Talk:Netbook/Archive 1

Unwarranted Accusations of Vandalism and Conflict of Interest

Editor samj has repeatedly accused me vandalism, here and on my talk page. I have never once vandalized this article. He now accused me of conflict of interest. This is a form of cyber-intimidation. And I will report you if you keep up this Harrassment. I'm sorry that you don't "like" the edits other editors make... but rememeber: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. 842U (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the warning, and in particular the part that said "This is just a reminder, not an accusation." -- samj _in^out 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And let me take this opportunity further remind you: repeated unwarranted and escalating declarations that an editor has taken ownership of an article, is vandalizing an article, and deserves a "a conflict of interest warning"... are a disturbing pattern that borders on cyber-intimidation/bullying and harrassment. You have been reminded. Please stop attacking me. Focus your comments on the article. To wit, should you care to discuss the actual article you claim on your own talk page to maintain, please see the next section of this discussion page. 842U (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok enough already. Stop complaining about being 'attacked', 'harassed' and 'cyber bullied' without giving a shred of evidence or get on with reporting it. In the mean time I've just reported your latest batch of vandalism having warned you many times:

• 842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Proven sockpuppet with history of disruptive edits. Long term vandalism of netbook article. Constantly reverting intro, sans citations and removing cited statements, for example here and here. Even reverts citation requests without comment. Warned here, here, here, here, here and here -- samj _in^out 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record this complaint resulted in a 2 week ban for Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. -- samj _in^out 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Netbooks: "designed for" wirleess communication and internet ???

The introduction now reflects the sentiment of one writer, Paul Bergevin, who wrote on March 03, 2008 "netbooks are small laptops that are designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet."

So, aside from the fallacy of basing the introduction to an article on the viewpoint of one essentially unknown editor, the features that netbooks include that ostensibly make them "designed for wireless communciation and access to the internet" are NOT what distinguish them from other laptops... because, let's face it, most other laptops have those features: a wireless card and a web browser.

Truly, we cannot mean to introduce an article about Netbooks by saying they have two features that most every other laptop sold today also offer. No. This is not the way to introduce the article.

Lest I be accused of vandalism or conflict of interest, please discuss. Discuss also: one fairly minor, otherwise unknown editor says something and we can take it out of context to broadly describe a category of computer: e.g., netbooks are "green."842U (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Laptops are multipurpose devices. Netbooks are single purpose. This is reflected in many ways: small, solid state hard drives, less memory, dedicated/alternative processors, no optical drives, good connectivity (often 3g in addition to wifi), internet-focused operating system like Cloud, long battery life, suitable screen, etc. -- samj _in^out 03:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Nice article on sales with table is here.--Kozuch (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Samj possible conflict of interest

Samj should be barred from editing the Netbook article - he has a one man campaign against the registered copyright/trademark holder (Psion) and is doing his damndest to push this agenda on the article which can be seen my his attitude online. He is pretty much excluding mention of Psion from the article, even though I for one heard of and knew about the Netbook device in 1999/2000 when released. I believe he is corrupting the facts and bullying other people when they attempt to make the article less biased.

Evidence:

samj's wikipedia account info

The "savethenetbook" campaign owners details

Noting they are one and the same person.

My opinion: Without complete removal of bias, this article is corrupt and inaccurate, until the trademark has been REMOVED, the body of the article should contain information about the Psion Netbook with a link to current content in another article.

I, personally, disagree, as the redefinition has become blatantly obvious in my opinion. Even the New York Times uses the term in the same way, and, as one who pays attention to the blogosphere, I have seen it in nearly exclusive use in this article's sense. It has gotten to the point that while the trademark still exists, hearing or seeing the word 'netbook' does not, at least for me, and I suspect, the majority of people who have seen or heard the word, bring Psion's netBook to mind, but rather the group of small, low cost, laptop-like computers. -Pyro3d (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that this same editor has been tagging my discussion page with warnings of vandalism and conflict of interest, when I have done nothing but edit the article in good faith. As you will see from my edits, I've pushed to clarify that this is an article about the class of notebooks and not the specific Psion product. At one point, one section of the article read like a patent brief. Now Samj is adding fact citations to the section of the article in a gratitous manner. I feel very much that his behavior toward me regarding this article has been bullying. 842U (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that (outside of legal opinions) "netbook" had already been found to be generic as the article currently states. Please back up your assertions with citations. I do not see how highlighting errors is "bullying". -- samj _in^out 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also note that you are now banned for 2 weeks for Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing so let's bear that in mind. -- samj _in^out 03:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When the redefinition is a FACT and Dell wins its attempt to cancel the Psion trademark, then and only then is this case proven. Obviously, *my* opinion, but also the logical reality of the situation. Else, why would anyone bother defending a trademark? Or, indeed registering one in the first place? At any juncture, SamJ is biased by definition of the term. How can he hope not to be, given his affiliation to the Save_The_Netbooks cult?

It's no secret who's behind the Save the Netbooks campaign - you act like it is. You also cite this as "evidence" but have given no examples of edits where I have done what you claim - indeed because it is not me doing it. For example, the last removal was done by User:Mahjongg citing (accurately I might add): rv, the PSION was not a netbook, in the sense that is now used. Furthermore the Psion Netbook already has its own article. Will there be anything else? -- samj _in^out 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply put : my exact point. You have a conflict of interest.

Right, still no specific examples (likely because there are none), and no explanation as to why this constitutes a conflict of interest. Sign your posts in future please. -- samj _in^out 03:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile internet device merge

Oppose: the term Mobile Internet Device (MID) as defined here or here or here is not synonymous with "netbook". Letdorf (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

Agreed 100%. Thanks for the clarification. -- samj _in^out 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag removed. -- samj _in^out 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminder about article ownership

Just a reminder that Wikipedians don't own articles; I've just warned User:842U for reverting others' edits:

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Netbook, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Reverting 1/2 a day's well referenced research without so much as an edit summary is not on - you should know that. I see this is not the first time you have reverted my edits, but I trust it will be the last. You may have been the most active contributor until now but as the article doesn't reflect reality it shouldn't be all that surprising that others would help out. -- samj _in^out 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article still doesn't reflect reality so everyone is welcome to contribute until it does. Thanks. -- samj _in^out 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Did it really take you a half day to rewrite the intro? it's poorly worded and inaccurate. The previous edit was succinct and accurate. The way I understand you is that anyone can contribute so long as they don't revert your edits... that's vandalism. 842U (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Were the previous version "succinct and accurate" it would not have needed to be rewritten. In any case the edit history doesn't lie and there's plenty of example of you repeatedly removing well referenced facts in order to support your own view. Can we not all just get along and make this article reflect reality rather than any one person's view on it? -- samj _in^out 21:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, User:842U's behaviour led to a formal complaint which resulted in a 2 week ban for disruptive editing. -- samj _in^out 03:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro Inaccuracy

This statement in the intro is false: A netbook is a light-weight, economical, energy-efficient laptop that largely depends on the Internet to access content and documents.

A netbook is no more dependent on the Internet for access to content and documents than any other laptop.

Furthermore, a column at Wharton University does not qualify as a reputable, vetted source for information for an encyclopedia article.842U (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the article, Intel lead the way with defining the Netbook and they say the same thing (in an existing article reference I might add):

[Netbooks] are small laptops that are designed for wireless communication and access to the Internet.

So what would you say differentiates a netbook from a subnotebook or indeed a subnotebook, bearing in mind that 12" netbooks are already here and 13" ones are on the way? Surely you're not arguing that the 'net' in 'netbook' refers to size and not 'network' or 'internet'? And what about the proliferation of connectivity options for Netbooks (eg integrated 3G, bundling by carriers, etc.)?

Seems to me that we'd be better off working together on improving the article than wasting time critiquing each others' edits. -- samj _in^out 10:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree that the column is not a reliable source, 'depends' is perhaps too strong as the devices can operate independent of the network using locally installed software. Updated accordingly so hopefully the new version is satisfactory for you. -- samj _in^out 10:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Information reverted again. User warned again. -- samj _in^out 05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

external optical drives

I added this part to the hardware section. Its true a lot of people purchase an external drive to plug into the USB port that lets a user install CD or DVD based program s JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Start

I removed the references that vcbcghyou for explaining rather than just removing material [[User:fand gfhistory is not what makes quality articles. Thank you.--Kozuch (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I will.. ghnew to Wikipedia. [[Userf2008 (UTC)

Reference OmniBook 800CT

Reference needed to HP's OmniBook 800 CT as the starting point of the form factor? Anybody??? Onnozele (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Only decent thing I could find was this [1] from 1997, there's mention of it being a subnotebook, but no talk it having netbook characteristics, other than the fact that they are both considered "lightweight bargains". Try searching the news yourself, there's not much else to go on. --Hm2k (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

as it is a netbook "avant la lettre" we won't find any sources... we should explain the circular discussio we are in now by claiming that some systems like HP OmniBook 800 CT and Toshiba Libretto are netbooks "avant la lettre" and go from there. Onnozele (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source that describes these devices as such. Perhaps these are "avant la lettre" netbooks, but you need to find a reliable source that references to them being so before we can say they are. Perhaps modern reliable articles may refer to them retrospectively as netbooks, but until you find such source, it can't be described that way in this article. --Hm2k (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

MS demo team used the term prior to Psion, but still no clue who originated the term. Onnozele (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

More meaningful size comparison in photo?

We don't have that brand or packet style of tissues in Australia. As such, I have no idea how big they are, making them useless as a size guide. Could we have a shot of someone's hand next to it or something instead? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Like the one on the subnotebook article? we could use that one. --Hm2k (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter - a netbook is a network native notebook - it has less and less to do with size, as evidenced by the availability of 12+ inch netbooks and the trend towards larger devices. -- samj _in^out 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User installed operating system

The second paragraph mentions "running a customised version of Linux (or, user installed, Microsoft Windows XP)". Is the second part relevant? I mean, couldn't the users install, well, anything? Psychotic Spoon (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Users could try to install anything, including the risk to brick the device. However, many netbooks are available with pre-installed Linux, especially including the non-Atom devices. The current, typical Win netbooks share more or less the same hardware platform, while there may be dedicated hardware which makes the device more unique, but which actually is not supported by available Linux drivers. Thus it's important to name which devices do support Linux very well (see comparison of netbooks), while it's unimportant to name that anyone can try to install a different bootloader or OS. --Traut (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

psion invented netbook?

I dont agree Psion introduced the first "netbook" back in 1999. One reason it cost a whopping $1,299 http://www.geek.com/geek-review-psion-netbook/. That is not cheap. I think more credit should be given to the ASUS EEE PC because it got everything right with its low price and versatility So what do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.37.205 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

They didn't invent "netbook" no, they introduced the original term. The term was recently reintroduced by Intel as described in the article. Please just read the article. --Hm2k (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Psion now claims the Netbook is their trademark and sends cease and desist letters: http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/24/psion-teklogix-sending-out-cease-and-desist-letters-to-netbook-cen/ --Root Beers (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is already noted in the article itself. --Hm2k (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Psion owns a trademark, but others do to, like MSI. MS used it prior to Psion. Still no clue to its origin however. Onnozele (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Next to MSI, also Coby Electronics has a trademark with the term netbook in it. Onnozele (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

...and can you provide citation from a reliable source for this? --Hm2k (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I added references for the two trademarks: Wind Netbook owned by MSI and Coby Netbook owned by Coby Electronics. Onnozele (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of those Netbook trademarks were turned down due to the original Psion, Netbook trademark. Check the details and you will see. Psion did in fact invent the first netbook, the word didn't exist until they did. You are confusing the fact that what you now "think" of as a netbook is the one Intel told you... sub $500 etc when in fact the only real netbooks out there are the Psion ones. I'm not changing the article because it will only get vandalised back, facts are facts my friends. Humbug1971 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

While it's true that the Psion netBook doesn't even fit the category of netbook (at over a grand a pop), this is a very serious issue. Unfortunately User:842U constantly vandalises edits relating to the trademark so a separate article (netbook trademark) has been created to deal with it.

Psion did not invent the netbook and their device is nothing more than a footnote in history. The term grew organically and was adopted by consumers and businesses alike over 2007/2008, completely independently of their device - indeed the first most of us knew about them was after their C&D letters went out just before christmas. -- samj _in^out 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Toshiba Libretto

The article mentions how Psion pioneered the Subnotebook in 1999.

But what about the [Toshiba Libretto]? The Libretto 20 was released in 1996 and was only about the size of a VHS cassette.

Shouldn't we make some sort of mention in the Netbook history about this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matdebweb (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the article, and try and provide a reliable source to support your statement. --Hm2k (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

HP OmniBook 800 CT came out before Toshiba Libretto... we already thought about those systems as pioneering the netbook form factor... 'cause no optical drive and such... but we can't find solid sources. Perhaps there aren't any simply because these systems als netbooks "avant la lettre" so maybe we should put some lines in explaining the circular discussion we are in now. Onnozele (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Refer to my point in case here. --Hm2k (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The name implies

Several editors have added this statement to the intro:

As the name implies, Netbooks were intended to primarily exist in a network environment using software repositories for installation of software and thus contain no CD/DVD drives & have limited storage.

Wikipedia isn't a place for implications but for verifiable information. This statement is a "Big Statement" to toss into the intro without any backup. If it's verifiable, could someone please provide a reputable source. 842U (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To me this is simply an observable fact, The first netbook, the Asus eeePC 701 was observably marketed as a device which main point was that it offered internet connectivity, in a very small and cheap device. Instead of $2000 that similar mini-notebooks it could be sold for a fraction of that price by using a stripped linux distribution so that it could get by with much less memory and storage space. and it also did not need a CD player.Mahjongg (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, but Wikipedia isn't a place to write what each of us observe — that's called original research and that's not allowed. It's interesting... but anecdotal. Find an article in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc., that backs up what you've observed, and you have a citation, a reference, a source... and suddenly the information becomes not "your observation" but a verifiable piece of information. Also, you wrongly conflate your observation with "linux distributions"... and netbooks may or may not come with linux. 842U (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be quite possible to find such a reference, because as I said its an observable fact. for anybody who wants to see it, it should be obvious that the original eeePC (701) is what triggered the whole netbook "craze", and its simply a fact that it, and the first ones that followed its example used Linux. That since then netbooks, under the influence of market forces, were given more storage space and memory (and became more expensive) so they could support what the market asked for, namely systems that supported (a stripped version of) windows XP, is also an observable fact. References for this are no doubt to be found, sooner rather than later. The ASUS Eee PC article is a good starting point. Mahjongg (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually where the references are conflicting (as they often are with rapidly evolving trends) we need to take a look at reality. Example: Where we have a 6 month old article talking about netbooks as "under 10 inches" and yet devices hitting the market at 12 and 13 inches it's better to declare a reliable source dated and update the article to reflect reality than to have a "my RS is bigger than yours" debate.

In this case you're both right - the phrase "using software repositories for installation of software" is original research but the rest is kosher. -- samj _in^out 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Fortune Magazine quote from intro

The quote in the header that stated what the typical netbook configuration consisted of quoted an article that did not itself provide any substantiation. Also, the information in the part I removed IMHO failed to do justice to the complexity of the netbook designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.246.89 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph from the Forbes article:

The typical netbook weighs 3 pounds, has a 9-inch screen, offers a wireless Internet connection, runs Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) Windows XP and has an Intel chip inside. Oh, and it costs less than $400.

Here is the sentence in the article:

Although specifications and features of netbooks are highly variable, one report at the end of 2008 suggested the typical netbook featured a 3-lb (1.4 kg) weight, a 9-inch (23 cm) screen, wireless Internet connectivity, Microsoft Windows XP, an Intel chip, and a cost of less than US$400.

Now how is it that the Forbes article doesn't substantiate the statement in the article? 842U (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What source does Fortune cite? I read the article and they don't cite anything, so you have one writer's opinion. The fact that the quote matches the sentence in the article doesn't really make the article authoritative. Also, I still stand by the assertion that the quote fails to do justice the complexity of netbook specifications. Specifically, I think that there should be a better source for the assertion that most netbooks are shipped with Windows XP. I have not found any sales numbers, but the Wikipedia article for the Eee PC specifically says that "newer models" have the option of Windows XP, so personally I would like to see a little more evidence before I accept that "runs Microsoft Windows XP" should be stated in the third paragraph of the article.(User talk:98.175.228.222) 02:53, 9 January 2009

The article is very clear: specs are highly variable and... one report states typical specifications. Also, Forbes doesn't have to cite it's sources, it meets the requirements for a reliable source. I have added another source regarding "most" netbooks using Windows XP, this from the Wall Street Journal, another reputable source. 842U (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are improving your sources. You seem to have an emotional stake in the paragraph being included in the intro, and I am not going to play dueling edits with you. I don't buy it, but if you want to swing that way I am not going to stand in your way. It seems to me that the minimally the paragraph would fit better in the hardware or software section where it is would be a part of the broader discussion of the highly variable nature of the netboook designation. I suppose that while you are at it you should remove this line: "Overall, the Linux market share on netbooks has increased over notebooks, especially in Europe where the demand is higher for Linux." and its related references from the software section of the article because it seems to contradict the blanket assertion that Windows is out selling Linux.

I am reading my own comment here, and I sound like a jerk. :-( I do appreciate that the article is here, and I was able to answer my questions by reading it. You obviously spend more time here than I do. I really wasn't trying to start an argument when I modified the article. So basically, I will just shut up and try and show a little appreciation.

I've moved the paragraph, but it then ends up down in the hardware section. Either way, the illustration of a typical hardware configuration is sufficiently qualified to indicate that it is a broad illustration, not hard and fast. 842U (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Typical Netbook shouldn't be described as "running Windows XP"

The Hardware section uses a reference that says the typical netbook is running Windows XP. Surely this is misleading? Even if the bulk of netbook sales are of XP (I'm not suggesting they are, I don't have any statistics to hand)... but even if they were, the netbook is now famous as a platform where manufacturers have introduced Linux OSes. Currently the article seems quite misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.246.8 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal Issues Paragraph

This information is complete overkill for an article on netbooks. The specificity of information here is inappropriate, especially when the previously edits covered the information succinctly. The point being that the term netbook isn't being used in the article to refer to a product but rather a class of products -- and oh, by the way, there are certain companies that have used the term as a product name. In other words, since Psion or any other company cannot keep an industry from using a word as a market/industry term (as distinct from a product name), the ultra-microscopic — with patent numbers no less — is not relevant here.

It would be wrong to construe the current edit as vandalism, but it's missing the point... entirely. I have moved this paragraph to the Psion article. 842U (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The industry can say what it likes, but the fact is that Psion have obtained a valid trademark in international class 9 for laptop computers, both in the US and Europe. This is a pertinent and significant threat to the entire class of devices and vendors ought to be paying close attention to what Psion are upto with the C&Ds as trademark issues are very straightforward (that is, it's rather difficult to claim genericide after a trademark has issued, which was not the case for, say, Dell's 'cloud computing' stunt). -- samj _in^out 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolving Definition of Netbook

Courtesy Netbook Trends and Solid-State Technology Forecast (PDF). pricegrabber.com. p. 7. Retrieved 2009-01-28.:

The netbook is a highly-portable device primarily designed to access email, browse the Web and

utilize Web-based applications on the go. Netbooks vary in weight and screen size typically ranging from seven to 11 inches and weighing between two and three pounds. These highly-portable devices are available at ultra-low price points. Netbooks have a wide range of light-weight operating systems, including Windows and Linux options. They rely heavily on the Internet for remote access to web-based applications due to limited local storage drive capacity – specifically in netbooks with the solid-state drive option (see Table 1). Hence the name “netbook,” the device

excels in web-based computing performance.

I have integrated some of this, but this is the best overview I've seen of the state of play of Netbooks as at January 2009. -- samj _in^out 11:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Warnings

Editor SamJohnston has twice left warnings on my talk page that construe my edits as vandalism. This is ridiculous. Apparently we disagree on how the article should work, e.g., whether the tiniest flecks of information on the Psion trademark issue even belong in the article,etc.

SamJohnston, I disagree with your edits. That's what the "Edit Summary" line and this page are for. I gave a reasoned, cogent remark for each of my latest edits. The one edit where I reverted your complete "half day's worth of work" I did not.

However, I will not tolerate being construed as a vandalist. This must stop. 842U (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits deleted well referenced content en masse, sans discussion. You may not like being called a vandal, yet you continue to do it (and have done again by reverting, yet again, the entire trademark section, which I'll discuss below. If you don't like being called a vandal then don't *be* a vandal. -- samj _in^out 21:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you take grievous offense at other's edits, does not make them de facto acts of vandalism: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You may recognize this. 842U (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another example where a referenced fact was removed with an edit summary of "copy tweaks". -- samj _in^out 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given User:842U one last warning about vandalism and suggest that they take heed of their own advice (above) before they find themselves blocked. -- samj _in^out 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing many of User:842U's edits it seems there are inexplicable patterns (such as the redaction of matters relating to trademarks and references to large 12-13 inch netbooks as well as the repeated inclusion of text "pigeon-holing" netbooks as small devices despite the obvious trend) that could potentially be indicative of a conflict of interest. As 842U uses a pseudonym and there is no "smoking gun" by way of a name associated with a vendor, etc. I'm also reminding them about conflicts of interests rather than accusing them directly. -- samj _in^out 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this escalated to a formal complaint which resulted in User:842U being banned for 2 weeks for disruptive editing. -- samj _in^out 03:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Psion trademark

(renamed from 'Psion trademark minutiae') -- samj _in^out 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The very, very specific information on Psion's legal history regarding trademark of their product name... does not belong in an article dealing with a class of laptops, and not specific laptop models, products, companies, or manufacturers. The information has been moved to the Psion article. 842U (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Psion have successfully obtained 'NETBOOK' trademarks that are enforceable against anyone who sells a laptop computer as a 'Netbook' pretty much anywhere in the western world (eg every country of the EU and all of the US, at least). The other trademarks you have referenced were recently rejected due to likelihood of confusion. All the vendors selling netbooks have likely been slapped a C&D by Psion and are likely tossing up between fight and flight. And yet you don't feel it needs to be mentioned. Indeed you are so sure that it doesn't need to be mentioned that you have again reverted well referenced information on the subject, again without discussing it first.

Does anyone else feel that this critical information should be suppressed? In the mean time I'm giving 842U a 3RR warning, which will certainly be the last.

I replaced the offending paragraph but have also moved the references to the trademarks themselves to the references section so the paragraph is more readable. -- samj _in^out 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The important thing to note is that this article is about Netbook as a class of laptops and is not an article about products with the name Netbook. To elaborate extensively on trademark infringements by products with the name Netbook... is interesting, but essentially unrelated to the subject of the article. Hence the redirect to the Psion page.842U (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if this term is trademarked by Psion then you can't start saying that netbook is a class of computer? Thats like saying my Zune is a type of iPod? I find the fact that this article hardly starts with any information about it being a trademarked term is misleading anyway. Humbug1971 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's be also like saying Tylenol is a type of Aspirin. Like Aspirin, it looks like the term Netbook has changed to mean this market as a whole, not just one specific product, or series of products. See: Genericized_trademark -Pyro3d (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Were the trademark genercized then the USPTO would not have denied at least two trademark applications last month on the basis of confusing similarity with Psion's mark. This is a serious threat to anyone wanting to sell 'laptop computers' using the term 'Netbook', especially smaller players who don't have the resources to license or fight the mark.

Led by the popularization of small-form-factor laptops by Asus and then others, the term "netbook" has been used generically since early-mid 2008[19][20][21] as an industry classification rather than a reference to a particular product, i.e., as a product trademark. By April 2008, Intel had begun officially using the term netbook to recognize a specific sub-category of laptops.[22][6]

Trademark regulations apply to business entities relative to specific products and services, but not to use of the term in editorial context. However, Psion, which had previously trademarked the term Netbook for a specific product,[23] has attempted to enforce the trademark with respect to websites using the term in their site names, suggesting that they could profit from the term. See: Psion and the term Netbook

I agree with Humbug1971 in that the article should clearly explain the trademark situation, but not because I assume (as they do) that the trademark is enforceable. -- samj _in^out 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

842U: read again what you've just written and see if it makes any sense to you because it's complete gibberish to me. You're saying that a valid, registered trademark for any 'laptop computer' carrying the name 'Netbook' (that was upheld by the USPTO as recently as last month) "is interesting, but essentially unrelated to the subject of the article"? WTF? Does anybody else think that this information should be excluded? -- samj _in^out 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So here comes my two cents worth. If Psion win out their battle to keep the term, shouldn't this wiki article be about Psions Netbook and then link off to a seperate article about the term being used generically to describe mini notebooks or whatever they come to be known as. If Psion have an enforcable trademark (which after reading all of the arguments I've seen online, it seems they do) then good luck to them to go and fight for it. If enough people read up on this case, they would realise that Psion aren't being the bad boys; they are simply fighting for something they have invested in over a number of years. The Google thing recently is very interesting because for Google to take that stance, they would have taken a significant financial hit removing the word netbook from their Ad network. I'm sure we're talking millions of dollars a year in fact... don't think they didn't work that one out before deciding to remove it! Lastly, my final comment is about the enforcing their trademark with regard to editorial use, Psion have made clear they aren't out for bloggers etc, they want to stop people using the term netbook to sell netbooks. You could set up a blog tomorrow called netbooksaregreat.com and I'm sure you wouldn't get any trouble from Psion... unless you put ads on there to sell so called netbooks. Spiderfrizz (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now we have no such decision - the USPTO is still acting like the trademark is valid and enforceable and other vendors are still advertising netbooks, perhaps because they a> didn't get threats (unlikely), b> paid to license the trademark (also unlikely) or c> agree that it's genericised. In any case it seem we all (except 842U) agree that it is both pertinent and important. -- samj _in^out 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, does anyone think it belongs in this article? 842U (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok this issue is now sufficiently serious and independently verifiably notable that I have created another article "netbook trademark". Before you say another word on this topic (which you clearly don't grasp the severity of) I suggest you read Psion's PSION STARTS PROCESS OF AFFIRMING ‘NETBOOK’ TRADEMARKS document.

This article needs to reflect the reality that the term netbook is a descriptive concatenation of the words 'network' and 'notebook' (network notebook) that developed entirely independently of the Psion brand during 2007/2008. It is not enough to say in wikipedia that genericide has occurred, even if it probably has. -- samj _in^out 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection requested

There are external spam links that keep popping up from IP editors and some non-NPOV edits relating to the Psion/Dell debacle. As such I've requested semi-protection for a few days while things quieten down a bit. The vandalism currently far exceeds the contributions.-- samj _in^out 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If the IP editors continue to show a pattern that you can identify, please consider having the IP blocked instead of an overarching semi-protection. There have been some productive edits from IPs, too! Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind it was declined anyway. Actually I was seeking to blacklist the offending site and the WP:Spam blacklist page suggested I try semi-protection instead. As a number of IPs have submitted this same site I'm figuring they're dynamic. -- samj _in^out 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps mention it to Eagle -- he and I used to handle a lot of spam link related issues. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like its fixed, for now. -- samj _in^out 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

What the hell? This was not discussed. Should be moved back. -Pyro3d (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger with subnotebook seems best as there is really no difference between these form-factors and topics - just marketing labels and hype. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This article discusses netbooks, not "Small Laptop Computers", additionally "Small Laptop Computers" is not even an established term or mentioned in the article. A merge was discussed before, but it was denied. --Hm2k (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A netbook is a single-purpose "Internet Notebook", not a formfactor. Notebooks are small laptops and it follows that subnotebooks are small notebooks. With netbooks at 13.4" there's nothing small about them (except that they are usually thinner/lighter than similar sized laptops as they have less guts). As I explained to the user, not having an article about netbooks in the generic sense would be bad for wikipedia, even if there is a subsisting trademark, and the suggestion has already been discussed and rejected. -- samj _in^out 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Move protected. Added template. -- samj _in^out 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)