Microsoft Chief Sues Facebook, Google, abbl


The co-founder of Microsoft has filed a patent lawsuit against some of the tech industry’s highest fliers. Named as defendants in the litigation are AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Yahoo and YouTube. Also named in the suit were Office Depot, OfficeMax and Staples.

According to a complaint filed in federal district court in Seattle, all those firms are violating four patents owned by Paul Allen, who has participated in a host of endeavors since leaving Microsoft including investment in numerous high-tech companies and ownership of several professional sports teams.

Conspicuously missing from the list of defendants are Microsoft, in which Allen still has a substantial investment, and, which is based in the billionaire‘s hometown of Seattle. When asked about how the defendants in the case were chosen, a spokesman for Allen refused to comment on the process to the Wall Street Journal.

The patents Allen is seeking to enforce are based on technology developed by a now defunct research lab and technology incubator, Interval Research Corp., which Allen invested about $100 million prior to the bursting of the Internet bubble.

Some common browser functions are covered by the patents. One patent, for example, is for making suggestions to consumers based on what they’re looking at on their displays or, in the case of social networks, based on what others on the network are viewing. The others govern letting the reader of a news story discover material related to subjects in the story and the display of information or multimedia outside a viewer’s main focus on the screen.

In the complaint, Allen wants the court to declare that the defendants have infringed on his patents, award him an undeclared amount in damages and permanently stop the defendants from using the technology in the patents.

The rich will always want to get richer is all i’d say!!

Story by 2010 all rights reserved



The Face in facebook……lol!!

Face your book

Facebook appears to be getting much more aggressive in protecting its brand, even going as far as attempting to trademark the word “face,” documents indicate. The company took over another application for the common word from UK company CIS Internet Limited.

Their application was filed in 2005 by that company, and TechCrunch’s Erick Shonfeld suspects CIS transferred the application to FaceBook around November 2008. Around this time the social networking site’s lawyers began to deal with the US Patent and Trademark Office over the application.

All is not smooth sailing — Facebook is getting opposition to the attempt from a familiar face. Aaron Greenspan was a classmate of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and last year successfully settled with the social networking company over his claims to being part of Facebook’s initial development.

Greenspan is again disputing Facebook’s claim to the word “face,” and has successfully gotten the USPTO to give him an extension of time in order to fight the company’s claims to the mark. He will have until September 22 to argue his case, and he may have some solid ground to do so.

“Face” is such a common word that awarding a trademark claim to it could potentially put several brand names in use already in jeopardy of legal action by the social networking site. How about FaceTime, Apple’s name for its video calling feature, for example? Some trademark attorneys argue that the word is so common that it cannot be trademarked.

It also could set a bad precedent for other trademarks, and a mad rush to attempt to get the rights to all kinds of common words that are found in currently existing brand names. These rights could then be used in turn to essentially extort money out of those companies.

Facebook already has bullied around a few companies over its names. Take for example PlaceBook. The travel site was forced to change its name to TripTrace after a legal threat from Facebook. TeachBook is also under fire, but that company is vowing to fight Facebook’s legal challenge in court.

Patent reform? How about trademark reform too. Sheesh.

What is it that will not be trademarked or patented in this world, the other day Steve Jobs tried to patent the filing system used in the patent office. Maybe by the year 2025, every word in the dictionary would have been trademarked or its use patented, who knows you might get sued for calling/using your own name.

From 2010, All rights reserved


e-Readers…… it Worth it?


The battle for tech-savvy bookworms is on, with Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Sony competing to sell e-book reader hardware. And as the major players struggle for better position in the electronic-publishing industry, recent months have seen price drops, new devices, and defeats.

Competition stepped up in June when a price war broke out. First Barnes & Noble slashed the price of its Nook by $60, down to $199; the company also started selling a Wi-Fi-only Nook for $149. Within hours Amazon dropped the price of its Kindle by $70, to $189. And ten days later, Sony cut the price of each of its three Reader products by $30, bringing its most expensive 3G version down to $249.

What’s sparking e-reader price drops? Thank Apple’s iPad, the dominant multipurpose tablet available today–and the juggernaut that has the major single-purpose e-reader makers quaking. In the face of this competition, other e-reader manufacturers have thrown in the towel. Plastic Logic has dumped plans to launch its QUE e-reader, and says that it will instead focus on creating a next-generation ProReader. Samsung delayed its e-readers indefinitely.

Single Vs. Multi Purpose

The e-reader is at a crossroads. Amazon and other companies must make the case that their dedicated products have a place in a world filled with multipurpose devices that can display e-books, such as smartphones, tablets, and netbooks. Each e-reader maker also wants to ensure that its product becomes the de facto standard for reading e-books. After all, repeat sales of e-books look to be where the real money is. Selling e-reader hardware with hooks to e-bookstores is more critical now than ever.

The future is really bleak for e-readers, except something extremely revolutionary takes it to another level, I mean in terms of features and heavy inputs from application developers and “HACKERS”. Amazon’s kindle and Apple’s iPad are already taking major steps towards this end, let’s see how it goes. Sometimes you can’t tell with 100% accuracy what the next craze might be, except you are the one that determines what the next big thing.

Leave a comment, let me know what you think.

Read me


Yahoo yahoo!! supported by Microsoft

The Yahoo-Microsoft search alliance hit a major milestone Tuesday, completing Yahoo’s switch to Bing-powered search results in North America. Will you notice?

After all, one of the reasons the U.S. Department of Justice approved Microsoft’s takeover of Yahoo search was because the combined resources from both domains would speed up Bing’s automated learning. With more data to draw upon, Bing and Yahoo have a better chance of finding what you’re looking for, the DOJ reasoned.

Still, the presence of Bing in Yahoo search results is subtle, with only a tiny “Powered by Bing” at the bottom of search pages. Moreover, once you remove the branding and surrounding features of search engines, the results themselves are fairly similar, and I doubt many people could distinguish one from the other.

If you don’t believe me, try for yourself with Blind Search. This little taste test, created last year by Michael Kordahi (a Microsoft employee who says this was an independent project), simultaneously presents search results from Google, Yahoo and Bing, but doesn’t tell you which is which is your favorite. (I’m not sure why the results are still different for Yahoo and Bing; maybe Blind Search uses an API that hasn’t switched over yet.)

Last year, Kordahi said 41 percent of people preferred Google’s results, 31 percent chose Bing, and 21 percent liked Yahoo, but he said many people commented on how the results were too alike to choose from and asked for a way to vote indifference. I suppose Bing’s slight advantage over Yahoo bodes well for Microsoft and Yahoo’s partnership.

But it’s no secret that search these days is more about features and aesthetics than the actual search results. Google and Bing are locked in a feature war that’s been going on since last year, and all three search engines have relative strengths and weaknesses. While Google dominates the search market, serving roughly 66 percent of all results, it’s only slightly ahead of Bing and Yahoo in the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s most recent study.

Read more here: Pcworld


What a Dead List!!

I am sure you have heard of the man who saw tomorrow, this hilarious list was compiled by some people who are seeing the past, enjoy!!

Wired Editor in Chief Chris Anderson is catching flack for the magazine’s current cover story, which declares that the Web is dead. I’m not sure what the controversy is. For years, once-vibrant technologies, products, and companies have been dropping like teenagers in a Freddy Krueger movie. Thank heavens that tech journalists have done such a good job of documenting the carnage as it happened. Without their diligent reporting, we might not be aware that the industry is pretty much an unrelenting bloodbath.

After the jump, a moving recap of some of the stuff that predeceased the Web–you may want to bring a handkerchief.

Internet Explorer, as you’ll recall, died in 2004.

Internet explorer

After a long illness, Print was declared dead in April.

Good old e-mailing

By 2007, Microsoft Office had bit the big one.


The iPod definitely died last year.

Ipod finally laid to rest

We also mourned the loss of RSS.

Who uses this thing?

And there were horrible rumors that Twitter had been…murdered.

Twitter dead or alive!!

The netbook croaked in April.

Ipad murdered them all!!

Linux absolutely, positively died in 2006.

Linux laid in state

The desktop may or may not have died last year, but boy, it didn’t look good.

Browsers---"The new Desktops in town"

Pheww!! In conclusion all i’d say is that:

>> Technology comes and technology goes.

>> The gap between old releases and new ones is growing thin per second.

Technology has become an integral part of our lives, adopted by many as a basic necessity of living……….We can never have enough of them…….Get ready for more!!

Read more here:




Google has now acquired 18 companies in 2010, many of which are potential components of its rumored social networking site, Google Me. Before buying Jambool for a reported $70 million, Google snatched Slide for between $180 million and $230 million. Slide is a media company that develops games, widgets, and applications designed specifically to be used in social media, and are responsible for Facebook apps such as SuperPoke. Google also invested between $100 million and $200 million in Zynga, the company responsible for FarmVille and Mafia Wars, among others.

No matter what Google is or is not saying, it’s readily apparent the company is preparing to battle Facebook on its own territory. Let’s hope Google Me isn’t another social networking failure for the company; Google recently shut down Google Wave, a collaborative Web site, and experienced embarrassing privacy flubs with Google Buzz.

Read more here: PCWorld

Who knows what next Google will acquire all in the bid to stay on top of the Web Society…………In my books Google has to come up with something so radically different, to beat Facebook at it’s game, just the way Facebook did to Hi 5…………but let’s see how it goes, you never can tell who the next big thing is in technology (Things sometimes take overnight turns). In your own opinion, Do you think Google has a chance against Facebook? Leave a comment..


Firefox Falls Further Behind in Browser Wars

Mozilla Firefox

You need so many browsers because none of them is perfect. And, Chrome comes closer to perfection than Firefox does. Since Google released the Chrome browser, Linux users have converted to it by the hundreds of thousands. Although Firefox claims millions of downloads, you can bet that its usage is not close to the number of downloads.

Maybe you’ve seen stories declaring, as Keir Thomas did on this blog last year, that Firefox is dead while Chrome looks increasingly like a better choice. But why is Firefox taking all this abuse? In short, because its alleged strengths are its greatest weaknesses.

Firefox fans tout the browser’s use of extensions, or add-ons, as one of its many boastworthy features, but if you’ve ever connected to a site that uses some new Web feature that Firefox doesn’t support, you’re out of luck. Those same extensions often break other extensions on the way in during installation.

Further, why should a user constantly download and install extensions for such common Web gadgetry as Flash or PDF? Why aren’t those extensions included by default if their inclusion is necessary for a rich Web experience?

How often has Firefox notified you at startup that there are updates for one or more of your extensions that result in no updates, or that upon updating, you’ll have to restart your browser only to find that the extension update broke your browser. This exercise is time-consuming and tedious. It’s almost as bad as patching and rebooting a Windows system. You find that simply opening your browser to check stock prices becomes so involved that you forget why you originally opened it.

But Firefox extensions aren’t the only problem. Firefox is also so notoriously slow that on older systems, it’s almost unusable or it takes so long to open that you find yourself clicking the icon multiple times, thinking that your original launch didn’t take for some reason.

Chrome, however, is usable and responsive. Now you understand why Firefox might not survive the browser wars. Its extension model is annoying to use, it’s slow on older systems, it’s slower than Chrome on any system, and its extensions break other extensions.

Read more here: Click me please!!