"Bob" didn't work for Verizon. Verizon was the telecom provider for the company "Bob" worked for. The company tasked Verizon with discovering the problem, and uncovered "Bob's", scheme.
Unless they've actually filed for a trademark on this stuff, then it's actually more an issue of "trade dress" - ie being "confusingly similar". I really can't see how they can argue that there's any copyright violation.
But that would be covered by a *design patent* not a copyright. Copyright covers *specific* creative works - I don't see how this app could violate a copyright unless it included *specific* elements owned by CBS, such as sounds and images. Just putting rounded rectangles on the screen should not be enough to trigger a copyright takedown since CBS would need to point to the specific original work that was copied. LCARs itself cannot be copyrighted - the name can be trademarked, and certain design elements could be patented.
All of these "articles" are just looking at the "featured" tablet apps list, which are picked by marketing folks and is not the definitive list of Honeycomb-specific or Honeycomb-enabled apps.
For instance, my company updated its app to use Honeycomb features as appropriate, while maintaining backward compatibility with Froyo and Gingerbread (minSdkVersion=8, targetSdkVersion=11), but it's not listed as a "featured" app.
Has that been used in the past against a patent holder??
Not that I know of. "Slander of Title" is really a real estate law concept, however, SCO made an interesting attempt to use to enforce an alleged copyright claim. In their case, it turns out they didn't actually *have* the title they were claiming was being "slandered" by Novell. However, there really didn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the reasoning - the consequences of claiming you own something you don't has substantial legal history behind it. In this case, it may actually require that MPEG-LA explicitly claim they "own" part of VP8, through a patent, in order to be actionable (assuming, of course, that the claim is false).
There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.
One interesting difference here is that they're going up against someone with deep pockets. If they can't find something substantive, MPEG-LA is risking a "slander of title" claim, and Google might consider making an example of them.
However, assuming someone decodes the format and meaning of the control data produced by conversion of the image, that data is not covered by copyright, let alone Microsoft's, and therefore not a protected work, and thus not covered by the DMCA.
The code that does the conversion is protected, but not the data it inputs and outputs.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
M
How is an image taken by this device a "protected work"? Is MS claiming to own the copyright on the images captured with this device?
This is just the opening shot in the upcoming battle between cable providers that want you to use *their* on-demand movie systems vs Netflix and similar companies. It's not surprising it happened with Rogers first, but this will inevitably happen in the US too. Netflix's streaming of movies is the residential ISP's worst nightmare come true. They'll be in a position where they have to tell their customers that something they used to be able to do for no additional cost will suddenly become a new confusing expense showing up on their cable bill with no apparent additional benefit to the customer.
I just bought a MacBook Pro last week - not only do they offer a matte display, but it also has a higher pixel resolution (1680x1050) than the glossy one on the same model.
One thing people overlook if HTML5 replaces Flash is how one would go about blocking annoying content.
Right now, you can use a variety of methods to block the Flash plugin, even being able to reenable it for certain useful purposes.
What happens when the annoying content is embedded in the basic HTML of the webpage, and there's *no way* to stop it?
Yep, if history is any guide, this is just a negotiating ploy by Sony to get better OEM pricing for Windows or marketing dollars from Microsoft. This will follow the usual playbook - deal is reached, then Sony will claim they were just "studying the idea" and the results will show that users overwhelmingly prefer IE and how great a partner Microsoft is.
With all due respect, your MBA economics teacher seems pretty clueless about the actual market. Success in the market has almost nothing to do with hiring programmers and making hardware. In the vast majority of cases, it's all about marketing and product positioning, and most market segment leaders have held that position for far more than two years.
Where's the "iPod killer"? Who's displacing Skype? Where's the auction site competing with eBay? Who's coming up to challenge Google, Craigslist, Amazon, Facebook? Some of these companies have been at the top of the heap for over a decade, with no serious competitor in sight.
Many of these folks are leaders because of the network effect of their services - something programmers and hardware can't change.
Slashdot Mirror
"Bob" didn't work for Verizon. Verizon was the telecom provider for the company "Bob" worked for. The company tasked Verizon with discovering the problem, and uncovered "Bob's", scheme.
Unless they've actually filed for a trademark on this stuff, then it's actually more an issue of "trade dress" - ie being "confusingly similar". I really can't see how they can argue that there's any copyright violation.
If it's about the trademark, why file for a DMCA takedown, since that's for copyrights, not trademarks.
But that would be covered by a *design patent* not a copyright. Copyright covers *specific* creative works - I don't see how this app could violate a copyright unless it included *specific* elements owned by CBS, such as sounds and images. Just putting rounded rectangles on the screen should not be enough to trigger a copyright takedown since CBS would need to point to the specific original work that was copied. LCARs itself cannot be copyrighted - the name can be trademarked, and certain design elements could be patented.
So...um...to get the "free" Playstation Plus and "Complimentary Offering", would I have to give them my credit card number?
We don't use the metric system in the US! You'll never find me!
All of these "articles" are just looking at the "featured" tablet apps list, which are picked by marketing folks and is not the definitive list of Honeycomb-specific or Honeycomb-enabled apps.
For instance, my company updated its app to use Honeycomb features as appropriate, while maintaining backward compatibility with Froyo and Gingerbread (minSdkVersion=8, targetSdkVersion=11), but it's not listed as a "featured" app.
I don't think MyMP3.com allowed sharing, however, MP3Tunes (also created by Michael Robertson) does, and they're being sued by EMI over it.
Apparently the distinction doesn't matter to the record companies - they sued in both scenarios.
"The more than 30 lines of coded material use a maddening variety of letters, numbers, dashes, and parentheses"
It's obviously a port of sendmail written in Perl.
There's no way to know without opening the manually that SCEA even exists. He bought a product manufactured by SCEI, not SCEA. SCEI is based in Japan.
Apparently, it *was* a News Flash back in 2007 when this article was written.
Two chicks at the same time, man.
Not that I know of. "Slander of Title" is really a real estate law concept, however, SCO made an interesting attempt to use to enforce an alleged copyright claim. In their case, it turns out they didn't actually *have* the title they were claiming was being "slandered" by Novell. However, there really didn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the reasoning - the consequences of claiming you own something you don't has substantial legal history behind it. In this case, it may actually require that MPEG-LA explicitly claim they "own" part of VP8, through a patent, in order to be actionable (assuming, of course, that the claim is false).
One interesting difference here is that they're going up against someone with deep pockets. If they can't find something substantive, MPEG-LA is risking a "slander of title" claim, and Google might consider making an example of them.
The actual story is here
However, assuming someone decodes the format and meaning of the control data produced by conversion of the image, that data is not covered by copyright, let alone Microsoft's, and therefore not a protected work, and thus not covered by the DMCA. The code that does the conversion is protected, but not the data it inputs and outputs.
How is an image taken by this device a "protected work"? Is MS claiming to own the copyright on the images captured with this device?
This is just the opening shot in the upcoming battle between cable providers that want you to use *their* on-demand movie systems vs Netflix and similar companies. It's not surprising it happened with Rogers first, but this will inevitably happen in the US too. Netflix's streaming of movies is the residential ISP's worst nightmare come true. They'll be in a position where they have to tell their customers that something they used to be able to do for no additional cost will suddenly become a new confusing expense showing up on their cable bill with no apparent additional benefit to the customer.
I just bought a MacBook Pro last week - not only do they offer a matte display, but it also has a higher pixel resolution (1680x1050) than the glossy one on the same model.
... and what are their names and addresses?
One thing people overlook if HTML5 replaces Flash is how one would go about blocking annoying content. Right now, you can use a variety of methods to block the Flash plugin, even being able to reenable it for certain useful purposes. What happens when the annoying content is embedded in the basic HTML of the webpage, and there's *no way* to stop it?
up 0.07$, not up *from* 0.07$
Yep, if history is any guide, this is just a negotiating ploy by Sony to get better OEM pricing for Windows or marketing dollars from Microsoft. This will follow the usual playbook - deal is reached, then Sony will claim they were just "studying the idea" and the results will show that users overwhelmingly prefer IE and how great a partner Microsoft is.
Since there's now a patent, these other companies would have to pay for a license in order to use this method to spy on their employees.
With all due respect, your MBA economics teacher seems pretty clueless about the actual market. Success in the market has almost nothing to do with hiring programmers and making hardware. In the vast majority of cases, it's all about marketing and product positioning, and most market segment leaders have held that position for far more than two years.
Where's the "iPod killer"? Who's displacing Skype? Where's the auction site competing with eBay? Who's coming up to challenge Google, Craigslist, Amazon, Facebook? Some of these companies have been at the top of the heap for over a decade, with no serious competitor in sight.
Many of these folks are leaders because of the network effect of their services - something programmers and hardware can't change.