The soft, froggy voice startled me. I turned around to face an approaching figure. It was Larry Page, naked, save for a pair of eyeglasses.
“Welcome to Google Island. I hope my nudity doesn’t bother you. We’re completely committed to openness here. Search history. Health data. Your genetic blueprint. One way to express this is by removing clothes to foster experimentation. It’s something I learned at Burning Man,” he said. “Here, drink this. You’re slightly dehydrated, and your blood sugar is low. This is a blend of water, electrolytes, and glucose.”
I was taken aback. “How did you…” I began, but he was already answering me before I could finish my question. (Thanks @ClarkeViper for the link.)]]>
This is a serious misunderstanding. The ability to refer to a document (or a person or any thing else) is in general a fundamental right of free speech to the same extent that speech is free. Making the reference with a hypertext link is more efficient but changes nothing else.]]>
The problem for Motorola is that it can't show it deserves anything more than monetary damages. An injunction is a powerful remedy, and in order to get it, a company has to prove it's been harmed in a way that a money award can't compensate for. But in this case, money is enough, US District Judge James Robart ruled.
"Because Microsoft will pay royalties under any license agreement from the time of infringement within the statute of limitations, this license agreement will constitute Motorola’s remedy for Microsoft’s use of Motorola’s H.264 standard essential patent portfolio to include the Motorola Asserted Patents. Accordingly, Motorola cannot demonstrate that it has been irreparably harmed."
Robart went further than just dealing with the patents in his case. His order, he specified, applies "for Motorola's entire H.264 standard essential patent portfolio," including certain European patents at issue in a German action. Big loss for Motorola Mobility (MMI), and thus for its owner Google whose whole rationale for buying MMI was to get its patents to fight back with. Without injunctions, the patents make MMI a low-earning rentier.]]>
In Stallman's view, the idea that society might be able to eliminate "bad patents" while keeping good ones is a kind of Jedi mind trick. Offering patents as a reward for software development—a system where the prize is a right to shut down someone else—is fatally flawed.
"Consider the MP3 patent," said Stallman. "That caused a lot of harm. It's not trivial, it came from a research institute. But we can fund research institutes in other ways." (Thanks @doarunner for the link.)]]>
The authors argue that this selection process is no different, constitutionally speaking, from a newspaper editor selecting wire stories to run, a guidebook deciding which attractions to feature, or a parade organizer choosing which floats to include. The courts have ruled that all of these editorial processes are fully protected by the First Amendment. True, but misses the point. The FTC's beef is with Google cross-promoting products such as its Google shopping comparison, or maps, or video, in its search results. When Google doesn't have a competitor in a space, the other product appears highly in search results. As soon as Google has a product, the rival vanishes from useful search results. Using the monopoly (search) to demote others in a space is, arguably, abuse of monopoly power. Microsoft's promotion in the 1990s of Internet Explorer on Windows used its engineers' judgements about what material users would find useful in browsing the web, but that didn't stop it being an abuse of monopoly. (Thanks @modelportfolio2003 for the link.)]]>