4 ms·
S3 is probably the worst possible counter-example given that Amazon hasn't made any moves against S3 being cloned verbatim by their competitors, even though the
by jsheard 2y ago
S3 is probably the worst possible counter-example given that Amazon hasn't made any moves against S3 being cloned verbatim by their competitors, even though they probably could block them from using the S3 trademark to market their services as "S3 compatible" if they wanted to. They even let you use the official AWS tools and libraries to interface with third party S3 clones. That's about as fair to the competition as it gets.
- tw04 2y agoNobody is stopping you from cloning windows functionality on something else. You’re free to run samba or WINE all day long. Let me know when Amazon lets me run THEIR S3 stack on hardware of my choice. Until then, all the downvotes in the world won’t change the fact they’re doing the same thing only worse.
- CursedSilicon 2y agoWhy would AWS let you run something they don't even sell licenses for? your attempt at an equivalence makes no sense
- ForHackernews 2y agoExactly. They're even more anti-competitive. At least MS will sell you a Windows license. Amazon will only let you run their software on AWS. Apple will only let you run MacOS on their hardware.
- weq 2y ago100%. Amazon is the anti-competitive king. They just copy everything thats popular. unfortunately you cant just copy your way to sql server. Apple, Google, they all do the same. Sour grapes the MS does it better.
- Macha 2y agoNote that it's normally legal to use trademarks descriptively as in "S3 compatible" though maybe it would have to be S3™ compatible or S3® compatible to be totally up to scratch. But even then, the reason Intel CPUs have marketing names at all was judges telling them that 386 wasn't a good enough trademark