|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
Google is announcing the near-release of the VP9 codec which is good news, only
they had
better be planning to make their own Android-based HD video cameras
too.
I'm betting that if any of the existing manufacturers try to sell
video cameras with VP9,
MPEG-LA will pull their licenses for H.264 out from
under their feet. Kind of like MicroShaft
used to do to those who tried to
offer Linux computers.
Also, will we ever be able to get disk players
that understand VP9? Again, it is unlikely
that any of the existing
manufacturers will be allowed to make them. And Sony, of course,
wouldn't
even try.
MPEG-LA exists mainly to keep new competitors out of the
movie business.
---------------------
Nobody expects the Spanish
Inquisition!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
mistaky on hanging chads vs dimpled chads
and because of that:
oh well, just another future ....
(
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/stevens_rationale_for_bush_v_gore_was_unacceptab
le/
)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Version 26.0.1410.63
Google Is Prepping A
Sneak Attack On Microsoft
Office
Test:
Why QuickOffice?
QuickOffice uses the
same .DOCX file format that Office
does, allowing users to quickly edit and
share the same
files as Office users. QuickOffice compatibility probably
means
that more businesses and users will see Google Apps as
a viable alternative to
Office, wounding Microsoft's Office
cash cow.
--- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
Windows 8 won't hit critical mass in
enterprises, Forrester says
A lot of companies are still in the middle
of rolling out Windows 7. In many cases they're only doing that because
Microsoft will be dropping support for XP next year. I won't be surprised if
quite a few companies start their migration from XP in a last minute
panic.
On "enterprise" time scales, by the time the next upgrade cycle
comes around the market for commodity desktops may have changed out of all
recognition. Even if everyone isn't using tablets, people will expect tablet
style ease of administration for desktops. Most desktops will probably be more
like overgrown Android tablets with keyboards in front of them. That may not
work for CAD, but most people don't use CAD. I can remember when people were
using SUN or IBM Unix workstations to do serious CAD, and that didn't mean that
everyone else in the company had to use a unix workstation as well.
That doesn't mean that Microsoft is going out of business tomorrow.
IBM is still selling mainframes after all. It just means that Microsoft will
become just another "legacy vendor" wringing cash out of a shrinking pool of
enterprise customers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tknarr on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
Google
’s VP8 License Proposal
I don't see where the potential pitfalls they
talk about are present in the license draft. For instance, as far as users go,
the license says:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this VP8
Patent Cross-License Agreement, Google grants to You a non-assignable and
non-transferrable, non-sublicenseable, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive
license under the VP8 Patent Claims to make, use, sell (including the licensing
of software), offer for sale (including the offer of a software license) and
import (collectively, “Exploit“) Licensed Products in the Licensed Field of
Use.
So software vendors need to explicitly accept the license, but
once they do their users no more have to accept individually than users of
Microsoft Windows have to individually agree to a license for all the patents
Windows implements. Seems pretty clear-cut to me just from reading the language
of the license, I don't see how it could reasonably be read any other way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
.
Newegg won a jury verdict at trial. Alcatel had the
challenge on appeal. Justice Prost of CLS v Alice was on
this panel.
It was an easy call. They weren't going to go behind the
jury.
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 03:46 AM EDT |
Quote: A new poll from BiTE Interactive claims that only one
in 10 American
smartphone users would use Google Glass
regularly.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/05/17/peep-this-
google-glass-for-eyeglass-wear
ers-revealed/#ixzz2Td0FAd6X
--- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 04:31 AM EDT |
London in 1927
from Tim Sparke 3 years ago NOT YET RATED
Incredible colour footage of 1920s London shot by an early
British pioneer of film named Claude Friese-Greene, who made
a series of travelogues using the colour process his father
William - a noted cinematographer - was experimenting with.
It's like a beautifully dusty old postcard you'd find in a
junk store, but moving.
Music by Jonquil and Yann Tiersen.
The lovely people at the BFI have got in touch and it turns
out the film was made in 1926. They have lots of other
footage from his film, The Open Road on their YouTube
channel up here bit.ly/1920sEngland. More background on this
here bit.ly/1077PVK.
via Guardiantech
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: glennjones130486 on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/17/google-canada-investigation-competi
tion-bureau/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__lsa=5887-6b37
From the article:
---
"Google was recently notified by the Competition Bureau of the watchdog
organization’s intentions to investigate the Silicon Valley giant’s business in
Canada. The agency has so far informed Google of its plans to open a formal
inquiry, but has not asked for specific information or documents from Google
Canada."
---
If Microsoft/Fairsearch claims that Android/Linux/FOSS is
"anticompetitive", does any Canadian here know of a local group I can
support to fight this?
(I'm a university undergrad with no connection to Google. I already donate to
the FSF, EFF, and Wikimedia, but they don't have local Canadian offices AFAIK.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
I don't know about security backdoors, although it would not be at all
surprising. What I do know is that I finally changed my Android phone from
Vodafone, with their currently useless network as far as data is concerned, to
Virgin at half the price, and unlimited text, data and phone use. £15 only, for
the SIM on a monthly contract. Now that may seem not to be relevant, but while
I was setting things up (WiFi tethering for the Xoom works faultlessly, before
it did not work at all) I cleared out some apps and installed some new ones
which I expected to need. All was going well, until I installed Skype, which
caused the phone to keep crashing and rebooting, as well as seriously draining
the battery. I don't know whether to put it down to the usual gross
incompetence and negligence by M$, or by utter malice, considering that it
is an Android phone..... Skype, the only M$-owned code that I had ever had
on the phone (their patent claims are not valid in the UK), is now uninstalled,
and it will not be back. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
that xmonad is the preferred window manager for people who visit a web site
called ycombinator?
MouseTheLuckyDog[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
Is a broadcast to everyone private under the
Copyright Act?.
Judge Chin's dissenting opinion appears to require a
judicious edit of the statute text:
to transmit or otherwise
communicate a
performance or display of the work . . .
to the
public, by means of any device or
process, whether the members of the
public capable of receiving the
performance or display receive
it in the
same place or in separate places and at
the same
time or at different times.
Where the actual statute 17 U.S.C. § 101 -
definition says:
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a
performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the
public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public
capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or
in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
And clause (1) preceding the quoted clause 2
specifies:
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the
public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal
circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
In effect attempting to create a public display where likely none
exists at least in private residences and displays not available to the
public.
Judge Chin supports by:
Hence, the use of a device or
process to transmit or
communicate copyrighted images or sounds to the public
constitutes a public performance, whether members of the public receive the
performance in the same place or in different places, whether at the same time
or at different times.
This isn't about private individuals being
members of the greater class 'the public', but rather the display being made to
the public or to a less than substantial numbers of persons normally a family
circle and/or social acquaintances.
And we could note that the statue
defines what it is "To perform or display a work “publicly”" in the two clauses
without requiring resorting to looking up public in the dictionary, providing in
any event exceptions as specified in clause (1).
As I understand it
copyright infringement is a matter of equity, in which the copyright holder is
made whole for losses incurred by infringement. It isn't clear there is any
demonstrable losses the plaintiffs can have incurred here in any event.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
PJ,
False positives on tests for scary diseases like cancer are just as much a
problem as false negatives...both lead to harm.
This is a SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT problem from patent holdup of
research and testing that might make said tests more accurate, or put real
numbers to my possibility below.
False positives are a classic...so, making up facts out of whole cloth for
illustration, suppose every woman with inherited breast cancer has BrCA1.
Suppose further that this is approximately 1 in 100,000 women...or about
1500 women across the US who might save their lives with a mastectomy
before cancer ever develops.
Now suppose, simplistically, that the gene itself occurs in one in 10,000
women, so there are 15,000 women across the country who have the gene,
but will not benefit from the early mastectomy. Note that a very large
number of these tests will be needed to find this out.
But a mastectomy is costly and carries definite risks...including death. So,
on balance, using only the test to decide on a mastectomy will lead to a
certain number of early deaths.
So the author of our newspick is completely off base....there are only two
known solutions for tests like ths. The first is education on the limitations,
and the second is more research...which is being prevented by the patent
on the gene.
Hope this helps.
(Christenson)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
It is so gratifying to see so many articles on the
subject. I remember just
a few years ago, though we were
discussing this subject here, it seemed "the
outside world"
had not yet caught on to the magnitude of the problem.
Then bit by bit, first one, then another, and a
trickle has become a
flood. It seems the vast Collective
Consciousness has finally awoken to the
problem.
So much discussion now about how to "fix" the broken
system,
how to ensure patent quality, especially, how to
ensure patent quality for
software patents. This last is, of
course, the wrong question. There should be
no software
patents. Will they all ever agree on how to fix the system?
Will
they all ever agree on what to do about software
patents, now that some of the
biggest companies on the
planet have invested billions in both acquiring them
and
asserting them?
I have a simple suggestion. Do nothing at all.
Leave the
patent system exactly as it is, because you will never find
two
people in a position to actually do something about it
to agree on a fix
anyway. Instead, I suggest they put a cap
on the amount anybody can sue for a
patent.
That cap should be one dollar. Not one dollar per device,
one
dollar in total. Any award by the courts should be
limited to one dollar.
That's it. Companies could go right
on suing if they wish. Trolls could
continue to troll.
Companies can go right on accumulating and asserting
software patents if they wish. However, if people don't pay
the license fee
demanded, and are taken to court, the
maximum damages awarded would be limited
to one dollar. (And
no interest can be collected for late
payments!)
End of the problem. Beginning of a golden age of
productivity and accelerated growth of technology,
tech sector employment, and
the GDP.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|