The Future of Internet Video

If you're not a user of an iOS device - iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch - you may not be fully aware of the battle that is currently being waged over the future of Internet Video. A year ago, the "state of the art" was based on Adobe's Flash player. But with the rise of the iOS juggernaut and Steve Jobs's refusal to allow Flash on his mobile devices, HTML5 is on the rise. HTML5 includes a new "video" tag in the base specification, so Flash is no longer needed, but now the debate has shifted to which Codec (i.e. the way video is encoded into a file and transported across the internet) will be the future. The two top contenders for the moment are WebM/VP8 - a standard owned by Google and being pushed as royalty-free - and H.264 which is used today for YouTube, iTunes, and most hardware-based encoders.

Up until now, the primary argument against H.264 has been the number of patents involved, and the high licensing fees for people who want to include H.264 in their devices/software which would be prohibitive for Free Software/Open Source groups.

The newest move in this battle was an announcement yesterday from MPEGLA that H.264 would remain royalty-free "forever" for websites and customers to use. This was taken by some to cut the feet out from under WebM/VP8 proponents. But today, Mozilla reminded everyone that this does not mean it is free to software or hardware makers. And until it is, Free Software and Open Source browsers like Firefox may be unable to support it.

This is required reading for anyone interested in the future of TV and movies on the web.

Judge overturns Gene Patents

Gene patents are something few Americans think about, but they are something that may transform our lives in the coming decades. Under current case law, anyone who discovers a new gene can patent it. Anyone. Not the person who has the gene in their DNA. Many patients, while being tested for unusual conditions, have had their doctor patent their own genes, which are then sold to pharmaceutical companies so treatments can be created that are worth millions. The practice is defended because it takes millions to fund the research to find new treatments.

But now, a judge has overturned gene patents. This may change the face of genetic engineering and medical treatments.

In the ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet in New York state invalidated part of seven patents granted to Myriad on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In doing so, he might have changed the face of genomic medicine.

"This really goes to the fundamental question of 'Does the U.S. patent system work?' " says Richard Marsh, Myriad's general counsel. "We spent hundreds of millions of dollars until we broke even before we got (the test) out, to fund the research."

Without the patent on the gene, investors wouldn't have put in money to support Myriad during those lean years, he says. It's only now, when the company is actually making money, that people feel it's unfair. "Where were these people 10 years ago?"

The question of gene patents is not merely academic. They have been partially responsible for the advances produced by the DNA Revolution, by giving a profit motive for finding every disease-related gene out there. But they also restrict the scope of these treatments - companies discover ways to save life, and then deny them without exorbitant payments.

The decision that we make now may decide whether American stays at the forefront of genetic research. Or whether these advances ever reach the average citizen.

Can't Afford the Patent? Have Congress Write You an Exception

Big businesses have been known recently for patenting anything and everything. Individuals have patented obvious things only to wait in hiding until some company uses the idea from their patent and then sues them to "get rich quick". It would seem that we need to do something to reform the patent system so that it gets back to what it was designed for, getting ideas out in the open for the benefit of the general public while still providing a small time of economic advantage to the inventor. So, what happens when you're a big business and you can't afford (or don't want to) license somebody's patent? Have a Senator write you an exception. A company named DataTreasury has a patent on a system "for digitally scanning, sending and archiving checks." Some banks have licensed the idea while others have used their influence in Washington, D.C. to try to get the government to use eminent domain to buy the patent at a cost of $1 billion over 10 years and then give the banks a pass on paying for it. This is just wrong. First, my tax dollars should not be spent so that the banks have a better bottom line. (Though to be fair, the banks have said that they are working to make it so that the government wouldn't have to spend money.) Second, this is a wrong use of eminent domain. Eminent domain should not be used by the government to shuffle private property. Banks need to either license the technology like everybody else or do without it.

A Better Battery

One of the problems with an electric car is a battery that will work for more than a 60 mile commute. According to Wired, EEStor believes they have solved this problem with patent number 7,033,406.