<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;barnes & noble&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:42:52 PST</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Decides That Purchased Ebooks Are Only Yours Until Your Credit Card Expires</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/18084721154/barnes-noble-decides-that-purchased-ebooks-are-only-yours-until-your-credit-card-expires.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/18084721154/barnes-noble-decides-that-purchased-ebooks-are-only-yours-until-your-credit-card-expires.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ DRM rears its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/07461118999/crysis-3-studio-reminds-you-it-still-owns-your-copy-original-crysis.shtml" target="_blank">ugly</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120203/07550617650/ubisoft-cuts-off-legit-players-with-drm-server-migration-pirates-play.shtml" target="_blank">malformed</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/09115121063/app-developer-hijacks-customer-twitter-accounts-attempt-to-shame-pirates.shtml" target="_blank">malignant</a>, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121006/15375020630/xbox-drm-punishes-more-paying-customers-actually-restricts-purchasing-options.shtml" target="_blank">cross-eyed</a> head again. Despite the fact that, as Cory Doctorow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/06084420017/hachette-tells-authors-tor-to-use-drm-because-it-is-awesome-something.shtml" target="_blank">so aptly put it</a>, no one has ever purchased anything <i>because</i> it came with DRM, an ever-slimming number of content providers <i>insist</i> on punishing paying customers with idiotic "anti-piracy" schemes.<br />
<br />
Combine this "malware" with digital distribution that sticks the end user with an unfavorable license rather than, say, an actual book, and you&#39;ve got another ready-made disaster. The Consumerist <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/11/26/heres-why-digital-rights-management-is-stupid-and-anti-consumer/" target="_blank">has the details on yet another paying customer dealing with DRM stupidity</a>. It starts off with this physical analogy.
<blockquote>
<i>[I]f reader Synimatik had bought a paperback book a few months ago and picked it up to read now, the book&rsquo;s pages wouldn&rsquo;t magically glue shut just because the credit card she normally uses at the bookstore has expired.</i></blockquote>
Obviously, no one would expect a physical book to be subject to the whims of the publisher or the store it was purchased from. A sale is a sale, even if many rights holders would rather it wasn&#39;t. But, Barnes &#038; Noble doesn&#39;t see it that way. Sure, you can <i>buy</i> an ebook from them, but you&#39;d better keep everything in your profile up to date if you plan on accessing your purchases at some undetermined point in the future.
<blockquote>
<i>Yesterday, I tried to download an ebook I paid for, and previously put on my Nook, a few months ago. When I tried, I got an error message stating I could not download the book because the credit card on file had expired. But, I already paid for it. Who cares if the credit card is expired? It has long since been paid for, so the status of the card on file has nothing to do with my ability to download said book. I didn&rsquo;t see anything in the terms of service about this either, but it&rsquo;s possible I missed it.</i><br />
<br />
<i>This is just one more reason to either not buy ebooks, or strip the drm off of the ones you purchase so you can you the book you BUY on all your devices without having to purchase multiple copies for no reason and have access to something you already bought when you want it.</i></blockquote>
Nice work, B&#038;N. Driving another person away from your offerings with your amnesiac point-of-purchase system. No one&#39;s <i>purchase</i> should be invalidated once the payment has cleared. Barnes &#038; Noble got <i>its</i> money but its customer is out both money <i>and</i> a book. Does B&#038;N really wish for its customers to root their devices and strip the DRM out of their purchases <i>just so they can enjoy them at their own pace</i>? Shouldn&#39;t the company be catering to its customers rather than treating them like thieves who can&#39;t be trusted even though they've already paid?<br />
<br />
If this was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121022/07340420786/amazon-wipes-customers-account-locks-all-ebooks-says-find-new-retailer-when-she-asks-why.shtml" target="_blank">one-of-a-kind</a> experience, we could chalk it up to "live and learn." But a whole lot of living has gone on and the only lesson anyone&#39;s learning is the most efficient way to remove pesky DRM idiocy from their purchased "licenses" in order to turn them into actual, useful goods.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/18084721154/barnes-noble-decides-that-purchased-ebooks-are-only-yours-until-your-credit-card-expires.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/18084721154/barnes-noble-decides-that-purchased-ebooks-are-only-yours-until-your-credit-card-expires.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/18084721154/barnes-noble-decides-that-purchased-ebooks-are-only-yours-until-your-credit-card-expires.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ebooks:-where-'buying'-means-'renting-for-an-indefinite-period'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121126/18084721154</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 03:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble: Ebooks Should Be Expensive So Amazon Won't Kill Us And Make Ebooks Expensive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/107055867331675327046/posts/B6WXgL1EPom" target="_blank">Joe Betsill</a> points us to the news that Barnes &#038; Noble is the latest to weigh in on the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml">price-fixing</a> case against Apple and some publishers over ebook pricing.  It's really bizarre.  At best, it can be summed up as <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/06/07/barnes--nobles-convoluted-defense-of-pricey-books" target="_blank">"we have to stop Amazon from offering cheap books</a>, because if they do that, then we (Barnes &#038; Noble) might go out of business, and then Amazon would be all alone and it might raise prices."  Yes, the argument is that we're better off having expensive ebooks today, because if we don't, we might have expensive books in the future.  I'm still trying to figure out how that makes any sense.  At all.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120609/02050719260/barnes-noble-ebooks-should-be-expensive-so-amazon-wont-kill-us-make-ebooks-expensive.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>got-that?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120609/02050719260</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 May 2012 07:26:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>B&#038;N Removes Magazine From Nook Store Due To Feature Article On 'Hacking'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/13323818766/bn-removes-magazine-nook-store-due-to-feature-article-hacking.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/13323818766/bn-removes-magazine-nook-store-due-to-feature-article-hacking.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked a lot about the difference between <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-middlemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml">gatekeepers and enablers</a>, and how the latter are becoming more important than the former.  Both are types of middlemen, of course.  And there have been some reasonable discussions about how enablers can <i>become</i> gatekeepers at times.  Indeed, this is something to be aware of, and we should worry about it and speak out when we see evidence of it happening.  For example, ebook platforms have become great enablers, allowing lots of new written works to be published, promoted, distributed and sold.  In 2002, 250,000 books were published.  In 2010 the number was over 3 million -- with much of that being thanks to the easy publishing of ebooks, and the platforms that made it possible to publish a book without a gatekeeper.
<br /><br />
But... sometimes those enablers turn into gatekeepers.  Witness the news, <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/03/1531247/bn-pulls-linux-format-magazine-over-feature-on-hacking" target="_blank">via Slashdot</a>, that Barnes &#038; Noble <a href="http://tuxradar.com/content/learn-hack-was-pulled-barnes-and-noble" target="_blank">removed Linux Format magazine from the Nook store</a> because the magazine dared to publish an article entitled <a href="http://www.tuxradar.com/content/learn-hack/" target="_blank"><i>Learn to Hack</i></a>.  It is true that they were using "hack" in the (increasingly less common) definition having to do with breaking into other computers and networks, but the framing of it was mostly around understanding these things to keep yourself secure.  Still, do we really want platforms like Barnes &#038; Noble acting as gatekeepers concerning what people can and cannot read?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/13323818766/bn-removes-magazine-nook-store-due-to-feature-article-hacking.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/13323818766/bn-removes-magazine-nook-store-due-to-feature-article-hacking.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120503/13323818766/bn-removes-magazine-nook-store-due-to-feature-article-hacking.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hacking-not-allowed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120503/13323818766</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Excitement Over B&amp;N/Microsoft Teamup Is A Bit Premature</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/16153718720/excitement-over-bnmicrosoft-teamup-is-bit-premature.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/16153718720/excitement-over-bnmicrosoft-teamup-is-bit-premature.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's just something about when also-ran brands suddenly team up to try to "do something" that gets clueless people excited.  It almost never works however.  The latest is that Microsoft and Barnes & Noble have settled their (somewhat acrimonious) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml">patent dispute</a> (in which B&N was making the case that Microsoft violated antitrust law with its patents) in order to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-30/barnes-and-nobles-marriage-of-necessity-with-microsoft" target="_blank">work together on a new spinoff company</a> built around the Nook ebook platform.  To be fair, lots of reviewers have raved about the Nook, and noted that it's actually a better device than the Kindle.  But actually getting the market to agree has been a pretty big challenge.  Could Microsoft help?  Perhaps, but these kinds of linkups don't have much of a history of working well.  In part, it's because you have different parties with different priorities.  In part, it's because deals like this usually involved a lot more planning than executing.  But, largely, it's because these companies don't really understand the market.  At least, they seem to think that if they do a few superficial things up front, that will suddenly catapult them to the top.  They may discover it's a lot more difficult than that.
<br /><br />
But, of course, that hasn't stopped some from getting really excited about this.  B&N stock <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/microsoft-to-invest-300-million-in-venture-with-barnes-noble.html" target="_blank">shot upwards in response</a>, though perhaps it was just because investors were happy that the company was able to "unload" the Nook.  But, then, you see comments like this:
<blockquote><i>
"With the new Windows rollout, there are so many things you can do with the Nook beyond e-reading," Glickstein, who is based in New York, said today in a telephone interview. "Now that Bill Gates and Microsoft are in on the tech side, it&#8217;s absolutely compelling."
</i></blockquote>
Of course, you could do lots of things with the Nook beyond e-reading that have nothing to do with Windows.  Tying the Android-based platform to anything having to do with Windows seems like a step backwards, not forward.  Also, er, someone should tell this guy that Bill Gates <b>retired four years ago</b>.  But, you know, why would anyone who's in charge of analyzing these kinds of things be aware of little facts like that?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/16153718720/excitement-over-bnmicrosoft-teamup-is-bit-premature.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/16153718720/excitement-over-bnmicrosoft-teamup-is-bit-premature.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120430/16153718720/excitement-over-bnmicrosoft-teamup-is-bit-premature.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-exactly-is-the-plan-here?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120430/16153718720</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:37:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>Subscribe To A Newsapaper, Get An E-reader Free</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/07340417386/subscribe-to-newsapaper-get-e-reader-free.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/07340417386/subscribe-to-newsapaper-get-e-reader-free.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Well, this was bound to happen.  <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/barnes-noble-to-offer-nook-discount-to-subscribers-of-2-print-publications/">Barnes &#038; Noble is offering big discounts on its Nook e-readers to people taking out subscriptions</a> to digital editions of magazines and newspapers:

<i><blockquote>The Nook edition of People is $9.99 a month; with a one-year subscription, customers will receive a Nook Tablet, a color device with a 7-inch display, for $199, a discount from its regular price of $249. Customers who buy a one-year subscription for the Nook edition of The New York Times for $19.99 a month, which includes access to NYTimes.com, will receive a black-and-white Nook Simple Touch free or a Nook Color for $99.</blockquote></i>

It's that last deal that's really striking: a free Nook when you subscribe for a year.  The benefit is clear: once you've got your Nook, you're quite likely to buy a few other titles to read on it, and that's where the profit starts rolling in for Barnes &#038; Noble.
</p><p>
It's not hard to see Amazon following suit.  After all, it is allegedly <a href="http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Amazon-Kindle-Fire-Costs-$201-70-to-Manufacture.aspx">selling the Kindle Fire for less than it costs to make</a>, so it has effectively adopted the same business strategy already. 
</p><p>
The low-end models for both Barnes &#038; Noble and Amazon are ideal for bundling free with newspapers and magazines, especially as hardware prices continue to drop.  E-readers might even be offered free with e-books, provided people commit to buying a minimum number per year - traditional book clubs would be wise to try this approach in conjunction with Amazon or Barnes &#038; Noble before those two do it on their own.  Similarly, it can only be a matter of time before the newspaper and magazine publishers start offering combined hardware and software bundles as standard in an attempt to entice people to sign up for digital subs.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/07340417386/subscribe-to-newsapaper-get-e-reader-free.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/07340417386/subscribe-to-newsapaper-get-e-reader-free.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120112/07340417386/subscribe-to-newsapaper-get-e-reader-free.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>make-it-up-on-volume</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120112/07340417386</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:48:36 PST</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Going Around Asking Everyone To Change All Links From Borders To B&#038;N</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/03355117169/barnes-noble-going-around-asking-everyone-to-change-all-links-borders-to-bn.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/03355117169/barnes-noble-going-around-asking-everyone-to-change-all-links-borders-to-bn.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you probably heard, Borders went out of business recently and Barnes &#038; Noble purchased a bunch of Borders assets around its trademarks.  Still, it was a bit surprising when we received an email this week asking us to change any links we have on Techdirt that go to Borders.com to redirect to Barnesandnoble.com:
<blockquote><i>
Barnes &#038; Noble recently purchased most of the Borders trademarks and intellectual property in a recent auction. As a result of this purchase, we started transitioning the Borders.com website to Barnesandnoble.com via redirects.
<br /><br />
We noticed that your site is currently linking to http://www.borders.com/online/store/Home  , and I&rsquo;d like to reach out and ask you to kindly update your links to the corresponding URLs on Barnesandnoble.com. We have redirects in place for many Borders.com pages, so you can use that to help you determine the correct landing pages on Barnesandnoble.com.
</i></blockquote>
To be honest, I absolutely could not recall ever linking to Borders, but I did some digging, and found that we did so... three and a half years ago in a post about Borders.com's last ditch attempt to try to be innovative with a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/0208581227.shtml">different kind</a> of home page.  Because of that we linked to the front page of Borders.com.  For a variety of reasons, it would be stupid to change that link.  In the context of the story, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
<br /><br />
But all of this makes me wonder why Barnes &#038; Noble is wasting their time sending emails to people like this.  If it wants to redirect people, just set up some redirects.  Don't expect everyone to drop everything and go change ancient links.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/03355117169/barnes-noble-going-around-asking-everyone-to-change-all-links-borders-to-bn.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/03355117169/barnes-noble-going-around-asking-everyone-to-change-all-links-borders-to-bn.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111222/03355117169/barnes-noble-going-around-asking-everyone-to-change-all-links-borders-to-bn.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111222/03355117169</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:46:19 PST</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Revealing Microsoft's 'Secret' Patents, Which It Believes Cover Android</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111119/02153116844/barnes-noble-revealing-microsofts-secret-patents-which-it-believes-cover-android.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111119/02153116844/barnes-noble-revealing-microsofts-secret-patents-which-it-believes-cover-android.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, Microsoft continued its shakedown war against all things Android by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml">suing Barnes &#038; Noble</a> for patent infringement over the Nook.  As we discussed, B&#038;N is fighting back in a big way, claiming that Microsoft's shakedown tactics are an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml">antitrust violation</a>.  As that effort moves forward, it's beginning to reveal a ton of useful info.  While Microsoft continues to try to keep the patents it's using in these shakedowns "secret," B&#038;N <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011111122291296" target="_blank">has been revealing them</a>.  Groklaw has the details:
<blockquote><i>
The patents, we read, "cover only arbitrary, outmoded and non-essential design features" and yet Microsoft is demanding "prohibitively expensive licensing fees", in effect asserting "veto power" over Android's features. One aspect of the license, Barnes &#038; Noble tells us, was a demand to control design elements, requiring designers to adhere to specific hardware and software specifications in order to obtain a license. That, Barnes &#038; Noble says, is "oppressive and anticompetitive". I think it's accurate to say that the company believes it is illegal.
<br /><br />
Barnes &#038; Noble asserts that Microsoft is attempting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it, in essence, is acting like a patent troll, threatening companies using Android with a destructive and anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents, some trivial and others ridiculously invalid or clearly not infringed, or spend a fortune on litigation.
</i></blockquote>
Beyond revealing more of the patents, the company, in its filings, makes it clear what it believes Microsoft is doing:
<blockquote><i>
Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operating systems market. Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operating systems market.... Through the use of oppressive licensing terms that amount to a veto power over a wide variety of innovative features in Android devices of all kinds, as well as its prohibitively expensive licensing fees, Microsoft is attempting to push open source software developers out of the market altogether.
</i></blockquote>
Seems like a pretty accurate summary from what we've seen.  It's really pretty sad when the focus of your business is hindering others, rather than innovating yourself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111119/02153116844/barnes-noble-revealing-microsofts-secret-patents-which-it-believes-cover-android.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111119/02153116844/barnes-noble-revealing-microsofts-secret-patents-which-it-believes-cover-android.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111119/02153116844/barnes-noble-revealing-microsofts-secret-patents-which-it-believes-cover-android.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>trivial-patents</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111119/02153116844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:05:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Claims That Microsoft Patent Shakedown Over Android Is An Antitrust Violation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's finally been a growing recognition that intellectual property laws are about providing monopolies, and that misusing patent and copyright laws thus could be considered antitrust violations.  While it's true that copyright and patents involve <i>legal</i> monopolies, misusing them would clearly be an abuse of a monopoly, and should be ripe for actual antitrust investigations (rather than silly antitrust attacks on companies just because they're "big.")  So it's interesting to see that Barnes &#038; Noble is pressing the feds to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57320800-75/barnes-noble-wants-doj-probe-into-microsoft-patent-tactics/?part=rss&#038;subj=latest-news&#038;tag=title" target="_blank">go after Microsoft on antitrust grounds</a> for its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111013/17205316345/can-we-just-admit-that-its-insane-when-microsoft-has-licensing-program-someone-elses-products.shtml">Android licensing shakedown</a>.  Barnes &#038; Noble is pretty direct in its accusations.
<blockquote><i>
Instead of focusing on innovation and the development of new products for consumers, Microsoft has decided to invest its efforts into driving open source developers from the mobile operation systems market.  Through the use of offensive licensing agreements and the demand for unreasonable licensing fees, Microsoft is hindering creativity in the mobile operation systems market.
</i></blockquote>
The complaint also notes some odd behaviors on Microsoft's part, such as refusing to explain what patents it was threatening B&#038;N over, unless B&#038;N agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
<blockquote><i>
Microsoft specifically alleged that Barnes &#038; Noble's Nook was infringing six patents purportedly held by Microsoft.  When Barnes &#038; Noble asked Microsoft for more detailed information related to these patents, Microsoft refused, claiming that the information was confidential and could not be shared unless Barnes &#038; Noble first executed a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA").  Because both the patents and Barnes &#038; Noble's Nook product are public -- meaning there was no need for an NDA -- Barnes &#038; Noble refused to sign.  
</i></blockquote>
The company continued negotiating with Microsoft over what seemed like a pretty bizarre discussion concerning whether B&#038;N had to sign an NDA just to find out what patents Microsoft wanted the company to license.  Because B&#038;N did eventually sign a limited NDA, it's asking the DOJ to step in and subpoena the details it can't reveal.  Still, B&#038;N claims that Microsoft's patents would severely limit its ability to innovate:
<blockquote><i>
This proposed licensing agreement covered Barnes &#038; Noble's use of Android on its existing eReader devices but is structured in such a way to presume that Microsoft's portfolio of patents dominate, and thereby control, the entire Android operation system and any devices that use Android.  Indeed, the proposed license would have severely limited and, in some cases, entirely eliminated Barnes &#038; Noble's ability to upgrade or improve the Nook or the Nook Color, even though Microsoft's asserted patents have nothing to do with improvements.
</i></blockquote>
Unfortunately, I just don't see the Justice Department gearing up for this, but that's really unfortunate.  It <i>should</i> be watching out for abuses of patent law that appear to impact wider innovation.  Instead, it's running around chasing companies based on size, not actual impact.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111109/02574116691/barnes-noble-claims-that-microsoft-patent-shakedown-over-android-is-antitrust-violation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sounds-about-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111109/02574116691</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Doesn't Get Digital DC Comics, Throws Hissy Fit</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/11240016286/barnes-noble-doesnt-get-digital-dc-comics-throws-hissy-fit.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/11240016286/barnes-noble-doesnt-get-digital-dc-comics-throws-hissy-fit.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In a move that screams of a complete disconnect from reality, Barnes &#038; Noble (B&#038;N) has decided to <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/07/technology/kindle_dc_comics/index.htm?iid=HP_River" target="_blank">remove over 100 DC comics from its shelves</a>. This move is in reaction to DC giving Amazon exclusive e-publishing rights to the digital versions of those comics.
<br /><br />
In a statement to CNN, Jaime Carey, B&#038;N's chief merchant, said:

<blockquote><i>Regardless of the publisher, we will not stock physical books in our stores if we are not offered the available digital format. To sell and promote the physical book in our store showrooms and not have the e-book available for sale would undermine our promise to Barnes &#038; Noble customers to make available any book, anywhere, anytime. </i></blockquote>

Read that again. Since B&#038;N did not get the rights to the digital version of the comics, it will be denying customers access to the physical comics. How exactly does this fulfill the promise of providing DC comics "anywhere, anytime"? How are comic fans who frequent B&#038;N supposed to get these comics if the comics are not available in-store? This move certainly flies in the face of that promise.
<br /><br /> 
With this move, B&#038;N is hoping to 'punish' DC with fewer sales. In reality, this will only tick off its comic loving customers who will have to go to another store in order to buy these comics. While this move will probably make B&#038;N feel better, it will not result in any real change to its partnership with DC. This is yet another company putting its own interests ahead of the interests of its customers. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/06285316282/netflix-kills-qwikster-before-it-has-chance-to-live.shtml" target="_blank">Much like those other businesses</a>, this is going to bite them in the butt and they will end up backtracking soon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/11240016286/barnes-noble-doesnt-get-digital-dc-comics-throws-hissy-fit.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/11240016286/barnes-noble-doesnt-get-digital-dc-comics-throws-hissy-fit.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/11240016286/barnes-noble-doesnt-get-digital-dc-comics-throws-hissy-fit.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111010/11240016286</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 06:14:37 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft Continues Its Backdoor Legal Fight Against Android: Sues Barnes &#038; Noble Over Nook</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Microsoft has been tiptoeing around its claims that Android violates certain Microsoft patents, carefully choosing who to sue.  For example, it's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101001/13562611251/microsoft-sues-motorola-for-patent-infringement-over-android.shtml">sued Motorola</a>, but hasn't sued Google.  The latest is that it's <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/222711/microsoft_alleges_android_patent_infringement_by_nook_ereader.html" target="_blank">suing Barnes &#038; Noble for infringing on its patents</a>, claiming that the Nook ebook reader, which uses Android, violates its patents.  The patents in question all seem to cover astoundingly obvious concepts that Microsoft should be ashamed to hold patents on and be asserting:
<ul>
<li>System provided child window controls: <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JvQAAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,889,522" target="_blank">5,889,522</a>
</li><li>Remote retrieval and display management of electronic document with incorporated images: <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=deQCAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,778,372" target="_blank">5,778,372</a>
</li><li>Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area: <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DwEJAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,339,780" target="_blank">6,339,780</a>
</li><li>Selection handles in editing electronic documents: <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=oKgVAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,891,551" target="_blank">6,891,551</a>
</li><li>Method and apparatus for capturing and rendering annotations for non-modifiable electronic content: <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jJcVAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,957,233" target="_blank">6,957,233</a>
</li></ul>
It's always sad when companies focus more on litigating rather than innovating.  I mean, seriously, does anyone think that, without patents, people wouldn't have made these kinds of advancements?  These aren't advancements that requires a patent at all.  These are the kinds of advancements that happen naturally in the marketplace due to competition and multiple companies competing to offer a better product to customers.
<br /><br />
Of course, it's nice to see the response on <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx" target="_blank">Microsoft's own blog involves comments trashing Microsoft</a> for this decision.  Scrolling down the comments, almost all of them are incredibly negative against Microsoft, pointing out that these patents are obvious, that Microsoft should be ashamed of itself for suing, and people swearing off Microsoft products for being a patent bully.  Perhaps Microsoft might want to think its patent litigation strategy in recognizing that it's not particularly well received by consumers.
<br /><br />
The comments really are great, but my favorite may be: "None of this BS will get anyone to buy a Windows phone anyway."  And that's kind of the point.  Microsoft should focus on innovating.  Not bitching about what competitors are doing better than it did.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/17072713576/microsoft-continues-its-backdoor-legal-fight-against-android-sues-barnes-noble-over-nook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fight-fight-fight</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110321/17072713576</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:02:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Barnes &#038; Noble Forbids Photos &#038; Word Of Mouth Promotion With Bogus Copyright Claim</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/12393513500/barnes-noble-forbids-photos-word-mouth-promotion-with-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/12393513500/barnes-noble-forbids-photos-word-mouth-promotion-with-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Simon alerts us to yet another story of a big company doing something that is against their own best interests, and blaming copyright for the decision.  The story comes via a blog post by Kristi Dosh, who is a lawyer, who notes that she recently went to a Barnes &#038; Noble with her boyfriend to pick up some books.  There was a full display of books about Ireland (for St. Patrick's Day) and since the two are planning a trip to Ireland, they decided to pick up some books... and to take a snapshot of the display and tweet it out to friends.  As they did  so, however, an employee came over and <a href="http://www.bluejeansandpearls.com/2011/03/11/apparently-barnes-and-noble-doesnt-need-free-marketing/" target="_blank">told her no photography was allowed</a>.  At first, Dosh thought he was joking, but upon realizing he was serious, asked why.  The employee claimed it was store policy and that it was <i>because the books were covered by copyright</i>.
<br /><br />
Dosh, of course, knew that this argument was specious.  She points out that B&#038;N, since it's not the copyright holder, cannot take action.  I actually don't think this argument is all that compelling, really.  B&#038;N, as a private actor, certainly has the right to agree with a copyright holder that it will block photographs of their books or to decided, just as a private store, to block photography.  Still, it appears the reason is somewhat misleading, and Dosh's later calls to B&#038;N confirmed that they consider this a <i>copyright</i> issue. I'm a bit surprised that Dosh doesn't mention fair use, as it seems like there's an amazingly strong argument that there's a fair use claim here that would protect her from any copyright issue.
<br /><br />
But, really, this has <i>nothing</i> whatsoever to do with the legal arguments one way or the other.  As happens so often in copyright issues, it's about the <i>common sense</i> situation, and the fact that blocking photographs in the store <i>makes no common sense</i>.  Basically, B&#038;N is barring attempts by people to <i>promote</i> the in-store display <i>for free</i>, and that's silly.  Stopping word of mouth marketing is a bad idea.  Dosh digs in:
<blockquote><i>
When I was in San Francisco last fall, I tweeted about the best winery I visited, Jacuzzi Family Vineyards, and encouraged my followers to visit. It's four months later and that winery still tweets back and forth with me, which has added to my positive experience with them and caused me to continue to order wine all the way from back at my home in Atlanta.
<br /><br />
Also while in San Francisco, I had the best meal experience of my life at Forbes Island via the recommendation of a person on Twitter who I've never met. Turns out they do absolutely no advertising, they simply exist on word of mouth and their fabulous product and service.
<br /><br />
Last month, my boyfriend and I went to Asheville and got more good restaurant recommendations from our Twitter followers. We then proceeded to tweet pics of each and every gorgeous plate of food we had to encourage others to eat at these wonderful locations. I know of at least one follower who has already dined at one of these establishments based on our tweets.
<br /><br />
For as long as there has been commerce, word of mouth has been a powerful advertising tool. Now instead of being able to reach the twenty-five other people in Jane&rsquo;s sunday school class, you can reach potentially millions of people on Twitter.
</i></blockquote>
And yet, Barnes &#038; Noble makes sure this is not possible... because it's afraid of some nebulous, questionable "copyright" claim.  Of course, part of this demonstrates the problems of basic copyright law today (even if there isn't a valid copyright claim here).  It's designed for a world where nothing is shared, where people aren't promoting things for you, and where all "content" is professionally produced for "consumption" by the riffraff.  But reality is more complex.  We talk to each other.  We share.  We promote.  It's what we do.  It's how culture works.  It's how communication works.  And copyright throws a wrench into all of that, which is really unfortunate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/12393513500/barnes-noble-forbids-photos-word-mouth-promotion-with-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/12393513500/barnes-noble-forbids-photos-word-mouth-promotion-with-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110315/12393513500/barnes-noble-forbids-photos-word-mouth-promotion-with-bogus-copyright-claim.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-this-is-why-you-fail</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110315/12393513500</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:44:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Reminder That You Don't Own Your Ebooks: B&#038;N Nook Deletes Files, Blames User</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/16554111596/yet-another-reminder-that-you-don-t-own-your-ebooks-b-n-nook-deletes-files-blames-user.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/16554111596/yet-another-reminder-that-you-don-t-own-your-ebooks-b-n-nook-deletes-files-blames-user.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just as Barnes and Noble is <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/barnes-noble-puts-color-on-its-nook/?src=twt&#038;twt=nytimesbits" target="_blank">updating the Nook</a>, its ebook reader that hasn't gotten much traction, comes reports that of an upset customer who found that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/10/nook-deletes-all-you-files-barnes-nobles-shrugs.html" target="_blank">the Nook deleted all of his files</a>, and when he complained to B&#038;N, the company basically told him it was his fault and there was nothing it could do.  While B&#038;N was able to restore the ebooks, it could not restore anything else, not from B&#038;N, such as his own documents and notes:
<blockquote><i>
I tried to turn my Nook on this morning and it wouldn't turn on. Finally, it gave me a screen that said it was updating and that I needed to leave it be, so I did. When it had finished updating it had wiped all of the files off of my nook. When I reregister the device, the books from B&#038;N will return, but everything, including documents not from B&#038;N, has been deleted.
<br /><br />
When I called technical support (1-800-THE-BOOK) to complain/make sure they were aware of the problem so that it wouldn't happen to other people, I was informed that this can happen when the device hasn't been updated in awhile. I asked if this was something they were trying to fix and I was blamed for the fact that everything had been wiped from my device because I had not been studiously updating the device. I asked if he understood how absurdly incompetent this was, my computer, after all, does not delete all my files because I don't update it for awhile. I was informed that my computer updates everyday, whereas I have apparently not updated my nook in a terribly long unspecified length of time, which was just too long and too many updates for it to handle without deleting all my files.
</i></blockquote>
Amazon got in a lot of hot water years ago for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml">deleting copies of an ebook</a>. You would think Barnes &#038; Noble would know better than to do the same.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/16554111596/yet-another-reminder-that-you-don-t-own-your-ebooks-b-n-nook-deletes-files-blames-user.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/16554111596/yet-another-reminder-that-you-don-t-own-your-ebooks-b-n-nook-deletes-files-blames-user.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/16554111596/yet-another-reminder-that-you-don-t-own-your-ebooks-b-n-nook-deletes-files-blames-user.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>poof-gone</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101026/16554111596</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:46:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02061411269/why-have-so-many-companies-settled-over-ridiculous-patent-for-online-music-distribution.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02061411269/why-have-so-many-companies-settled-over-ridiculous-patent-for-online-music-distribution.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A company going by the name Sharing Sound LLC, which of course does not appear to do anything, got hold of some exceptionally broad and absolutely ridiculous patents on "distributing musical products by a website over the internet" (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=ROcIAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,247,130" target="_blank">6,247,130</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Q-sIAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6233682" target="_blank">6,233,682</a>).  Go ahead and read the claims on both of those, and realize they were filed in 2000, well after online sales of digital goods was available (I should know, I worked for a company focused on selling software online through nearly identical means described in the patents -- in 1998).
<br /><br />
Earlier this year, however, Sharing Sound sued a whole bunch of companies over these patents.  Included was Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody, BDE (Kazaa), Sony, Sony/Ericsson, Amazon, Netflix, Wal-Mart, Barnes &#038; Noble and Gamestop.  Late last week, the news came out that <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/apple-itunes-sharing-sound-settlement/" target="_blank">Apple had settled and paid up</a>.  Along with that, people noted that most of the other companies had already settled.
<br /><br />
I defy anyone to explain how this patent is a valid patent.  The folks at M-CAM <a href="http://patentlyobvious.m-cam.com/blog/?tag=sharing-sound" traget="_blank">broke down a whole bunch of prior art</a> when the lawsuits were first filed.  Anyone who was anywhere near the online web store world for digital content would look through the (very, very, very simple) claims in the patent and just laugh.  There's no "invention" there at all.  It's a joke.
<br /><br />
So why did so many companies settle?  The easy guess is that the settlement terms were simply less than going through with the lawsuit.  Lawsuits are expensive, even over totally bogus patents.  So it's often just easier and cheaper to pay up.  Of course, now that gives Sharing Sound more ammo to say "look at all these big companies who settled"  when they continue to go after lots of other companies.  This is a perfect example of how bad patents still "win" lawsuits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02061411269/why-have-so-many-companies-settled-over-ridiculous-patent-for-online-music-distribution.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02061411269/why-have-so-many-companies-settled-over-ridiculous-patent-for-online-music-distribution.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/02061411269/why-have-so-many-companies-settled-over-ridiculous-patent-for-online-music-distribution.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>cheaper-to-settle</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101004/02061411269</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 04:36:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Amazon Patents Selling Used Goods At Starbucks, Barnes &#038; Noble Or Other Locations</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1028009167.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1028009167.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>"Having already been <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&#038;p=irol-newsArticle&#038;ID=502842&#038;highlight=">burned by Amazon's 1-Click patent</a>, one imagines Barnes &#038; Noble will be fuming to learn that the USPTO granted Amazon a patent Tuesday covering the use of Barnes and Noble's physical stores to fulfill orders placed for used goods on Amazon. The e-tailer was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,702,545 for its <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,702,545">System and Method for Facilitating Exchanges Between Buyers and Sellers</a>, legal-speak for arranging a place to meet to exchange cash for used goods ordered online. From the patent: 'In an exemplary embodiment, buyers and sellers are permitted to designate exchange locations in the system 100. An exchange location may be a location that the user regularly visits. For example, users may designate locations such as health clubs, schools, coffee shops, book stores, and so on, as acceptable exchange locations.'"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1028009167.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1028009167.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1028009167.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>obviousness-is-dead</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100426/1028009167</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:56:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>eBook Market Gets More Crowded... But... Still Many Limitations</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1512106608.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1512106608.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As lots of tech sites are reporting (and as was leaked not too long ago), Barnes &#038;  Noble has <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/10/barnes-nobles-kindle-killing-dual-screen-nook-e-reader-leaked/" target="_blank">released its own ebook reader</a>, clearly designed to compete with the Kindle.  The good news is that it takes aim at some of Kindle's weaknesses, such as by supporting more open offerings, like ePub, and also by allowing you to "lend" books to others.  But the lending is pretty limited.  You can only lend a book once, and then only for two weeks, after which the lent book disappears.  It's nice that you'll be able to buy books from other retailers and use them on the Nook, but the limitations still seem pretty serious.  Still, more competition is good, and even a slight step towards a more open solution is a step in the right direction.  Next up: we just need someone else (perhaps <i>not</i> tied to a bookstore) to offer an even more open device.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1512106608.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1512106608.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1512106608.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-a-start</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091020/1512106608</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:18:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Death Of Paid WiFi</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0330275755.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0330275755.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been almost exactly six years since I got into a bit of a debate about whether or not there was a real business model for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20030807/144019.shtml">fee-based WiFi</a>.  Not surprisingly, I didn't think it would last, even as there were a bunch of startups (some well-funded) trying to stake out a claim that they could build huge networks of paid WiFi access points.  Those businesses never got very far.  While there are still some fee-based WiFi access points around (mainly in airports), more and more are becoming totally free.  Starbucks (which had been a holdout) has gone conditionally free, and last week <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/07/free-wifi-barnes-nobel-starbucks-att.html" target="_new">Barnes &#038; Noble WiFi went totally free</a>.  So can we now close the book on the idea that fee-based WiFi was ever a good business model?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0330275755.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0330275755.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090803/0330275755.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-over,-done-with,-kaput</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090803/0330275755</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:46:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Bill Squier alerts us to the news that <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/06/02/apple_sued_over_methods_for_repeat_itunes_app_store_sales.html" target="_new">a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information</a> and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site.  The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/04/week-in-patent-litigation-april-610.html" target="_new">sued back in April</a>.  The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others.  The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes &#038; Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others.  So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.
<br /><br />
As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens."  The specific patents are <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=-hqqAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,376,621" target="_new">7,376,621</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=PJ-AAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,249,099" target="_new">7,249,099</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=gc-nAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,328,189" target="_new">7,328,189</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=3-x-AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,177,838" target="_new">7,177,838</a>.  Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay.  Since the patent system defenders among our readers get <i>quite</i> upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around.  Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies.   He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to <i>share an office</i> (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case.  At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/2115555102.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pay-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090602/2115555102</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Harry Potter Will Conjure Up Big Sales, Despite Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/172142.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/172142.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, Michael Moore's latest film, Sicko, was released and fared pretty decently at the box office, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070703/124746.shtml">despite being available on P2P networks</a> -- a situation one hyperbolic article described as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070615/162139.shtml">"every film maker's worst marketing nightmare."</a> That's a story that's played out time and time again, as the mere availability of pirated content <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070209/082603.shtml">hasn't held back</a> the sales of legitimate content. Now, stories about the latest Harry Potter book <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-leaked-to-bittorrent/">being available on file-sharing networks</a> are starting to come in, ahead of the book's release this weekend. This news isn't being met with the same level of media freakouts as when a reporter discovered Sicko online, with even the CEO of Barnes &#038; Noble saying it <a href="http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&#038;etMailToID=987700307">"won't sell a single copy less"</a> of the book despite it being available for free online. The biggest reason for this is the inconvenience of the pirated copies: they're huge PDFs, reportedly <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-leaked-to-bittorrent/">of low quality</a>. To approximate the book-reading experience, users would have to print out all the pages, which could be time-consuming and expensive, while reading the book on a computer screen or monitor wouldn't be a lot of fun for many people. This draws parallels to other forms of piracy: for instance, while most new movies are available for free from file-sharing networks, plenty of people still want to pay to watch them in a theater, for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050817/101251_F.shtml">a variety of reasons</a>. Certainly there are people who will overlook any amount of drawbacks to get free content; chances are they wouldn't pay for legitimate content anyway. But there remains a large market of people who are perfectly willing to pay for content -- so long as content producers can provide them with sufficient value.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/172142.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/172142.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070717/172142.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-a-magic-trick,-apparently</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070717/172142</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>