Motorola asked apple to take a license. apple turned around and sued and requested an EU investigation, while suing in like 5 different places. this is the result. Many of those have been shut down.
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
you don't have to accept recording from glass.
it's also not relevant to the article.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.
okay umm, this might have been an interesting post 10 years ago, but today? have you even looked at linux without the false flag troll argument since the XP days?
I'd guess - no, in fact I'd bet the answer is legitimately no, because this is just a false flag troll with the "I'm a linux user too, but linux has it's flaws".
netflix has been an incumbent for a long time now. I hope people have realized that. The acceptance of silverlight was the signal of when they swapped.
This was my first thought. What I was surprised by was the wording: "surveillance device".
Since when is glass a focus of surveillance device but private recordings and/or public cameras (such as those employed by the police) are not a focus?
this is the court case where the judge is in MS's pocket. Groklaw has this well documented.
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.
I can find no compelling argument or claim from your entire post that I agree with.
Since when did google become arrogant? Where does this claim even come from?
Google seems to be a continual innovator and they have problems dealing with hollywood in general, but I don't think that equates to arrogance or "impossible to be wrong".
have people not noticed for a long time that vested interests have long trumped the noble goals of wikipedia?
example: look at any major technology and their competitor's pages. You'll see tons of trashtalking about the competitor and/or removal/hiding of controversy.
On the post: NSA: If Your Data Is Encrypted, You Might Be Evil, So We'll Keep It Until We're Sure
Re: Gmail is encrypted
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Re: Re:
On the post: EU Dings Google's Motorola Mobility Unit For Patent Abuse
the whole situation is questionable
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
it's also not relevant to the article.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
I'd guess - no, in fact I'd bet the answer is legitimately no, because this is just a false flag troll with the "I'm a linux user too, but linux has it's flaws".
On the post: The Fight Over DRM In HTML5 Should Represent The Last Stand For DRM
Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
On the post: Moral Panic Over Google Glass: White House Petition Asks To Ban Them To Prevent 'Indecent' Public Surveillance
Re: The question that needs to be asked...
Since when is glass a focus of surveillance device but private recordings and/or public cameras (such as those employed by the police) are not a focus?
On the post: Moral Panic Over Google Glass: White House Petition Asks To Ban Them To Prevent 'Indecent' Public Surveillance
google glass panic
I guess transparency only goes so far when you register a domain anonymously and refuse to identify in any form who you are, huh?
sound a little like typical Microsoft propaganda?
On the post: Bloomberg Defends Stop-And-Frisk, Decries Critics 'Pointing Fingers From City Hall' By Pointing Fingers From NYPD Headquarters
Frisk bloomberg
amount of guns/illegal drugs to be found as a result? if you don't tell us, then the terrorists win!
On the post: Google's Attempt To Bully Microsoft Back With Patents Not Going Too Well
I wouldn't assume anything
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.
see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130426080437848
On the post: Pirate Party Elected To Parliament In Iceland, First Pirate Party Victory In National Parliament
Re: Re:
guess which one of those matters more with those who vote for the pirate party?
On the post: Shopzilla Threatens To Sue Site For 3 Year Old Neutral Link To Shopzilla... Then Apologizes
Re:
On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff
Re: There's a Better Way to Book than what you suggest!
MAD FCO was 4/29. Which I see for $264 (lowest) searched individually in ITA. Which is umm, $500 less?
On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff
Re: what about ITA?
On the post: Flight Search Engines And The Multi-City Ripoff
what about ITA?
Google seems to default to business class for 2 of the flights as well.
http://matrix.itasoftware.com/view/details?session=42373449-43f1-46e4-8906-c102bb4d5ef0
comes out to around $3400.
Searching individually finds the first flight for $184? wow.
http://matrix.itasoftware.com/view/details?session=ab204067-2277-401b-84bd-e79c08daa325
On the post: Charles Carreon Has To Pay $46K In Legal Fees
Re:
On the post: YouTube Takes Down Music Video For 'Terms Of Service' Violation; Refuses To Explain Or Put Back
Re:
Since when did google become arrogant? Where does this claim even come from?
Google seems to be a continual innovator and they have problems dealing with hollywood in general, but I don't think that equates to arrogance or "impossible to be wrong".
On the post: Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us
Re: Re:
On the post: Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us
it's more simple than that, no?
It says, explicitly: "this call may be monitored for quality assurance". That gives you the permission just as much as it does them.
On the post: Wikipedia Editor Threatened With Lawsuit For Participating In Discussion Leading To Deletion Of Entry
how long ago did wikipedia become trash
example: look at any major technology and their competitor's pages. You'll see tons of trashtalking about the competitor and/or removal/hiding of controversy.
Next >>