Archive for June 1st, 2012
We thought this trailer for Hell Yeah! would be about the unique monsters that you meet, destroy, and catalogue in Arkedo Studio’s action game. Well, it kind of is. You can see them briefly before they’re dispatched by a truck, or a “Happy Birthday” sign, or some other wacky device. You can also get a glimpse of the scandalous photos that cause all this revenge-killing. Do you dare watch? (It’s probably okay to dare watching.)
We probably don’t need to make much more of an argument for Tokyo Jungle ‘s localization beyond this wonderful commercial. It’s nothing but adorable animals being incredibly adorable – something we think you, not to mention everyone else on the planet , will enjoy. Psst, Sony! With E3 next week, there’s still time to sneak in some pomeranians and schnauzers to the Los Angeles Convention Center, you know. If you wanna surprise us during your press conference on Monday evening , for instance, that’d be totally fine.
TOKYO: Japanese electronics maker Sharp Corp. says it is upgrading its current displays to make them slimmer and clearer.
Sharp also said Friday its innovation is based on technology that reduces power consumption.
For liquid crystal displays, the technology called IGZO requires little adjustment to production lines or investment. The upgrade kicks in this fiscal year.
The technology can also be applied to OLED screens, which can be paper-thin. Hurdles remain for mass production because of costs. Rivals including Samsung Electronics Co. and Sony Corp. are all working on thinner displays.
Electronic privacy advocates on Thursday weighed in on a high-stakes legal fight over online communications, arguing that a subpoena seeking an Occupy Wall Street protester’s tweets violates his rights to free speech and privacy.
The filing from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen, Inc. supports Twitter’s position that the individual, Occupy protestor Malcolm Harris and not Twitter itself, is the owner of the tweets and thus the proper target for any subpoena.
Manhattan Criminal Court Justice Matthew Sciarrino Jr had earlier ruled that Harris did not have the standing to challenge the subpoena, which seeks personal information and all of Harris’ tweets from September 15 through December 31, 2011.
Harris was one of 700 protesters arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge during a protest last October.
Prosecutors at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said they to needed Harris’ information to determine if the tweets he posted while on the Brooklyn Bridge were “inconsistent with his anticipated trial defense” – that the police either led or escorted protesters into stepping into the roadway.
The case has caught the attention of privacy and free speech advocates, who fear that if the judge upholds the District Attorney’s subpoena, it will undermine a basic tenet of Internet communications in the era of social media: that the author, and not the company whose services are used, is responsible for the content.
Thursday’s brief argues that Harris should have standing to bring a First Amendment challenge because the subpoena would reveal sensitive details about him and his communications.
The motion also asserts that Harris’ Fourth Amendment right against warrantless search has been violated, because the information sought by prosecutors would impair his right to move freely without government surveillance.
Since Twitter users increasingly rely on laptops, iPads or other mobile devices likely to be logged into Twitter government could “reconstruct their movements to conduct virtually twenty-four hours surveillance of them,” the motion argued.
“Twitter has a good history” of protecting its users in court, said Ginger McCall, director of the Open Government Program at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). “But they shouldn’t have to. The user should be able to fight for themselves.”
Thursday’s motion referenced similar cases involving Google’s Gmail and Amazon.com, in which judges rejected the argument that users had no standing to challenge demands for information.
“Everything on the Internet is held by a third party,” said Susan Freiwald, a professor of cyber law and information privacy at the University of San Francisco School of Law, who was not involved in Thursday’s motion.
“If you were to say that the third party rule retains force on the Internet, then we would have no privacy online.”
SAN FRANCISCO: A US judge dismissed Oracle Corp’s copyright claims against Google Inc for parts of the Java programming language, knocking out Oracle’s prime vehicle for damages in a high stakes legal battle over smartphones.
The ruling on Thursday from a San Francisco federal judge is the latest blow to Oracle in its lawsuit against Google. It is one of several intellectual property cases between tech giants over smartphones and tablets using Google’s Android operating system.
Apple is scheduled for trial in US courts against Google’s Motorola Mobility unit in June, and against Samsung in July. However, Oracle’s lawsuit against Google, filed in 2010, was the first in the smartphone wars to go before a jury.
The case examined whether computer language that connects programs and operating systems – known as application programming interfaces, or APIs – can be copyrighted. In a trial that began last month, Oracle claimed Google’s Android tramples on its rights to the structure of 37 Java APIs.
Google argued it did not violate Oracle’s patents and that Oracle cannot copyright APIs for Java, an open-source or publicly available software language. Android is the best-selling smartphone operating system around the world.
Oracle sought roughly $1 billion on its copyright claims, but the jury deadlocked on a key copyright issue.
They then found that Google did not infringe two of Oracle’s patents, which ended the trial last week before damages could be considered.
Meanwhile, US District Judge William Alsup had deferred a legal ruling on the ability to copyright 37 Java APIs until after the trial.
His ruling on Thursday likely eliminates the ability of Oracle to seek an immediate retrial against Google in San Francisco federal court.
Oracle spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger said the company will “vigorously appeal” Alsup’s order. “This ruling, if permitted to stand, would undermine the protection for innovation and invention in the United States,” Hellinger wrote in an email.
Alsup’s written order does not address whether all Java APIs are free to use without a license – or whether the structure of any computer program may be stolen.
“Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use,” Alsup wrote.
Google spokesman Jim Prosser said the decision upholds the principle that open computer languages are essential for software development.
“It’s a good day for collaboration and innovation,” Prosser said.
The case in US District Court, Northern District of California is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561.