or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TBell

  It is a myth that subsidies hurt the carriers. Sure, the carriers take a hit to purchase the phones. For most carriers, however, the subsidies get people committed to a two year plan. Moreover, having the subsidies on phones people want keep people on the network. Since customer upgrade cycles are staggered, the hit should be manageable. T-Mobile was bleeding hundreds of thousands of customers  and the most cited reason for the flight was the lack of iPhone. T-Mobile's...
    Honestly, LTE is over rated. First, most people's plans on Verizon and AT&T have caps. So, the faster you go, the faster you eat through your cap. Second, you really don't need LTE speed for reading your email, surfing the web, or even streaming music.You can do all that on T-Mobile's Edge right now. LTE is nice for videos for sure, however, videos kill caps like crazy.    T-Mobile's 4G is very fast, and T-Mobile's plans are unlimited. Moreover, it is much cheaper on...
    I don't see it that way. Microsoft is trying to get people to use its search business. In return, it is paying people points based on the number of searches they perform. That clearly is the focus.  For people using X-Box, Microsoft already knows their address and names. Apple already knows my address and name as well.    Further, Google already indexes search results and ties that to an IP address. It then shows people ads based on those searches in places like their...
    I admit the situation is not exact, but the analogy is not flawed. Sony was being sued for contributory copyright infringement. Namely, assisting the true copyright infringers. The Supreme Court ruled that the people doing the copying were not liable for copyright infringement on fair-use grounds, and therefore Sony was not liable as a contributory infringer. Some people are suggesting that because Google's intent was to make money by copying the books, it can't claim...
    Forgive me, perhaps I have it wrong. I only took about 10 IP classes in law school. My copyright professor teaches at one of the top law schools in the country.   Now that that is out of the way. You are over looking the Sony case in which Fair-Use was established. Sony made a product that allowed the public to copy copyrighted works. Sony made money on selling it's product that it did not share with the copyright holders. The Supreme Court held that what Sony did was...
    Not sure what you mean exactly. Google certainly expected to make money from copying the books. This is no different than Sony expecting to make money when it allowed purchasers of its beta max players to copy the copyrighted works of others. The issue is does Google's actions deprive the copyright holders of money, and does what Google did benefit the public. I'd say Google's action in copying the books was likely to make the book publishers money, and it definitely...
    Make no mistake. Google is still a search company. To be an effective search company, you need effective data. The problem is the ethical lines Google has stooped to gain that data. Before it just mined the web for said data. Now it creates various free to the public services to get additional data. The users of said products mistakenly think they are Google's customers when in fact they are the product. Google's real customers are advertisers. It gets data from the...
    I am not a Google fan by any means, but the whole Google books program is an example of where I think Google was in the right. You see copyright was never intended to be an absolute right. It was a right granted in order to encourage the development of creative works for the benefit of the public. Copyright was always supposed to be balanced against the First Amendment. So, to protect the public's first amendment rights, fair use is always a defense to copyright...
    Funny, because it rings true. Seriously, though neither company would care until there was market penetration. Nobody sued Apple over FRAM patents until Apple started selling a lot of phones. Apple also didn't start suing until a lot of iPhone knock offs were being sold. 
    This explains it fairly well from Apple's perspective. It is the 263 patent. The patent was filed on 02-01-1996. It expires 20 years after that. 
New Posts  All Forums: