Could be. But they might be trying to avoid a buyout, too.
SGI can raise capital only because it has an IP portfolio, which in theory is as good as any other asset. Except that when the people using your IP won't take a license, you have to sue them or admit that you really don't have the assets you've been borrowing against.
So the "action" SGI is looking for might just be continued access to capital.
This opinion is a dud -- it really has no important implications at all. There's a short summary of why on SCOTUSblog.org [along with links to blogs by a lawyer from each side claiming victory]
It is essential to remember that the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court for a do-over.
...not one justice questioned the United States' application of the four-factor test, which, according to the United States, required an injunction in this case.
In short, the case is going back to square one with no instruction as to how to rule. The Court's only dictate is to follow the old four-factor test and to stop thinking creatively about how to improve the status quo.
If the case is truly frivilous, it will cost as much to prosecute as to defend, so there is no way to "extort" money. Moreover, a billion-dollar company can afford to pay $20K to get a case dismissed. A lawyer so desperate for work that he is bringing frivilous class-action cases can't afford to drop $20K of his own money on a hopeless case.
The issue is a bit more complex, because the use of low-voltage flash memory in a tiny package means the audio side probably has to make due with less voltage too.
There's a huge range of available op-amp chips to do the amplification in these devices. Some chips, like the ones Sony uses in their radio walkman things, drive headphones well on about 1 volt. But the sound can get much better if you string in an op-amp that requires four times that voltage, and is built to benefit from 12 volts or more -- like the little airhead amp.
You are right that given the choice the audio designer would not choose to share the op-amp's power with a disk drive, which could raise interference issues. But the big ipods and the mini use 3.7 volt batteries, and I'm guessing that the nano uses less. That means it either uses a much more expensive op-amp, or one that doesn't perform as well.
"Stallman will write a draft version of the new GPL by December, after which it will be evaluated by thousands of organizations, software developers and software users in 2006."
In other words, the story should say that a new *draft* of the GPL will... yada. yada, yada. And we can all think of thousands of powerful opponents who will not evaluate that draft favorably. It will never move past the draft phase.
A binding release is not hard to do, at least within the U.S. system. Recently IBM did one for a portfolio of software patents, although it was limited to use in "open source" software. See the wikinews entry here.
Actually, what is says it "Creative Commons License: Public Domain" Click on the link and you see a copy of a license, written by creative commons. This is meant to enforce a waiver of all the rights granted by copyright; presumably archive.org has a signed copy from the copyright holder. Just to confuse you, this license is called "public domain" here, but it is really "public domain dedication." For the purpose of federal law, the film is NOT in the public domain.
In short, this film does not have an expired copyright; archive.org has obtained a general waiver of enforcement (and if they are lucky, they've obtained it from the true copyright holder).
The copyright has NOT expired. According to the copyright office's searchable database the picture was registered in 1958 and renewed in 1986, so it is covered by copyright for a 95-year term. It is scheduled to go into the public domain around 2053!
BUT archive.org does allow copyright holders to make a dedication to the public by a creative commons license. After archive.org recovers, check the details, and if there is a "creative commons license" link, click on it.
Copyright covers both musical compositions and sound recordings. The copyright in Beethoven's works has expired -- he didn't have the benefit of living under the benevolent rule of Disney Corporation -- but anyone who makes a sound recording gets a new copyright in that "phonogram." When the BBC makes a sound recording, it can do what it wants with it, for example, distribute it freely to the people whose taxes paid for it. (If the composition they recorded were covered by copyright, they'd have to pay a royalty.)
Thanks for the link. The M-Audio Transit does what I was thinking of. So that's good news. But...
I appreciate the fact that Apple is trying to keep their margin up (retail price down), but if I get a macmini, I'm not going to be happy to pay $99 for digital audio in/out ports. And there's nothing elegant about this solution: attaching an additional sound card connected to the USB bus. Apple saves almost a dollar by not soldering those ports onto their sound card, it is true. But Bill Gates is the one who profits, I think. 'Cause this kinda thing doesn't happen in Wintel land.
The keyboard / mouse / monitor thing is a different issue altogether -- leaving off extras is fine because many people want to use a brand or design of their own choice. If Apple wanted to let me choose my own sound card, I'd be thrilled. Instead they offer me the equivalent of a built-in 5-inch CRT.
I don't get the Apple port choices -- which really matters on a machine that isn't easily moddable. Where are the audio IN ports? Also, the mini-plug audio out is a mistake. There's a market for hard-disk audio recorders, and an 80GB mini running iTunes would pretty much own it IF it had real audio ports. Hey Apple: the Yamaha recorder / burner sells for $799, and what has it got that the mini doesn't, except the expected digital and analog in and out?
http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/DVD_CD/CDRHD130 0.htm
Is there a third-party sound processor that plugs into the USB?
BTW the video out doesn't bother me so much, since a converter from DVI/VGA to component video should be cheap and lossless.
Here's the one and only real legal issue, highlighted in the article:
The songs are streamed from the jukeboxes through the RBX1600s onto the front-end server, where they are compressed and concatenated into tempory files -- legally similar to the "ephemeral copies" of material that radio stations are allowed to make and store for limited periods.
The reason the first system faced legal trouble is because it relied on a digital archive of music on hard drives -- those were not "ephemeral" copies. Now the archive is just CDs. The only question is whether the copies on the server are "ephemeral" or not. The answer is likely yes. If you take the original CD out of the system, that content quickly disappears from the system.
First, how many parents get out the credit card when their teen says "there's this really cool new PC -- can I have $1800?"
Second, how many parents care about the footprint of their kid's PC, and how many are willing to pay an extra $500 to eliminate it?
Third, any teenager who gets this for Xmas instead of an new iMac will either 1) deny to his friends that he has a computer, or 2) be taunted mercilessly by his peers until he "spills" a gallon of something on it.
No one should be surprised that a jury in Rochester NY (home of... hey, the plaintiff!) didn't do the most thorough job of considering the prior art. But the appeals court will -- since they're not going to get new jobs, schools, and roads from the trickle down proceeds of this extortion.
Is this patent really a threat to internet development? Then let's take a lesson from what happened when M$ got hit by the Eolas patent. The W3C mobilized to evaporate that patent.
If it plays in a CD player, then non-windows platforms will PLAY it (anybody can emulate a CD player). If the CD is copyprotected, then the threat is that someone who writes COPYING software is (criminally!) liable under DMCA. BUT software that already exists suffices to copy anything that will play on CD player. Maybe that software won't ever run on Longhorn, but it'll run elsewhere.
As I see it, you can't have both legacy player compatibility and immunity to copying on legacy systems.
1. A blatant attempt to leverage their OS market share into a monopoly in music DRM is going to cause a legal headache that'll take many million euros to cure (even if the US looks the other way).
2. If Windows builds in copy controls on CDs, every single college student in the world will download and install a copy of Linux. Can't see billg signing off on anything that raises the spectre of that.
I'm a skeptic. No, seriously, you have to believe me....
I think I know what the PPV folks are thinking. There are legal advantages to having your content-delivery system include "a technological measure that effectively controls access" to the work. The DMCA bars trafficing in tools that circumvent such "effective" measures. So, the more the PPV folks can get such measures in place, the stronger legal position they have to go against anyone who "circumvents" -- that is, ignores -- these measures.
In 2000, Realnetworks sucessfully sued Streambox under the DMCA to prevent the latter from distributing their product that circumvented (ignored) Real's copy control system.
Don't you think that the PPV folks must be envious of that result?
There's surely a causal relationship, but it is likely complicated. P2P sharing of the latest pop hit probably means more radio requests and hence a bigger payout to the composer under the BMI formula. But what about the occasional spike in sharing of a song that isn't going to show up on any chart used by BMI?
In a sane system where P2P was treated more like radio and not like an illegal drug market, it would be very easy for BMI to track P2P activity and adjust the payout to arists appropriately.
Wendy Grossman has a short article on the back story of Microsoft and ContentGuard. The patent portfolio comes from Mark Stefik at Xerox PARC.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18130
I don't think this case had much to do with the underlying technology, or even the benevolence / malevolence of the parties.
I'd make a confident guess that the "basis" for this suit is a Supreme Court opinion from the 80s ("Hydrolevel") saying basically that standards-setting organizations can't allow themselves to become a tool for conspiratorial members who have an anti-competitive agenda.
VeriSign tried to make a case that ICANN's decision reflected a bias in the structure of the organization. That's really a question about the ICANN bureaucracy and the objectivity of the decision-making process. Obviously the judge approved of ICANN's actions. But I don't think that approval has anything to do with the actual merits of the decision, but rather the procedure used to reach it.
Slashdot Mirror
SGI can raise capital only because it has an IP portfolio, which in theory is as good as any other asset. Except that when the people using your IP won't take a license, you have to sue them or admit that you really don't have the assets you've been borrowing against. So the "action" SGI is looking for might just be continued access to capital.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/200 6/05/more_on_ebay_v.html
FTA:
In short, the case is going back to square one with no instruction as to how to rule. The Court's only dictate is to follow the old four-factor test and to stop thinking creatively about how to improve the status quo.
If the case is truly frivilous, it will cost as much to prosecute as to defend, so there is no way to "extort" money. Moreover, a billion-dollar company can afford to pay $20K to get a case dismissed. A lawyer so desperate for work that he is bringing frivilous class-action cases can't afford to drop $20K of his own money on a hopeless case.
There's a huge range of available op-amp chips to do the amplification in these devices. Some chips, like the ones Sony uses in their radio walkman things, drive headphones well on about 1 volt. But the sound can get much better if you string in an op-amp that requires four times that voltage, and is built to benefit from 12 volts or more -- like the little airhead amp.
You are right that given the choice the audio designer would not choose to share the op-amp's power with a disk drive, which could raise interference issues. But the big ipods and the mini use 3.7 volt batteries, and I'm guessing that the nano uses less. That means it either uses a much more expensive op-amp, or one that doesn't perform as well.
In other words, the story should say that a new *draft* of the GPL will... yada. yada, yada. And we can all think of thousands of powerful opponents who will not evaluate that draft favorably. It will never move past the draft phase.
A binding release is not hard to do, at least within the U.S. system. Recently IBM did one for a portfolio of software patents, although it was limited to use in "open source" software. See the wikinews entry here.
In short, this film does not have an expired copyright; archive.org has obtained a general waiver of enforcement (and if they are lucky, they've obtained it from the true copyright holder).
Ask a question about a crazy legal regime...
Check the copyright office database. The film was registered in 1958, renewed in 1986. It is under copyright for 95 years.
BUT archive.org does allow copyright holders to make a dedication to the public by a creative commons license. After archive.org recovers, check the details, and if there is a "creative commons license" link, click on it.
Copyright covers both musical compositions and sound recordings. The copyright in Beethoven's works has expired -- he didn't have the benefit of living under the benevolent rule of Disney Corporation -- but anyone who makes a sound recording gets a new copyright in that "phonogram." When the BBC makes a sound recording, it can do what it wants with it, for example, distribute it freely to the people whose taxes paid for it. (If the composition they recorded were covered by copyright, they'd have to pay a royalty.)
No, you are not.
But what if your ads display on this nice color screen?
I appreciate the fact that Apple is trying to keep their margin up (retail price down), but if I get a macmini, I'm not going to be happy to pay $99 for digital audio in/out ports. And there's nothing elegant about this solution: attaching an additional sound card connected to the USB bus. Apple saves almost a dollar by not soldering those ports onto their sound card, it is true. But Bill Gates is the one who profits, I think. 'Cause this kinda thing doesn't happen in Wintel land.
The keyboard / mouse / monitor thing is a different issue altogether -- leaving off extras is fine because many people want to use a brand or design of their own choice. If Apple wanted to let me choose my own sound card, I'd be thrilled. Instead they offer me the equivalent of a built-in 5-inch CRT.
Is there a third-party sound processor that plugs into the USB?
BTW the video out doesn't bother me so much, since a converter from DVI/VGA to component video should be cheap and lossless.
The songs are streamed from the jukeboxes through the RBX1600s onto the front-end server, where they are compressed and concatenated into tempory files -- legally similar to the "ephemeral copies" of material that radio stations are allowed to make and store for limited periods.
The reason the first system faced legal trouble is because it relied on a digital archive of music on hard drives -- those were not "ephemeral" copies. Now the archive is just CDs. The only question is whether the copies on the server are "ephemeral" or not. The answer is likely yes. If you take the original CD out of the system, that content quickly disappears from the system.
Second, how many parents care about the footprint of their kid's PC, and how many are willing to pay an extra $500 to eliminate it?
Third, any teenager who gets this for Xmas instead of an new iMac will either 1) deny to his friends that he has a computer, or 2) be taunted mercilessly by his peers until he "spills" a gallon of something on it.
Is this patent really a threat to internet development? Then let's take a lesson from what happened when M$ got hit by the Eolas patent. The W3C mobilized to evaporate that patent.
If it plays in a CD player, then non-windows platforms will PLAY it (anybody can emulate a CD player). If the CD is copyprotected, then the threat is that someone who writes COPYING software is (criminally!) liable under DMCA. BUT software that already exists suffices to copy anything that will play on CD player. Maybe that software won't ever run on Longhorn, but it'll run elsewhere.
As I see it, you can't have both legacy player compatibility and immunity to copying on legacy systems.
1. A blatant attempt to leverage their OS market share into a monopoly in music DRM is going to cause a legal headache that'll take many million euros to cure (even if the US looks the other way).
2. If Windows builds in copy controls on CDs, every single college student in the world will download and install a copy of Linux. Can't see billg signing off on anything that raises the spectre of that.
I'm a skeptic. No, seriously, you have to believe me....
In 2000, Realnetworks sucessfully sued Streambox under the DMCA to prevent the latter from distributing their product that circumvented (ignored) Real's copy control system.
Don't you think that the PPV folks must be envious of that result?
There's surely a causal relationship, but it is likely complicated. P2P sharing of the latest pop hit probably means more radio requests and hence a bigger payout to the composer under the BMI formula. But what about the occasional spike in sharing of a song that isn't going to show up on any chart used by BMI?
In a sane system where P2P was treated more like radio and not like an illegal drug market, it would be very easy for BMI to track P2P activity and adjust the payout to arists appropriately.
Wendy Grossman has a short article on the back story of Microsoft and ContentGuard. The patent portfolio comes from Mark Stefik at Xerox PARC. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18130
I'd make a confident guess that the "basis" for this suit is a Supreme Court opinion from the 80s ("Hydrolevel") saying basically that standards-setting organizations can't allow themselves to become a tool for conspiratorial members who have an anti-competitive agenda.
VeriSign tried to make a case that ICANN's decision reflected a bias in the structure of the organization. That's really a question about the ICANN bureaucracy and the objectivity of the decision-making process. Obviously the judge approved of ICANN's actions. But I don't think that approval has anything to do with the actual merits of the decision, but rather the procedure used to reach it.