Ian Hickson, the googler who is overseeing the HTML5 standard at the W3C, has written a surprisingly frank piece on the role of DRM. As he spells out in detail, the point of DRM isn't to stop illegal copying, it's to stop legal forms of innovation from taking place. He shows that companies that deploy DRM do so in order to prevent individuals, groups and companies from innovating in ways that disrupt their profitability:
1. DRM's purpose is to prevent legal innovation
2. DRM requires onerous patent licenses
3. DRM is incompatible with free/open code and systems
https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
1. DRM's purpose is to prevent legal innovation
2. DRM requires onerous patent licenses
3. DRM is incompatible with free/open code and systems
https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/20/html5s-overseer-says-drms.html
The patent is titled “Integrated inductive charging in protective cover” and describes a tablet case—most likely the iPad Smart Cover—with an inductive power transmitter. From the patent:
In the described embodiments, the body portion includes an inductive power transmitter arranged to wirelessly pass power to a corresponding inductive power receiver unit disposed within the tablet device by inductively coupling, at least a first magnetic element, and at least a second magnetic element used to secure the body portion to the display in a closed configuration.
In the described embodiments, the body portion includes an inductive power transmitter arranged to wirelessly pass power to a corresponding inductive power receiver unit disposed within the tablet device by inductively coupling, at least a first magnetic element, and at least a second magnetic element used to secure the body portion to the display in a closed configuration.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/...-wireless-charging-to-the-smart-cover
más sobre los codecs vp8 y h.264, parece que google ganó, lo cual bueno... bien por google, pero el problema son las patentes en sí.
http://www.osnews.com/story/26849/Google_called_the_MPEG-LA_s_bluff_and_won
Almost three years after Google released its WebM video encoding technology as a "free" and open alternative to the existing H.264 backed by Apple and others, it has admitted its position was wrong and that it would pay to license the patents WebM infringes.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/0...ebm-codec-infringes-mpeg-h264-patents
According to PatentBolt, Google has filed a patent to bring backside controls to future Android devices. The finger swipes and scrolls could help users turn a page in an e-book, peruse through an online article, or flip back and forth between photos and shuffle through songs. A conceptual drawing related to the patent shows an index finger scrolling through an article on the backside of what looks like a Nexus handset.
...
Apparently Apple filed a patent like this back in 2006 for its tablet devices, but the depiction shows two hands holding onto the tablet, with contact points on either side of the device.
...
Apparently Apple filed a patent like this back in 2006 for its tablet devices, but the depiction shows two hands holding onto the tablet, with contact points on either side of the device.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/0...de-controls-on-future-android-devices
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&r=5&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(apple.AS.+AND+20130307.PD.)&OS=an/apple+and+pd/3/7/2013&RS=(AN/apple+AND+PD/20130307)
«The patent addresses how licensed content such as e-books, music, movies, or even software can be moved between users while attempting to respect the rights of copyright holders. But even with provisions that would pay copyright holders a portion of the content's resale price, publishers and musicians are unlikely to cheer, as they see digital resale as a threat to their existing revenue models.»
«The patent addresses how licensed content such as e-books, music, movies, or even software can be moved between users while attempting to respect the rights of copyright holders. But even with provisions that would pay copyright holders a portion of the content's resale price, publishers and musicians are unlikely to cheer, as they see digital resale as a threat to their existing revenue models.»
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/03/...th-patent-for-resale-of-e-books-music
The decision is just one of many that have occurred around the globe between Apple and Samsung. And Samsung's attempts to assert patents that are considered "essential" to 3G standards have been controversial. Last year, the European Commission said it had begun investigating Samsung for trying to use its patents against competitors—which it agreed to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Still, Samsung tried to pursue this same strategy in the US last year, demanding up to $399 million for Apple's alleged violations (based on a 2-to-2.75 percent royalty per device), but Apple pushed back by arguing other companies would not consider Samsung's demands to be "reasonable." Judge Floyd apparently agreed, ruling in London that Samsung's infringement claims were invalid.
Still, Samsung tried to pursue this same strategy in the US last year, demanding up to $399 million for Apple's alleged violations (based on a 2-to-2.75 percent royalty per device), but Apple pushed back by arguing other companies would not consider Samsung's demands to be "reasonable." Judge Floyd apparently agreed, ruling in London that Samsung's infringement claims were invalid.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20...-essential-patent-claim-against-apple
Google has suggested that Microsoft should pay around $4bn a year for the wireless and video patents of Motorola that Redmond uses in its Xbox and Surface fondleslab.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/...otorola_microsoft_trial_google_demand
y más patentes...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/apple-settles-patent-suit-with-htc
The patents that threaten us are often called “software patents,” but that term is misleading. Such patents are not about any specific program. Rather, each patent describes some practical idea, and says that anyone carrying out the idea can be sued. So it’s clearer to call them “computational idea patents.”
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents
