wsng
Joined 2 years ago
Joined 2 years ago
That is a pretty strong statement. And without even anecdotal evidence, it becomes very weak.
That is not true anymore. Nowadays factory operators are quite open to cloud-hosted products when it saves operating costs.
And me skribbling an illustration on a piece of paper doesn’t make me an artist the same way taking a selfie doesn’t make me an artist.
That shows that something being art and someone being an artist has nothing to do with the medium and the used tools.
You are right that the decision has the potential to confuse consumers. However, that is on Open AI, they should have consulted trademark lawyers earlier, and should have rebranded after shifting from open AI to commercial AI.
In contrast, open text is not descriptive in the sense of being a category of things. Therefore there is no risk that competitors would run into trademark issues by just describing their products.
Also, trademark decisions are always contextual to their time. Today’s meaning of ‘open’ in the context of software and data was not even coined in 1991, at that time people used ‘free software’ as term. Today I am not sure if ‘open text’ could still be trademarked.
I agree that governments should minimize collection of their citizen's data. I just don't see where it is supposed to happen in this case.
I will never understand these complaints. Not only do you want stuff for free, you also want to impose your preferred usage conditions on the creator. Where does this entitlement come from?
I would add Hetzner as an example that EU labor laws are no obstacle to being competitive with US companies.