Skip navigation.

A Blog From Behind the Trenches

Attack of the Bugs

Posts tagged with "mozilla"

Is Apple's WebKit a patent minefield?

, , , ...

The news that the HTML5 specification will not specify a video codec is bad news for the open Web. What makes things worse is that a common, royalty-free codec was actually agreed on by all involved browser vendors, except one.

Apple.

Read more...

Google Joins Europe Case Against Microsoft

, , , ...

According to the New York Times:

Accusing Microsoft of unfairly sidelining competitors, Google said on Tuesday that it would apply to join a European Union antitrust case against Microsoft over the company’s Web browser.

A couple of weeks ago, Mozilla joined as well.

Mozilla joins Opera's antitrust complaint against Microsoft

, , ,

A few days ago, Mozilla's Mitchell Baker announced that Mozilla supports the EU antitrust investigation of Microsoft which is based on a complaint from Opera. The reason why couldn't be clearer.

Read more...

Mozilla Japan: Firefox 3 is two times faster than Opera 9.5?

, ,

Mozilla Japan is apparently claiming that Firefox 3 is two times faster than Opera 9.5. Does that mean that I can claim that Opera is an infinitely smaller download than Firefox and get away with it?

Ars Technica: Mozilla, the bad guys, fighting Microsoft, the good guys?

, , ,

Ars Technica has published a story on an argument over the work on the new version of ECMAScript, which Microsoft opposes. Reading the story, you almost get the impression that Microsoft is the good guy, fighting a lone battle against a group of evil adversaries (including the well known convicted monopolists Mozilla and Opera) that refuse to take criticism about the new language to heart, and who shout down anyone who dares to speak up against ES4. Indeed, poor Microsoft is being attacked by Mozilla, and "the accusations fly", according to the site.

The reality is that Microsoft is doing what it does best: Spreading FUD.

Most people probably won't follow the link to Brendan Eich's (of Mozilla) open letter to Chris Wilson (of Microsoft), so they won't see the picture he paints of the situation, which is one where several companies and organizations have gotten together to improve ECMAScript through an open process where anyone is free to voice their concerns. The problem, apparently, is that Microsoft refuses to voice specific technical concerns, and rather resorts to undermining the process, stalling and using PR campaigns to gather support against it.

Why would Microsoft do this?

They have an agenda, of course, and they are stuck in their old ways. Eich explains:

Indeed Microsoft does not desire serious change to ES3, and we heard this inside TG1 in April. The words were (from my notes) more like this: "Microsoft does not think the web needs to change much". Except, of course, via Silverlight and WPF, which if not matched by evolution of the open web standards, will spread far and wide on the Web, as Flash already has. And that change to the Web is apparently just fine and dandy according to Microsoft.


First, Microsoft does not think the Web needs to change much, but then they give us Silverlight and WPF? An amazing contradiction if I ever saw one.

It is obvious that Microsoft wants to lock the Web to their proprietary technologies again. They want Silverlight, not some new open standard which further threatens their locked-in position. They will use dirty tricks - lies and deception - to convince people that they are in the right.

But make no mistake about it, Mozilla (Eich) is fighting the good fight here. And even though Opera wasn't mentioned at all in the article (huh?), we are deeply involved as well, fighting alongside Mozilla for a continued open Web.

This article by Ars Technica is extremely poor reporting, and giving the false impression that Microsoft is somehow being victimized and shouted down when trying to raise legitimate concerns.

The truth is that they have been given ample opportunity to raise specific concerns in an open process which other browser vendors are invoved in to improve the Web. The open Web. The Web Microsoft wants to kill.

Microsoft is still Microsoft. Never forget that.

Mozilla Corp. protects trademark, logo; OSS community backlash

, , , ...

Part of the OSS (Open Source Software) community is now angrily lashing out at its darling, Mozilla (also covered on digg).

Why?

The Mozilla Corporation wants Ubuntu and Debian to use the Firefox name and logo correctly, and to run custom patches by Mozilla Corp. before including them in their distributions. Naturally, this makes the process of updating the program harder, and it will be a lot more time consuming to include custom patches for these distributions.

Ubuntu and Debian's position is certainly understandable since it creates more work for them, but some of the criticizm against Mozilla regarding this matter seems to be a bit rash.

If I am not mistaken, a trademark is lost if one does not protect it. This means that anyone can create "Firefox" and distribute it as such. The logo itself is covered by copyright which cannot be lost anyway, but the value of having only one official version of a program to relate to is not to be underestimated. (Please correct me if I'm getting anything wrong here.)

Think of a scenario where everyone can create a product like yours and put your name and logo of it. Theirs is a cheap ripoff which gives your trademark and logo a bad reputation. Does that sound nice to you?

Mozilla Corp. is protecting its trademarks and logos because it benefits them (users use their products rather than products pretending to be theirs), and it benefits the users (users know that what they are using is an official Mozilla Corporation product, so they know who is responsible for it).

Now, I am not saying that Ubuntu or Debian would give Mozilla a bad name - not at all. The scenario I mention above is purely hypothetical, but I still believe that this is closer to the reason why Mozilla Corp. is doing this than the various conspiracy theories about how Mozilla Corp. is turning into Microsoft and similar remarks from around the Web...

In the end, Mozilla Corp., Ubuntu and Debian may come to an agreement on how to handle this. Maybe Mozilla will be able to give special permission in some cases, or maybe the two Linux distributions will eventually sympathize with Mozilla Corp.'s position and find a way to handle it anyway.

Protecting a brand is beneficial to the owner of the brand as well as the users/customers, so it is no wonder that Mozilla Corp. takes steps to ensure that their brand is kept intact and exclusive.