Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.

    What law allows them to sell dog food watered-down with laxatives as food?


    If I had to guess, US food safety rules in general (amplified by lack of enforcement on the ones that do exist).

    Nonsense, the US has really stringent food safety rules. Unfortunately, they codify the selling of Taco Bell.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @locallunatic said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @bstorer said:
    Also, none of this has anything to do with why Taco Bell can use people named Ronald McDonald, which is an entirely separate issue.

    What law allows them to sell dog food watered-down with laxatives as food?


    If I had to guess, US food safety rules in general (amplified by lack of enforcement on the ones that do exist).

    Nonsense, the US has really stringent food safety rules. Unfortunately, they codify the selling of Taco Bell.

    Just make sure you cut up your kid's taco before he eats it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Nonsense, the US has really stringent food safety rules.

    Depends on what you are evaluating them against. Compared to other places? Yes, but compared to what they probably should be? No way.



  • @locallunatic said:

    Yes, but compared to what they probably should be? No way.

    Hwaht? I'd say the US food industry is waaay over-regulated. Of course it still lets bad food through, but that's because we live in a retarded country where you're not allowed to irradiate most food to kill pathogens. So you have an army of bureaucrats that can't accomplish the same safety as proper use of technology.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Hwaht? I'd say the US food industry is waaay over-regulated. Of course it still lets bad food through, but that's because we live in a retarded country where you're not allowed to irradiate most food to kill pathogens. So you have an army of bureaucrats that can't accomplish the same safety as proper use of technology.

    At least none of our hamburger was horse.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Hwaht? I'd say the US food industry is waaay over-regulated. Of course it still lets bad food through, but that's because we live in a retarded country where you're not allowed to irradiate most food to kill pathogens. So you have an army of bureaucrats that can't accomplish the same safety as proper use of technology.

    At least none of our hamburger was horse.


    Nope, it's kangaroo.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    At least none of our hamburger was horse.
    Horse is nice, provided it's (a) food-grade horse, and (b) labelled as horse. It's when someone unscrupulous trying to chisel a few cents decides to take condemned horsemeat and sell it as cheap beef, that's what people really object to.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @locallunatic said:
    Yes, but compared to what they probably should be? No way.

    Hwaht? I'd say the US food industry is waaay over-regulated. Of course it still lets bad food through, but that's because we live in a retarded country where you're not allowed to irradiate most food to kill pathogens. So you have an army of bureaucrats that can't accomplish the same safety as proper use of technology.

    Should be doesn't mean more bureaucrats (though your assumption is understandable based on how many in the US view that phrase). I should have been more clear about what I meant by that, sorry.

    I don't know if I agree with your claim of over-regulation in practice though as hundreds of pages of regulation is the same as one if enforcement isn't there (and based on when I worked in restaurants and the stories I heard from an aunt who was a health inspector it isn't).



  • @locallunatic said:

    I don't know if I agree with your claim of over-regulation in practice though as hundreds of pages of regulation is the same as one if enforcement isn't there (and based on when I worked in restaurants and the stories I heard from an aunt who was a health inspector it isn't).

    I get that people freak out about stuff. How much of a health problem is it really, though? Our local Patch guys post the results of local food inspections, and a lot of them seem really awful, but they're often at places that are pretty crowded, and I'm not aware of any serious food poisoning problems.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Hwaht? I'd say the US food industry is waaay over-regulated. Of course it still lets bad food through, but that's because we live in a retarded country where you're not allowed to irradiate most food to kill pathogens. So you have an army of bureaucrats that can't accomplish the same safety as proper use of technology.

    At least none of our hamburger was horse.


    Nope, it's kangaroo.

    Wow, 1981. Look, most of Europe still didn't have indoor plumbing back then, so I think our food standards were pretty high at the time, too.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    I get that people freak out about stuff. How much of a health problem is it really, though? Our local Patch guys post the results of local food inspections, and a lot of them seem really awful, but they're often at places that are pretty crowded, and I'm not aware of any serious food poisoning problems.
    Thankfully they're rare, but they do happen and happen more often than you'd want. The really bad ones make the international news.

    Health inspection of businesses preparing and serving food is an important government function because far too much experience throughout history shows what happens otherwise. Alas.



  • @locallunatic said:

    I don't know if I agree with your claim of over-regulation in practice though as hundreds of pages of regulation is the same as one if enforcement isn't there (and based on when I worked in restaurants and the stories I heard from an aunt who was a health inspector it isn't).

    That's very different, though. You probably know this, but restaurants, bakeries, butcher shops, delis, etc.. are overseen by state or local health departments. So the quality of enforcement is all over the map on that one. Some cities/counties have excellent health departments, some have awful ones.

    Where I live the health department sucks. The things that I know they let people get away with is gross enough. I guard against this, though, by carefully choosing where to eat. For example, I'm not going to buy a burrito from the store run by shoeless (no, really) hippies that has no running water (no, really.) I comprehend that hippies + no running water = people peeing into 5 gallon buckets and not washing their hands after.

    I was referring more to the food supply, which would be Federal regulation. At the Federal level, the food regulation is really stringent. That said, I think it's vastly over-bureaucratic and we could cut the health regs in half and implement far-reaching food irradiation and we'd have an even safer food supply. But there exists in the United States a political organization whose sole purpose is to expand the bureaucracy at all costs--even if it makes things worse--and to vigorously fight any kind of sensible solution like food irradiation because it's hard to get kickbacks from a piece of machinery.



  • @dkf said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I get that people freak out about stuff. How much of a health problem is it really, though? Our local Patch guys post the results of local food inspections, and a lot of them seem really awful, but they're often at places that are pretty crowded, and I'm not aware of any serious food poisoning problems.
    Thankfully they're rare, but they do happen and happen more often than you'd want. The really bad ones make the international news.

    Health inspection of businesses preparing and serving food is an important government function because far too much experience throughout history shows what happens otherwise. Alas.

    No, that's not the same thing at all. Do you people not understand the difference between food supply and local health departments? Fuck.

    And as I've pointed out repeatedly, massive bureaucracy did not prevent those outbreaks. However, most of them would have been prevented (or blunted) by irradiating food.



  • @morbiuswilters said:


    I was referring more to the food supply, which would be Federal regulation. At the Federal level, the food regulation is really stringent. That said, I think it's vastly over-bureaucratic and we could cut the health regs in half and implement far-reaching food irradiation and we'd have an even safer food supply. But there exists in the United States a political organization whose sole purpose is to expand the bureaucracy at all costs--even if it makes things worse--and to vigorously fight any kind of sensible solution like food irradiation because it's hard to get kickbacks from a piece of machinery.



    And that's bullshit.

    Look, there are plenty of examples of overregulation in this country. The food safety regulations are not one of them. It's not like it's particularly difficult to sell food or as if anyone really tries to stop you from doing anything beyond "don't sell food that's spoilt" and "please try to label things." The only people who run afoul of food safety regulations in this country are hippies trying to kill their customers with non-pasteurized milk.



  • @Snooder said:

    And that's bullshit.

    Look, there are plenty of examples of overregulation in this country. The food safety regulations are not one of them. It's not like it's particularly difficult to sell food or as if anyone really tries to stop you from doing anything beyond "don't sell food that's spoilt" and "please try to label things."

    I read this as "I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but my fingers need some exercise so I'm going to bang on the keyboard some. Please ignore my inane ramblings as I am completely ignorant on the subject matter."

    @Snooder said:

    The only people who run afoul of food safety regulations in this country are hippies trying to kill their customers with non-pasteurized milk.

    Yeah, God forbid people be able to choose to drink non-pasteurized milk. I mean, my God, dozens of people might get tummy aches! Better send in the USDA swat team to murder some more American civilians for the dire crime of "not pasteurizing milk".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.