Featured Articles

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia Shield 2 shows up in AnTuTu

Nvidia’s original Shield console launched last summer to mixed reviews. It went on sale in the US and so far Nvidia…

More...
AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

AMD CSO John Byrne talks ARM

We had a chance to talk about AMD’s upcoming products with John Byrne, Chief Sales Officer, AMD. We covered a number…

More...
AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

AMD Chief Sales Officer thinks GPU leadership is critical

We had a chance to talk to John Byrne who spent the last two years as Senior Vice President and Chief…

More...
OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OpenPlus One $299 5.5-inch Full HD phone

OnePlus is one of the few small companies that might disrupt the Android phone market, dominated by giant outfits like Samsung.…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Wednesday, 06 July 2011 13:15

Google and Microsoft sued over map technology

Written by Nick Farell


Streetview and Streetside was our idea
Google and Microsoft have been sued for infringing a US company's patent because they use technology which lets users navigate street-level views of towns and cities.

Transcenic asked a Delaware District court for an injunction to prevent Google and Microsoft from continuing to infringe its patent and asked the court to award it damages. Transcenic said in court documents that Google's Streetview and Google Earth and Microsoft's Streetside infringe its technology which covers systems for capturing and navigating within panoramic images.

AOL and its MapQuest mapping website were also named because it makes Mapquest's 360 View, which allows users to navigate through street-level images. Apparently Transcenic has watched the rise of all Google Earth and Streetside and all the nationwide controversy over privacy and failed to mention that it owned the technology.

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
-15 #1 robert3892 2011-07-06 13:54
It is up to the software developer to make sure that new software does not violate patents owned by another company.
 
 
+11 #2 chyll2 2011-07-06 14:22
lawmakers should just implement a time period wherein a company can claim damages for their patent. They just file patent and not implement or do anything about it, then if some Big company does it, they just wait and waiting for the right time to cash-in.
 
 
+12 #3 Boomstick777 2011-07-06 14:37
Ffs people trying to sue each other all the time, very anoyying people make a career out of sueing now.

Its a real shame whenever a new tech comes out or a great idea that makes a lot of money, after a while some deuce bag company will claim some kind of rights to it and try to sue for a shit ton of money, grrrrr..
 
 
+10 #4 JEskandari 2011-07-06 18:00
Sadly in USA there is no real effort to fix the flaws in their patent laws.
 
 
+5 #5 youserzero 2011-07-06 22:51
Quoting JEskandari:
Sadly in USA there is no real effort to fix the flaws in their patent laws.


The REAL effort goes into making even more flaws. It will get much worse before it gets better unfortunately.
 
 
+1 #6 Shadow187 2011-07-07 02:21
Then you've got to make some exceptions. Providing of course that Transcenic had this patented, what did they do with it? I've never heard of them before.
Now Google and Microsoft...they take ideas and go places with them. Streetview has helped me plenty of times, and I'm certain that the 'infringers' have used this patent much better than Transcenic could ever have hoped to.
 
 
+2 #7 Bl0bb3r 2011-07-07 11:41
Patent infringements is strictly referring to theft. For all we know all three of them might had the same idea, but only one "declared" it without actual product, while the others did the actual product.

The exception would be not to prove that the holder is entitled to the patent but that the idea was actually stolen from them and not "co-thought". Otherwise I don't see how that's infringing.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments