The implementation of this all is left to the owners of the IPR. 3GPP only wants to ensure that nobody can block others from implementing the specification. Guess it is up to the local courts to decide what is fair.
Without having insight, I assume that in this case the discussion is more about the value estimation of the IPR portfolios. My guess is that Nokia does not consider the Apple portfolio as very valuable for them as the only need a part of the Apple IPRs.
And as an other poster pointed out, the discussion could be as wel regarding a per-unit fee based on sales price. As Apple is into deals with operators (keeping initial price low) they might not like Nokia going for the secondary payments.
3GPP includes as well the original GSM (2G, phase 1) specification and my interpretation therefore is that patents related to GSM phase 1 fall under RAND as well.
GSM standardization activities started in 1982 (GSM == Groupe Spécial Mobile). In 1989 the responsibilities were transferred to ETSI and in 1990 Phase 1 was completed. That means, the original GSM technologies should be patent free (20 year).
3GPP initially copied the ETSI specifications and started working with that as a basis.
The GSM Association you refer to is according my knowledge not working on any technical standardization. They seem to be more operator focused.
The 3GPP Organizational Partners have agreed that their IPR policies should be respected and that their respective members should be encouraged to declare "their willingness to grant licenses on fair reasonable terms and conditions and on non discriminatory basis" (Article 3.1 of the Third Generation Partnership Project). For more information Look Here >>>
The above-mentioned principles are further reflected in Article 55 of the 3GPP Technical Working Procedures which request that each Individual Members should declare "at the earliest opportunity, any IPR which they believe to be essential, or potentially essential, to any work ongoing within 3GPP".
What is the 3GPP policy on licensing?
Some aspects of 3GPP systems are covered by essential Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - that is, patented technologies without which equipment cannot be implemented. The IPR vests in - i.e. the patents are held by - individual companies, and not by 3GPP itself or any of its Organizational Partners (OPs). All Individual Members of 3GPP abide by the IPR policies of the OP to which they belong; all such policies are broadly similar (see FAQ 3.1), and require IPR holders to make licences available to all third parties, whether or not they are 3GPP Individual Members, under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
It can result in people losing their jobs, it can result in less content on any given site, and it definitely can affect the quality of content. It can also put sites into a real advertising death spin. As ad revenues go down, many sites are lured into running advertising of a truly questionable nature. We've all seen it happen.
O yes, I've seen it happen. Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine. They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free' web sites. They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the problem but please don't try to make me feel guilty. You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect. You're no different and that is just the free market we're living in. Accept it.
What is it about the iPhone that's got people so worked up? As best I can tell it's a great UI experience with crappy hardware that's got only about 75% of the functionality that any other phone has. It's manufactured by a company that doesn't really have any experience making phones, and could easily get out of the phone business, leaving you high and dry.
Problem is, Nokia holds patents on CDMA and general phone concepts as well. No way Apple will be able to sell a CDMA phone without licensing Nokia IPR.
In fact, this fight is not over only the mentioned 10 patents, but covers hundreds of patents. But due to the cost of fighting about all patents, a few key ones are selected for the legal fight. This is standard practice.
Apple has no choice other then creating a licensing agreement with Nokia or leave the market.
Some mentioned 'fair' agreement. Problem is, how much is the value of your patent portfolio. Take for example Ericsson, they hold key patents in cellular technology. 10 of their patents have more value for Nokia then 10 of Apple patents. Apple patents do not apply to e.g. their low end, PC-card/module and network product. (Assuming here Apple patents are in majority covering the field of UI)
From the article: --- The law, which critics argue would block access to other, innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship, could breach Germany's constitution, experts believe. ---
Shame on those who modded you up. Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low. Furthermore, this is Germany you're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.
Just remember, what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws.
I'm sad to see this un-informed and one sided reply on a well written opinion being moderated as informative. Having a hard time understanding what is informative.
> This is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. The murder is a simple fact, but it's something that happened almost 20 years ago.
> The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.
Public trials, public records are public because of certain laws make them public (simply ignoring to check if it was a public trial in this specific case). In order to be able to have public trials, there is the need for additional rules. In Germany the people (being a democratic country) have decided to provide some kind of protection to offenders. So, when claiming information is public one must honor as well the limitations set that made this information public.
> But I just wanted to point out that just because something is a simple fact, does not mean that it's OK to publish it on the public Internet.
> The question is not whether this fact may or may not be published; it has been published and is part of the public record. The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts.
Wrong. The question is whether the subjects have to right to request said information to be removed from public records that were illegally added to such public records. Note, in Germany the government has nothing to do with this at all; they wrote those laws in the past. It is now up to a judge to decide which law/right to uphold.
As op said, there are different approaches to prison. Some countries see it as punishment, others as a correction tool where wrong behavior is adjusted. Study both approaches carefully and you'll see they are worlds apart.
"In 1950 Dillema was expelled for life by the Dutch National Athletics Federations. A gynaecologist concluded that Dillema was an intersex."
"In 2008, a controversial DNA-test on dead cells from her clothing found that she may have been a Genetic Mosaic, having both 46XX (female) and 46XY (male) chromosomes in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. "
The argument that Linux is too complex has been used for years. It still is, but once my mother needs to right-click on an executable and wade through options I'd say "Game Over" for Windows as well. This is not what I call backwards-compatibility as it should be.
To be fair, running a game using Wine is probably more complicated for most.
Side note, I had problems running Baldurs Gate on my new AMD 64bit dual core with WinXP 32bit. Graphics were wrong and sound mis-aligned. Whatever I tried, I could not improve it. Then I decided to run it using Wine (never used wine before) in OpenSuSe 10.3, 64bit and guess what: works like a charm.
I do not understand the problem. A wikiproof site, just like wikiquote, could be a nice solution.
Existing articles are not 'polluted' with proofs and can link to the relevant wikiproof article. The wikiproof site can implement specific features that are usefull for mathematical proofs.
Been on the other side of the table lately and some of the candidates clearly Googled me. Some even mentioned it.
For myself, it felt a bit strange. But I have to admit, I'd do it if I'd be going to an interview. But, contrairy to what I experience, I'd never reveal the fact I looked up on somebody.
What is your opinion? Is it ok to do and indicate you did? Does it show you are prepared?
Seems to be a non-issue...
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 4, Informative
unfortunately, there is not verbatim copy of the NDA, only a section that seems to paraphrase.
It is not unusual to have a NDA covering a longer period so one does not have to sign it each and every occasion. Then, even according to the text such a NDA is only applicable for confidential information. That means, everything posted in the Bankok Post would not be confidential anymore;-)
How much control can AMD have over the articles to be published? Not much probably as long as no confidential information is there. But we'd need to see the original text.
Patent number: 6631256 Filing date: Oct 27, 2001 Issue date: Oct 7, 2003
Oct 27, 2001 is more than a decade ago? I'd suspect this is not the patent being discussed.
We're probably talking about a few of the older ones (didn't read them, only a quick search on the authors name)
6,631,256 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method 6,427,068 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method 6,069,913 Method and apparatus for determining an identifying bit sequence in a radio frequency waveform 6,052,748 Analog reconstruction of asynchronously sampled signals from a digital signal processor 5,937,341 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method 5,926,513 Receiver with analog and digital channel selectivity
The public opposed to installing permanent video surveillance but on the other hand demanded the police to take actions and make their street/neighborhood safer.
Again, can't talk about the UK situation, but the Dutch case I'm aware of is considering a street that is known as very unsafe. Signs indicate there is camera surveillance and the people living in the street did not oppose installing this solution knowing that it will not be running 99% of the time.
Note, this all is a very transparent process, something different then "rumor". Furthermore, this camera surveillance is limited to a few placed known as trouble areas.
As somebody who moved from west-Europe to east-Europe I tell my friends here: "at least you knew the government was lying to you".
The Dutch system, and I could not determine from the article if this is valid for the UK system as well, is continuesly filming but does not store the data.
Once a certain sound is detected, the camera starts to record, including a previous time span (30 or 60 seconds) from the past. People are even advised to shout when being attacked or witnessing a crime!!
This means, normal day privacy is protected and crime can be fought very efficient. The people living in that concerned district love the system.
Just use the same review process you have for commercial tools, don't treat it different.
Let the OSS tool beat the commercial tool in a fair game. You might want to change the rules a bit if your existing review process is assuming a commercial product or excludes getting support from a 3rd party (e.g. Red-Hat, SuSe).
I've been successful in introducing OSS tools into my company by recommending in 50% of the cases a non OSS tool as that one better fitted the task (cost, support, features etc etc). Don't make OSS a goal in itself.
We're supporting (large international company, +10k employees) OSS by contributing code directly to the maintainers and we have even opened our own tool. It is a slow process but we're learning and considering it on a case by case basis. We do not open all our tools, only those that we fill are worth to open. I.e. where we save cost or can gain positive exposure. (Yes, money is our main drive and that is OK for me because it supports my family.)
Find your own way, but don't feel it as a must to contribute code back to OSS. If you feel bad about that, encourage your people to file bug reports. Or donate to some of the projects you're depending on. Think about bandwidth, equipment or donations. Don't be afraid to pay for support.
Good luck, it is a long and slow road you're about to travel.
Slashdot Mirror
The implementation of this all is left to the owners of the IPR. 3GPP only wants to ensure that nobody can block others from implementing the specification. Guess it is up to the local courts to decide what is fair.
Without having insight, I assume that in this case the discussion is more about the value estimation of the IPR portfolios. My guess is that Nokia does not consider the Apple portfolio as very valuable for them as the only need a part of the Apple IPRs.
And as an other poster pointed out, the discussion could be as wel regarding a per-unit fee based on sales price. As Apple is into deals with operators (keeping initial price low) they might not like Nokia going for the secondary payments.
Again, all is guessing. We will need to wait.
3GPP includes as well the original GSM (2G, phase 1) specification and my interpretation therefore is that patents related to GSM phase 1 fall under RAND as well.
GSM standardization activities started in 1982 (GSM == Groupe Spécial Mobile). In 1989 the responsibilities were transferred to ETSI and in 1990 Phase 1 was completed. That means, the original GSM technologies should be patent free (20 year).
3GPP initially copied the ETSI specifications and started working with that as a basis.
The GSM Association you refer to is according my knowledge not working on any technical standardization. They seem to be more operator focused.
The FAQ on 3GPP.org is very clear on the terms:
What is the 3GPP IPR Policy?
The 3GPP Organizational Partners have agreed that their IPR policies should be respected and that their respective members should be encouraged to declare "their willingness to grant licenses on fair reasonable terms and conditions and on non discriminatory basis" (Article 3.1 of the Third Generation Partnership Project). For more information Look Here >>>
The above-mentioned principles are further reflected in Article 55 of the 3GPP Technical Working Procedures which request that each Individual Members should declare "at the earliest opportunity, any IPR which they believe to be essential, or potentially essential, to any work ongoing within 3GPP".
What is the 3GPP policy on licensing?
Some aspects of 3GPP systems are covered by essential Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - that is, patented technologies without which equipment cannot be implemented. The IPR vests in - i.e. the patents are held by - individual companies, and not by 3GPP itself or any of its Organizational Partners (OPs). All Individual Members of 3GPP abide by the IPR policies of the OP to which they belong; all such policies are broadly similar (see FAQ 3.1), and require IPR holders to make licences available to all third parties, whether or not they are 3GPP Individual Members, under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
O yes, I've seen it happen. Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine. They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free' web sites. They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the problem but please don't try to make me feel guilty. You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect. You're no different and that is just the free market we're living in. Accept it.
What is it about the iPhone that's got people so worked up? As best I can tell it's a great UI experience with crappy hardware that's got only about 75% of the functionality that any other phone has. It's manufactured by a company that doesn't really have any experience making phones, and could easily get out of the phone business, leaving you high and dry.
Problem is, Nokia holds patents on CDMA and general phone concepts as well. No way Apple will be able to sell a CDMA phone without licensing Nokia IPR.
In fact, this fight is not over only the mentioned 10 patents, but covers hundreds of patents. But due to the cost of fighting about all patents, a few key ones are selected for the legal fight. This is standard practice.
Apple has no choice other then creating a licensing agreement with Nokia or leave the market.
Some mentioned 'fair' agreement. Problem is, how much is the value of your patent portfolio. Take for example Ericsson, they hold key patents in cellular technology. 10 of their patents have more value for Nokia then 10 of Apple patents. Apple patents do not apply to e.g. their low end, PC-card/module and network product. (Assuming here Apple patents are in majority covering the field of UI)
Got the point.
Sarcasm is harder to spot when being used in a language you're not raised in. Apologies to the poster for not spotting that.
Are we talking about the same topic?
From the article:
---
The law, which critics argue would block access to other, innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship, could breach Germany's constitution, experts believe.
---
Shame on those who modded you up. Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low. Furthermore, this is Germany you're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.
Just remember, what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws.
> This is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. The murder is a simple fact, but it's something that happened almost 20 years ago.
> The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.
Public trials, public records are public because of certain laws make them public (simply ignoring to check if it was a public trial in this specific case). In order to be able to have public trials, there is the need for additional rules. In Germany the people (being a democratic country) have decided to provide some kind of protection to offenders. So, when claiming information is public one must honor as well the limitations set that made this information public.
> But I just wanted to point out that just because something is a simple fact, does not mean that it's OK to publish it on the public Internet.
> The question is not whether this fact may or may not be published; it has been published and is part of the public record. The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts.
Wrong. The question is whether the subjects have to right to request said information to be removed from public records that were illegally added to such public records. Note, in Germany the government has nothing to do with this at all; they wrote those laws in the past. It is now up to a judge to decide which law/right to uphold. As op said, there are different approaches to prison. Some countries see it as punishment, others as a correction tool where wrong behavior is adjusted. Study both approaches carefully and you'll see they are worlds apart.
Good plan in my opinion.
Quite often, one can produce your product using component A or B. A is cheaper, but less environmentally friendly. Component B is more expensive.
As the price of a TV does not depend on the selected component (not significant), the cheaper option is selected. Volume starts making a difference.
Conclusion, environment is sold out to maximize profits.
From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema
"In 1950 Dillema was expelled for life by the Dutch National Athletics Federations. A gynaecologist concluded that Dillema was an intersex."
"In 2008, a controversial DNA-test on dead cells from her clothing found that she may have been a Genetic Mosaic, having both 46XX (female) and 46XY (male) chromosomes in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. "
* A wife?
Thanks,
I'll try it out asap.
Agree, but not completely.
The argument that Linux is too complex has been used for years. It still is, but once my mother needs to right-click on an executable and wade through options I'd say "Game Over" for Windows as well. This is not what I call backwards-compatibility as it should be.
To be fair, running a game using Wine is probably more complicated for most.
Side note, I had problems running Baldurs Gate on my new AMD 64bit dual core with WinXP 32bit. Graphics were wrong and sound mis-aligned. Whatever I tried, I could not improve it. Then I decided to run it using Wine (never used wine before) in OpenSuSe 10.3, 64bit and guess what: works like a charm.
Reemi.
I do not understand the problem. A wikiproof site, just like wikiquote, could be a nice solution.
Existing articles are not 'polluted' with proofs and can link to the relevant wikiproof article. The wikiproof site can implement specific features that are usefull for mathematical proofs.
Reemi
Been on the other side of the table lately and some of the candidates clearly Googled me. Some even mentioned it.
For myself, it felt a bit strange. But I have to admit, I'd do it if I'd be going to an interview. But, contrairy to what I experience, I'd never reveal the fact I looked up on somebody.
What is your opinion? Is it ok to do and indicate you did? Does it show you are prepared?
unfortunately, there is not verbatim copy of the NDA, only a section that seems to paraphrase.
;-)
a 006.php
It is not unusual to have a NDA covering a longer period so one does not have to sign it each and every occasion. Then, even according to the text such a NDA is only applicable for confidential information. That means, everything posted in the Bankok Post would not be confidential anymore
How much control can AMD have over the articles to be published? Not much probably as long as no confidential information is there. But we'd need to see the original text.
Btw, why not link to the article of the journalist involved:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Database/05Sep2007_dat
VTP.
Okay, it is not a widely recognised standard but their implementation of the Virus Transport Protocol (VTP) is perfect.
sexual health clinic ?!?
/.-ers.
Can somebody explain me what the author is referring to? Looks more like an hidden add for
From the link:
Patent number: 6631256
Filing date: Oct 27, 2001
Issue date: Oct 7, 2003
Oct 27, 2001 is more than a decade ago? I'd suspect this is not the patent being discussed.
We're probably talking about a few of the older ones (didn't read them, only a quick search on the authors name)
6,631,256 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method
6,427,068 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method
6,069,913 Method and apparatus for determining an identifying bit sequence in a radio frequency waveform
6,052,748 Analog reconstruction of asynchronously sampled signals from a digital signal processor
5,937,341 Simplified high frequency tuner and tuning method
5,926,513 Receiver with analog and digital channel selectivity
Iran/Iraq? I thought the previous poster was mistaken Bin and Bill.
But I guess you're missing the point here.
The public opposed to installing permanent video surveillance but on the other hand demanded the police to take actions and make their street/neighborhood safer.
Again, can't talk about the UK situation, but the Dutch case I'm aware of is considering a street that is known as very unsafe. Signs indicate there is camera surveillance and the people living in the street did not oppose installing this solution knowing that it will not be running 99% of the time.
Note, this all is a very transparent process, something different then "rumor". Furthermore, this camera surveillance is limited to a few placed known as trouble areas.
As somebody who moved from west-Europe to east-Europe I tell my friends here: "at least you knew the government was lying to you".
The Dutch system, and I could not determine from the article if this is valid for the UK system as well, is continuesly filming but does not store the data.
Once a certain sound is detected, the camera starts to record, including a previous time span (30 or 60 seconds) from the past. People are even advised to shout when being attacked or witnessing a crime!!
This means, normal day privacy is protected and crime can be fought very efficient. The people living in that concerned district love the system.
Never heard about the TravelMate?
http://www.travelmateinfo.com/page002.html
Just use the same review process you have for commercial tools, don't treat it different.
Let the OSS tool beat the commercial tool in a fair game. You might want to change the rules a bit if your existing review process is assuming a commercial product or excludes getting support from a 3rd party (e.g. Red-Hat, SuSe).
I've been successful in introducing OSS tools into my company by recommending in 50% of the cases a non OSS tool as that one better fitted the task (cost, support, features etc etc). Don't make OSS a goal in itself.
We're supporting (large international company, +10k employees) OSS by contributing code directly to the maintainers and we have even opened our own tool. It is a slow process but we're learning and considering it on a case by case basis. We do not open all our tools, only those that we fill are worth to open. I.e. where we save cost or can gain positive exposure. (Yes, money is our main drive and that is OK for me because it supports my family.)
Find your own way, but don't feel it as a must to contribute code back to OSS. If you feel bad about that, encourage your people to file bug reports. Or donate to some of the projects you're depending on. Think about bandwidth, equipment or donations. Don't be afraid to pay for support.
Good luck, it is a long and slow road you're about to travel.