Showing headlines posted by BernardSwiss

For years we've talked about how many patent holders these days have two cracks at anyone they accuse of infringing: through the courts and then separately through the ITC, which can issue an injunction (but not monetary awards) that block a product made elsewhere from entering the US. The ITC doesn't have to follow the same rules as the courts. So, for example, it doesn't need to abide by specific Supreme Court precedent, which can lead to some wacky outcomes. But, really, it's just one more example of a broken patent system.

During presentations at the Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco on September 13, Intel officials confirmed that the upcoming “Clover Trail” version of the company’s low-power Atom processor would not support Linux.

The Clover Field processor is targeted at mobile devices, such as low-cost notebooks and tablets. The Inquirer reports that an Intel representative at IDF declared that Clover Trail “cannot run Linux” and is exclusively “a Windows 8 chip.”

Back in May, we were one of the first to write about some people claiming to have figured out a new cut of steak, and trying to patent that cut. The story got a lot of attention in a lot of places, as many people (reasonably) think that patenting a cut of meat seems particularly crazy. The good folks over at Planet Money just recently decided to explore the question of meat cut patents. They talk to Tony Mata, the "inventor" of that new meat cut, dubbed the Las Vegas steak, but the... er... "meat" of the conversation actually involves talking to his mentor, Gene Gagliardi, the "inventor" of the Steak-Umm, KFC's popcorn chicken and, according to this video, Popeyes' "Rip'n Chick'n", which Gagliardi calls "Fing'r Pick'n Chick'n" and for which he holds US Patent 5,346,711 on a "Method of making an animal muscle strip product."

Definitely not directly FOSS related but of interest I think - Scott

When Stephanie Lenz in Pennsylvania put a video on YouTube of her 18-month-old son bopping to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” she did not expect a lawsuit. But four months and 28 views later, the musician’s recording company, Universal, howled that the 29-second “performance” infringed its copyright and demanded that YouTube take it down. That was in 2007. Since then computers, smartphones and the internet have made copyright law look even more obsolete. But the response so far has been not to update the laws but to widen their scope and stiffen the penalties. In January websites including Wikipedia briefly shut down in protest against tough anti-piracy laws promoted by the entertainment industry in America and elsewhere. Now the tide is turning. For many politicians, property rights for media moguls are taking second place to attempts to boost growth by making life easier for technology companies. Ordinary users like Ms Lenz are getting a look-in, too.

Last night, robots shut down the live broadcast of one of science fiction's most prestigious award ceremonies. No, you're not reading a science fiction story. In the middle of the annual Hugo Awards event at Worldcon, which thousands of people tuned into via video streaming service Ustream, the feed cut off — just as Neil Gaiman was giving an acceptance speech for his Doctor Who script, "The Doctor's Wife." Where Gaiman's face had been were the words, "Worldcon banned due to copyright infringement."

We've noted for quite some time that the USTR's idea of "transparency" is laughable. They pretend that letting a few critics speak briefly is "transparency." It's not. Transparency is revealing what you're proposing on behalf of the public. And, even the "hearing from critics" part is increasingly laughable. We recently noted that the USTR had already limited the "direct stakeholder engagement period" to just three hours, which is much shorter than usual. Now, word comes from the EFF that it's become even worse, as the USTR has sent them an email saying that their allotted 15 minute presentation time has been cut down to just 8 minutes, and they're splitting up the presentations into four different rooms -- so most negotiators won't even be around to hear any individual presentation anyway.

Another day, another troubling ruling out of the Federal Circuit court (CAFC) which handles patent appeals. We wrote about this a little over a year ago. It actually involved CAFC reviewing two separate, but similar cases, concerning whether or not companies could be found liable for inducing infringement if no single party actually violates the patent, but a group of different parties, combined, serve to infringe on all the claims of the patent. This is tricky for a variety of reasons. In one case, involving Akamai suing Limelight, Limelight doesn't directly infringe on all of the claims of Akamai's patents, because some of the steps are completed by Limelight users, rather than by Limelight itself. Similarly, in the case of McKesson v. Epic Systems, Epic doesn't infringe on any of the claims of McKesson's patent -- but in combination, its users may do so, though none do so individually.

Its this kind of rejection of an interesting and thought provoking app that will turn people away from walled gardens. We talked recently about Microsoft's moves toward further locking down Windows resulting in developers seeking the more open alternative of Linux. The same will happen with the iPhone. As more developers continue to have their apps rejected with little to no context, those developers will become much more frustrated with the whole process and leave for Android. Is this really the lesson that Apple wants young developers taking from this and similar experiences?

You probably read about Apple's US$1 billion win against Samsung in a US Court. Trying to figures our was was infringe is difficult based on the press coverage.

Would you be surprised to hear that more than 60% of the apps in the App Store have never been downloaded, even once? That's the conclusion of analytical firm Adeven. The latter even counted the number of flashlight apps and found that Apple iPhone users in need of a quick light have 1,899 choices. Christian Henschel, Adeven CEO, said that there are only a "couple of thousand apps" that get downloaded in number from Apple's on-line applications store.

Not directly FOSS related but of interest.. - Scott

Suppose I could offer you a choice of two technologies for watching TV online. Behind Door Number One sits a free-to-watch service that uses off-the-shelf technology and that buffers just enough of each show to put the live stream on the Internet. Behind Door Number Two lies a subscription service that requires custom-designed hardware and makes dozens of copies of each show. Which sounds easier to build—and to use? More importantly, which is more likely to be legal? If you went with Door Number One, then you are a sane person, untainted by the depravity of modern copyright law. But you are also wrong. The company behind Door Number One, iCraveTV, was enjoined out of existence a decade ago. The company behind Door Number Two, Aereo, just survived its first round in court and is still going strong.

Oracle engineers were briefed on critical vulnerabilities in the Java software framework more than four months before the flaws were exploited in malware attacks that take complete control of end-user computers, according to a published report.

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?" Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book" Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone. Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

Hogan, a 67-year-old electrical engineer who lives in San Jose, said he was influenced in part by his own experience acquiring a patent. By the end of the first day of deliberations, he said he decided that Samsung's prior art arguments didn't hold up...Another juror, Manuel Ilagan, confirmed to CNET that Hogan's influence on the jury was significant. "He had experience," said Ilagan. "He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier."

A US jury has rubberstamped Apple's exploitation of the patent system. But Samsung's $1bn loss will cost consumers dear

Apple's three utility patents, all found infringed, cover features like double-tapping to zoom and the "bounce back" technology that snaps images back into place. Apple's four design patents cover elements like the contours and shape of the iPhone.

The jury also rejected Samsung's arguments that the patents were invalid. Samsung escaped punishment on only one of Apple's patents, a design patent asserted only against two Samsung tablets.

Samsung's counterattack against Apple, using six of its own patents, went nowhere. The jury found they weren't infringed.

Remember how last week the judge in the all-but-concluded case of Oracle vs. Google ordered the two companies to disclose whom, if anyone, they might have been paying to write about the case? Yeah, that.

So anyway, today was the deadline for the companies to drop their filings, and, well, here they are. Short answer: Oracle reiterated what it said before, that it had retained the patent law blogger Florian Mueller, he of Foss Patents, as a paid consultant in the case, though this wasn’t exactly news since Mueller and Oracle had both already disclosed the relationship. It also mentioned an Oracle corporate blogger who wrote about the case while it was going on.

Google for its part appears to have shrugged. “Neither Google nor its counsel has paid an author, journalist, commentator or blogger to report or comment on any issues in this case. And neither Google nor its counsel has been involved in any quid pro quo in exchange for coverage of or articles about the issues in this case.”

The distinctions being drawn seem bizarre and arbitrary to many customers who argue that data is data—I paid for it and should control what I use it on, not AT&T. It's even stranger because AT&T isn't targeting "video chat" apps with its restriction -- it is only targeting FaceTime. What is going on here?

The problem? An underfunded school needed computers for the classroom. Budget? $0. Staff involved? Just one: Robert Litt, a sixth-grade teacher.

In January, several tech companies aided by a groundswell of support from communities across the Web fought to derail a pair of online piracy bills — and won. Since the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act ended, there’s been a lot of discussion about where, exactly to direct all that energy. Reddit and the site’s co-founder Alexis Ohanian have an idea: they’re launching a bus tour that will introduce the Internet itself as a player in the 2012 election. “The bus will be half-red and half-blue, with ‘Internet 2012’ on the side of it, where the candidate’s name would be,” Ohanian said in an interview with The Washington Post.