The point is that eveything in the patent is very obvious. It's after all just a "video goes digital", when you do that you get obvious benifits which an oldschool VCR don't have. That does not make it an invention. If you cut out all the crap out of the patent it seems to be a method for accelerating binary file seeking/reading. Somehow I don't think thats anything new.
Answering to myself here. Actully by reading the patent it seems like the files are stored in chunks with a timestamp on. This is obviously because it would be slow to search to the middle possition of a big multimedia file. But thats just an obvious optimization anybody building a multimedia system would come up with, and not worthy of a patent. You could actully call it a file system optimization and has probably been done thousands of time in other applications. Again, IANAL so I might have missed something.
From what I understand the patent infrigement is on tivos "Time warping system", which I if I understand it correctly is "pause and rewind live TV" as well as "record one show while watching another".
Basically the number one claim seems to be on seeking in an open file if the file is a multimedia stream. In Linux language: cat/dev/video0 >/tmp/in0.mpg mplayer/tmp/in0.mpg
Those two lines would instantly infringe on tivos patent. The next claim is even fruitier. cat/dev/video0 >/tmp/in0.mpg cat/dev/video1 >/tmp/in1.mpg mplayer/tmp/in1.mpg
I have a hard time beliving tivo actully did this first, and even if they did where is the invention. When I first got a TV card a couple of years ago this is what I did because it was the easiest way to get the media to play. Needless to say, but I didn't feel like I invented something. Maybe I missed something about tivos patent, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm sure Apple is competitive on price for what they sell now, but all of the affordable computers they sell are non upgradable (mostly in regard to gfx) and non of them have a nice high-end graphics card to begin with. Which means I would have to buy a new computer every year if I want new programs to run on it. Most computers sold today have a single or dual CPU and an x16 PCI express slot. Thats also what most people want. And Apple don't compete in that segment. Which means most people can't buy Macs. Thats your hard reality.
And please don't come and tell me that most people wouldn't want or need nice graphics. It's obvious Apple don't sell those boxes because it would cut into their high-end machines. Which is possibly a good bussinesmove but the computers they sell don't suit me and alot of other people.
Heck, I'm not even a gamer but every now and then me or my girlfriend want to game and on my cheap shity low-quality spare-parts PC it's nice that I can. If I want to get the same performance out of an Apple copmuter I would need to spend at least 3 times more and then I would get a 4 cpu monsterbox which I totaly don't need.
Don't know about enlightnment but at least the standard pager in Gnome has done that for years. Probably every other pager does that too as it's a usefull feature.
Or I could just go with another brand that doesn't cripple their low end just to make me buy way more expensive stuff. Is it really to much to ask to be able to play a game or two on a cheap computer?
So what your telling us is that Apple wants to sell music compatible with other players but they are not allowed to by RIAA. Shouldn't Apple welcome this law with open arms then? Now they have the laws on there side to be compatible with other players.
Personaly I don't think Apple wants to be compatible at all but thats just my guess.
LiPo batteries gets destroyed if they get below aprox 3V per cell, or over 4V something per cell. Your speed controller in the helicopter cuts of before they discharge that much. Apparently something is not right with the cutoff voltage in these computers (possibly). It could also be a charger problem, if it puts to much juice in the cells. These batteries are fragile and should be handled with care, it's not unknown for them to burst out in flames if not taken care of properly by the electronics. So this problem is quite serious.
By your logic every kind of copy protection involving encryption is DRM, it isn't. Altough I have never used iTMS it is my understanding that as long as you keep the DRM on the music you have to report computers playing the music to Apple. For the record I think my argument make perfect sence.
DVDs aren't DRMed at all, they are encrypted. But once you buy it you can play it on every DVD player out there without reporting to big brother like you have to with DRMed content ala iTMS.
since you buy tunes from the iTune Store, not rent it.
Well, the discussion is fully open whetever or not you buy music from iTMS. Buying something means transfer of ownership. I don't see that happening with Apples offering. If I'm not able to retransfer the ownership I'm not so sure I actually own the music. I say it's a glorified form of renting. Lifetime renting if you will.
Until somebody comes up with a digital download music scheme which doesn't takes away all comsumer rights we have on physical objects I would never call it "buying". As an example buying a CD fully preserves the rights of the consumer.
If I'm not mistaken somebody tried to sell a tune from iTMS on ebay, Apple of course stoped it because they don't see a purchase from iTMS as a transfer of ownership.
To clarify this case of lock-in. If Apple licensed their DRM format to other companys, to set up their own music stores and make their own players then there would be no lockin from Apples part. If I buy 1000 songs on iTunes as it is now I can't buy another brand of portable player because my music would not work any more (At least not without me spending two weeks burning and ripping and loosing quality).
This are facts, you may not agree that vendor lockins are bad but Apple has one.
Most people "in the know" would agree that vendor lockins naturally becomes more of a problem if the company is nearing monopoly status. Like in Apples case.
Apple uses DRM for vendor lockin purposes (and is on its way to monopoly), that is the worst kind of DRM imaginable. Which DRM is more obtrusive and draconian according to you? Play for sure? Anybody can licence it, it's not in any way good at all but it sure as hell doesn't have the restrictions Apple puts on the DRM.
It's not a strange new fangled USB device that connects to the computer in some weird way, and you have to load weird software and jump through hoops to get it to work
Uh, the iPod may have some strength but what you described is the iPod. 99% of all mp3 players you just connect to your computer and put your music on. No software required, no hops to make them work, and they work everywhere (on any OS) as long as you bring the USB cable. The iPod on the other hand does require software to be installed. And it won't function properly without it.
I use vlc to stream TV to my work. Seems to be very similiar to this but possibly easier to set up. Beyond my GUI this is basicaly what I do. I use http but I think vlc can do rtsp if needed.
Slashdot Mirror
They use it to distribute updates in the games, as an example WOW.
The point is that eveything in the patent is very obvious. It's after all just a "video goes digital", when you do that you get obvious benifits which an oldschool VCR don't have. That does not make it an invention. If you cut out all the crap out of the patent it seems to be a method for accelerating binary file seeking/reading. Somehow I don't think thats anything new.
Answering to myself here. Actully by reading the patent it seems like the files are stored in chunks with a timestamp on. This is obviously because it would be slow to search to the middle possition of a big multimedia file. But thats just an obvious optimization anybody building a multimedia system would come up with, and not worthy of a patent. You could actully call it a file system optimization and has probably been done thousands of time in other applications. Again, IANAL so I might have missed something.
Found a link to the European patent (probably in the EU software patent limbo right now).
http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1101356
From what I understand the patent infrigement is on tivos "Time warping system", which I if I understand it correctly is "pause and rewind live TV" as well as "record one show while watching another".
/dev/video0 >/tmp/in0.mpg /tmp/in0.mpg
/dev/video0 >/tmp/in0.mpg /dev/video1 >/tmp/in1.mpg /tmp/in1.mpg
Basically the number one claim seems to be on seeking in an open file if the file is a multimedia stream. In Linux language:
cat
mplayer
Those two lines would instantly infringe on tivos patent.
The next claim is even fruitier.
cat
cat
mplayer
I have a hard time beliving tivo actully did this first, and even if they did where is the invention. When I first got a TV card a couple of years ago this is what I did because it was the easiest way to get the media to play. Needless to say, but I didn't feel like I invented something. Maybe I missed something about tivos patent, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm sure Apple is competitive on price for what they sell now, but all of the affordable computers they sell are non upgradable (mostly in regard to gfx) and non of them have a nice high-end graphics card to begin with. Which means I would have to buy a new computer every year if I want new programs to run on it. Most computers sold today have a single or dual CPU and an x16 PCI express slot. Thats also what most people want. And Apple don't compete in that segment. Which means most people can't buy Macs. Thats your hard reality.
And please don't come and tell me that most people wouldn't want or need nice graphics. It's obvious Apple don't sell those boxes because it would cut into their high-end machines. Which is possibly a good bussinesmove but the computers they sell don't suit me and alot of other people.
Heck, I'm not even a gamer but every now and then me or my girlfriend want to game and on my cheap shity low-quality spare-parts PC it's nice that I can. If I want to get the same performance out of an Apple copmuter I would need to spend at least 3 times more and then I would get a 4 cpu monsterbox which I totaly don't need.
Don't know about enlightnment but at least the standard pager in Gnome has done that for years. Probably every other pager does that too as it's a usefull feature.
2006-08-04 : Powerbook G4 on fire
9 ,866880,00.html
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,278
Yes, blind people will certanly love when somebody patents text-to-speech to use exclusively in their devices. Makes sence to me now. Thank you.
Or I could just go with another brand that doesn't cripple their low end just to make me buy way more expensive stuff. Is it really to much to ask to be able to play a game or two on a cheap computer?
I don't want to buy one computer for every task at hand. Sell me something that does it all. And that should include at least a $50 gfx card.
So what your telling us is that Apple wants to sell music compatible with other players but they are not allowed to by RIAA. Shouldn't Apple welcome this law with open arms then? Now they have the laws on there side to be compatible with other players.
Personaly I don't think Apple wants to be compatible at all but thats just my guess.
And after years of innovation and trendsetting they have basicaly cloned the normal PC. Even to the point where it runs Windows.
LiPo batteries gets destroyed if they get below aprox 3V per cell, or over 4V something per cell. Your speed controller in the helicopter cuts of before they discharge that much. Apparently something is not right with the cutoff voltage in these computers (possibly). It could also be a charger problem, if it puts to much juice in the cells. These batteries are fragile and should be handled with care, it's not unknown for them to burst out in flames if not taken care of properly by the electronics. So this problem is quite serious.
How can anybody write an article about 2.5" drives in desktops without even mentioning the Amiga 600 (1992).
I think the news here is about faster 2.5" drives, not the possibility to put a 2.5" drive in a desktop. As that has been done for decades.
By your logic every kind of copy protection involving encryption is DRM, it isn't. Altough I have never used iTMS it is my understanding that as long as you keep the DRM on the music you have to report computers playing the music to Apple. For the record I think my argument make perfect sence.
DVDs aren't DRMed at all, they are encrypted. But once you buy it you can play it on every DVD player out there without reporting to big brother like you have to with DRMed content ala iTMS.
since you buy tunes from the iTune Store, not rent it.
Well, the discussion is fully open whetever or not you buy music from iTMS. Buying something means transfer of ownership. I don't see that happening with Apples offering. If I'm not able to retransfer the ownership I'm not so sure I actually own the music. I say it's a glorified form of renting. Lifetime renting if you will.
Until somebody comes up with a digital download music scheme which doesn't takes away all comsumer rights we have on physical objects I would never call it "buying". As an example buying a CD fully preserves the rights of the consumer.
If I'm not mistaken somebody tried to sell a tune from iTMS on ebay, Apple of course stoped it because they don't see a purchase from iTMS as a transfer of ownership.
Maybe you should read up on what vendor lock-on actully is. It never happened with 8-track, tapes, vinyl or CD.
Here is an wikipedia article to start you of, and behold! Apple and the iPod is even mentioned in it.
To clarify this case of lock-in. If Apple licensed their DRM format to other companys, to set up their own music stores and make their own players then there would be no lockin from Apples part.
If I buy 1000 songs on iTunes as it is now I can't buy another brand of portable player because my music would not work any more (At least not without me spending two weeks burning and ripping and loosing quality).
This are facts, you may not agree that vendor lockins are bad but Apple has one.
Most people "in the know" would agree that vendor lockins naturally becomes more of a problem if the company is nearing monopoly status. Like in Apples case.
Apple uses DRM for vendor lockin purposes (and is on its way to monopoly), that is the worst kind of DRM imaginable. Which DRM is more obtrusive and draconian according to you? Play for sure? Anybody can licence it, it's not in any way good at all but it sure as hell doesn't have the restrictions Apple puts on the DRM.
Warcraft 1 is a Dune 2 clone. Dune 2 is the grandfather of RTS as we know it today and still a very nice game.
It's not a strange new fangled USB device that connects to the computer in some weird way, and you have to load weird software and jump through hoops to get it to work
Uh, the iPod may have some strength but what you described is the iPod. 99% of all mp3 players you just connect to your computer and put your music on. No software required, no hops to make them work, and they work everywhere (on any OS) as long as you bring the USB cable. The iPod on the other hand does require software to be installed. And it won't function properly without it.
is like trying to divine a law of how women work.
You think of a man, and then you take away reason and accountability.
I use vlc to stream TV to my work. Seems to be very similiar to this but possibly easier to set up.
/mnt/big1/incoming/now.mpg --sout '#transcode{deinterlace,vcodec=mp4v,acodec=vorbis, vb=300,ab=80,width=320,height=240,fps=12}:standard {access=http,mux=ogg,url=111.111.111.1111:9000}' &/dev/null &
Beyond my GUI this is basicaly what I do. I use http but I think vlc can do rtsp if needed.
At home:
vlc -I http
At work:
vlc http://111.111.111.111:9000/
As a shareholder, I expect no less.
So in this case where the very right for free speech is questioned all you can see is your $$$ in the bank. I'm glad I'm european.
To sum it up, there are some small differences.