yep. This "in the public interest" claim now directly contradicts all this fighting we have been doing against other countries nullifying patents "in the public interest" (see: medical patents in india, etc)
putting money into a campaign warchest, would imply he has more than pride at stake. That implies he is making a profit off of stop and frisk currently. I wonder how, but nobody spends money on politics without expecting some gigantic benefit to themselves, right?
Motorola asked apple to take a license. apple turned around and sued and requested an EU investigation, while suing in like 5 different places. this is the result. Many of those have been shut down.
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
you don't have to accept recording from glass.
it's also not relevant to the article.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.
this is the court case where the judge is in MS's pocket. Groklaw has this well documented.
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.