<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>News picks (new threads)</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/c-19100/news-picks</link>
		<description>Threads in the forum category &quot;News picks&quot; - Articles from other sources; copy title, first paragraph, and put URL in body of post.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:14:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-288243</guid>
				<title>U.S. Supreme Court to hear i4i patent case against Microsoft</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-288243/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-i4i-patent-case-against-microsoft</link>
				<description>The U.S. top court has agreed to review a patent infringement case filed against Microsoft by Toronto-based i4i Ltd.</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"The U.S. top court has agreed to review a patent infringement case filed against Microsoft by Toronto-based i4i Ltd. – a case that Microsoft lost both initially in court and subsequently on appeal. […] Microsoft’s appeal to the top court essentially asks the court to consider setting a less-stringent standard for invalidating a patent. Currently, companies in Microsoft’s position are required to show “clear and convincing” evidence to invalidate a U.S. patent.<br /> Microsoft argues that the current system disproportionately favours patent holders in some cases."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/microsoft-appeal-on-i4i-patent-headed-to-us-supreme-court/article1817427/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/microsoft-appeal-on-i4i-patent-headed-to-us-supreme-court/article1817427/</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-276802</guid>
				<title>NZ-OSS: Debating Software Patents with Brett Roberts</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-276802/nz-oss:debating-software-patents-with-brett-roberts</link>
				<description>Summary (and YouTube links) of a debate on software patents in New Zealand: &quot;I argued that software patents stifle innovation. When ideas are copied, extended, built upon - we all benefit. Patents stop this and thus stifle innovation. He argued that patents not necessary to protect industries based on ideas e.g. publishing because copyright does a good job. He pointed to the negative impacts of software patents such as the Android litigation which is stifling competition.&quot;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"[Summary (and YouTube links) of a debate on software patents in New Zealand]: "I argued that software patents stifle innovation. When ideas are copied, extended, built upon - we all benefit. Patents stop this and thus stifle innovation. He argued that patents not necessary to protect industries based on ideas e.g. publishing because copyright does a good job. He pointed to the negative impacts of software patents such as the Android litigation which is stifling competition."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2010/debating-software-patents-brett-roberts">http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2010/debating-software-patents-brett-roberts</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-274980</guid>
				<title>EurActiv: EU to push patent-free eGovernment</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-274980/euractiv:eu-to-push-patent-free-egovernment</link>
				<description>The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws. [The BSA is] worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids.</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"The European Union is on the cusp of writing public procurement rules which favour patent- and royalty-free technologies, according to software giants who argue that the rules echo Chinese public procurement laws. [The BSA is] worried that the pending European Interoperability Framework (EIF) will give technologies that have open specifications an advantage in public sector bids."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694">http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-push-patent-free-egovernment-news-498694</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-273057</guid>
				<title>Wikileaks publishes documents on plan to curb free software in the European Union</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-273057/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan-to-curb-free-software</link>
				<description>[The leaked] file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union.</description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"[The leaked] file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union.<br /> What makes this document fascinating is that it contains both the original and modified text (…), which means that we can see what exactly an organisation sympathetic to Microsoft –and partly funded by them– is worried about, and how it is trying to head off the threat."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://blog.javier-carrete.com/2010/10/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan.html">http://blog.javier-carrete.com/2010/10/wikileaks-publishes-documents-on-plan.html</a></p> <p>The leaked file is here: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/38773615/Towards-a-European-Software-Strategy">http://www.scribd.com/doc/38773615/Towards-a-European-Software-Strategy</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272792</guid>
				<title>MultichannelNews: U.S. Patent Office Affirms TiVo &#039;Time Warp&#039; Patent Is Valid</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272792/multichannelnews:u-s-patent-office-affirms-tivo-time-warp-pa</link>
				<description>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday affirmed the validity of TiVo&#039;s so-called Time Warp DVR patent, reversing the agency&#039;s ruling this summer -- after a second re-examination requested by EchoStar and Dish Network -- that the patent was invalid because some of the claims were covered in two prior patents.</description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday affirmed the validity of TiVo's so-called Time Warp DVR patent, reversing the agency's ruling this summer — after a second re-examination requested by EchoStar and Dish Network — that the patent was invalid because some of the claims were covered in two prior patents."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/article/458133-U_S_Patent_Office_Affirms_TiVo_Time_Warp_Patent_Is_Valid.php?">http://www.multichannel.com/article/458133-U_S_Patent_Office_Affirms_TiVo_Time_Warp_Patent_Is_Valid.php?</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272791</guid>
				<title>Ars: Motorola asks ITC, two federal courts to throw book at Apple</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272791/ars:motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-ap</link>
				<description>Motorola has launched the next offensive in an increasingly confusing legal war over mobile patents. The company, through its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, has filed patent infringement complaints against Apple in both Northern Illinois and Southern Florida federal district courts. It has also asked the International Trade Commission to block Apple from importing, marketing, or selling iPhones, iPad, iPod touches, and &quot;some Mac products.&quot;</description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"Motorola has launched the next offensive in an increasingly confusing legal war over mobile patents. The company, through its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, has filed patent infringement complaints against Apple in both Northern Illinois and Southern Florida federal district courts. It has also asked the International Trade Commission to block Apple from importing, marketing, or selling iPhones, iPad, iPod touches, and "some Mac products."<br /> Motorola's four complaints involve a total of 18 patents, which the company says covers everything from 3G, GPRS, and 802.11 technologies, antenna design, proximity sensing, device synchronization, and more. Motorola also says that everything from the hardware on up to iOS, MobileMe, and the App Store infringes upon its patented innovations."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars">http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272199</guid>
				<title>Ars: Cover Flow may cost Apple $208.5 million in damages</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272199/ars:cover-flow-may-cost-apple-208-5-million-in-damages</link>
				<description>Apple has been ordered to pay more than $200 million to Mirror Worlds, LLC after having lost a patent infringement case brought by the company. Apple was found to be in violation of Mirror Worlds&#039; &quot;document streaming&quot; patents, which Apple allegedly used in its implementation of Cover Flow and Time Machine.</description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"Apple has been ordered to pay more than $200 million to Mirror Worlds, LLC after having lost a patent infringement case brought by the company. Apple was found to be in violation of Mirror Worlds' "document streaming" patents, which Apple allegedly used in its implementation of Cover Flow and Time Machine."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/apple-loses-patent-infringement-suit-over-cover-flow-display.ars">http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/apple-loses-patent-infringement-suit-over-cover-flow-display.ars</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272024</guid>
				<title>TechDirt: Why Must Patent Supporters Rewrite History In Attempt To Have The Feds Subsidize Patents</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-272024/techdirt:why-must-patent-supporters-rewrite-history-in-attem</link>
				<description>Hank Northhaft is the CEO of a patent licensing firm. [...] He [...] has been making the rounds writing opinion pieces for various publications pitching this plan. Unfortunately, each of his opinion pieces seems to rewrite history or misinterpret studies to make his argument.</description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"Hank Northhaft is the CEO of a patent licensing firm. […] He's got a book coming out next year that's all about making it even easier and cheaper to get patents, which he insists will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs, and has been making the rounds writing opinion pieces for various publications pitching this plan. Unfortunately, each of his opinion pieces seems to rewrite history or misinterpret studies to make his argument.<br /> Mike Masnick points out the fallacies and omissions in Northhaft's arguments."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/03493510551/why-must-patent-supporters-rewrite-history-in-attempt-to-have-the-feds-subsidize-patents.shtml">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/03493510551/why-must-patent-supporters-rewrite-history-in-attempt-to-have-the-feds-subsidize-patents.shtml</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-271789</guid>
				<title>Ars: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-271789/ars:microsoft-sues-motorola-citing-android-patent-infringeme</link>
				<description>Microsoft has announced a lawsuit against Motorola, alleging that several of the mobile company&#039;s Android devices infringe on nine of its patents. The software giant is suing in US District Court in Washington, and is also bringing a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The patents are all related to key smartphone experiences that include syncing e-mails, calendars, and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power.</description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 02 Oct 2010 12:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"Microsoft has announced a lawsuit against Motorola, alleging that several of the mobile company's Android devices infringe on nine of its patents. The software giant is suing in US District Court in Washington, and is also bringing a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The patents are all related to key smartphone experiences that include syncing e-mails, calendars, and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications about changes in signal strength and battery power. Microsoft specifically names two Motorola devices, the Droid 2 and the Charm, but says these are just examples and not a comprehensive list. "</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues-motorola-citing-android-patent-infringement.ars">http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues-motorola-citing-android-patent-infringement.ars</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>
