The court has not decided the case yet, only upheld an injunction. It's not permanent, and will be lifted if Samsung wins the case (which could take up to a year), or on appeal.
Samsung can also appeal the injunction right now in a higher court, which might still take a few months. And of course they could settle, or convince Apple to settle with their counter-suit (though that seems unlikely now).
If it takes months though, they may just give up on Germany for now, and come up with a sufficiently different design for their next model.
MIMO (and related techniques like beamforming) have been standard in WCDMA/UMTS (3G) all along; it's not something that's unique to 802.11n.
This also uses multiple antennae, but it goes beyond standard MIMO by using different modulation on each antenna that cancels out the other direction, effectively giving you two separate channels on the same frequency.
MIMO uses multiple antennas and the Rice team was able to send two signals in a way that they cancel each other out, allowing a clear signal to go through over the single frequency.
Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the DIDO approach (pdf) that Steve Perlman was talking up recently?
I think your #1 is the best point. Yes, it'll be vertically integrated, but that's meaningless in itself, only in what Amazon can do with it. Yes, it'll have more apps than the B&N store, but I suspect most non-geeks class tablet app stores into "Apple" and "not Apple" anyway. The UI is likely better than the Nook's, but that means even less to the consumer (WebOS was lauded for its UI design).
But what this certainly isn't, is an iPad challenger. Wrong size, wrong price, different market and totally different focus.
* Heavily-skinned, older version of Android is the same
You could buy a Nook Color and root it (to enable sideloading), install the Amazon apps (market, books etc) and get the best of both worlds (and Google apps as well). So I suppose the only real difference is Amazon's custom UI instead of B&N's, or if you prefer Amazon's services and don't care to root it.
Either way, I don't see why pundits are suddenly predicting it'll disrupt the market. Maybe if they'd put a Mirasol display in there...
If they're so eager to try and fix the problem, why have they been conspicuously ignoring all the complaints, even Parliamentary demands for comments?
I don't really blame Apple; I realise publisher contracts are not easy to change. They don't appear to be trying all that hard though, considering the legendary leverage they're reputed to enjoy with the publishers. As usual, it's the smaller, less vocal markets that lose out, despite the levelling powers of the internet.
Perhaps you could explain to AU iTunes customers how the cost of living adds 70% to the price of bits that happen to pass through Apple's servers before being sent here? There's no AU bricks-and-mortar or even AU staff required.
In many cases, cost of living has nothing to do with it. It used to be that $1USD ~= $1.50AUD so Australian iTunes prices were set accordingly, then when the exchange rate levelled, the US executives chortled over the extra 50% profits they were getting for zero extra cost. So long as people keep paying it, they'll keep charging it.
This is of course entirely true, and most of us have been simply importing instead (the UK is actually the best value source right now). We can usually save 30-60% by buying online & overseas, even after shipping (bypassing the 10% GST helps too).
The problem with this is the local retailers are put in an impossible position. Their sales drop drastically, but their margins are already thin. All the excess profit on what sales they get go to the local distributor, or more often to the US publisher who sells to the distributor at an inflated price. The retailer could of course buy from overseas retail outlets themselves, import in bulk and still have plenty of room to undercut their peers (and some do), but this jeopardises their relationship with their suppliers (who frequently also sell things the retailer can't import so easily).
Result: sales slide, the local economy suffers, and the publishers usually blame it all on Australians being a bunch of lousy pirates.
It's possible to use an AU credit card to buy US iTunes gift cards, or even to ask a friend to buy/download/send, but it's still a restriction of trade.
Certainly not TFA. My beef is with the iTunes store - to buy an album here costs AU$17.00 (US$17.63), a huge hike over the $10 price the US enjoys.
If I wanted an iPad, I could always import one from the US, but I can't buy an album from the US iTunes store; they refuse to sell it to me, which is a restriction of trade under Australian law, and something the ACCC has ruled is illegal, at least when applied to physical music media like CDs.
In his June 4 presentation he states that it's "not beam-forming". He doesn't say much about what it is, though.
His white paper (PDF) gives a bit more detail, though still not much. It sounds akin to MIMO, but instead of phase-aligning multiple signals to increase the strength (i.e. beam-forming), the antennae are more widely distributed, and complex-formed signals are broadcast from each antenna in careful sync, so that they interfere at each receiver to produce the desired signal.
That only shows that temperature increases are correlated with CO2 rises. It doesn't rule out temperature rises originating from other causes as well; it shows that those causes can result in increased natural CO2 emissions which will accelerate the temperature rise, in a feedback effect.
We already have plenty of rock-solid experimental evidence that CO2 increases definitely cause a greenhouse effect. That's never been in doubt.
Being religious does not make you a bad scientist.
Claiming that ID is a valid scientific theory *does* make you a bad scientist - and reduces your credibility across the board.
Certainly this new data should be examined, and I'm not saying Dr Spencer should be dismissed out-of-hand, but clearly he's not the sort of guy who's conclusions we should be taking on faith (pun not intended).
That was certainly not scientific consensus. Natural philosophers (the ones that actually looked at the facts, starting with the ancient Greeks) realised quickly that the earth was not flat.
So which "experts" are you blindly believing? Not the ones who've been studying the facts, I'll warrant.
Well, we don't strictly know if it's considered breaking the law yet, unless/until it goes to trial. This is only a civil settlement, I believe.
change Section 2.4 that we were talking about as follows: "The authorizations granted to Google are universal
That seems reasonable enough, if a settlement to a class-action suit specifically against Google can be made to apply to any party, which I'm not sure is the case, but of course IANAL. I can also see Google not being thrilled about paying $80M to set up the Registry without any exclusive benefit, though since they have a decent head start I expect they can get somewhere. As for the legal fees, well, they did step into a legally grey area, so I'm sure they were prepared for that.
You make some good points, though I'm still not sure I entirely agree with this being classed as an "exemption" to the copyright social contract. It's effectively an exemption to copyright law, certainly, and I'm not surprised the judge is nervous about agreeing to that.
But at least as far as the intent of the copyright social contract goes, making orphaned works available again, and without reducing the incentive of authors to create more of them, is absolutely within the original spirit of copyright. We need this, or at least something like it. And frankly, I see more public good coming out of Google's proposal than from any of Congress' changes to the Copyright Act in the last couple of decades.
But of course in this case, the noble way is impossible, since the works being scanned are orphaned, and the self-serving way is closer to 30% self-serving and 70% charity-serving (plus the public good resulting from the orphaned works being available again). Since the alternative is either to do nothing, which benefits nobody, or to hope that Congress takes the initiative (ho ho), I personally think it's good that Google is being proactive and forcing the issue.
Maybe the best alternative is for the amended settlement to be refused again, but to kick up enough fuss about it that Congress is forced to deal with the issue, so that Google and the rest of us can resurrect orphaned books legally.
I didn't think I was the one objecting, but anyway...
So your argument is, if Google (or any large corporation) can be permitted take an orphaned work and make some money from copies of it, then why shouldn't individuals be able to do the same?
If so, then I certainly agree - so long as they're held to similar conditions, particularly the parts that benefit the public by making more works available (which is after all the original spirit of copyright). I don't believe this settlement prevents that in any way.
It also doesn't provide for it - for individuals or for corporations. If you want to do the same, you'll have to find a way to get that authorisation yourself. You want to know why Google should get this access and not you - they're the ones spending a lot of money and legal effort to fight for it (with still no guarantee of success). I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to insist that Google should be fighting for the rights of its competitors, only that it not reduce those rights. Really, Congress should be taking a hand, IMHO.
If they succeed, we all benefit in various ways - and the precedent will only make things easier for others to win the same access, even if it's not enshrined in the this specific settlement.
Thanks for the pointer to 3.5 (a) (iii), didn't see that.
rightsholders basically can't tell Google to remove their books from the archive except under highly limited circumstances, and provided Google feels it's convenient.
Section 3.5 (b) (i) explains that further. So, after the 2012 date, it's true that authors can no longer direct that Google remove the book entirely from their systems, but they can demand that Google not use it in any way - Google can't sell it, display it, show ads with it, collect other revenue from it, share it etc - but it must be made available to libraries if it's commercially available (as far as I can tell, anyway).
Authors can also direct that Google exclude portions of their work from display, revenue gathering etc, and Google will exclude at least that much (and will try not to overdo the exclusion). If Google disagrees with these directions, there's a Challenge procedure described, which sounds fair to me.
Also, remember that Google never negotiated individually with those authors either.
That was kinda my point. If Google can reach an agreement like this (which is still uncertain) without negotiating with the authors, then what's to stop any other party doing the same? There's nothing in the Settlement that prevents that.
I do agree it'd be ideal for the described Registry to be given authority in the settlement to make similar arrangements for orphaned works with other willing parties, without requiring a class-action settlement. I can also see why the judge is unwilling to sign off on what is a fairly fundamental shift in rights, from opt-in to opt-out, even if it's restricted to orphaned works. But I sympathise with Google's aims here, and short of Congress actually making copyright less restrictive for a change, I don't see any other way to make orphaned books more available at this scale.
authors of orphaned works cannot limit Google's right to pirate their works.
Not true. Section 3.5 (a) (i):
Right to Remove. A Rightsholder of a Book may direct that his, her or its Book not be Digitized, or if already Digitized, that the Book be Removed.
Of course, most authors of orphaned works have no interest in the matter (by definition), so in those cases, their 70% share of Google's sale and advertising revenues gets held in trust for 10 years, then distributed to literacy charities (Section 6.3).
While this doesn't automatically grant you or I permission to do what Google is doing, nothing in the Settlement Agreement prevents similar blanket agreements for any other party. You'll have to negotiate it yourself with the publishers and authors' groups. At worst, you could go ahead and do it anyway, make yourself the subject of a class-action suit, and settle that like Google did, but you may likewise be required to pay $80M + legal costs.
The whole point of the settlement IS the authorisation for Google to proceed. Do you mean specific, per-rightsholder authorisation (which is obviously impractical for orphaned works)?
Nothing in the Settlement precludes a similar blanket agreement for other parties, or have I missed something? In fact it should be easier, with Google's precedent, and with the Registry that this sets up.
Then you're not disputing that Google has no legal exclusive rights to anything?
So if I've got this right, instead you're apparently claiming that Google's size gives them some sort of "de-facto" exclusivity - in other words, they're "exclusive" because they're the first and so far only company that's a) bothered to do this, and b) big enough to negotiate about it, rather than roll over at the first whiff of lawyers.
Would you be happier if, say, Amazon and Apple also launched similar initiatives to make available orphaned works (contingent of course on a similar deal)? Is there anything about this settlement that makes it harder, rather than easier, for other companies to do the same thing?
Also "free" access? Section 2.1 (a):
Google shall pay to the Registry, for the benefit of the Rightsholders, seventy percent (70%) of all revenues earned by Google through uses of Books in Google Products and Services in the United States authorized under this Amended Settlement Agreement, less ten percent (10%), for Google’s operating costs
That includes advertising revenues, BTW. These funds are held in trust for the copyright holders, and if unclaimed for 10 years, will be distributed to literacy-based charities (see Section 6.3). Were you aware of this, or were you assuming Google collected the lot?
Additionally, Google have to put up nearly $80M in settlement and administration fees (plus individual per-book settlements), plus up to $30M attorneys' fees (and for their own attorneys of course), plus the considerable costs of digitising all the books in the first place. That's a pretty loose definition of "free".
Slashdot Mirror
The court has not decided the case yet, only upheld an injunction. It's not permanent, and will be lifted if Samsung wins the case (which could take up to a year), or on appeal.
Samsung can also appeal the injunction right now in a higher court, which might still take a few months. And of course they could settle, or convince Apple to settle with their counter-suit (though that seems unlikely now).
If it takes months though, they may just give up on Germany for now, and come up with a sufficiently different design for their next model.
MIMO (and related techniques like beamforming) have been standard in WCDMA/UMTS (3G) all along; it's not something that's unique to 802.11n.
This also uses multiple antennae, but it goes beyond standard MIMO by using different modulation on each antenna that cancels out the other direction, effectively giving you two separate channels on the same frequency.
MIMO uses multiple antennas and the Rice team was able to send two signals in a way that they cancel each other out, allowing a clear signal to go through over the single frequency.
Doesn't this sound an awful lot like the DIDO approach (pdf) that Steve Perlman was talking up recently?
Backlit LCD it is.
I think your #1 is the best point. Yes, it'll be vertically integrated, but that's meaningless in itself, only in what Amazon can do with it. Yes, it'll have more apps than the B&N store, but I suspect most non-geeks class tablet app stores into "Apple" and "not Apple" anyway. The UI is likely better than the Nook's, but that means even less to the consumer (WebOS was lauded for its UI design). But what this certainly isn't, is an iPad challenger. Wrong size, wrong price, different market and totally different focus.
You could buy a Nook Color and root it (to enable sideloading), install the Amazon apps (market, books etc) and get the best of both worlds (and Google apps as well). So I suppose the only real difference is Amazon's custom UI instead of B&N's, or if you prefer Amazon's services and don't care to root it.
Either way, I don't see why pundits are suddenly predicting it'll disrupt the market. Maybe if they'd put a Mirasol display in there...
Please don't call it "Si-Fi". That's almost as bad as putting 'y's in there.
<shudder>
If they're so eager to try and fix the problem, why have they been conspicuously ignoring all the complaints, even Parliamentary demands for comments?
I don't really blame Apple; I realise publisher contracts are not easy to change. They don't appear to be trying all that hard though, considering the legendary leverage they're reputed to enjoy with the publishers. As usual, it's the smaller, less vocal markets that lose out, despite the levelling powers of the internet.
Perhaps you could explain to AU iTunes customers how the cost of living adds 70% to the price of bits that happen to pass through Apple's servers before being sent here? There's no AU bricks-and-mortar or even AU staff required.
In many cases, cost of living has nothing to do with it. It used to be that $1USD ~= $1.50AUD so Australian iTunes prices were set accordingly, then when the exchange rate levelled, the US executives chortled over the extra 50% profits they were getting for zero extra cost. So long as people keep paying it, they'll keep charging it.
This is of course entirely true, and most of us have been simply importing instead (the UK is actually the best value source right now). We can usually save 30-60% by buying online & overseas, even after shipping (bypassing the 10% GST helps too).
The problem with this is the local retailers are put in an impossible position. Their sales drop drastically, but their margins are already thin. All the excess profit on what sales they get go to the local distributor, or more often to the US publisher who sells to the distributor at an inflated price. The retailer could of course buy from overseas retail outlets themselves, import in bulk and still have plenty of room to undercut their peers (and some do), but this jeopardises their relationship with their suppliers (who frequently also sell things the retailer can't import so easily).
Result: sales slide, the local economy suffers, and the publishers usually blame it all on Australians being a bunch of lousy pirates.
It's possible to use an AU credit card to buy US iTunes gift cards, or even to ask a friend to buy/download/send, but it's still a restriction of trade.
Certainly not TFA. My beef is with the iTunes store - to buy an album here costs AU$17.00 (US$17.63), a huge hike over the $10 price the US enjoys.
If I wanted an iPad, I could always import one from the US, but I can't buy an album from the US iTunes store; they refuse to sell it to me, which is a restriction of trade under Australian law, and something the ACCC has ruled is illegal, at least when applied to physical music media like CDs.
In his June 4 presentation he states that it's "not beam-forming". He doesn't say much about what it is, though.
His white paper (PDF) gives a bit more detail, though still not much. It sounds akin to MIMO, but instead of phase-aligning multiple signals to increase the strength (i.e. beam-forming), the antennae are more widely distributed, and complex-formed signals are broadcast from each antenna in careful sync, so that they interfere at each receiver to produce the desired signal.
Good thing it supports POP3 and IMAP. Not the most efficient way, but certainly well supported.
A mailbox that didn't let you get your mail out wouldn't be a whole lot of use.
That only shows that temperature increases are correlated with CO2 rises. It doesn't rule out temperature rises originating from other causes as well; it shows that those causes can result in increased natural CO2 emissions which will accelerate the temperature rise, in a feedback effect.
We already have plenty of rock-solid experimental evidence that CO2 increases definitely cause a greenhouse effect. That's never been in doubt.
Being religious does not make you a bad scientist.
Claiming that ID is a valid scientific theory *does* make you a bad scientist - and reduces your credibility across the board.
Certainly this new data should be examined, and I'm not saying Dr Spencer should be dismissed out-of-hand, but clearly he's not the sort of guy who's conclusions we should be taking on faith (pun not intended).
there was consensus that the earth was flat too.
That was certainly not scientific consensus. Natural philosophers (the ones that actually looked at the facts, starting with the ancient Greeks) realised quickly that the earth was not flat.
So which "experts" are you blindly believing? Not the ones who've been studying the facts, I'll warrant.
Well, we don't strictly know if it's considered breaking the law yet, unless/until it goes to trial. This is only a civil settlement, I believe.
change Section 2.4 that we were talking about as follows: "The authorizations granted to Google are universal
That seems reasonable enough, if a settlement to a class-action suit specifically against Google can be made to apply to any party, which I'm not sure is the case, but of course IANAL. I can also see Google not being thrilled about paying $80M to set up the Registry without any exclusive benefit, though since they have a decent head start I expect they can get somewhere. As for the legal fees, well, they did step into a legally grey area, so I'm sure they were prepared for that.
You make some good points, though I'm still not sure I entirely agree with this being classed as an "exemption" to the copyright social contract. It's effectively an exemption to copyright law, certainly, and I'm not surprised the judge is nervous about agreeing to that.
But at least as far as the intent of the copyright social contract goes, making orphaned works available again, and without reducing the incentive of authors to create more of them, is absolutely within the original spirit of copyright. We need this, or at least something like it. And frankly, I see more public good coming out of Google's proposal than from any of Congress' changes to the Copyright Act in the last couple of decades.
One way is noble, the other is self-serving.
I agree completely, at least in general.
But of course in this case, the noble way is impossible, since the works being scanned are orphaned, and the self-serving way is closer to 30% self-serving and 70% charity-serving (plus the public good resulting from the orphaned works being available again). Since the alternative is either to do nothing, which benefits nobody, or to hope that Congress takes the initiative (ho ho), I personally think it's good that Google is being proactive and forcing the issue.
Maybe the best alternative is for the amended settlement to be refused again, but to kick up enough fuss about it that Congress is forced to deal with the issue, so that Google and the rest of us can resurrect orphaned books legally.
I didn't think I was the one objecting, but anyway...
So your argument is, if Google (or any large corporation) can be permitted take an orphaned work and make some money from copies of it, then why shouldn't individuals be able to do the same?
If so, then I certainly agree - so long as they're held to similar conditions, particularly the parts that benefit the public by making more works available (which is after all the original spirit of copyright). I don't believe this settlement prevents that in any way.
It also doesn't provide for it - for individuals or for corporations. If you want to do the same, you'll have to find a way to get that authorisation yourself. You want to know why Google should get this access and not you - they're the ones spending a lot of money and legal effort to fight for it (with still no guarantee of success). I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to insist that Google should be fighting for the rights of its competitors, only that it not reduce those rights. Really, Congress should be taking a hand, IMHO.
If they succeed, we all benefit in various ways - and the precedent will only make things easier for others to win the same access, even if it's not enshrined in the this specific settlement.
Thanks for the pointer to 3.5 (a) (iii), didn't see that.
rightsholders basically can't tell Google to remove their books from the archive except under highly limited circumstances, and provided Google feels it's convenient.
Section 3.5 (b) (i) explains that further. So, after the 2012 date, it's true that authors can no longer direct that Google remove the book entirely from their systems, but they can demand that Google not use it in any way - Google can't sell it, display it, show ads with it, collect other revenue from it, share it etc - but it must be made available to libraries if it's commercially available (as far as I can tell, anyway).
Authors can also direct that Google exclude portions of their work from display, revenue gathering etc, and Google will exclude at least that much (and will try not to overdo the exclusion). If Google disagrees with these directions, there's a Challenge procedure described, which sounds fair to me.
Also, remember that Google never negotiated individually with those authors either.
That was kinda my point. If Google can reach an agreement like this (which is still uncertain) without negotiating with the authors, then what's to stop any other party doing the same? There's nothing in the Settlement that prevents that.
I do agree it'd be ideal for the described Registry to be given authority in the settlement to make similar arrangements for orphaned works with other willing parties, without requiring a class-action settlement. I can also see why the judge is unwilling to sign off on what is a fairly fundamental shift in rights, from opt-in to opt-out, even if it's restricted to orphaned works. But I sympathise with Google's aims here, and short of Congress actually making copyright less restrictive for a change, I don't see any other way to make orphaned books more available at this scale.
authors of orphaned works cannot limit Google's right to pirate their works.
Not true. Section 3.5 (a) (i):
Right to Remove. A Rightsholder of a Book may direct that his, her or its Book not be Digitized, or if already Digitized, that the Book be Removed.
Of course, most authors of orphaned works have no interest in the matter (by definition), so in those cases, their 70% share of Google's sale and advertising revenues gets held in trust for 10 years, then distributed to literacy charities (Section 6.3).
While this doesn't automatically grant you or I permission to do what Google is doing, nothing in the Settlement Agreement prevents similar blanket agreements for any other party. You'll have to negotiate it yourself with the publishers and authors' groups. At worst, you could go ahead and do it anyway, make yourself the subject of a class-action suit, and settle that like Google did, but you may likewise be required to pay $80M + legal costs.
The whole point of the settlement IS the authorisation for Google to proceed. Do you mean specific, per-rightsholder authorisation (which is obviously impractical for orphaned works)?
Nothing in the Settlement precludes a similar blanket agreement for other parties, or have I missed something? In fact it should be easier, with Google's precedent, and with the Registry that this sets up.
Then you're not disputing that Google has no legal exclusive rights to anything?
So if I've got this right, instead you're apparently claiming that Google's size gives them some sort of "de-facto" exclusivity - in other words, they're "exclusive" because they're the first and so far only company that's a) bothered to do this, and b) big enough to negotiate about it, rather than roll over at the first whiff of lawyers.
Would you be happier if, say, Amazon and Apple also launched similar initiatives to make available orphaned works (contingent of course on a similar deal)? Is there anything about this settlement that makes it harder, rather than easier, for other companies to do the same thing?
Also "free" access? Section 2.1 (a):
Google shall pay to the Registry, for the benefit of the Rightsholders, seventy percent (70%) of all revenues earned by Google through uses of Books in Google Products and Services in the United States authorized under this Amended Settlement Agreement, less ten percent (10%), for Google’s operating costs
That includes advertising revenues, BTW. These funds are held in trust for the copyright holders, and if unclaimed for 10 years, will be distributed to literacy-based charities (see Section 6.3). Were you aware of this, or were you assuming Google collected the lot?
Additionally, Google have to put up nearly $80M in settlement and administration fees (plus individual per-book settlements), plus up to $30M attorneys' fees (and for their own attorneys of course), plus the considerable costs of digitising all the books in the first place. That's a pretty loose definition of "free".