For decades, Chinese disregard for trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property has frustrated U.S. technology, entertainment and other companies. The next wave of intellectual-property conflict in China won’t be fights over pirated software or unauthorized downloads. Microsoft, which has been a leader in fighting Chinese pirates, this week announced a deal with Xiaomi, maker of some of China’s most popular smartphones, to put Skype and Microsoft Office on Xiaomi’s Android phones. As part of the deal, Xiaomi is buying nearly 1,500 of Microsoft’s patents, covering wireless communications, video, cloud, and multimedia technology.
The fact that Microsoft can find in Xiaomi a ready buyer for a bunch of its patents is a sign of the growing importance Chinese companies now put on intellectual property. This is particularly true of tech companies trying to develop global brands. Xiaomi wants to build sales with consumers outside China, and part of that push means accumulating more patents.
“They have beefed up their portfolios,” said Haifeng Huang, a partner with Jones Day in Hong Kong. Some, like Shenzhen-based Huawei Technologies, have done that by investing in R&D. Others, like Xiaomi, have gone shopping. “Chinese companies tend to look around and see if there are opportunities to acquire patents from other parties,” said Huang. “They are willing to pay a lot.”
Having a big patent portfolio is an important part of the go-abroad strategy for the Chinese government, which wants local champions to become top brands worldwide. The government is encouraging tech companies not only to file for patents but also find ways to make money from them, said Ningling Wang, a partner in Shanghai with the law firm Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. The goal is to “extract value from high-quality patents,” she said.
“Historically, Chinese companies have tended to use patents solely for defensive purposes, but now Chinese companies are becoming more sophisticated.”
And when it comes to patent portfolios, size matters. That’s because a company like Xiaomi needs a big chunk of patents to improve its negotiating position against rivals that are demanding royalties for use of their own intellectual property. “It’s very difficult to measure the value of each company’s portfolio, so one measure is quantity,” said Matthew Laight, head of the intellectual-property group in Asia Pacific for law firm Bird & Bird. Quality matters, too: If a company has one or two patents that are particularly strong, they increase the value of the whole patent portfolio.
Either way, the goal is to have more leverage when negotiating cross-licensing deals. Typically, Chinese companies have been on the receiving end of legal challenges. Huawei, however, the Shenzhen-based maker of networking equipment, mobile phones, and other tech products, went on the offensive. On May 24, Huawei filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics in federal court in San Francisco, claiming the South Korean tech giants infringed on as many as 11 patents related to 4G mobile devices. “We will thoroughly review the complaint and take appropriate action to defend Samsung’s business interests,” Samsung Electronics said in an emailed statement.
While such cases are common among tech companies, it’s unusual for a Chinese company to be the plaintiff. The Chinese are usually the ones accused of being the copycats. By taking on Samsung, Huawei is taking “a very pioneering move,” said Wang.
Chinese companies are likely to use Huawei as a model and become more aggressive in challenging foreign companies about their use of Chinese-owned patents, according to John Wu, director of product development with Iptalent Consulting, an intellectual property advisory firm in Beijing. “Everyone wants to make money from the patents,” he said.
Ever wonder whats on the mind of todays most notable people? Well, dont miss our unbelievable roundup of the best and most talked about quotes of the day:
The News International
Seminar on making money online to be held on Sunday
The News International
KARACHI:The Karachi Bloggers Community is organizing a seminar on the subject of making money online at Arts Council Karachi on Sunday. The seminar will also discuss the subjects of Blogging, Freelancing besides Making Money Online.
Blogging The Boys (blog)
NFL Draft 2017 Profile: Safety Obi Melifonwu (Cowboys Pre-Draft Visits)
Blogging The Boys (blog)
Over the next few weeks, we'll continue looking at prospects in the upcoming 2017 NFL Draftfrom a decidedly Cowboys point of view. Taking the Cowboys current personnel, draft position, scheme, and needs into consideration; defensive line, linebacker, …
Facebook and Google announced Monday that they were taking steps to restrict ads from fake news outlets after facing criticism that hoax stories helped swing the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.
Facebook said Monday that it would ban fake news sites from using its Facebook Audience Network, which allows websites to generate revenueby including Facebook ads. Also Monday, Google said it would work to prevent websites selling fake news from using its AdSense advertising network.
While both companies are taking a step in the right direction, the efforts won’t completely fix the problem of fake news stories bubbling up on the two major websites. “Facebook’s move doesn’t address the fake news that appears in users’ news feeds, the focus of criticism of the social network,” the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. It’s also not clear how the social network will identify what’s fake and what’s real.
These are both huge issues. During the election, Facebook hosted false news stories that included reports that actor Denzel Washington and Pope Francis had endorsed Trump. Both posts went viral on the social media website, according to NBC News.
On Sunday, a fake blog post suggesting that Trump had won the popular vote shot to the top of Google’s search engine for those looking up final election results. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead has been growing.
Facebook users can still post and share fake news stories, meaning there’s still an incentive for accounts to spread hoaxes in an effort to get clicks and drive revenue. Earlier this month, Buzzfeed reported on how Macedonian teens were churning out fake, pro-Donald Trump click-bait in an effort to make money.
The Wall Street Journal pointed out that a Facebook spokesman “couldn’t specify the signals its software uses to identify fake news sites, or when it will also ask people to review the sites. He also couldn’t say why Facebook couldn’t use similar technology to stamp out fake news on its news feed.”
Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has insisted his company did not influence last week’s presidential election. “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic,” he wrote in a status update posted Saturday. “The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.”
On Monday, Google said in a statement, “We clearly didn’t get it right, but we are continually working to improve our algorithms.”
While Google’s move will financially restrict fake news outlets, Reuters noted that it “similarly does not address the issue of fake news or hoaxes appearing in Google search results.”
Google has been “more aggressive” in weeding its search algorithms to penalize click-bait and fake news, Joe Pooley, chair of media and communication at Muhlenberg College, told The Huffington Post.
“In some respects, this whole issue is less intense for Google,” Pooley said. “In general, Google has been better.”
Google said in a statement that it would “restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property.” The search engine giant did not specify how it would implement or enforce the policy, according to Reuters.
Tinder is basically a crapshoot. While sometimes you can find someone to swipe into your life with the dating app, other times you find cruel bullies padding their own insecurities through heartless insults.
Entrepreneurship: How To Make Successfully Make Money Online Blogging
With more individuals working from home and running home-based businesses, one must be comfortable in making money producing content online via blogging. There are many ways one can make money online blogging and while I have personally …
Blogging The Boys (blog)
How The Cowboys Can Score Big By Drafting Takkarist McKinley
Blogging The Boys (blog)
The Cowboys could have an opportunity to take a spec-takk-cular pass rusher in the first round. by DannyPhantom@DannyPhantom24 Apr 12, 2017, 4:00pm CDT. tweet · share · pin · Rec. Photo by Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images. Man crushes are a real thing.
Prisons are awash with mobile phones, allowing inmates to continue a life of crime unhindered by locked doors and barbed wire. Why is technology not being used to stop them?
Thousands of mobile phones are confiscated in UK prisons every year and many more – smuggled in or thrown over the wall – go undetected.
They are a valuable illegal resource – costing between 400 and 1,000 just to borrow.
The government’s National Offender Management Service (NOMS) seized 7,451 mobile phones and Sim cards in prisons in England and Wales in 2013.
Using them, inmates had “commissioned murder, planned escapes, imported automatic firearms and arranged drug imports”, NOMS said.
“The problem is widespread.”
Machine-guns were smuggled into the UK by a prisoner organising the crime by phone from his cell.
Judge David Farrell QC called the “wholly inadequate” prison security that had allowed the crime a “scandal”.
The mother of an inmate in HMP Northumberland claims “the place is full of mobile phones”.
“You’ve got people throwing mobile phones over the fences and then there are prisoners who have access to the grounds so they’re bringing them in,” she says.
Glyn Travis from the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) says the jail is far from unique.
“Drugs and mobile phones are freely thrown into prisons” with delivery by drone “completely undermining the external security that protects the public”, he says.
Sodexo, which runs HMP Northumberland, said “staff worked hard to stop illicit items getting into the prison using a range of technical and intelligence measures”.
But the fact that so many phones make their way into prisons despite security precautions goes some way to explaining how hard it is to find and remove them.
The obvious solution, says the POA, is to make them unusable.
Mobile phone jammers or grabbers – which block signals or divert them away from their intended destination – are readily available.
But NOMS says the expense is “disproportionate”, at up to 300m to fit and 800,000 a year to maintain.
However, technology installers, such as US company Cell Antenna’s Howard Melamed, have been downplaying the cost of the technology for years.
Steve Rogers, the managing director of electronic counter measures company Digital RF, says the UK’s wide variety of prisons – large, small, new-build, Victorian, open, high security – makes pricing “very difficult”.
“How do you value this, that’s the question, isn’t it?” Mr Rogers says.
“When you work out that value then you can say whether it’s affordable or not.”
The 2010 Crime and Security Act made possessing a mobile phone in jail punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
But inmates do not worry about punishment for crimes committed inside, Mr Travis says.
“I don’t know why they should fear the fact that, if they get prosecuted – and I use the word if they get prosecuted – by the CPS and the police, and then they go to the courts and they may get a 12-month concurrent sentence.”
Prisoners in HMP Northumberland know they are not allowed mobiles, but “lots of them” have them nonetheless, the inmate’s mother says.
Last year the government awarded a 60,000 contract to explore the use of mobile phones in prisons – how to stop them getting in, find those that do and disrupt those which cannot be located.
The previous year the Scottish Prison Service announced plans to pilot blocking technology at HMPs Shotts and Glenochil.
But NOMS specifically excluded such “prohibitively expensive solutions”, despite a change in the law in 2012 permitting their use in prisons.
Then, in 2015, the Serious Crime Act introduced the possibility of regulations giving the government – and ministers in Scotland – the power to force mobile phone operators to disconnect illicit phones and Sim cards.
Notably, the authorities would not need to find the phone to have it cut off.
The regulations are still to be enacted. A Prison Service spokesman said they would be “introduced in due course”.
But disconnected Sim cards and phones are soon replaced, Mr Rogers says.
And cutting people off is not in the commercial interests of organisations that make money “making sure people stay on air”.
“They only have to get one or two people wrong and they could be in a quite interesting legal situation,” he says.
The POA has been lobbying for signal blockers for years, raising it with MPs and each successive government.
“Every year they say ‘we can’t afford it, we’ll do a pilot scheme, we’ll do this’ and, whenever they try to do it, they say it causes too many problems – absolute rubbish,” Mr Travis says.
Mr Rogers favours grabbing technology because prisons can see how many handsets have been disabled and to whom they belong.
Blocking can sometimes leave small spots where a signal might break through and its effect is hard to quantify, he says.
The prisons he works with can only measure success by the number of phones thrown in bins by inmates not wanting to risk punishment for an illicit item that no longer works.
The Prison Service accepts jails are “in need of urgent reform” and it has to “look at new ways of finding and blocking mobile phones as well as as equipping prison officers with the right tools to tackle them”.
It lists detection equipment, routine searches, CCTV, sniffer dogs and penalties – but is very reticent about its position on blocking technology.
A spokesman refused to say whether the 2012 legislation permitting the use of “signal-denying” technology had ever been used.
He also refused to comment on which publicised pilot schemes had taken place or what conclusions on cost and effectiveness they had come to.
The POA believes blocking or grabbing would not only control prisoners, it would “have significant impact on the general public”.
When the “people who’ve committed some of the most heinous crimes” can organise more crime from inside a prison, “how safe are your children?”, Mr Travis asks.
Guns and wall-to-wall star-spangled patriotism are the National Rifle Associations way of projecting a rugged image of strength to its members, but they also point to the steady current of hysteria throughout American history
A frightened population is obedient.
Hunter S Thompson
Im not scared about going to jail. Somebodys got to do something to knock the fear out of these negroes.
At the 145th National Rifle Association annual meetings and exhibits, you could see and purchase replica flintlock muskets like the kind Daniel Boone used, wardrobe handguns the size of a cellphone, a carriage-mounted 1883 Gatling gun, historic firearms from the Renaissance down through the latest Surge, bullet-splat jewelry, deep-concealment holsters, triple barrel shotguns, and camo everything coolers, flasks, four-wheelers, deer blinds, infant-wear and sexy-time lingerie.
There was a motorcycle with a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the handlebar (sorry, not for sale); all manner of scopes, optics, and laser-sighting technologies; shelf-stable food products; bulk ammo, precision ammo, make-your-own-ammo ammo; historical exhibits; mom-and-pop purveyors of cleaning fluids and swabs; and corporate icons with slick, multi-level sales areas worthy of a luxury car showroom.
And the flag, everywhere, all the time, the stars and stripes popping from pistol grips, knives, banners, T-shirts, shawls, bandannas, product brochures and shopping bags. American, America, sweet land that we love. A photo spread for a well-known US gun manufacturer featured a whiskery, camo-clad, Viagra-aged caucasian male standing in ankle-deep marsh with a dog by his side, shotgun slung across his back and a large US flag in one hand, the pole planted in the muck as if staking a claim.
A country, a product, a lifestyle. That word shows up often in firearms ad copy, as in: We find peace in the solitude of this lifestyle, and we thrive on all the great outdoors has to offer. But on this rainy opening day of the NRA convention all the action was indoors. Eleven Acres of Guns & Gear, promised the banner in front of the Kentucky exposition center, a thuddingly nondescript series of enormous beige boxes that inhaled thousands of conventioneers without so much as a belch. How big is 11 acres? Felt like a hundred, which isnt to say that this conventioneer was the least bit bored.