Microsoft is a very abusive patent aggressor, despite Todd Bishop pretending that it complies with the law. It's all just spin or misdirection. Thanks to the absence of NDA rules (not applying because no deal was signed), B&N showed serious abuses from Microsoft after it got sued (similar to Microsoft suing Motorola over Linux) and regulators should take a close look at that. Microsoft has turned into some kind of massive patent troll or a company which uses patent trolls to attack its competition. Funnily enough, TechDirt publishes an analyst's opinion that "Motorola's Best Play Is To Become A Patent Troll & Destroy Android Ecosystem With Patent Lawsuits" (TechDirt quote, not the analyst's), yet nobody seems to mention what Microsoft is already doing, which is exactly how Mike describes it:
Weren't patents supposed to be about encouraging innovation? Of course, the reality is that they're mostly used for the opposite purpose, which is holding back innovation, stopping other companies and cashing in on the lawsuits. It seems that some analysts aren't even pretending that patents are useful for innovation any more. Trip Chowdhry, a somewhat well known analyst in the tech space, is claiming that [...] suggests that the company go full on patent troll and sue everyone else making Android tablets. Because that will help the market.
In my March 2 post on patent reform, I noted that many of the provisions offered in prior versions of patent reform bills were removed from the pending bill. On March 8, the Senate passed S. 23, now called the “America Invents Act” 95-5. As one might guess, any legislation passed with such unanimity must present little controversy. Such is the case here, as the bill was further stripped before passage, leaving little reform to match the hype with which it was passed.
For example, the damages provision mentioned in my post – already watered down from the version in prior years' bills – was removed. Similarly, the venue provision (also significantly diluted from previous bills) was deleted. In fact, the only controversial provision that made its way into the final bill was the “first to file” provision. Most of the other minor changes in my March 2 post remain intact as well.
Karlheinz Brandenburg was not the only researcher working on digital audio coding.