Owning the domain name isn't a singularly valid way to assert trademark control; it has to be used. Elon had an "X" company way back when, but it became Paypal; they didn't really use the X name in a public fashion for very long at all.
The reason is probably more-so that Google's "X" isn't apparently a legal entity; its a division within Google. So, it doesn't have consumer sentiment around it, its not a product name they're selling, its not a registered entity, etc. In other words: "Skunkworks" as a term originated from a division at Lockheed, now its a term many companies use, oftentimes in legal & public ways, but Lockheed really doesn't have grounds to stop them from doing so.
Funny you should pick “Skunkworks”. The way that Lockheed Martin uses it, “Skunk Works”, is trademarked and all rights reserved. Even when Lockheed talks about it on their website[0] they put the all rights reserved symbol by it. They go to court to try and protect it - as was the case in Australia, which they lost.
Not necessarily. It's generally a challenge that causes you to lose it. But 'X' is so generic, it's arguable that it might not even be eligible for trademark protection.
It is a _much_ better logo, which is perhaps surprising given that it's a skunkworks rather than a major social media network. Possibly Musk just fired all Twitter's designers before getting around to the rebrand.
Note for anyone who was initially confused, as I was: This is the Alphabet subsidiary that does blue-sky R&D, not the company formerly known as Twitter.
If we're eventually going to close the carbon cycle, it would be extremely stupid to go e.g. polyethylene -> CO2 capture from flue gas -> ethylene synthesis with H2 -> polyethylene.
Sorting out the plastic and doing stuff like anaerobic thermochemical conversion is way more efficient. No need to get the oxygen involved.
We already have companies using ML for recycling https://ampsortation.com/en-us and this includes real-time plastics identification, but they don't do it to the classification level this Google subsidiary claims.
Burning isn't viable atm for many waste streams due to costs, but eventually we'll be forced into it.
Long before then, we'll have an i18n set of industry standards and enforcement mandating the equivalent of a UV-barcode that precisely identifies all plastics.
This tech is merely a stop-gap, but a necessary one.
reply