Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

среда

On the heels of Liz & Dick, Lifetime's campy take on the love story of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton that starred none other than Lindsay Lohan, BBC America will be delivering another made-for-TV version this fall. Because they couldn't call it Liz & Dick, this one is called ... Burton And Taylor. (Innovation!)

This one stars Dominic West and Helena Bonham Carter, and the first photo was released yesterday.

Of the many problems with Liz & Dick, one of the most prominent — which we discussed on our weekly pop-culture podcast at the time — was that Lohan in particular always seemed far too much a child, not nearly worldly and knowing enough to give you the woman Taylor was when she was with Burton. Helena Bonham Carter is not only an actress with a substantially weightier resume, but one with a lot more capacity for both unhinged energy and knowing seriousness, as you see right in this picture, actually. West, too, is giving a pretty persuasively Burton-ish vibe here. It was always quite difficult to imagine the Lindsay Lohan version of this story playing as anything but a stunt, but seeing these actors in this photo is kind of intriguing.

The comedian in question is Marc Maron. He does a popular podcast, called WTF, out of his garage in California. It's an interview show, with other comedians and artists. Maron recently found an extraordinary letter in his mailbox. This letter said, basically, that by doing his podcast, out of his garage, he was violating a technology patent. His podcast was, according to the letter, "illegal."

"...They sent a copy of the patent with this letter," Maron says. "Which looks like a large bunch of legal gibberish."

When Marc Maron started up his podcast— he didn't think he was stealing anyone's invention. He's a comedian. He'd never seen a patent before.

A couple other podcasters have received similar letters like this— Jesse Thorn, host of the public radio show Bullseye, for one. NBC, CBS, the Adam Carolla show, have all been sued.

The person behind these letters and lawsuits is Jim Logan. Jim Logan claims to have invented podcasting, with a company called Personal Audio, back in the mid-nineties. He has a patent that he claims covers podcasting, that's been recently updated, but dates back to October 2nd, 1996. That means, according to the letter his company sent out, every time someone creates a podcast— and distributes it— that person owes his company money.

Jim Logan says, back in the mid-nineties, he imagined a personal audio device that could "interact with the internet and your preferences to pull down, to your personal player, all the personal stuff you wanted to listen to. "

"The idea of downloading playlists to your audio player and podcasts are how the world has gotten around to implementing those ideas," says Logan.

Jim Logan tried to build an mp3 player and bring it to market. It didn't work ou, but he did manage to put out a much lower tech version of what he feels is the same idea. He brought the manifestation of this idea to our interview. It was a stack of cassette tapes. The idea was, you'd be able to pick from a selection of newspaper and magazine articles, and his company would send you a tape of those articles being read out loud.

The tapes didn't get much traction. And over the next ten years, Logan says, he kind of forgot about these old audio patents. Until 2007, that's when, as he tells it, his patent attorney, Charlie Call, was working on a project that involved iTunes. "I wasn't a big music listener and Charlie Call wasn't either," Logan says. "We didn't own iPods. We didn't use iTunes, so it was all kind of foreign to us." When Call did discover iTunes," Logan says, he realized that our patent "was being infringed by iTunes."

Logan's company, Personal Audio, sued Apple, over the ability to create a playlist. The jury sided with Personal Audio, and awarded them a 8.5 million dollar payout. Apple appealed, Personal Audio appealed back, and there was a settlement of some kind. The results are not public.

In the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that Logan's company did not create iTunes or the iPod. "This is the road map," his licensing guy, Richard Baker, says. "That would tell someone how to do podcasting, how to do mp3 players." Even if the guy who had invented iTunes never read Logan's patent, publicly available, on the U.S. Patent website, "that does not matter," Logan says.

Right now that's how the system works, and a lot of people think, this is a big problem. The fact that somebody like Jim Logan could even get a patent this broad, some say, means that the patent system is not working like it's supposed to. Rather than encouraging more innovation— it's hurting it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group, is planning to challenge the patent at the patent office. They claim the patent is too broad, and too obvious.

To Jim Logan, when he uses patents to make back money he lost on his failed business that's a good thing. He says having a patent makes it safer for people like him to try and start their next new idea.

The people he's threatening to sue, of course, don't see it that way.

"I'm not a tech company," Marc Maron says. "I'm a guy who turns on his computer and does his thing!"

Yesterday, in President Obama's call for reform of the patent system, he may have allied himself with Maron's side. He specifically called for more protection for what he calls "end-users of products containing patented technology." People who aren't even trying to make a new product— just turning on their computers, for example, and doing their thing.

The Cost Of Mutual Fund Fees

Here's what happens after 20 years to a $100,000 investment with a 6 percent annual return and an annual fee (expense ratio) of 1 percent.

Total expenses and costs: $58,400

Ending value: $262,314

For the same investment with an annual fee of .10 percent:

Total expenses and costs: $6,354

Ending value: $314,360

Calculate: Click here to estimate how fees affect your investments.

вторник

A U.S. trade agency says Apple infringed on its Asian rival Samsung's patent in its manufacture of some older models of the iPhone and iPad.

Bloomberg reports on the order from the U.S. International Trade Commission: "It's the first patent ruling against Apple in the U.S. that affects product sales, covering models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G made for AT&T Inc."

Reuters notes that the ITC panel "issued a limited import ban and a cease-and-desist order for AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G."

President Obama has 60 days to overturn the order. An Apple spokeswoman told the AllThingsD website that the company was "disappointed" with the decision, and planned to appeal.

"Today's decision has no impact on the availability of Apple products in the United States," she told AllThingsD. "Samsung is using a strategy which has been rejected by courts and regulators around the world. They've admitted that it's against the interests of consumers in Europe and elsewhere, yet here in the United States Samsung continues to try to block the sale of Apple products by using patents they agreed to license to anyone for a reasonable fee."

A Samsung statement to the website praised the ITC's decision.

As NPR's Steve Henn reports for our Newscast Unit, the two technology giants have been battling in courts all over the globe.

"Last summer Apple won a one billion dollar jury verdict against Samsung after accusing the Korean electronics giant of "slavishly copying its designs" smartphones and tablets," Steve says.

In March, the judge overseeing the patent case decided to throw out about half of those damages.

Blog Archive