4 ms·

I found it very informative, I mean Wikipedia[1] only gives a scant 140-ish word overview of the subject (and basically the same thing on the page for Nissan Co

by k3n 13y ago

I found it very informative, I mean Wikipedia[1] only gives a scant 140-ish word overview of the subject (and basically the same thing on the page for Nissan Computer itself), and though it does give 3 references, 2 of those are PDF's from the court judgements and the 3rd is an expired link to the USPTO. Oh yeah, Nissan.com[2] actually contains the most information, though it looks biased and sensational (to be expected). Otherwise, I'm not finding just a whole lot of recent information about this out there. I see a Wired article from 2001, and a Salon article from 2002, but other than that the chatter is few and far between. Meanwhile, the site that OP's article was posted on is "the course website for the suite of law & technology courses at Yale University offered by Elizabeth Stark and Brad Rosen" (which is apparently CPSC 183, 184, 185 at Yale University). Publish date of the piece was 2011. So as far as sources go, I'm not sure how much better you could get than this. Not even a single ad, and right under 500 words, which is a nice size for a short take on the subject. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan#Nissan_Motor_Co_v._Nissan_Computer_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan#Nissan_Motor_Co_v._Nissa... 2. http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php

ebbv 13y ago
This entire article can be boiled down to: "Hey did you know Nissan Motors doesn't own nissan.com?" "They don't? Wow." Everything about it is obvious. It's providing no content. The fact that the site has no ads and is made by reputable people means nothing. It's still just an old (and very simple) story with no new information or insight added. The reason you're not finding much/anything out there is like I said this story started in the '90s, everybody already knows about it except people who weren't around then, and even so, there's not much to tell. This is an anecdote, not an informative article.
mateja 13y ago
"The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less then 2% of what the cost was to defend this case." It has cost Nissan Computer $3M to defend itself? For a local PC repair shop? Either he's highly principled or just lying.

by k3n 13y ago

ebbv 13y ago

This entire article can be boiled down to: "Hey did you know Nissan Motors doesn't own nissan.com?" "They don't? Wow." Everything about it is obvious. It's providing no content. The fact that the site has no ads and is made by reputable people means nothing. It's still just an old (and very simple) story with no new information or insight added. The reason you're not finding much/anything out there is like I said this story started in the '90s, everybody already knows about it except people who weren't around then, and even so, there's not much to tell. This is an anecdote, not an informative article.

mateja 13y ago

"The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less then 2% of what the cost was to defend this case." It has cost Nissan Computer $3M to defend itself? For a local PC repair shop? Either he's highly principled or just lying.