How does Google "own" this "market"?

Why should any TLDs at all, like .dev and .app, be owned by Google?

They shouldn’t be owned by any or even exist at all. The entire new TLD ecosystem was a disgusting cash grab.

Not sure about Should but, with enough money you can make your own TLD. G "just" paid some big bucks to "own" them.

> domain extensions like .dev and .app are owned by Google

Why are domain extensions like .dev and .app owned by Google?

Because ICANN will give a gTLD to anyone who pays them enough.

You're about a decade late. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain#New_t...

That is not acceptable.

.com has been run by Verisign since before the gTLD nonsense

.com is however not owned by Verisign. They can't just set arbitrary prices without ICANN approval.

ICANN allows anyone to create a domain. You need to pay a bunch of fees to register it and service it but it is not that much. In this case I believe Google created these domains for internal tools and they have owned them ever since.

You also need a time machine as they're not currently accepting applications.

> Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement

53% of US adult citizens have a passport as of 11/22. Most of them have a state ID as well. So yes, a bare majority of citizens will be allowed internet access.

I have never seen a library card or insurance card with a photo id that is accepted as id at all, much less valid id. Do you have examples and if so how common is this in Texas?

Why do you think people without passports (or uncomfortable uploading government documents to nearly every website they wish to use) should not be allowed to use those websites.

"Man's got a point. Two is no good. Let's make it three photo ids." - Texas Legislator Tex

"Hole up there son, we don't want to have to revisit this every year to patch holes. Let's put in a safety margin: Five photo ids." - Texas Legislator Champ

> This might not only be about protecting the children.

When you have verified name and address of every user you can charge a lot more for ads.

Alternatively, those without identification (who are most often marginalized individuals and groups) won't be able to use these platforms with this requirement.

Also a positive for advertisers, marginalized individuals generally aren't flush with disposable income either.

Uh oh. Is it that obvious?

I generally assume that other people on Zoom are not wearing pants. It would be quite shocking if someone stood up and revealed their dress pants.

I've been in Zoom meetings all morning... wearing Christmas pug pajama pants.

Dress pants would be... odd. Those things are to decorate closets, right?

Closets? Don't you store these at the dry cleaner's until it's time to pick them up for your cousin's wedding?

scarier: hoodie on top, shined shoes on bottom

I like to roll this way! (Just not at work.)

    SELECT
      employee_name
    , company_name
    , salary
    , state_code
    , city
      FROM 'employees';

> he implicitly assigned a transferable non-exclusive license to Mojang

This is almost correct. If this was decided in the US, his discussions and acceptance of payment gave Mojang a non-transferable license. During the sale to Microsoft, he was a stakeholder. Microsoft failed to acquire a license, which was why they were trying to force him to sign a contract with terms - of perpetual transfer - that he did not agree to. Mojang needed that signed otherwise Microsoft needed to negotiate a license or purchase from him directly. Microsoft did not do this so they don't own it nor did they have the right to distribute his work until he public-domained it. They are still guilty of infringements up to the date he public domained it, but he seems to have released he right to pursue this as part of this essay.

I'm not convinced that it would be agreed that the license was non-transferable as part of an aquisition.

In the US for copyright to transfer he'd need to be an employee and writing part of his work duties, in which case it is work for hire, or if he is a contractor they'd need a signed contract saying the contractor was performing this as work for hire, or a contract explicitly transferring ownership. They did pay him for it so Mojang had an implied license to use it but he retains ownership.

When Mojang sold Minecraft to Microsoft, they did not own the copyright and did not have a contract saying they have the right to transfer their implied license, therefore Microsoft actually is violating copyright here.

Source: I went through exactly this same legal scenario and won.

Wait, I thought Minecraft bought out Mojang, not bought Minecraft from Mojang? If they really did just buy the game and not the entire company, I think you're right and Microsoft may be in violation. If they bought the company, they would have inherited the license as I understand it.

EDIT: IANAL but as long as Minecraft continues being sold by Mojang, not Microsoft, it shouldn't matter whether Microsoft owns the company or not as long as the implied contract was with Mojang, not e.g. Notch.

You're right, they acquired Mojang and its transferable assets. But those assets don't include the implied license since there is no contract saying it is a transferable license.

IANAL - but legally it probably hasn't been transferred if the Mojang company is still responsible for distribution.