hmm it seems like apples new game is patent trolling taking over from Rambus Incorporated perhaps.
"Apple launches new legal attack on Samsung phones" Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:37pm GMT
"In a suit filed last week in San Jose, Apple said the Galaxy Nexus infringes on patents underlying features customers expect from its products. Those include the ability to unlock phones by sliding an image and to search for information by voice."
now i know for a fact, search for information by voice, is very old tech as i was using "IN3 Voice Command for Windows" to start search and speak input for it back in the day...http://svr-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/comp.speech/Section6/Recognition/incube.win.html
how do the MPEG-LA (the organization that oversees the H.264 video codec on behalf of patent holders) deal with cases such as this ?
don't they contractually mandate that ALL commercial vendors above a set minimum limit (with the option to waive royalty fees below this set minimum at their discretion) separately licence IP directly from the patten pool or an officially licensed reseller?
if its the same type of set-up arrangement as an IP patent pool, then the question cold be, did/does Qualcomm hold a valid 3rd party reseller licence from Moto or merely a licence to use the IP in their commercial products, i don't know!
The fight is getting interesting. If Moto & Qualcomm has some cross licensing agreement then no way Moto can assert them against Apple, who is a qualcomm customer. Reminds me of Synopsys Magma litigation which was cross licensed with IBM.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.