UA字符串欺骗是否应被视为商标违规？

本文介绍了UA字符串欺骗是否应被视为商标违规？的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！ 问题描述 29岁程序员，3月因学历无情被辞！ 我徘徊于一些UA的制作人的共同主语，以欺骗U $字符串来伪装成另一个浏览器（最常见的是IE）。 难道不应将其视为违反相关 名称所有者的商标吗？如果我制作一杯威士忌并称之为杰克丹尼尔斯，那么我最多可能会有一些严重的法律问题。 " Mozilla的"部分 出现是因为NCSA阻止他们使用马赛克在UA 字符串。 目前的欺骗情况是否有些不同？ P.S.不，我不是因为浏览器嗅探而挨饿。但是统计数据 的影响是显而易见的。 解决方案 看来这个问题主要是微软所关注的问题，而且...... / b $ b Microsoft有很多优秀的律师，他们通常会将这些律师用于他们看到的最少的版权侵权行为。因此，我猜想 要么没有侵犯版权，要么微软认为这个问题不重要。当然，版权法在世界范围内可能有所不同，并且在一些国家并没有很好地执行。我很愿意留下这个问题的版权方面。来自微软的。但是，我认为每个浏览器变体都应该有一个由国际机构分配的唯一ID号码，并且任何 浏览器都应该从没有的网络中被阻止这样的ID。 这将允许在极少数情况下进行有意义的浏览器检测 它确实需要 - 例如浏览器有一个其他的错误 浏览器没有。不过，我确信这是我一厢情愿的想法 ，就像要求所有新页面都被阻止在网上，除非他们在网上完全验证W3C html和css 验证器。 < snip> 是的。 理查德。 来自技术（可能是从现实的角度来看，它可能不会与b $ b相关。特别是考虑到UA欺骗带来的最大影响是提高IE的统计使用率 - 我确定 微软并不太关心这个问题。 从理论上的法律角度来看，你可能是对的。 I wandering about the common proctice of some UA''s producers to spoofthe UA string to pretend to be another browser (most often IE).Shouldn''t it be considered as a trademark violation of the relevantname owner? If I make a whisky and call it "Jack Daniels", I mostprobably will have some serious legal problems. "Mozilla" partiallyappeared because NCSA stopped them from using "Mosaic" in the UAstring.Is it some different situation with the current spoofing?P.S. And no, I am not starving for browser sniffing. But the statsimpact is obvious. 解决方案It seems that this problem would be of concern mainly to Microsoft, andMicrosoft has plenty of good lawyers and usually will use them for theleast little copyright violation they see. I would thus guess thateither there is not a copyright violation or Microsoft considers thisproblem unimportant. Of course copyright laws can vary somewhat aroundthe world, and they are not enforced very well in some countries. I amquite willing to leave the copyright aspects of this "problem" toMicrosoft. However, I think that every browser variation should have aunique ID number assigned by an international agency, and that anybrowser should be blocked from the web that does not have such an ID.This would allow meaningful browser detection on the rare occasionsthat it is really needed - for example the browser has a bug that otherbrowsers do not have. Howover, I am sure that this is wishful thinkingon my part, just as is a requirement that all new pages be blocked fromthe web unless they completely validate at the W3C html and cssvalidators.<snip> It seems that this problem would be of concern mainly to Microsoft, and Microsoft has plenty of good lawyers and usually will use them for the least little copyright violation they see. I would thus guess that either there is not a copyright violation or Microsoft considers this problem unimportant.Don''t be silly, Microsoft couldn''t take action against anyone as theyvirtually invented UA string spoofing, and every browser they havereleased since IE 4 has spoofed Netscape 4 (hence ''Mozilla/4.0'' at thestart of their UA string).It was Microsoft''s action in spoofing Netscape that resulted in thechange between HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 where the latter no longer specifiesthe UA header as a source of information, only suggests that it couldbe used as such. By the time HTTP 1.1 was written the horse had longsince bolted. ... , and that any browser should be blocked from the web that does not have such an ID.At which point the people writing the browsers you have never heardoff, and would so assume are incapable of anything, start spoofingbrowser IDs. We just end up back where we are now, with lots of peoplewasting their time thinking about browser IDs in the same way peoplehave been wasting their time assuming that user agent strings could bea source of information. This would allow meaningful browser detection on the rare occasions that it is really neededMany more people declare a need for browser detection than are actuallycapable of coming up with some example where feature detection couldnot answer the question if asked. - for example the browser has a bug that other browsers do not have.Don''t all browsers have a bug that other browsers do not have? But mostsignificant bugs can be tested for without browser detection. If youthink otherwise you are welcome to suggest a concrete example and seeif it can''t be feature detected. Howover, I am sure that this is wishful thinking<snip>Yes it is.Richard.From a technical (and probably a realistic) standpoint, it probablyisn''t really relevant. Especially considering that the greatest impactUA spoofing has is to raise the statistical % usage of IE - and I''m sureMicrosoft isn''t too concerned about that.From a theoretical legal standpoint, you''re probably right. 这篇关于UA字符串欺骗是否应被视为商标违规？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！ 上岸，阿里云！