Re: Sir Job

Ive is British, Jobs wasn't ;)

seen the icon? it's troll, troll alert ;)

Re: hmm

yeah, you need to deal with luminance values ;)

Re: hmm

and forgot to add, the assembly is in Portugal so no, no German labour is involved here ;)

Re: hmm

Yeah I do get it but the casing, the sensor and everything is the same as M9. So there's really no need to pay extra as the components are the same if you see what I mean, so they don't pay extra on top to suppliers for lower volumes.

it's not just that email

check Florian's article here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evidence-of.html

just scroll down to numbered list, there are 10 other instances of this dating back to 2005

Re: bbc iplayer

are you with Sky? when I was with BeThere I've never had problems with iPlayer's HD titles but since we switched to Sky it's pretty much useless during the day

*in ME2*

@David Webb @Metavisor

and also, MM wants percentage from device price not from the chip which uses patented technology (Infineon/qualcomm) - and that's really unfair. that's also the reason why MS filed complaint against MM.

Re: It's no suprise...

hehehe, that's really bad PS job there

Re: anti-google fanbois

please check licensing conditions when you have to pay and so on. you'll see that your argument will start to loose solid grounds. h264 is pretty much on every single device, from capture to distribution.

Re: Re: Lets look at the time line a bit shall we

@Bob - I think you don't understand difference between standard essential patents and patents that are not essential to a standard/design/whatever

- meaning that second group encourages you to either pay license fee or work around the patent in question, which means there are another ways to achieve desired result or you can develop your own system/way how to achieve that result which is different than patented technology.

Re: Re: Re: Lets look at the time line a bit shall we

not my maths, that's quote from this article:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/02/22/google-please-don-t-kill-video-on-the-web.aspx

and MS doesn't charge 3% on standard essential patents - that's the difference.

Re: Lets look at the time line a bit shall we

this is from the linked article, just to give you an idea what's going on:

"Unfortunately, Motorola has refused to make its patents available at anything remotely close to a reasonable price. For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264. As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms. Microsoft’s patent royalty to this group on that $1,000 laptop?

Two cents.

That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a nice volume discount, but no firm has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents.

And that is for a mid-level, $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows. But the high-end laptop will have a bigger hard drive, more memory, perhaps a titanium case—and Motorola is demanding a hefty royalty on all of this, even though none of these features implements Motorola’s video patents."

Re: Lets look at the time line a bit shall we

it's got nothing to do with the merger. it's the fact that MM is trying to squeeze more money from them and not following their commitment. research a bit this subject, click on the links in the article, read through it.

Re: Costs

yep, and that's pretty much also the reason why apple filed their complain. MM wants fees based not on the chip/part which implements the technology but percentage of the retail price which honestly is rather unfair.

Re: ASUS Transformer

Obviously off topic!

Re: @hexx

Hi, if you read it again you can see that I'm not being tracked. What I said is that they need to come up with easy to understand way how to opt-out from this BS, nice clear form, well explained with examples so users can decide what they want to do. We know how to deal with this but average users don't.

They need to come up with clear rules and clear way of disabling tracking. I do not wished to be tracked. I do not wish to see ads all over the sites. I pay for my broadband and I want to control what goes down the pipe to my browser. If they want to share with me their revenue from ads, fine, I can live with them, but they don't share it.

Well, anyway, I live w/o adverts, adBlock and DNP Plus do the job.

Re: Any one notice the part

you've got it all wrong

Re: So how come

Nope, from what I've read it looks like apple is using Qualcomm chips. And Qualcomm pays license to MOTO. So Apple shouldn't.

that's fine, what's the need for your comment then?

"Add to that, that a high resolution MP3 or AAC (256+) is indistinguishable from the CD for the vast majority of the population regardless of equipment."

- no and no and once again no

remasters of King Crimson/Yes/Pink Floyd are great example. The more recent remaster is the worse it sounds

you sir have no idea what you're talking about