“Access Advance and Avanci have published rates for a pool asserting content royalties across AVC, HEVC, VP9, VVC, and AV1 that could push major platforms toward nine-figure annual exposure.”
Yes, they've made claims on AV1, claims that have never been tested in court.
You need to understand that these are parasitic businesses. They didn't develop AV1. They didn't contribute to AV1. But they will make any claim they think they can get away with.
Show me the court case they've won that validates their claims on AV1.
AV1 was created by a consortium of some of the biggest tech companies in the world, and "all technology was vetted in a rigorous patent review process before being integrated into the final spec."[0]
On the other side, you've got patent trolls who are upset that their shitty business model is coming to an end. They're just being loud as they're losing.
Gmail is not an Outlook replacement. Gsuite as a whole has more or less the required pieces, but there is no single google product that covers the feature set of Outlook + Exchange.
Great, one more thing that can fail. Does anyone remember, that some time ago lots of people were in panic, because Exchange servers had a vulnerability on "high severity" level, and people everywhere had to patch their Exchange servers, if they didn't rent them from a service provider? Can't wait to see that happening again, this time affecting an Exchange server used by astronauts in space!
The main title of the office is still “secretary of defense”, the executive order added a secondary title of the department and the office, it didn't replace the primary titles.
I think we might be getting to the point where submissions for projects that are primarily written by ai and/or ai agents need to be tagged with [agent] in the title
If this were 2+ years ago perhaps, with industry adopting more agents in their SDLCs (ie Stripe minions or Ramp background agents), I think we're more a matter of time before we treat agent/human built products the same unless we're branding smth as artisanal human-crafted software
It sounds like they're recalling a study where they looked at brain activation and accuracy when trying to memorize random positions vs “real” positions, which is a very different thing.
Well, they're able to do it; “allowed” to do it is an ambiguous enough phrasing that it's practically begging to have an argument whose crux is fundamentally about a differing interpretation.
reply