Blog dedicado a la formación en todos sus ámbitos: presencial, online, a distancia
Hola:
Una infografía sobre cuánto se conectan online los adolescentes (USA).
Un saludo
You will find more statistics at Statista
The NAD’s investigation was sort of an existential meditation on the nature of cookie names. The Food and Drug Administration does have a published definition of what a “butter cookie” is: the only shortening ingredient used in the product can be butter. Anything else is a “butter flavored cookie.” That was part of Campbell Soup’s objection to the product: they performed lab tests on the cookies and found fat inside the cookies that was not from butter. If true, that would make the “butter cookies” label misleading.
What about the “Danish” part, though? The competitor claimed that Danisa cookies were really Denmarked up, from the crown and “Copenhagen” on the container lid to claims that the treats were “Baked following the original recipe from Denmark” and “Produced and packed in Denmark.” Are these misleading when the cookies are actually made in Indonesia? The NAD agreed with Campbell’s that it is, and that Danisa cookies need to cut back on the “Scandinavian imagery.”
Takari, the company that imports the cookies and sells them here in the United States, had a twofold argument. Here is our paraphrase:
Takari agreed not to import the cookies as they’re currently marketed, and won’t advertise them to consumers or to retailers using any of the contested language or Danish imagery.
Hola:
Una infografía con una Guía de búsqueda de empleo para graduados. Vía
Un saludo
Guía de búsqueda de empleo para graduados
Hola:
Una infografía con 21 cosas que te puedes comprar por el precio de una Apple watch. Vía
Un saludo
21 cosas que te puedes comprar por el precio de una Apple watch
Hola:
Una infografía con 5 trucos para combinar tipografías con éxito. Vía
Un saludo
5 trucos para combinar tipografías con éxito
In short? Score one for the good guys. The decision addresses a few very specific elements of the patent claim, but no, the U.S. Patent Office found, this company does not actually have the exclusive ownership of releasing episodic audio content over the internet in a regular, updated way.
The matter came to a hearing at the Patent Office last December. Personal Audio, your basic “non-practicing” patent troll entity, claimed that they owned a patent on the tech that allows podcasting to work, and therefore lots of big, powerful companies with deep pockets — like CBS and CNN — owe them money.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which often represents people and companies trying to assert their rights in the digital world, stepped in and challenged Personal Audio’s claims last October, and the issue went to a hearing in December. The Patent Office released the result of that hearing today.
In their decision (PDF), the Patent Office works its way through the very, very specific arguments about wording and meaning. It is not unlike reading a geometric proof, in the way it builds a clear argument of facts and existing rulings. Ultimately, however, the dry legalese ends up with one result: the patent troll does not own podcasting.
“Petitioner [the EFF] has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 31-35 of [the patents] are unpatentable,” the order concludes. “Because this is a final written decision, parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements.”
“We have a lot to celebrate here,” EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri said in a statement. “But unfortunately, our work to protect podcasting is not done. Personal Audio continues to seek patents related to podcasting. We will continue to fight for podcasters, and we hope the Patent Office does not give them any more weapons to shake down small podcasters.”
