|
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST |
hint in the title helps
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST |
Off tropic too
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Court Fight Over Madoff Suicide - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM EST
- Microsoft has Failed - Charlie Demerjian - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:13 PM EST
- Have earwax? Leave it alone. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:28 PM EST
- Andoid now at 72% of smartphone market - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:49 PM EST
- Being "Sinofsky’d" - Well thats an interesting take on the WP7/8 W8 WART failure. - Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 02:44 AM EST
- Southern Europe burning - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 11:53 AM EST
- BPGate: Record fine to settle criminal charges - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 12:47 PM EST
- US Voting Rights Act - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 01:28 PM EST
- BPGate: two charged with manslaughter - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM EST
- Making old code GPL - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:51 PM EST
- Hot dog! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:15 PM EST
- Another month, another password database breach - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:39 PM EST
|
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST |
Read all abaaarrrt it
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lawyer sues Microsoft - Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:53 PM EST
- Lawyer sues Microsoft - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:57 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:25 AM EST
- Link - Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 03:54 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:02 PM EST
- Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:43 PM EST
- Lawyer sues Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:31 PM EST
- Groklaw (the recent foreman article) linked from Daring Fireball - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 03:19 AM EST
- Android has crushed competition - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:44 AM EST
- Petraeus - a flowchart of who's who in the soup - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 11:32 AM EST
- Key - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 01:46 PM EST
- Oh, dear - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 02:51 AM EST
- Archaeology puts human development of technology back to half a million years ago - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:39 PM EST
- Neat stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 08:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM EST |
Keep them coming
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST |
This may be a dumb question or maybe I just don't understand. Microsoft is
arguing breech of contract, with the contract being the FRAND agreement,
correct? Yet it doesn't appear that Microsoft ever negotiated with Motorola,
which is also part of the "contract". If thats the case, wouldn't the
contract be non enforceable? I guess I am wondering why this court would get
into the middle of this dispute when the FRAND agreement hasn't even been
attempted, much less reached a stalemate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:06 PM EST |
According to the report;
"Letter was sent to Motorola asking for RAND license. Letter was sent at
Microsoft's request for indemnification. She understood that Motorola would
offer FRAND terms"
RAND and FRAND are not necessarily equivalent.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:15 PM EST |
We really owe you.
Are we able to cover the rest of the trial?
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 02:08 AM EST |
I am wondering what would be in public interest? It won't be fare to dismiss
Motorola patents but leave M$ license theirs for ridiculous amounts.
Can somehow both - Motorola and M$ patents (especially software related) to be
dismissed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 03:56 AM EST |
I wonder if the judge has the faintest idea what these
are...
I'm a software guy (in an unrelated field), and I have no
good understanding of this, I suspect it's quite a deep
field and needs a lot of math to properly understand.
I guess he'll follow the gist presented by the series of
biased "experts" and make a decision without understanding
the technology in a meaningful way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:50 AM EST |
There were things said like you'd
never convert from
progressive to interlaced. Really? What
if you're a television broadcaster and
you broadcast in
interlaced only and got your recordings from a progressive
source?
It's even more common than that. Every
over-the-air
converter box (the kind subsidized by the FCC's "coupon"
program
last decade during the digital transition) converts
to NTSC 525-line interlaced
presentation for compatibility
with legacy analog TV sets. Every time a user
tunes one of
those boxes to a 720p (1280x720 progressive scan) station,
conversion from progressive-scan to interlaced-scan
occurs.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jheisey on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST |
In my city, there are eleven TV stations that have digital broadcasts. Of these
stations, only two broadcast a video stream in the 720p progressive format. All
the remaining stations broadcast their signals in various combinations of 1080i
and 480i (interlaced). So here at least, interlaced video is much more widely
used than progressive video. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:39 AM EST |
Says Motorola patents are not critical; some are about to expire.
Not critical to Microsoft products
If the Moto patents are SOOOO
non-critical, why couldn't Microsoft design their systems without them? If they
absolutely HAD to use the Moto patents, that is absolutely the definition of
critical.
When purchasing something for my job, i have to give solid
reasoning for purchasing something from a single source vendor. I would assume
the same process would apply for using a patent owned by a competitor.
Apparently the reasoning the Microsoft employee gave is that "it is expiring
soon anyway, who cares." Well, it's not expired yet, so pay
up.
~ukjaybrat - IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST |
The Seattle Times reports
http://seattletimes.com/text/2019676880.html
“I don’t believe this courtroom has been this full since the strip-club
ordinance,” referring to when he ruled in 2005 that Seattle’s ban on new strip
clubs was unconstitutional.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 12:08 PM EST |
Hearing about all those enhancements to the video codec that MPEG LA made, you
might have overlooked the name.
It is the name of the Recommendation jointly devised by ISO and the ITU as two
of the three largest specialised agencies of the United Nations and published by
the ITU as Recommendation H264.
It was produced by drawing on the expertise of experts from around the world.
The 802.11 standard is the IEEE published standard intended to be used around
the world for wifi in the home. Again, it is not invented by Americans for use
in America. The FRAND assurance was intended to aid its adoption as a world wide
standard to provide interoperability in world wide markets.
It was offered, as such, to the ITU and is now an international recommendation
under the auspices of the United Nations as Recommendation ITU-R M.1450-4.
The way they talked in court, you'd have thought they were both American
property.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What's in a name? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 02:50 PM EST
- GPL's a good name, - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:49 PM EST
|
Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:02 PM EST |
Wasn't the whole objection to WebM over H.264 in HTML5 that both Apple and MS
had licenses to H.264? Now it seems that MS has been skimping on the H.264
license. Is Apple in a similar situation? Perhaps the discussion on WebM could
be brought back up given these recent turns.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patents and WebM - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:31 PM EST
|
|
|
|