|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:38 AM EST |
That's a lot of high-up Microsoft employees Microsoft is calling, is that sort
of thing normal?
It seems to me like they aren't saying anything more than "We want!"
but I could be misinterpreting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fredex on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:43 AM EST |
| Put 'em here, folks... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST |
Please post corrections here.
Check against PDF's before offering any corrections to those.
A summary in the posts title may be helpful.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ABCHD -> AVCHD - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:01 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:02 AM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM EST |
Local heroes! Please post COMES transcripts in this thread, with HTML markup but
in plain old text mode to facilitate cut and paste.
If you want to join the ranks of heroes and transcribe one or a plurality of
documents, have a look at the Comes vs. Microsoft page for instructions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:17 AM EST |
I don't think the judge understands how important this case is. The
courtroom is likely to remain packed.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST |
Thank You Phil for taking the time to go to court and report on the trial for
us.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:46 AM EST |
How you are supposed to have a trial about royalty rates without discussing the
actual royalty rates paid in the real world.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: indyandy on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:00 AM EST |
Microsoft embracing, then extending, a standard.
Fancy that![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:50 AM EST |
The whole thing is a private club. If you don't have a required patent to
submit to the pool you may not be invited to participate. This tends to support
the existing players but exclude any new ones. By building up the cost of entry
in this way the old existing players build a locked market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:18 PM EST |
I'm glad PJ supports FRAND abuse in order to vilify MS in order to support
Google.
How can FRAND abuse be justified by OSS proponents?
It boggles the mind the an OSS advocate can try to spin or justify Google's
abuse of SEP patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ supports FRAND Abuse - Authored by: Zox on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:28 PM EST
- PJ supports FRAND Abuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:29 PM EST
- PJ supports FRAND Abuse - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST
- Ignore the troll (n/t) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM EST
- Apparently negotiation = abuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 01:40 PM EST
- Really? - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:46 PM EST
- You cannot be FM - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM EST
- do you really expect us to believe this? - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM EST
- Ad hominum attacks on PJ? - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 04:05 PM EST
- PJ supports FRAND Abuse - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 04:43 PM EST
- Go away, Florian. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
- PJ supports FRAND Abuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:51 PM EST
- Sir, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 07:51 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 03:08 PM EST |
PJ/everyone:
how biased/unbiased are some of the people using that
hashtag?
I noticed FOSSpatents put together a list of people labeled
part of the MS/Moto trial, which immediately makes me
question the fairness and accuracy of reporting by most of
the people using the hashtag. Especially when you look at
the list of subscribers to the list as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- hashtag issues/questions - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 04:45 PM EST
- Bias - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:25 PM EST
- Bias - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:34 PM EST
- Bias - Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 07:20 PM EST
- Floriated - Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 07:32 PM EST
- Floriated - Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:24 PM EST
- Floriated - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 12:01 AM EST
- ROFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 08:26 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 03:38 PM EST |
Just a thought.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not a new one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 03:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST |
From this: Motorola Cross-examination of Murphy:
"Agreed that there is not much of a real patent stacking issue, if
any."
Does that mean that patent stacking is not legal or anti-competitive?
If so, isn't what Microsoft and Apple are doing to Android manufacturers doing
illegal?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:25 AM EST |
All the way through I found myself, metaphorically, nodding and thinking 'that's
fair' and 'that's a good point'. It has taken me some time to see through to the
underlying nonsense.
Microsoft:Royalty should be
proportionate to use of the patent in the relevant standards, resulting in
reasonable RAND rates.
Motorola:Used a simple example
that if 10 companies each have one patent in a 10-patent pool, if the royalties
are $10, then each gets $1. Judge joked: Good—now there's some math at
my level. Do patents not in the pool have the same value? Cannot answer
that.
So, the MPEG LA group to which both Microsoft and Motorola
belonged, at the beginning, make no allowance for the extent that a patent is
used in the standard. The patent owners get an equal share of the
royalties.
Microsoft, Garrett Glanz:May 2003 H.264 adopted.
Starts with call for patents. Initial meeting, and MPEG LA coordinates the
meeting. MPEG LA collects/distributes royalties...
Pool process
description: MPEG LA created a “straw man,” then attendees proposed adjustments.
MPEG LA had an external expert determine what patents were essential. Many
patent holders were licensees as well. Motorola had mobile phones, set-top boxes
for cable TV, that would use the H264 codec. Microsoft had Windows and other
products that would use it...
Concern at the pool meetings was that if
royalty rates were set too low, patent holders would not contribute their
patents. But if rates were set too high, competing codecs might be used instead
by licensees...
Motorola suggested the initial units not need to pay
royalties, and this was adopted. Motorola said the proposed rates were too
expensive for mobile use—would likely then use other codecs.
What,
exactly, is the MPEG LA group doing on behalf of their members? H264 is a
standard devised by two of the three biggest specialised agencies of the United
Nations that devise international standards for the whole world.
The
MPEG LA group put out a 'call for patents' that were only valid in the US with
the intention of monopolising the H264 international standard in the US in order
to monetize, within the US, the international standard set by the United
Nations.
They were not protecting the extensive effort in creating the
innovative and useful patented inventions. There work was just to put out a call
for patents and get an expert to determine which ones were essential to using
the international standard in the US and bring the owners of the essential
inventions into the pool.
How egregious is this activity? Just to
repeat the MPEG LA monetizing business plan:Concern at the pool
meetings was that if royalty rates were set too low, patent holders would not
contribute their patents. But if rates were set too high, competing codecs might
be used instead by licensees.
So, that's alright, then! If the
whole of the rest of the world adopted H264 then US companies could just use a
competing codec.In terms of how Windows functions, if a hardware
decoder cannot be found, Windows software will decode the
codec.
Microsoft opening statement:Motorola patents
are tangential to XBox, and are rarely called on in real-world use. Interlaced
video support is contained in $3 to $4 chips from another
company.
Microsoft, Gary Sullivan:The primary goal was
better compression:
So, MPEG LA wanted a monopoly in the US on the
math used to compress and decompress the video that had been invented under the
auspices of the United Nations by the combined efforts of the world's
experts.
Unlike software inventions, codec math inventions can be
patented as an invention in most parts of the world. The German Fraunhofer
Institute have patents around the world on MP3. It does not matter whether
Microsoft encode and decode MP3 using a '$3 to $4 chip' or with software
in the Windows Media Player, they are still infringing on the patented math. If
MP3 is a de fecto world standard, it is not possible to use an 'alternative
codec' to work with MP3. The same applies to H264.
And that's why this
is all as mad as a box of codecs.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Got it in one - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 01:27 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 05:30 AM EST |
| Well, that limits its usefulness to those living in densely populated areas,
where WiFi bandwidth rapidly degenerates. Come to think of it, my Motorola Xoom
does not have one either, although I think its USB port can be used, with an
adaptor. My grumble is therefore about tablets in general, not just the
Surface. I think they would really benefit from a proper ethernet port. The
limiting factor is not power, as such things are easy to switch off when not in
use. I suspect the real problem is the height of the connector, not compatible
with the thinnest of tablets without having a bulge. So I think there is a need
for a new design of ethernet connector. If they fit it with PoE, it could be the
charging port too. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
