Showing headlines posted by BernardSwiss

When the US Supreme Court decided the Alice v. CLS Bank case last month, it was a signal that courts should be throwing out a lot more patents for being too abstract to be legally valid. Groups seeking patent reform and tech companies rejoiced, hoping the decision would knock out more of the patents wielded by so-called "patent trolls," whose only business is litigation.

Even Microsoft wants a piece of the development board market made famous by Arduino and Raspberry Pi...At $300, Sharks Cove is significantly more expensive than non-Windows alternatives. Hobbyists will probably be more inclined to buy the ARM-based Raspberry Pi, which is just $35, or the $55 BeagleBone Black. Even the Intel-based MinnowBoard, which is compatible with Linux and Android, starts at just $99. CircuitCo also makes both the BeagleBone Black and MinnowBoard.

As I mentioned in the past, our reporting on SOPA was toxic to many advertisers. On the advertising side of things, the blog went from profitable to unprofitable as a result of the SOPA fight -- even as our traffic doubled. Our revenue from advertising was cut by more than 50%. And the net neutrality fight is the same way for many as well. I'm not complaining about it, because we knew that was a risk of standing up for what we believe in, and we wouldn't change a thing. But, because of that I need to ask directly for your help today. If we can reach this goal, it will allow us to do a variety of things, including bringing in some additional writers and guests, spending more time digging through various FCC filings and other paperwork for important details (rather than spending time trying to find advertisers). http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140725/16014828011/home-s...

Some more good news on the patent front. Following the Supreme Court's ruling last month in the Alice v. CLS Bank case, there has been some question about how the lower courts would now look at software patents. As we noted, the Supreme Court's ruling would seem to technically invalidate nearly all software patents by basically saying that if a patent "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions" then it's no longer patentable. But that, of course, is basically all that software does. Still, the Supreme Court's ruling also insisted that plenty of software was still patentable, but it didn't give any actual examples.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140717/14503027923/lates...

(The *nix part is in the mouse-over)

The most litigious "patent troll" in the US has lost a major case after the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found its patent was too abstract. The ruling from last week is one of the first to apply new Supreme Court guidance about when ideas are too "abstract" to be patented. In the recent Alice v. CLS Bank case, the high court made clear that adding what amounts to fancy computer language to patents on basic ideas shouldn't hold up in court.

NEW YORK — Hailing it as a groundbreaking discovery with far-ranging benefits, pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced a new breakthrough Friday that vastly extends the lifespan of near-death patents.

During this open comment period for the FCC's proposed rulemaking on net neutrality, it's been great to see hundreds of thousands of comments go in to the FCC on the matter. It's also been fantastic to see that a number of innovative startups have decided to speak out on how important an open and free internet is for being able to build their businesses, to innovate and to compete on the modern internet. They also point out that the current plan from Commissioner Tom Wheeler would put that all at risk. Here are three interesting ones worth mentioning.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140710/17450827845/kickst...

Back in March, we told you about how the famed makers of the Keurig single-cup coffee brewing "pod" contraption was about to launch a new version with DRM. A competitor, Treehouse Foods, was taking Keurig makers Green Mountain Coffee Roasters to court over this attempt to block them out of the market. To say that post got a lot of attention would be a bit of an understatement. Green Mountain tried to hit back by claiming that the new DRM was about adding "interactive-enabled benefits" and safety to the single-cup coffee space. Because, you know, it was so unsafe before. And, besides, who doesn't want more "interactive-enabled benefits" with their first cup of java in the morning?

Two weeks ago, Philip Johnson, the top intellectual property lawyer at Johnson & Johnson, was set to be named the next director of the patent office. Johnson has opposed changes to patent laws for years, and he was the head of the Coalition for 21st Century for Patent Reform, or 21C, an umbrella group opposing broad patent reform.

Johnson's bid looked like a 180-degree turn for the Obama Administration, which had pushed for a comprehensive patent reform bill to be passed. A bill called the Innovation Act was passed by a wide margin in the House of Representatives, but it died in the Senate in April. Large pharmaceutical companies were a key part of the opposition to the patent bill

Six tech companies have kicked off a new program that they hope will put a major dent in patent trolling, even with Congress unable to pass patent reform. It's called the License on Transfer (LOT) Network, founded today by Google, Newegg, Canon, Dropbox, SAP, and teamwork-software startup Asana. The idea behind LOT is that members put all their patents in a pool, which is immediately licensed to every other company in the network—if, and only if, they're ever sold (transferred) outside the network. That would include a sale to a patent troll or a hostile non-network competitor.

However, Kroes is making a larger point about the way we view copyright today, and how that does not fit with how the world works. As such, she suggests rethinking how a copyright system should work:

Happy birthday to you all at the Institute for Information Law. I would sing you "Happy Birthday". But technically I think the song is still under copyright — I don't want to have to pay the royalty.

Today the debate about information, innovation, and intellectual property can be complex, personal, and heated. Our duty as lawmakers is to find a balance between creators and the justified interests of society. Yet that balance is changing. Transforming technology is changing how people use and re-use information. And disrupting a longstanding legal framework. Already today that framework seems dated — if not irrelevant. Every day that passes it becomes more so.

This isn't about which company is copying from which—this kind of integration is a logical next step for both Apple and Google after years of moving various operating systems and services closer and closer together. This is about ecosystem lock-in. All of these features sound like great, logical ways to extend both companies' platforms, since you can often assume that someone using an Apple phone will be using an Apple computer. They're also going to make it harder than ever to extricate yourself from a given company's ecosystem once you've become embedded in it.

Last year, as the IRS scandal blossomed over the IRS supposedly targeting "conservative" groups for extra attention concerning their non-profit status, we noted that the IRS had also been told to examine "open source software" projects more closely as well. We found that to be a bit disturbing -- and it appears that for all that focus on the scandal, the IRS hasn't quite given up on unfairly targeting open source projects. The Yorba Foundation, which makes a number of Linux apps for GNOME, has been trying to get declared a 501(c)(3) non-profit for over four years now... and just had that request rejected by the IRS for reasons that don't make any sense at all. Basically, the IRS appears to argue that because there might be some "non-charitable" uses of the software, the Foundation doesn't deserve non-profit status, which would make it exempt from certain taxes (and make donations tax deductible). Here was the key reason given:

In theory, it might make sense for the IRS to closely review applications from organizations that develop open source software in order to make sure that they aren’t actually for-profit companies that sell commercial support or monetize their software with other services. If that were the standard of review, there would be no cause for concern. Unfortunately, it looks like the IRS is applying a much more dubious standard.

Of course, the patent application is just that: a patent application. It doesn’t address issues such as exactly how to create functional interactive holographic aircraft flight instrumentation. Nor does it attempt to address substantial practical issues about a cockpit made up entirely of virtual instrumentation—like what happens during an emergency situation with partial or total power loss. However, the application does make allowances for some cockpit windows, depending on where in the fuselage the cockpit is located.

Last year, as the IRS scandal blossomed over the IRS supposedly targeting "conservative" groups for extra attention concerning their non-profit status, we noted that the IRS had also been told to examine "open source software" projects more closely as well. We found that to be a bit disturbing -- and it appears that for all that focus on the scandal, the IRS hasn't quite given up on unfairly targeting open source projects. The Yorba Foundation, which makes a number of Linux apps for GNOME, has been trying to get declared a 501(c)(3) non-profit for over four years now... and just had that request rejected by the IRS for reasons that don't make any sense at all. Basically, the IRS appears to argue that because there might be some "non-charitable" uses of the software, the Foundation doesn't deserve non-profit status, which would make it exempt from certain taxes (and make donations tax deductible). Here was the key reason given:

For years, the EFF has pushed back against the FCC's attempts to preserve net neutrality, reasonably worrying that it might open the door to the FCC further meddling in the internet where it had no real mandate. We here at Techdirt have been similarly concerned. As we've noted, net neutrality itself is important, but we were wary of FCC attempts to regulate it creating serious unintended consequences. However, over the past few years, the growth in power of the key broadband internet access providers, and their ability to degrade the internet for profit, has made it quite clear that other options aren't working.

It’s not always easy to spot the compromises in the technology we use, where we’ve allowed corporate interests to trump public ideals like privacy and press freedom. But sometimes new developments can cast those uneasy bargains into relief—and show that the public may not have even been at the table when they were made.

That was the case last month when, with an unassuming post to Twitter, technologist Micah Lee unveiled his latest project. It’s called OnionShare, and it’s a tiny free software app that creates a direct connection between two users, allowing them to transfer files without having to trust a middleman site like DropBox or Mega.