<?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 filed under &quot;smartphones&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:51:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>UK Mobile Operator 3UK Filtering New Class Of 'Mature Content', Including Political Satire</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/uk-mobile-operator-3uk-filtering-new-class-mature-content-including-political-satire.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/uk-mobile-operator-3uk-filtering-new-class-mature-content-including-political-satire.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Smartphones have some big advantages: they offer considerable computing power in a highly-portable form, and are available at prices that allow a broad spectrum of users to get online easily.  But as we <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120522/05414819017/as-uk-government-considers-opt-out-porn-censorship-report-already-finds-overblocking-mobile-networks.shtml">reported</a> last year, there's a big downside, too, one that's all-the-more dangerous for being invisible to most people: overblocking of sites caused by opt-out "child protection filters" applied by some mobile operators to their Internet feed.
</p><p>
Here's yet another worrying example of that problem, this time involving the UK operator 3UK, pointed out by <a href="https://twitter.com/cassieldotcom/status/287517563473256448">Nick Rothwell</a>.  Pride's Purge is a Web site described by its creator Tom Pride as "an irreverent look at UK politics".  As he recently discovered, <a href="https://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/satire-like-porn-how-3uk-are-bringing-chinese-style-political-censorship-of-web-to-uk/">it's also blocked by 3UK's child protection filter</a>.  He contacted the company on Twitter, pointing out that Pride's Purge was not a porn site or anything similar, and <a href="https://twitter.com/ThreeUKSupport/status/286848217923088385">this is what it replied</a>: 

<i><blockquote>We don't just block adult websites, websites with mature content may also be censored.</blockquote></i>

So it now seems that there is a category of material called "mature content" that is distinct from "adult content", and that is also blocked by child protection filters, at least on 3UK's network. Worryingly, political satire seems to be regarded as an example of "mature content", and therefore unsuitable for children under 18.  In fact, the censorship is even worse, as Pride explains:

<i><blockquote>it's not blocked for just the under-18s. It's blocked for anyone who hasn't proven to [3UK] they are over 18 -- and that means you will have to give your full identity to 3UK before they allow you to enter this site.
<br /><br />
Which means 3UK now officially regard political satire as porn -- and are censoring it in exactly the same way.</blockquote></i>

This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two reasons.  First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to be stopped.  And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn -- something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a limited feed.  And so the creeping, silent censorship of the mobile Internet not only continues, but probably gets worse in the absence of any significant pushback against it.
</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/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/uk-mobile-operator-3uk-filtering-new-class-mature-content-including-political-satire.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/uk-mobile-operator-3uk-filtering-new-class-mature-content-including-political-satire.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/11190721597/uk-mobile-operator-3uk-filtering-new-class-mature-content-including-political-satire.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mature-content</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130107/11190721597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 03:21:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>HTC And Apple Settle Patent Dispute; Perhaps Tim Cook Realizes Patent Fights Are A Waste</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121112/00494121010/htc-apple-settle-patent-dispute-perhaps-tim-cook-realizes-patent-fights-are-waste.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121112/00494121010/htc-apple-settle-patent-dispute-perhaps-tim-cook-realizes-patent-fights-are-waste.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the Apple patent disputes with Samsung and Motorola seem to get most of the publicity, Apple's first patent lawsuit against an Android phonemaker was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml">against HTC</a>, who quickly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1224389396.shtml">sued back</a>.  However, over the weekend, the two companies <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/11/apple-and-htc-settlement/" target="_blank">announced a settlement</a> in which they're cross-licensing all of their patents to each other for a period of ten years.  While the full details are secret, all of the indications are that HTC is paying Apple, but not a huge amount.  HTC has said that it won't have "an adverse material impact" on its financials.  While HTC remains a smaller player than Samsung, one hopes that this is actually a sign that Tim Cook has realized that Steve Jobs' <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20111021/16380816459/steve-jobs-was-willing-to-rip-off-everyone-else-was-pissed-about-android-copying-iphone.shtml">infatuation</a> with killing Android in court is not a productive strategy.  This, of course, won't end many of the other patent fights around smartphones, but hopefully it shows that Apple has become less ridiculously "religious" about fighting in court, rather than focusing on the marketplace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121112/00494121010/htc-apple-settle-patent-dispute-perhaps-tim-cook-realizes-patent-fights-are-waste.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121112/00494121010/htc-apple-settle-patent-dispute-perhaps-tim-cook-realizes-patent-fights-are-waste.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121112/00494121010/htc-apple-settle-patent-dispute-perhaps-tim-cook-realizes-patent-fights-are-waste.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>one-would-help</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121112/00494121010</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:28:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years back we created <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">a graphic</a> to highlight the ridiculous patent thicket around smartphones.  It really just highlights some, though not all, of the litigation concerning patents related to smartphones.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/PuZi6"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/PuZi6.jpg" width=560 /></a>
</center>
That image is a bit out of date, with some cases settled, others completed, and many more filed, of course.  Note the lack of anything between Samsung and Apple for example.  But, of course, patents in litigation are just one aspect of a patent thicket.  Plenty of patents are used just to demand licensing fees, but are never actually used in litigation.  And plenty of patents don't show up in litigation at all, but can still represent part of the problem of the thicket.
<br /><br />
A new analysis shows just how <i>insane</i> the patent thicket is today.  Done by "defensive" patent aggregator RPX (they try to position themselves as the "good" version of Intellectual Ventures), the estimate is that a stunning<a href="http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/one-in-six-active-u-s-patents-pertain-to-the-smartphone/" target="_blank">250,000 active patents today impact smartphones</a>.  250,000.  As the article notes that's <i>one in six active patents today</i> -- and for an industry that is certainly less than 1% of US GDP.  As a comparison, the pharma industry, often put forth (inaccurately, in my opinion) as an area where patents make sense, has accounted for a little over 6% of US patents over the past 15 years.  Also, there's this:
<blockquote><i>
... in the pharmaceutical industry, there are approximately 46.8 patents per every 1,000 jobs, whereas in the computer and peripherals equipment sector, there are 277.5 patents per 1,000 jobs.  Even the semiconductor industry, known for its highly complex products, has a patent/job ratio of 111.6 patents per 1,000 jobs -- approximately 40% the rate of patents to jobs as the computer and peripherals market.
</i></blockquote>
It definitely appears that there's something of a "bubble" going on around smartphone patents -- which is what happens when you have a hot emerging area, combined with ridiculously broad patents.  It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don't have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/10480520734/there-are-250000-active-patents-that-impact-smartphones-representing-one-six-active-patents-today.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>patent-thicket</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121017/10480520734</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:12:39 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Jeff 'One Click' Bezos Once Again Concerned About Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/12293420735/jeff-one-click-bezos-once-again-concerned-about-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/12293420735/jeff-one-click-bezos-once-again-concerned-about-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ About a dozen years ago, Amazon's Jeff Bezos (taking a fair amount of criticism for his one-click patent) helped fund a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/001019/1145202.shtml">project called BountyQuest</a>, which offered up prize money for those who were able to bust bogus patents.  To his credit, the first patent they put forth was Bezos' own one-click patent -- except then very little happened, and BountyQuest <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020214/2343258.shtml">faded away</a>.  While it has occasionally used its own patents (such as suing B&#038;N over that one-click patent), Amazon tends to be on the receiving end of tons of ridiculous patent lawsuits, leading Bezos to  <a href="http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/915096-jeff-bezos-kindle-e-readers-will-soon-become-part-of-our-everyday-lives" target="_blank">speak out about the broken patent system</a> yet again in an interview with the UK publication Metro:
<blockquote><i>
"Patents are supposed to encourage innovation and we&#8217;re starting to be in a world where they might start to stifle innovation. Governments may need to look at the patent system and see if those laws need to be modified because I don&#8217;t think some of these battles are healthy for society. I love technology, I love invention, I like rapid change, and really it&#8217;s the golden age of wireless devices and mobile devices."
</i></blockquote>
I'd argue that the "starting to" understates where we are in this process.  There's significant evidence that the problem has been around for a long, long time already.  Of course, I'm curious just what kind of legislation Bezos thinks is right.  Having his voice added to the debate on patents certainly would be helpful, given how so many in Congress still seem to think that there isn't a real problem here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/12293420735/jeff-one-click-bezos-once-again-concerned-about-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/12293420735/jeff-one-click-bezos-once-again-concerned-about-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20121017/12293420735/jeff-one-click-bezos-once-again-concerned-about-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>speak-out</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121017/12293420735</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:46:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NY Times Takes On Our Broken Patent System</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is nice to see.  Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr at the NY Times have a nice long piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">highlighting just how broken the patent system is today</a>.  It kicks off with an anecdote of the type of story we hear about <i>all the time</i>: where a startup innovator gets threatened by a patent holder (in this case, not a troll, but a larger company), and the lawsuit effectively kills the startup.  Even though it actually won in court, after spending an astounding $3 million fighting the lawsuit, the company was basically out of money... and was forced to sell itself to the company who had sued it, knowing that it still faced another five patent lawsuits.  That's not a unique story.  The company who sued, Nuance, defended its actions in the articles with this line of pure crap:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;Our responsibility is to follow the law,&#8221; said Lee Patch, a vice president at Nuance. &#8220;That&#8217;s what we do. It&#8217;s not our fault if some people don&#8217;t like the system.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
No.  "Following the law" does not include shaking down competitors in your space, taking them to the brink of bankruptcy and then getting them to sell to you at firesale prices.
<br /><br />
Perhaps more interesting in the article is the talk about Apple's awakening on how powerful patents could be used as a weapon against others, all stemming from its legal fight with Creative Technologies over a ridiculously broad patent for a digital music player.  Rather than fight Creative, Apple just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060823/152436.shtml">paid the company</a> $100 million to go away.  At the time, we wrote about how unfortunate it was that the company who succeeded in the market basically had to pay off the company who couldn't compete.  But what we didn't realize was that it also turned Apple into a vociferous patent-hungry beast.  The NY Times report notes that, right after this, Steve Jobs made it clear to his staff that Apple now needed to "patent everything."
<blockquote><i>
Soon, Apple&#8217;s engineers were asked to participate in monthly &#8220;invention disclosure sessions.&#8221; One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.
<br /><br />
The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users&#8217; preferences as they browsed the Web.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s a patent,&#8221; a lawyer said, scribbling notes.
<br /><br />
Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s a patent,&#8221; the lawyer said.
<br /><br />
Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s another one,&#8221; the lawyer said.
<br /><br />
[....] The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. &#8220;I would like to decline to participate,&#8221; he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn&#8217;t believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
</i></blockquote>
Unfortunately, very few companies seem willing to take a stand on this, even as many, many engineers feel the way that last engineer feels.  I spend a lot of time with engineers in Silicon Valley, and I have trouble thinking of any who think the patent system is a good thing.
<br /><br />
Apple's former General Counsel, Nancy Heinen, has a good quote in the article highlighting part of the problem:
<blockquote><i>
"Think of the billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet... When patent lawyers become rock stars, it&#8217;s a bad sign for where an industry is heading,."
</i></blockquote>
It's a very bad sign, but there seems to be little appetite by anyone to do anything to fix the wider problem.  And despite Apple's foray into being a massive patent warrior, attacking tons of other companies, it still hasn't occurred to many people just how broken the system remains.   The NY Times piece spends some time looking at <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604" target="_blank">Patent 8,086,604</a>, an Apple patent issued last year, which many refer to as the Siri patent, as it covers a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."  Basically, a way to search multiple databases at once.  As a separate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/07/business/patents.html?smid=tw-share" target="_blank">companion piece</a> to the full article highlights, that patent was rejected 8 times before the examiner was "worn down" and approved it, despite no meaningful changes in the language.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/ypryV"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/ypryV.png" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
See all those red dots?  Those are times the patent got rejected.  See the green dot?  That's when it got approved.  The black dot that follows right after the green dot?  That's when Apple started suing with it.  The NY Times even gets patent examiners to admit that their process is more or less random, quoting one admitting that he doesn't really have enough time to "get it right every time" as well as a former patent examiner who notes:
<blockquote><i>
"If you give the same application to 10 different examiners, you'll get 10 different results..."
</i></blockquote>
That's not a functioning system.  It's the opposite.  It's a lottery... where the "winners" get to take billions of dollars <i>away</i> from actual innovation.  It's becoming a national disgrace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-a-patent</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/03151820635</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google Launches Patent Attack On Apple In A Disappointing First For The Company</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-apple-disappointing-first-company.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-apple-disappointing-first-company.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, despite being the defendant in tons of patent suits, and despite having a decent patent portfolio of its own, Google had never gone on the offensive with its patents against others.  With the purchase of Motorola Mobility, it inherited an ongoing court case against Apple, which was unceremoniously <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120608/11584619251/judge-posner-dumps-ridiculous-patent-fight-between-apple-motorola-as-contrary-to-public-interest.shtml">dumped</a> by Judge Posner.  However, now there's news that Motorola Mobility has <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-17/google-s-motorola-files-new-patent-case-against-apple-at-itc.html" target="_blank">gone to the ITC to seek an injunction against Apple</a> for the iPhone, iPad and some of its computers as well.  Filing at the ITC can only lead to an injunction, rather than monetary damages, but the threat of an injunction is pretty big no matter what, and can often force a company to pay up.
<br /><br />
What's disappointing here is that, even though this is coming from the Motorola side of things, as far as I can tell, it's the first time that Google itself could be described as a patent aggressor.  For a company that had been coming out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110803/15500415380/google-being-more-aggressive-about-bad-patents-should-it-go-even-further.shtml">vocally</a> about just how broken the patent system was, and which seemed to be fighting the good fight on stopping such abuses of patents to block competition, this is disappointing.
<br /><br />
Yes, it's typical for companies, as they get bigger, older and less innovative, to start becoming patent aggressors, but Google had kept away from doing so for a long time, and certainly appeared, publicly, to have no interest in going down this road.  Combined with the company's recent decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120812/23494420001/seven-reasons-why-google-is-making-mistake-filtering-searches-based-dmca-notices.shtml">cave on copyright</a> issues as well, it seems that Google is taking some dangerous steps around copyright and patent law -- both of which may go against its own long-term best interests.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-apple-disappointing-first-company.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-apple-disappointing-first-company.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120820/02045620096/google-launches-patent-attack-apple-disappointing-first-company.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>double-standards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120820/02045620096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Apple's Argument: Samsung Could Have Made Its Phone Large, Thick, Bumpy, Sharp-Edged &#038; Hexagonal</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/03285519921/apples-argument-samsung-could-have-made-its-phone-large-thick-bumpy-sharp-edged-hexagonal.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/03285519921/apples-argument-samsung-could-have-made-its-phone-large-thick-bumpy-sharp-edged-hexagonal.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few months ago, we noted that Samsung's new phones had rather odd designs... and the theory making the rounds was that, considering the ongoing worldwide fight it was in with Apple, it was trying to go out of its way to make the phones as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml">un-Apple-like</a> as possible.  Of course, that resulted in ugly, weirdly shaped phones.
<br /><br />
As you may (hopefully?) know, some of the patents in the fight are "design patents" rather than utility patents.  When people talk about patents, they <i>usually</i> are referring to utility patents.  Design patents are, in many ways, more similar to trademarks than to utility patents.  But it creates odd situations where Apple gets to claim "ownership" of the concept of a rectangular device with rounded corners.  It's also important to remember that design patents <i>can't</i> be for functional features, but <i>only</i> for design/appearance.  That means that Apple has to insist that the basic design of the iPhone and iPad aren't functional at all.
<br /><br />
As Matt Schruers highlights, that means that Apple is left in the awkward position of insisting that these basic concepts that are sort of obvious design choices to make such devices <i>functional</i> both aren't functional at all <b>and</b> that there are <a href="http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/design-protection-utility-patents-and-the-apple-v-samsung-foodfight/" target="_blank">perfectly reasonable alternatives</a>.  For example, Apple's lawyers have suggested some "alternatives" in how Samsung could have designed its devices:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;front surfaces that are not rectangular, not flat, and without rounded corners; display screens that are more square than rectangular or not rectangular at all, display screens that are not centered on the front surface of the phone...&#8221;
<br /><br />
and
<br /><br />
&#8220;overall shapes that are not rectangular with four flat sides or that do not have four rounded corners; front surfaces that are not completely flat or clear... and profiles that are not thin&#8221;.
</i></blockquote>
So what would that mean?  Schruers explains:
<blockquote><i>
Of course.  Surely consumers would happily hold a large, thick, bumpy, sharp-edged hexagonal thing up to their head.  They&#8217;ll no doubt appreciate the different &#8220;ornamental&#8221; approach while reading through their opaque screen.  No functional drawbacks there.
<br /><br />
Does that even sound like an object you would willingly put in your pants?   Having a device that is not an unwieldy weapon-like object is a functional feature, not an ornamental design choice.  One is not going out on a limb in concluding that if the object design increases your likelihood of getting strip-searched at the airport, those are functional drawbacks, and foreclosing functional features is not the purpose of design protection.
</i></blockquote>
Oh yeah, Schruers also includes this <a href="http://i.imgur.com/p3dzq.jpg" target="_blank">bit of prior art</a> to emphasize his point:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/p3dzq.jpg" width=560/>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/03285519921/apples-argument-samsung-could-have-made-its-phone-large-thick-bumpy-sharp-edged-hexagonal.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/03285519921/apples-argument-samsung-could-have-made-its-phone-large-thick-bumpy-sharp-edged-hexagonal.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120803/03285519921/apples-argument-samsung-could-have-made-its-phone-large-thick-bumpy-sharp-edged-hexagonal.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sounds-great</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120803/03285519921</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>UN Wants To Host 'Patent' Summit To Deal With Smartphone Patent Thicket</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120706/17121419611/un-wants-to-host-patent-summit-to-deal-with-smartphone-patent-thicket.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120706/17121419611/un-wants-to-host-patent-summit-to-deal-with-smartphone-patent-thicket.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The UN's International Telecommunication Union (ITU) -- the same unit looking at very <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120612/04232519285/eu-telco-plan-to-have-un-tax-track-internet-usage-goes-against-fundamental-internet-principles.shtml">questionable plans</a> concerning taxing the internet -- has apparently decided that it also needs to step in over the massive patent thicket around smartphones.  It's <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18736415" target="_blank">convening a summit</a> of many of the players involved in the various patent disputes to see if something can be worked out to settle down all of the patent lawsuits.  Of course, from the sound of it, it looks like they're only inviting the big companies who make products, and leaving the many trolls out of it.  Also, it's unclear from the description if the ITU really grasps the root causes of the problem: the system itself.  Instead, it seems to think that bringing together all of these companies will magically get them to "settle their differences."  That seems like wishful thinking.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120706/17121419611/un-wants-to-host-patent-summit-to-deal-with-smartphone-patent-thicket.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120706/17121419611/un-wants-to-host-patent-summit-to-deal-with-smartphone-patent-thicket.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120706/17121419611/un-wants-to-host-patent-summit-to-deal-with-smartphone-patent-thicket.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>send-in-peacekeepers?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120706/17121419611</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:59:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Would We Prefer HTC To Be Making Cool New Products?  Or Just Getting More Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120615/15330119350/would-we-prefer-htc-to-be-making-cool-new-products-just-getting-more-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120615/15330119350/would-we-prefer-htc-to-be-making-cool-new-products-just-getting-more-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ HTC has, quite rightly, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1224389396.shtml">decried</a> the insanity of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">patent thicket</a> in the smartphone arena.  In fact, some clueless analyst had written a note suggesting that HTC was at risk because it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100308/2345048471.shtml">didn't</a> have enough patents.  The idea that <i>quantity</i> of patents matters is a really scary thought, but with the way the patent system works today, companies who have no desire to own patents are increasingly being pressured into doing so.  Thus, HTC has been in the process of <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57453084-94/htc-looks-to-expand-patent-portfolio-in-wake-of-apple-setback/?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">getting its hands on as many patents as possible</a>, both by ramping up its own patent application filings, and by buying others patents (such as via the <a href="http://www.itechpost.com/articles/2679/20120613/htc-confirms-plans-boost-patent-portfolio-s3.htm" target="_blank">purchase of S3</a>).
<br /><br />
As someone who has used a bunch of HTC phones over the years, all of this is pretty depressing.  I'd much rather the company focus on doing what it does best: building cool smartphones and devices.  While our broken system may be forcing it to invest in patents (and patent litigation), wouldn't we all be better served by letting it (and others) focus on building cool products to compete in the marketplace?  Or is that just too old fashioned an idea?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120615/15330119350/would-we-prefer-htc-to-be-making-cool-new-products-just-getting-more-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120615/15330119350/would-we-prefer-htc-to-be-making-cool-new-products-just-getting-more-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120615/15330119350/would-we-prefer-htc-to-be-making-cool-new-products-just-getting-more-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>state-of-the-times</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120615/15330119350</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 May 2012 04:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did Apple's Claims Over Rectangles And Corners Lead To 'The First Smartphone Designed Entirely By Lawyers'?</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Android blogger Ron Amadeo has a great post over at <a href="http://androidpolice.com/" target="_blank">Android Police</a> where he tries to explain the design of the new Samsung Galaxy S3 smartphone, which many people have deemed pretty hideous. In his opinion, <a href="http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/" target="_blank">it all comes down to legal tiptoeing</a>.</p>

<p>As you may recall, last year Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/08383113960/details-apples-lawsuit-against-samsung-revealed-its-even-more-ridiculous.shtml">sued</a> Samsung over earlier products in the Galaxy line, claiming infringement of all sorts of different rights, among them some broad trade dress registrations involving basic design choices like black borders and rectangles with rounded corners. Amadeo walks through the many notable aesthetic elements of the S3 (including the stark changes from previous Galaxy phones) and compares them to Apple's list of trade dress claims, noting how several aspects of the phone seem designed to counter specific complaints&mdash;and the case he makes is pretty compelling. These are just a few examples (bolded portions are quotes from the Apple trade dress complaint):</p>

<blockquote><em>
<strong>A rectangular product shape...</strong><br />
... A rectangle needs to have parallel sides; the GSIII sides aren't straight at all. The outmost part is about 1/3rd of the way down, with serious curves leading to the top and bottom. So it's very much not a rectangle, or a rounded rectangle, or even horizontally symmetrical. It's more of an amorphous blob.
<br /><br />
<strong>...with all four corners uniformly rounded;</strong><br />
Nope. The top and bottom corners are not the same shape. Observe the outlines of the top-left and bottom-left corners. Note how they are different.
<br /><br />
<strong>The front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders</strong><br />
Having a giant screen on the front is kind of unavoidable. The only colors available though, are white and dark blue. Neither of those colors are black. The lawyers can sleep easy.
<br /><br />
<strong>Substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width</strong><br />
Apple's use of "roughly" is really obnoxious, but just in case they get into minutia (lawyers love minutia!), the top and bottom borders are not the same size. These to-scale measurements show the top bezel is about 16% smaller than the bottom. Also, they're not black!
</em></blockquote>

<p>In the past, some people have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml">argued</a> that this sort of thing is an example of intellectual property doing its job and encouraging innovation, because competitors come up with new and different ways of doing things&mdash;but, as we have pointed out, the innovation being encouraged is the wrong kind. Instead of letting market demands dictate what engineers and designers spend their time on, their effort is wasted reinventing the wheel over and over again. The result is often an inferior product that lacks overall vision, as some are saying about the S3, at least aesthetically speaking. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, what's a horse designed by a committee of lawyers? Some horrific Darwinian accident from the deep ocean, I'd wager.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120507/06530818813/did-apples-claims-over-rectangles-corners-lead-to-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-lawyers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-that-way</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120507/06530818813</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:27:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Just Because Companies Can Design Around Patents Doesn't Mean There's No Impact For Consumers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This one's from a few week's back, but a few people have called it to my attention.  Nilay Patel over at The Verge argued that because various companies offering Android phones have been able to <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/6/2849051/slide-to-unlock-patent-apple-android-google" target="_blank">design around a couple of Apple patents</a> that have made their way into lawsuits -- <a target="_blank" href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=n7WxAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=abstract&#038;source=gbs_overview_r&#038;cad=0#v=onepage&#038;q&#038;f=false">#7,469,381</a> which covers the "scrollback" bounce when you scroll to the end of a page, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=GSjVAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=7,657,849&#038;hl=en&#038;sa=X&#038;ei=yi1NT5fLA-We0QWKooGfBQ&#038;ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA">#7,657,849</a>, which covers the "slide-to-unlock" concept -- that there's "really no day-to-day impact on the consumer" from the big patent fights going on over smartphones.
<br /><br />
That seems like a rather simplistic analysis.  Patel is right that many companies are "designing around" these overly broad and somewhat silly patents, and so it doesn't mean that Android phones aren't available.  But that doesn't mean that there's no real impact on consumers.  While it can't be quantified directly, there are numerous ways in which these patents are likely impacting the results.  First, there's a matter of cost.  The legal fights over patents are quite expensive, and that's almost certainly keeping prices on these devices somewhat higher than they might otherwise be.  Second, the money and time it takes to do that "designing around" potentially slows the development of these phones.  Third, those same resources could have been put elsewhere, working on additional innovations that would make the phones better and more valuable.  Instead, they're forced to reinvent the wheel without doing the same scrollback or slide to unlock.  Finally, while some will claim that forcing these companies to invent around the patents can lead to new innovations, there's little evidence to support this claim.  Certainly it might happen accidentally, but letting developers come up with new innovations based on their own experiments and what the market tells them is always going to be more efficient than stumbling on some innovation because you're trying to avoid the artificial monopoly of a patent.
<br /><br />
Of course, this is one of the difficult things in discussing the problems of the patent system.  People insist they can't be that bad because these devices are still on the market.  It's difficult to see or even explain the innovations that <i>we don't have</i> because of this, or even to show how the pace of innovation is almost certainly slower because of this, but that's exactly what plenty of research has shown for years.  No one says that innovation stops completely because of patents, but we have significant concerns about how they impact the overall pace of innovation, as well as the specific direction of innovation.  While it might not seem to have a "day-to-day impact on the consumer," chances are it's having quite a large one.  We just can't see how big.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120320/04033218169/just-because-companies-can-design-around-patents-doesnt-mean-theres-no-impact-consumers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>economic-reality</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120320/04033218169</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:37:47 PST</pubDate>
<title>Patent Aggressor Microsoft Files EU Complaint Against Google/Motorola For Charging Too Much To License Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/03464017863/patent-aggressor-microsoft-files-eu-complaint-against-googlemotorola-charging-too-much-to-license-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/03464017863/patent-aggressor-microsoft-files-eu-complaint-against-googlemotorola-charging-too-much-to-license-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's difficult not to look cynically at Microsoft's latest move to <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/02/22/google-please-don-t-kill-video-on-the-web.aspx" target="_blank">file an antitrust complaint in the EU</a> over Motorola's patent royalty rates, and think about just how <i>obnoxiously hypocritical</i> Microsoft is being as a company on this particular issue.  First off, Microsoft has become a pretty significant <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1938442601.shtml">patent aggressor</a> over the past few years, filing lawsuits and pressuring companies to pay up.  It's also been a huge fan of patent FUD -- especially against open source competitors.  Most people assume that Microsoft was the main player behind SCO's quixotic (but costly and distracting) legal battle against Linux.  Then, of course, every so often Microsoft officials insist that Linux <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070514/013229.shtml">infringes</a> on a bunch of its patents, but it never wants to make clear which ones.  More recently, of course, Microsoft has been demanding <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">license fees</a> for its patents from a variety of companies making use of Android -- to the point that some have argued Microsoft makes more off each Android installation than each Microsoft Phone installation.
<br /><br />
Of course it was partly Microsoft's aggressive patent position against Android that put Google in the position of feeling compelled to buy Motorola Mobility to get its patent portfolio, mainly for the sake of protecting itself and having a bunch of patents that it could use as a shield against a lawsuit from the likes of Microsoft.  Of course, Microsoft was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101001/13562611251/microsoft-sues-motorola-for-patent-infringement-over-android.shtml">already suing Motorola</a> over the company's use of Android.
<br /><br />
A few weeks ago, we discussed the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120209/18063117722/if-google-is-serious-about-reforming-patent-mess-it-should-make-bold-statement-stop-using-motorola-patents-to-demand-cash.shtml">tough spot</a> that Google was in over Motorola's patents.  The company has indicated that would keep in place Motorola's current patent licensing strategy.  While many of us would prefer that Google make a big statement by freeing or opening up many of these patents, the company is actually in something of a ridiculous position: if it does that... its competitors (mainly Microsoft) will claim anti-trust violations by saying that the company is using its market position to undercut the prices that other charge.
<br /><br />
It's other choice?  Keep the current rates.  And that's what it's indicated it would do... so the second that the EU and the US approved the merger, Microsoft files this antitrust complaint, arguing that the rates Motorola charges for its patents is too high.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't position for Google.  Keep the rates as they are, and they're violating antitrust rules by charging too much.  Cut the prices or free up some of the patents, and it's an antitrust issue for leveraging their position and "dumping" in the market.
<br /><br />
Of course, Microsoft's almost gleeful blog post about its complaint ignores all of this reality and history, and tries to position it as if Motorola and Google are trying to "kill" web and mobile video by charging too high a royalty rate.  Frankly, for anyone who knows anything about Microsoft's patent practices over the past few years, they'll see through this and recognize how laughable Microsoft's claims are.
<br /><br />
Either way, the situation is ridiculous.  Fighting over patents doesn't help bring any new innovations to market.  It just diverts money to the lawyers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/03464017863/patent-aggressor-microsoft-files-eu-complaint-against-googlemotorola-charging-too-much-to-license-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/03464017863/patent-aggressor-microsoft-files-eu-complaint-against-googlemotorola-charging-too-much-to-license-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120224/03464017863/patent-aggressor-microsoft-files-eu-complaint-against-googlemotorola-charging-too-much-to-license-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>live-by-the-sword</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/03464017863</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:53:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Acacia Buys Up More Smartphone Apps Patents: Watch The Patent Thicket Get Worse</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, I put together a graphic highlighting the ridiculous nature of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">the smartphone patent thicket</a>:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/nCXc7.jpg" width=560 />
</center>
That graphic is both incomplete and out of date.  It's incomplete in that it doesn't even show <i>all</i> of the lawsuits.  It also leaves out the licensing deals, which many companies feel pressured to enter into to avoid lawsuits.  On top of that, since I made that graphic there have actually been a <i>lot</i> more lawsuits filed.  This graphic has received plenty of attention.  I get about one request per week these days from some group somewhere in the world asking if they can use that graphic for a report (you don't need to ask permission: feel free).  It also showed up in the very high profile <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/00355214310/uk-copyright-review-hardly-surprising-radical-will-face-opposition.shtml">Hargreaves Review</a> of intellectual property rules in the UK.
<br /><br />
Honestly, I have little interest in updating the graphic, because it was already a lot of work to put together, but it seems likely that rather than getting any better, the situation is only getting worse.  We're still waiting to see the fallout from the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110701/01110214930/nortel-patents-sold-45-billion-to-apple-emc-microsoft-rim-ericsson-sony.shtml">Nortel patent purchase</a>, but it almost certainly will lead to more lawsuits.  Separately, while the actual federal court patent trials have been moving slowly, the parallel track (with different rules!) known as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1117121576.shtml">the ITC loophole</a> has been issuing new decisions every few weeks, including a big ruling <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/15/why-apples-itc-patent-victory-over-htc-android-phones-is-scary/" target="_blank">for Apple</a> saying that HTC infringed on Apple patents.
<br /><br />
And it seems like even more patents are about to get tossed into the fray as well.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/93652984319328256" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to the news that <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/acacia-subsidiary-acquires-smartphone-patents-2011-07-20?reflink=MW_news_stmp" target="_blank">Acacia just bought "a valuable patent portfolio"</a> relating to mobile applications for use in smartphones and other wireless computing devices.  Oddly, Acacia provides <i>no</i> additional details.  It doesn't name who the patents came from.  It says that the patents are now owned by an Acacia subsidiary, but doesn't name the subsidiary.  They're being deliberately slimy.
<br /><br />
But, you can rest assured that these patents will show up in litigation pretty damn quickly.  There's been a lot of concern about mobile app patents in the last few months thanks to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/02350314503/lodsys-sues-developers-ahead-deadline-it-gave-developers-to-pay-up.shtml">Lodsys</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110718/04325415144/app-developers-dropping-out-us-out-fears-over-patent-lawsuits.shtml">Kootol</a>... and assuming that Acacia didn't buy out one of those two, it seems like there could be even more reasons to fear.
<br /><br />
It's incredibly difficult to see how <i>anyone</i> can claim with a straight face that the actions described here help innovation in any way.  If you're just an app developer, creating something cool for a smartphone... and you suddenly find yourself smack dab in the middle of this disaster, it's a massive hindrance to innovation and development of useful apps.  This isn't just a "mess," it's a disaster for innovation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>putting-the-brakes-on-innovation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110721/02264715188</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:59:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patents As Theft: How Oracle &#038; Microsoft Seek To Profit From Android Despite Having Nothing To Do With It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110708/16213815026/patents-as-theft-how-oracle-microsoft-seek-to-profit-android-despite-having-nothing-to-do-with-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110708/16213815026/patents-as-theft-how-oracle-microsoft-seek-to-profit-android-despite-having-nothing-to-do-with-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ People talk about patent laws as if they're about "protecting property."  If only that were true.  In most cases, they seem to be about the exact opposite.  They're about getting paid for things that don't belong to you and which you had absolutely nothing to do with.  Take, for example, Google's Android operating system.  Microsoft has been using its patents to <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/2015546538_is_android_microsofts_next_cash_cow.html">demand a cut</a> of every Android phone.  In fact, people have pointed out that Microsoft is likely going to make more money from Android than it makes from its own competing mobile operating system.  Now add to that Oracle's decision to <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070711-oracle-win-would-strain-android.html" target="_blank">demand $15 to $20 for every Android device</a>, and what you get seems like highway robbery.  You have two companies -- Oracle and Microsoft -- who have done absolutely nothing to contribute to Android in any way, but who are both using large questionable patent portfolios to demand a cut.  That's not protecting or encouraging innovation.  That seems like the exact opposite.  It seems to be shaking down people for cash that they have no right to.  I'd argue that's much more like "theft" than anyone who infringes on a patent by building something the market wants.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110708/16213815026/patents-as-theft-how-oracle-microsoft-seek-to-profit-android-despite-having-nothing-to-do-with-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110708/16213815026/patents-as-theft-how-oracle-microsoft-seek-to-profit-android-despite-having-nothing-to-do-with-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110708/16213815026/patents-as-theft-how-oracle-microsoft-seek-to-profit-android-despite-having-nothing-to-do-with-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shameful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110708/16213815026</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 01:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, the TV industry has been at war with the DVR, because of their fear that people would just use DVRs to skip over commercials.  And, of course, there were the requisite reports about how DVRs were causing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061208/113942.shtml">massive</a> totally made up "losses."  Except, the reality turned out to be completely different.  Various studies found that DVRs changed watching habits in that they actually drove <i>more TV watching</i>, and actually <i>increased</i> <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060407/1720246.shtml">retention</a> of what was in the commercials viewers did see.  Of course, the "fear" from TV folks was totally misplaced -- and they were going after the symptom, not the actual heart of the issue: which is that people don't want to watch TV commercials because the TV commercials <i>suck</i>.
<br /><br />
TV commercials worked because people were a captive audience and had nowhere else to place their attention.  Yet, when they have other options for their attention, they tend to take them.  In fact, the latest study (sent over by Eric Goldman) shows that DVRs were never really a huge threat in terms of taking people's attention away from ads.  Instead, it seems the <i>real</i> threat <a href="http://adage.com/article/adagestat/smartphones-a-bigger-distraction-dvrs/227725/" target="_blank">is that everyone has a smartphone now</a>, and when commercials come on, they turn their attention to their smartphone, check their social network/email/etc.:
<blockquote><i>
It was found that simply turning one's head to ignore video ads had far greater impact than DVR fast-forwarding is assumed to have. Magna Global estimates that 35% of U.S. households have DVRs and 10% of their total TV consumption is time shifted, within which 65% of ads are fast-forwarded, meaning 35% x 10% x 65% = 2% of total TV ad impressions are avoided through fast-forwarding. Our study found that 63% of TV impressions were avoided simply by not paying attention to the screen.
</i></blockquote>
To be honest, that 2% number seems <i>crazy low</i> to me, and I wonder how accurate it really is.  However, even if it's noticeably higher, it appears that smartphones and other distractions are definitely taking people's attention away.  In fact, even when people do fast-forward ads (as we noted in that study years ago) they still seem to see the ads:
<blockquote><i>
When participants did use the DVR to fast-forward TV ads, nearly half of them paid full attention to the screen during that process. Fast-forwarded ads had 12% more attention levels than non-fast-forwarded ads.
</i></blockquote>
Though, this study contradicts the other one from a few years ago concerning retention: saying people don't retain quite as much from fast-forwarded ads.
<br /><br />
Of course, you can debate the statistics all you want, the basics are pretty obvious: if your method of advertising relies on a captive audience, and that audience is no longer captive, then you're going to have problems.  TV execs were wrong to worry about DVRs, because they didn't really take people's attention away from the TV, and had the other side effect of making people watch more TV.  However, there may actually be an issue with things like smartphones, because if people don't like what's on the TV (i.e., the ads suck) they now have a much more entertaining option right in their pocket.  The captive audience is dead.  Of course, that doesn't mean that there's nothing the TV guys can do.  They could start making the ads more compelling such that people actually <i>want</i> to watch them, but I guess that probably sounds like "work."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/21305414421/smartphones-make-people-ignore-commercials-way-more-than-dvrs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>captive-audience</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110524/21305414421</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:01:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>ITC Not Impressed With Latest Smartphone Patent Thicket Cases</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/11024613961/itc-not-impressed-with-latest-smartphone-patent-thicket-cases.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/11024613961/itc-not-impressed-with-latest-smartphone-patent-thicket-cases.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the past, we've pointed out how many patent holders now get two entirely separate cracks at trying to get those they accuse of patent infringement to pay up.  There's the regular court system <i>and</i> there's an entirely separate <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070601/090232.shtml">International Trade Commission (ITC) process</a>, as well.  Basically, the ITC can make rulings preventing importing infringing works, totally outside of the court system.  And, of course, since so many things are made outside the US these days, this could create an effective injunction against those products in the entire US market.  One of the key problems is that the ITC uses different standards than the court system to determine if such an injunction is an appropriate step.
<br /><br />
With the massive <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">patent thicket</a> on smartphones, leading to a bunch of lawsuits, many are using both the court system and the ITC to try to force the other side to give in and just pay up.  However, so far, it appears that the ITC is not playing along.  We recently noted that the ITC indicated it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml">rejecting</a> Nokia's claims that Apple's iPhone violated some of its patents, and now the ITC has indicated that it  <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-18/itc-staff-recommends-siding-with-nokia-htc-in-apple-patent-case.html" target="_blank">won't side with Apple in <i>its</i> claims against HTC and Nokia</a>. 
<br /><br />
In other words: keep your silly patent pissing fight out of the ITC.
<br /><br />
If the ITC keeps rejecting these attempts to stifle competition via the patent system, then hopefully companies will stop using this little loophole to get to extra bites of the (proverbial) apple.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/11024613961/itc-not-impressed-with-latest-smartphone-patent-thicket-cases.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/11024613961/itc-not-impressed-with-latest-smartphone-patent-thicket-cases.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110419/11024613961/itc-not-impressed-with-latest-smartphone-patent-thicket-cases.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>patent-protectionism</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110419/11024613961</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:41:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Smartphone Apps Quietly Using Phone Microphones And Cameras To Gather Data</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110417/21485513927/smartphone-apps-quietly-using-phone-microphones-cameras-to-gather-data.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110417/21485513927/smartphone-apps-quietly-using-phone-microphones-cameras-to-gather-data.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With the rise of smartphone apps, users don't always know what features and functionality those apps may be using.  Reports are coming out about various apps that <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215853/Snooping_It_s_not_a_crime_it_s_a_feature?taxonomyName=Privacy&#038;taxonomyId=84" target="_blank">use the phone's microphone (and, sometimes, camera) in somewhat surreptitious ways</a> to gather data.  Now, of course, there are certain apps that people <i>expect</i> to use the microphone or a camera -- such as music or TV show identification products.  But it's a bit of a surprise that apps such as the massively hyped (and then quickly panned) Color (which is a sort of photo sharing/location-based info service) is making use of your microphone and camera without most users realizing it:
<blockquote><i>
Color  uses your iPhone's or Android phone's microphone to detect when people are in the same room. The data on ambient noise is combined with color and lighting information from the camera to figure out who's inside, who's outside, who's in one room, and who's in another, so the app can auto-generate spontaneous temporary social networks of people who are sharing the same experience. 
</i></blockquote>
Another app discussed is, Shopkick, which gives people rewards for walking into certain stores.  While you might think it could accomplish what it needs with GPS, apparently the stores in question have special devices that emit sounds that you can't hear, the microphone on your phone can pick up, thus "confirming" that you really entered the store.
<br /><br />
While the reasoning behind these may be benign, my guess is that most people would feel pretty creeped out about apps turning on either the microphone or camera, without explicitly warning the user and making it clear what's going on (or letting them choose to turn on those features directly).  Mike Elgan, who wrote the article linked above, notes (obviously) that surreptitiously turning on your microphone can provide marketers with all sorts of useful data (ya think?), so we should expect it to happen more and more often.  Of course, all this is making me think that my Android phone needs an app that warns me whenever the microphone is turned on and lets me block it... Anyone writing that app?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110417/21485513927/smartphone-apps-quietly-using-phone-microphones-cameras-to-gather-data.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110417/21485513927/smartphone-apps-quietly-using-phone-microphones-cameras-to-gather-data.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110417/21485513927/smartphone-apps-quietly-using-phone-microphones-cameras-to-gather-data.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hush-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110417/21485513927</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:32:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Federal Courts Afraid Your Smartphone Might Be A Bomb</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110328/15174213654/federal-courts-afraid-your-smartphone-might-be-bomb.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110328/15174213654/federal-courts-afraid-your-smartphone-might-be-bomb.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While a state court in Connecticut may be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00362113643/tweeting-deemed-not-broadcasting-allowed-courtroom.shtml">fine</a> with you tweeting from the courtroom via your phone, you might not be allowed to bring your smartphone into federal courtrooms at all.  Apparently the Administrative Office of the Courts is arguing that <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/court-smartphone/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wired27b %28Blog - 27B Stroke 6 %28Threat Level%29%29" target="_blank">smartphones should be banned completely from federal court houses, because they might hide bombs</a>.  Really?  I mean, can't we at least have a TSA style grope and scan before we write off all smartphones?  David Kravets, the author of the article linked above, highlights how different federal courthouses seem to take very different views on technology these days:
<blockquote><i>
At the District of Columbia federal courthouse, which is home to the lower courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals, I had to check my cellphone at the door two weeks ago. And in the Los Angeles federal courthouse, I was ordered, by a judge, to turn off the Wi-Fi signal emitted from my HTC Evo in December.
<br /><br />
But in San Francisco, the judiciary allows Wi-Fi connected computing inside its courtrooms, from either a cellphone or a computer. Live blogging or tweeting is commonplace there.
<br /><br />
That is the status quo with the ongoing Barry Bonds criminal trial in San Francisco. What&rsquo;s more, the San Francisco federal courthouse even provides free Wi-Fi in many courtrooms.
</i></blockquote>
It seems like that's going significantly overboard to claim that we should ban all smartphones just because some people might misuse them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110328/15174213654/federal-courts-afraid-your-smartphone-might-be-bomb.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110328/15174213654/federal-courts-afraid-your-smartphone-might-be-bomb.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110328/15174213654/federal-courts-afraid-your-smartphone-might-be-bomb.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-there-goes-that-idea</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110328/15174213654</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Says The iPhone Didn't Violate Nokia's Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Nokia, who used to absolutely dominate the mobile phone market, has definitely seen better days.  The iPhone really took it by surprise and the company really hasn't done a particularly good job reacting to the rise of the smartphone market.  So, like plenty of companies who once innovated, once it started losing in the market, it shifted to litigation.  Just a week after the company's first ever quarterly loss, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1102066639.shtml">it sued Apple</a> for patent infringement over the iPhone.  It actually took two cracks at Apple in that it also used the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070601/090232.shtml">ITC loophole</a> to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091229/1115467529.shtml">go after</a> the company twice.  
<br /><br />
Of course, in true patentland fashion, when a big tech company sues another big tech company for patent infringement, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040804/0254215.shtml">patent nuclear war</a> ensues, as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091211/1437377312.shtml">Apple sued back</a> claiming that Nokia infringed on its patents.  While the various lawsuits are still ongoing, it appears that Nokia's first shot via the ITC loophole has been a big failure, as <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/151967-judge-rules-apple-didnt-violate-nokias-patents?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">the judge has ruled that Apple didn't infringe at all</a>.  It's worth noting that many consider the ITC to also have a lower bar, so this might not bode well for Nokia's lawsuit.  Of course, Apple's lawsuit against Nokia remains as well... meaning that this little attack on Apple could conceivably end very, very badly for Nokia.
<br /><br />
Probably should have focused on innovating, huh?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110325/15131013637/judge-says-iphone-didnt-violate-nokias-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>regret-pushing-the-button</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110325/15131013637</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:07:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>T-Mobile Finally Kills Off The Sidekick</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110302/02115113322/t-mobile-finally-kills-off-sidekick.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110302/02115113322/t-mobile-finally-kills-off-sidekick.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The first ever smartphone that got me excited about what smartphones could do was the T-Mobile Sidekick, made by the company Danger, which was amazingly hyped up for a time in Silicon Valley.  It remains the only phone that I ever <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20021001/153316.shtml">bought</a> the day that it came out (even though I didn't really use it as a phone, but as a portable email/internet device).  Danger made some big mistakes early on, such as taking a pretty big investment from T-Mobile, which meant that no other carriers had any interest in carrying the phone (why help a competitor?) in the US.  That really hurt the company's ability to grow.  The company also had a really dreadful developer strategy -- initially launching without an SDK for outside developers, and then remaining an extremely closed system that pissed off many developers, and simply made many developers ignore the platform.
<br /><br />
In 2007, after the Sidekick had long fallen off the map, and after the initial iPhone had already hit the market, Danger announced plans to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071221/010141.shtml">IPO</a>, but with financials that were anything but appealing.  Microsoft stepped in and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080211/095817224.shtml">bought the company instead</a>, probably more for the (remaining) talent than anything else.  A year later, there was a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091011/2041066481.shtml">massive server failure</a>, that caused a bunch of people to lose data.  It became clear that the platform was really on its last legs.
<br /><br />
And, now, finally, T-Mobile is putting it out of its misery and <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Killing-Off-The-Sidekick-112955" target="_blank">will be shutting off service to its Sidekick servers</a>.  If you don't remember (or never knew), the way the Sidekick worked was everything had to go through special Sidekick/Danger servers hosted by your ISP (in some ways similar to the way Blackberries work).  So, without those servers, the few remaining Sidekicks become even more useless.  Somewhere, buried in a box, I'm pretty sure I still have my original (black and white!) Sidekick.  I might just have to put it on my desk as a reminder of how quickly technology changes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110302/02115113322/t-mobile-finally-kills-off-sidekick.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110302/02115113322/t-mobile-finally-kills-off-sidekick.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110302/02115113322/t-mobile-finally-kills-off-sidekick.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>say-a-little-prayer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110302/02115113322</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:53:17 PST</pubDate>
<title>Smartphones: Indispensable Tool For The Modern Busker</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110114/17030112679/smartphones-indispensable-tool-modern-busker.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110114/17030112679/smartphones-indispensable-tool-modern-busker.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written recently how things like the modern smartphone maybe starting to change <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110111/00565612601/famed-korean-director-shoots-movie-with-just-iphones.shtml">the movie business</a> (though, still in very early stages), but it's impacting certain other areas as well.  Musician <a href="http://www.onyxashanti.wordpress.com" target="_blank">Onyx Ashanti</a>, who last year told us about his <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0317525842.shtml">experiments</a> with "pay what you want" and connecting with fans as a busker/street performer, writes in to let us know of his recent blog post concerning how <a href="http://onyxashanti.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/smartphones-for-the-modern-busker/" target="_blank">the smartphone has become an indispensable tool for the modern busker</a>:
<blockquote><i>
For myself and my busking exploits, the iphone is now indespensible.  I use mine as a wireless midi controller using an app called TouchOSC.  When I  arrive in a new city, looking for locations to busk, I make use of a gps enabled map app called MotionX GPS which allows me to download maps of an area before departing home, then drop map points of interest either from research at home, or from recommendations of people I meet in said city.  It allows me to arrive in a new place and bike around, finding interesting locations as I go.  When I find one that is viable based on the criteria to be covered in the next chapter, I drop a map point and location notes onto the map.  This allows me to do recon on many areas of a new place, quickly and efficiently then when I am ready to play, I can focus on playing rather than pitch recon. If one potential pitch is occupied or in some way, undesirable, I can look at my map and go to the next closest potential pitch,without having to go into "recon" mode, which saves a lot of valuable time.
</i></blockquote>
He later discusses how it helps as a tool to turn busking performances into venue gigs as well:
<blockquote><i>
One of my favorite functions of such devices is as a portable press kit.  I love busking as much as I love playing shows in venues.  Many times people who book such venues, will see me on the street and hire me to play.  But sometimes I happen upon a place or person and strike up a conversation and said person wants to see what I do.  So, I whip out my trusted iphone, which i have preloaded with different types of videos. Some more "jazz" oriented for cafes and jazzier places, some more "dance oriented" for clubs and bars, and some live "street oriented" vids for farmers markets and street fairs.  A picture may say 1000 words but a video says it all. The video quality on the iphone is extremely high and the volume is adequate.  Very useful and powerful.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, he also discusses how it's helpful in connecting with fans, both via social networks and in creating various flashmobs.  It also is useful in selling merchandise:
<blockquote><i>
Selling merchandise? With a smartphone you can accept different forms of payment in different currencies.  It is now easier than ever to accept credit cards with systems like square and/or you can use paypal, which has grown far beyond a simple method of making payments on E-bay.
</i></blockquote>
There's a lot more in there as well, so go read the full post.  I think it's quite fascinating how the various tools out there are changing different professions that you didn't think would be impacted by such technology, and this seems to be yet another example.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110114/17030112679/smartphones-indispensable-tool-modern-busker.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110114/17030112679/smartphones-indispensable-tool-modern-busker.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110114/17030112679/smartphones-indispensable-tool-modern-busker.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>technology-changing-things</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110114/17030112679</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Automotive Apps And Other Car Stuff</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00161112333/dailydirt-automotive-apps-other-car-stuff.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00161112333/dailydirt-automotive-apps-other-car-stuff.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The past year brought some significant changes to the car industry, and the upcoming year is bound to bring a lot more.  Besides just gasoline and diesel, car buyers are going to have a few more options for how their cars are powered.  Fully electric or hybrid cars may only be the start.  While we're still waiting on flying cars to hit the dealerships, here are some quick car-related links. 

<blockquote>
<li> <a href="http://bit.ly/gFeGKt">Fans of Saturn say goodbye to the brand in 2010.</a>  How many other car brands would (or will?) be so thoughtfully eulogized? [<a href="http://jalopnik.com/5724254/">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/ikwuwY">Android-powered car radios could create a nice little app market for commuters.</a>  If you can't use your smartphone while driving, Android-powered radios sound like a pretty geeky work-around. [<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/show/4088/parrot-asteroid-an-android-head-unit">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/fy9lLM">Don't flash your headlights to warn other drivers about speed traps.</a> At least, don't do it in the UK. [<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343959/Driver-flashed-headlights-warn-motorists-speed-trap-fined.html">url</a>]
</li><li> <a href="http://bit.ly/dVSaE4">Those "How's My Driving?" bumper stickers are turning to wireless crowdsourcing to find bad drivers.</a>  Insurance companies are gonna love this app... if folks really take to ratting on their fellow drivers. [<a href="http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/12/new-app-marks-the-end-of-automotive-anonymity/">url</a>]
</li> 
</blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00161112333/dailydirt-automotive-apps-other-car-stuff.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00161112333/dailydirt-automotive-apps-other-car-stuff.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00161112333/dailydirt-automotive-apps-other-car-stuff.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101220/00161112333</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:27:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Long Until A Feature Length Movie Is Filmed Entirely With Smartphones?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101205/22193512135/how-long-until-feature-length-movie-is-filmed-entirely-with-smartphones.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101205/22193512135/how-long-until-feature-length-movie-is-filmed-entirely-with-smartphones.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we wrote about the (very, very cool) publicity stunt pulled by the band Atomic Tom, where they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101018/02341211464/a-publicity-stunt-or-viral-ad-or-just-a-band-connecting-with-fans.shtml"><i>performed</i> one of their songs</a> live on the NYC Subway using only iPhones as instruments.  Of course, they also <i>filmed</i> the whole thing with iPhones as well and that's actually becoming more popular.  Jeremy points us to a story at Mashable covering <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/12/02/iphone-music-videos/" target="_blank">ten music videos filmed with the iPhone</a> and most of them are pretty damn good.  Here's one that was produced and edited by Emmy Award-winner Alen Petkovic for the band Vintage Trouble:
<center>
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cqnfXq6o_Fo?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cqnfXq6o_Fo?fs=1&#038;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
</center>
As you watch these videos, you realize that in a lot of cases, if you didn't know they were filmed with a smartphone, you'd probably never know.  We've shown how filmmakers can make a pretty high quality film <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/00595810520.shtml">with a standard DSLR</a> in the past but I'm beginning to wonder when we'll see the first released "feature film" filmed entirely with smartphones.  I would imagine it can't be that far away.
<br /><br />
And, if you think about it, this is pretty damn exciting.  I remember when I was a kid, the idea of being able to make movies was a really cool idea but it involved saving up a ton of money to buy an expensive video camera or hoping that you could find some friends whose parents had a video camera (which they never really wanted us kids to borrow).  But when you get a super high quality video camera included in the phone you already bought anyway... well, suddenly some pretty powerful things can be enabled.
<br /><br />
At a time when the movie industry is whining and complaining about how there are supposedly going to be fewer movies made, I'd argue that they haven't paid much attention to how much the tools of film making have been getting ridiculously cheaper over the past couple of decades.  And no (before the Hollywood apologists step in and falsely claim this), I'm not saying that just because you can take decent videos on an iPhone, it means that we don't need professionals or higher end cameras and such.  This is just to point out the extreme end of the spectrum and to recognize that some of it is definitely filtering back to other parts of film making as well.  A professional film shot on a tight budget might actually be able to do a few more things because they can go with cheaper cameras.  I've been listening to Kevin Smith's podcasts about his upcoming film <i>Red State</i>, and at one point, they mentioned that in order to fit things in their budget, they ended up borrowing a Red Camera (which is a high quality, but relatively cheap camera) from a guy in exchange for letting him hang out on set.  But imagine what more people could do if they could devote less of their budget to things like cameras and make existing budgets go further.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101205/22193512135/how-long-until-feature-length-movie-is-filmed-entirely-with-smartphones.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101205/22193512135/how-long-until-feature-length-movie-is-filmed-entirely-with-smartphones.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101205/22193512135/how-long-until-feature-length-movie-is-filmed-entirely-with-smartphones.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>we're-getting-there</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101205/22193512135</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:26:26 PST</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft And Motorola Go All In With Patent Nuclear War</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/08052911817/microsoft-and-motorola-go-all-in-with-patent-nuclear-war.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/08052911817/microsoft-and-motorola-go-all-in-with-patent-nuclear-war.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years we've pointed out that among big tech companies, patents represent more of a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040804/0254215.shtml">nuclear stockpiling strategy</a>, where they build up a bunch, and if anyone else sues them they can sue back.  In theory, this should prevent a lot of patent lawsuits, but patent nuclear wars do break out every so often.  These days, it seems like the whole <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">smartphone patent thicket</a> is leading to quite a few nuclear blowups:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/" title="smartphonethicket(3) by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5061246255_45a015568b.jpg" width="500" height="363" alt="smartphonethicket(3)" /></a>
</center>
We've seen patent suits and countersuits involving <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1224389396.shtml">HTC and Apple</a> as well as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0121079352.shtml">Nokia and Apple</a>.  Apparently we can now add Motorola and Microsoft to the list.  We had already covered how Microsoft had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101001/13562611251/microsoft-sues-motorola-for-patent-infringement-over-android.shtml">sued Motorola</a> for its use of Android.  Things escalated when Microsoft <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20022294-75.html" target="_blank">sued Motorola again</a> arguing that the royalties Motorola was charging for certain patents licensed, for use in the Xbox, were inflated.
<br /><br />
In response, Motorola quickly spun around and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20022478-264.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">countersued Microsoft</a>, claiming that Microsoft infringed on 16 of its patents.  The countersuit took all of one day to go out, suggesting Motorola certainly had it ready.  In the end of course, the lawyers will make plenty of money and products we all buy will be more expensive.  Just the way the patent system was supposed to work, right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/08052911817/microsoft-and-motorola-go-all-in-with-patent-nuclear-war.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/08052911817/microsoft-and-motorola-go-all-in-with-patent-nuclear-war.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101111/08052911817/microsoft-and-motorola-go-all-in-with-patent-nuclear-war.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>war-games</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101111/08052911817</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:46:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why The Answer To The Smartphone Patent Thicket Is Not A Patent Pool</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/09595211635/why-the-answer-to-the-smartphone-patent-thicket-is-not-a-patent-pool.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/09595211635/why-the-answer-to-the-smartphone-patent-thicket-is-not-a-patent-pool.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently wrote about the incredible <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">patent thicket</a> in the smartphone space.  For some reason, in the course of a few days, about ten different publications all created a very similar graphic about "who was suing whom" in the smartphone space for patent infringement.  Unfortunately, most of those graphs had the wrong data and/or did not include non-practicing entities, who make up some of the most serious (and expensive) lawsuits in the space, and are certainly an important part of understanding the thicket.  We created our own graphic here:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5061246255/" title="smartphonethicket(3) by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5061246255_45a015568b.jpg" width="500" height="363" alt="smartphonethicket(3)" /></a>
</center>
Anyway, with so much attention being paid to this patent thicket, of course it would only be a matter of time until someone popped up with a favorite "solution" to patent thickets: "patent pools."  The WSJ Digits blog has an article about a forthcoming paper that <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/10/28/why-is-a-smartphone-like-a-sewing-machine/" target="_blank">compares the smartphone patent thicket to the sewing machine patent thicket in the 19th century</a>, and suggests that the same solution used then could work now: just have everyone create a patent pool to share their patents.
<br /><br />
We've heard this before, and explained before why patent pools aren't a really good solution.  In fact, two years ago we pointed to new research showing evidence for why that famed sewing machine patent pool <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1717133041.shtml">actually did more to hinder innovation</a> than to encourage it.  As we explained at the time:
<blockquote><i>
First, companies scramble to get patents that can be included in the patent pool (rather than focusing on actually innovating in the market and understanding what the market wants). Once the pool is truly established, patenting decreases, because it's just not worth it to compete. After the patent pool dissolves, then others finally get back into the market. Second, because the patent pool locks in the effective "standard" early in the process, it might not actually be the best technology. In their research, Lampe and Moser found that this is exactly what happened with the first patent pool concerning the sewing machine. It "shifted the direction of innovation to an inferior technology... which was known to be significantly less robust, and unsuitable for mass production." 
<br /><br />
Then, once they're in the patent pool, they become anti-competitive: suing any upstart that tries to innovate and is not a member of the patent pool. So, effectively, rather than innovating, they use the patent pool to block any competition. Finally, once the patent pool is in place, the companies involved decrease their own pace of innovation, because they've basically just blocked out the competitors. Thus, they don't need to keep innovating at the same pace. 
</i></blockquote>
Are patent pools better than the legal jumble of lawsuits from the graphic above?  Maybe.  But are they the best solution out there?  Absolutely not.  Instead, a better solution would be to just let the market compete on the merits of the products and let the market decide, rather than focusing on any monopoly rights that will exclude innovators.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/09595211635/why-the-answer-to-the-smartphone-patent-thicket-is-not-a-patent-pool.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/09595211635/why-the-answer-to-the-smartphone-patent-thicket-is-not-a-patent-pool.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/09595211635/why-the-answer-to-the-smartphone-patent-thicket-is-not-a-patent-pool.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sorry,-but-no-thanks</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101028/09595211635</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>