Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Looks like they took down most of them.... (Score 1) 247

by One Louder (#37293118) Attached to: Android Tricorder Killed By CBS
But that would be covered by a *design patent* not a copyright. Copyright covers *specific* creative works - I don't see how this app could violate a copyright unless it included *specific* elements owned by CBS, such as sounds and images. Just putting rounded rectangles on the screen should not be enough to trigger a copyright takedown since CBS would need to point to the specific original work that was copied. LCARs itself cannot be copyrighted - the name can be trademarked, and certain design elements could be patented.

Comment: Those are "featured" apps picked by marketing (Score 2) 231

by One Louder (#35680856) Attached to: Android 3.0 Is Trickling In, But Are the Apps?
All of these "articles" are just looking at the "featured" tablet apps list, which are picked by marketing folks and is not the definitive list of Honeycomb-specific or Honeycomb-enabled apps.

For instance, my company updated its app to use Honeycomb features as appropriate, while maintaining backward compatibility with Froyo and Gingerbread (minSdkVersion=8, targetSdkVersion=11), but it's not listed as a "featured" app.

Comment: Re:"slander of title" - sounds interesting (Score 1) 186

by One Louder (#35176720) Attached to: MPEG LA Attempts To Start VP8 Patent Pool

Has that been used in the past against a patent holder??

Not that I know of. "Slander of Title" is really a real estate law concept, however, SCO made an interesting attempt to use to enforce an alleged copyright claim. In their case, it turns out they didn't actually *have* the title they were claiming was being "slandered" by Novell. However, there really didn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the reasoning - the consequences of claiming you own something you don't has substantial legal history behind it. In this case, it may actually require that MPEG-LA explicitly claim they "own" part of VP8, through a patent, in order to be actionable (assuming, of course, that the claim is false).

Comment: Re:Might be a bluff, otherwise we've a lot of work (Score 2) 186

by One Louder (#35176148) Attached to: MPEG LA Attempts To Start VP8 Patent Pool

There have been previous threats about Theora, but nothing happened. This could be FUD bluff too.

One interesting difference here is that they're going up against someone with deep pockets. If they can't find something substantive, MPEG-LA is risking a "slander of title" claim, and Google might consider making an example of them.

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke