I would still consider them patent trolls at this point. Legitimate patent holders use patents immediately or hold them to use defensively. They do not sit on patents for an entire decade, waiting for the patented technology to be ingrained in the industry, and then use them to earn income. The patent having been created in-house rather than acquired doesn't change the fact that the behavior is fundamentally similar.

Dolby Atmos was 2012. Dolby Vision was 2014. How are they not basically a non-practicing entity at this point?

Yes, but using them offensively after sitting on them violates the doctrine of Laches. In effect, they sat on the patents so that people would end up depending on AV1, because if they sued too early, AOMedia would have designed around the patent, and they would get nothing. So they deliberately delayed action to cause prejudice to the defendant.

At this point, it would be entirely reasonable for a judge to declare that because they failed to act against AOMedia within the 6-year window prescribed by patent law, they lost their right to sue AOMedia for damages in creating the patented technology, and that patent exhaustion applies to all downstream users. And if that happens, I will laugh so hard.

Dolby is not a startup. It was founded in 1965.

Also, the doctrine of Laches says you cannot unreasonably delay filing a lawsuit. Waiting ten years from the first release of the specification is clearly unreasonable. Waiting eight years from the first finished implementation is clearly unreasonable.

The bigger problem for Dolby is that patent law won't let you recover damages at all for damages more than six years ago, and the standard has been available for eight. So unless somehow this is some wacky patent where Dolby claims that some use of an otherwise non-patent-protected codec is patented (which should almost certainly result in that patent getting overturned for obviousness), Dolby should be laughed out of court.

But I'm sure they're hoping that Snapchat caves and agrees to go back to a Dolby codec or pay them royalties rather than fight them in court. This is patent troll behavior. Dolby has effectively become a patent troll, IMO.

From a patent law point of view, it is illegal to create something that violates a patent, not just to use it. Patent law kicks in when you create, offer for sale, sell, import, or otherwise distribute a patented invention.

IMO, one of the biggest flaws in patent law is that it covers the use of inventions in all cases except for patent exhaustion (sale of an already-licensed product). With the exception of pure process patents, IMO, that should not be a violation, as a user has no realistic way of knowing that something they bought violates someone else's patent, and should not even need to worry about such nonsense.

This "feature" of patent law exists solely to give the patent holder more leverage to screw the company accused of violating the patent by holding their innocently infringing customers liable, causing irreparable reputational damage to both companies, irreparable harm to countless others, etc., and it should have been eliminated decades ago.

That said, having seen this behavior by Dolby, I hereby vow to never knowingly buy any product that they manufacture, nor support their products or technology, nor use it except in situations where the content creator or distributor leaves me no alternative. They've gone from being a legitimate technology company to a glorified patent troll. Instead of innovating and making the world better to enrich themselves, they are suing anybody and everybody and making the world worse to enrich themselves.

Moreover, absent gross incompetence by Dolby's legal counsel, it seems clear that Dolby flagrantly and willfully violated the doctrine of Laches to allow damages to accumulate for eight full years from the final release (and ten years from the first specification release), thus allowing AV1 to become the dominant codec so that they could then predatorily use their patents to squeeze money out of the industry. Their behavior is nothing short of unconscionable, and whether due to incompetence or malice, their legal counsel should be formally sanctioned for it.

Finally, if Dolby wins, it is paramount that the entire technology industry agree to never license *any* future Dolby technologies going forwards, because doing so will only encourage them to use the patent system to prevent free and open standards. The only way to prevent patent abuse is to stop feeding the companies that abuse patents.

It is my fundamental believe that data formats should not be allowed to be protected by copyright or patents under any circumstances, because doing so fundamentally violates the rights of the owners and creators of that content. It makes it so that users can potentially lose access to data that they created. And this is wholly unacceptable for the same reason that renting software is unacceptable.

In short, Dolby and its lawyers can go f**k themselves with a shovel.

BOOK:
The Mindful Way through Depression: Freeing Yourself from Chronic Unhappiness
https://www.amazon.com/Mindful...

No drug necessary.

> The premise of a device having "one job" again is the position of a luddite.

No, it's the position of being anti-enshitification.

A refrigerator's main function is to keep food cold. That's the reason you buy a refrigerator. If putting a screen on a TV actually had a demonstrable benefit to that purpose then fine; but it doesn't. It actually has no objective benefit whatsoever, and the increased complexity not only increases cost but also reduces reliability. That's literally the definition of enshitification.

If having a computer screen in your kitchen, mounted to your fridge, is that useful... get a tablet and mount it to the fridge. Not only would that be cheaper, but if the tablet fails it doesn't make the refrigerator scrap metal and vice-versa and you can upgrade one without throwing out the other. Bonus is you can take the table off the fridge and put it where you need it.

I have a leatherman multitool that I keep on me whenever I'm out of the house. It does a lot of things, but it does none of those things as good as a dedicated single-purpose tool of the same kind. It's a good knife but it will never be as good as an actual knife. It's a good pair of pliers but it will never be as good as a proper pair of pliers. It's a decent screwdriver but I will always reach for a normal proper screwdriver if there's one available. Does it make me a luddite to not want a single item that does all things kinda shitty instead of many items that each do their one thing well?

=Smidge=

The Underlying issue is: Why are some people depressed?

If we understand that, it is very likely that no drug will be necessary. People won't become depressed.

Part of it is probably how inconsistent and confusing Windows group policy is designed and phrased. There are so many policies where the setting is not enable or disable with one of those as default. Rather the options are "do not allow" or "not (do not allow)" with the default unclear as to what it does. I swear sometimes the option has to be read as a triple negative.

This data is coming from workplace computers. Users get whatever the company buys and do not always get many choices. Generally business machines are a little better than consumer versions.

"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"

I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.

Windows is crashing because users are doing things that cause crashes.

This issue needs to be investigated in MUCH more detail.

I don't have crashes.

Too much latency for RAM.

You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.

But still, the question remains why not have it rubber stamped from the very beginning? Why do you need that apparent stop gap?

This is not true. Because whatever your personal motivations, the mathematical result of you not voting is that you are voting for whatever majority comes out in the end. And because only a minority voted against Donald Trump, a majority either voted directly for him or was ready to accept his election win.

CPU performance. Now compare GPU performance against a PC built out with eight GPUs to do parallel 3D rendering.

The trash can was thermally limited by its design, and could never be upgraded to hold newer CPUs or GPUs. Anyone for whom the trash can Mac Pro would work could just as easily use an Apple Studio, give or take, ignoring the lack of ECC (which the Apple Silicon Mac Pro also lacked).