Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

One of Amazon’s patent applications.

There can be a lot of worry over getting a package from Amazon delivered successfully — but what if your item never had to travel farther than the distance between the curb and your door? Amazon has filed a few patent applications in an effort to perhaps make curbside 3D printing a reality for the future.

These “mobile manufacturing hubs” would allow drivers to pop out products right outside the customer’s home, reports the Wall Street Journal, all from the delivery truck that’s already driving around dropping off other products.

The explanation for the patents says that using such a system would cut down on the time it takes to deliver a package, and also cut down on how much warehouse space Amazon needs to hold all its products.

“Time delays between receiving an order and shipping the item to the customer may reduce customer satisfaction and affect revenues generated,” Amazon wrote in the applications. “Accordingly, an electronic marketplace may find it desirable to decrease the amount of warehouse or inventory storage space needed, to reduce the amount of time consumed between receiving an order and delivering the item to the customer, or both.”

This kind of thing could be good if you needed replacement car parts or other 3D printed items on the day you’re set to go on a road trip, posits the WSJ, but find something is missing. It could also mean that some products would never be out of stock, meaning less frustration on the customer end once you find that perfect item you absolutely must have.

When Drones Aren’t Enough, Amazon Envisions Trucks with 3D Printers [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNKa















February 27, 2015 at 10:09PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vG1KkO







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1ExeWdJ



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIFPX

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AABHfc































February 27, 2015 at 09:55PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18uicLc















February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1LRvL5c







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1Ahaiu4



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18unfuV

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNdj















February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vG1Itb







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AhaitR



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIFj1

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

One of Amazon’s patent applications.

There can be a lot of worry over getting a package from Amazon delivered successfully — but what if your item never had to travel farther than the distance between the curb and your door? Amazon has filed a few patent applications in an effort to perhaps make curbside 3D printing a reality for the future.

These “mobile manufacturing hubs” would allow drivers to pop out products right outside the customer’s home, reports the Wall Street Journal, all from the delivery truck that’s already driving around dropping off other products.

The explanation for the patents says that using such a system would cut down on the time it takes to deliver a package, and also cut down on how much warehouse space Amazon needs to hold all its products.

“Time delays between receiving an order and shipping the item to the customer may reduce customer satisfaction and affect revenues generated,” Amazon wrote in the applications. “Accordingly, an electronic marketplace may find it desirable to decrease the amount of warehouse or inventory storage space needed, to reduce the amount of time consumed between receiving an order and delivering the item to the customer, or both.”

This kind of thing could be good if you needed replacement car parts or other 3D printed items on the day you’re set to go on a road trip, posits the WSJ, but find something is missing. It could also mean that some products would never be out of stock, meaning less frustration on the customer end once you find that perfect item you absolutely must have.

When Drones Aren’t Enough, Amazon Envisions Trucks with 3D Printers [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNKa







February 27, 2015 at 10:09PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1Ahaidr



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18unczk

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AABHfc















February 27, 2015 at 09:55PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18uicLc







February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1ExeTi0



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIEf5

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA















February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNdj







February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1ExeT1H



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18uneXQ

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

Lawsuit From Ericsson Wants To Ban Apple From Importing iPhones, iPads

(thronx)

Another day, another lawsuit against Apple: This time around, the company’s facing a lawsuit from Ericsson that seeks to ban imports on all iPads and iPhones amidst a dispute about licensing fees for several patents.

Fresh off the heels of another lawsuit this week that found a jury ordering Apple to pay $532 million to another company, Apple is squaring off against telecom manufacturer Ericsson, after the Swedish company accused it of infringing on 41 of its patents that are used in iPhones and iPads, reports the New York Times’ Bits Blog.

One of the patents involved includes technology related to Long Term Evolution, known as LTE, which is the latest high-speed wireless technology used for transmitting data between cellular networks and mobile devices.

The two sides sued each other over Apple’s use of some of those patents last month, with Apple claiming that Ericsson was demanding too much money to license the technologies, and Ericsson saying in a separate suit that Apple was using its patents even after a license that gave it permission to do so expired in January.

Now Ericsson is adding two more complaints against Apple with the United States International Trade Commission seeking to block Apple mobile devices from coming into the U.S. until the patent issue is cleared up. It also filed separate lawsuits with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving what Ericsson claims is Apple’s misuse of its intellectual property.

Ericsson also wants payments for any potential damages Apple could cause by continuing to use the patents without a license.

“Ericsson’s technology and our engineers are behind these patents,” Gustav Brismark, head of the company’s patent strategy told the NYT. “We’re asking for a fair payment from Apple for using our technology.”

But Apple claims it’s willing to pay to use those patents, pointing out in last month’s counterclaims that it respects Ericsson’s rights to its intellectual property, but it just doesn’t want to pay what the other company is demanding.

“Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents,” Apple said last month.

Ericsson Again Sues Apple Over Wireless Patents [NYT Bits Blog]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

My Credit Card Interest Rate Is Going Up. What Are My Options?

(Colin)

Earlier this week, American Express announced that it would be raising annual interest rates on more than 1 million accounts, leading lots of people to ask if this could happen to their credit card — and what they should do about it.

Credit card companies are indeed allowed to raise your APR, but the CARD Act of 2009 includes pro-consumer restrictions that prevent sudden and retroactive rate hikes for cardholders in good standing and gives them the option of closing your account without penalties.

NO SUDDEN RATE HIKES

While the CARD Act allows to hit delinquent customers (those who are at least 60 days behind on payments) with a higher penalty APR, cardholders who are continuing to make payments must be given 45 days notice in writing before a rate change. That’s why you need to open every piece of mail from your credit card company even if you get all your statements online.

NO RETROACTIVE RATE HIKES

That higher APR will only apply to new transactions and not to your current balance. So if you don’t want to be hit with the increased interest rate, you can try to not use that card for new purchases. If you have multiple credit cards, choose the one with the lowest APR. Depending on your creditworthiness, you may want to consider applying for a new card though there’s no guarantee that the new account will come with a friendlier APR.

CLOSING OUT YOUR CARD WITHOUT PENALTIES

If you’re facing a rate hike, the law allows cardholders to close their credit card accounts without facing immediate repayment in full or penalty fees. That doesn’t mean you’re off the hook for the balance; you must still continue to make monthly payments and interest will still accrue. Card companies can put a five-year repayment deadline on closed accounts, so cardholders with substantial balances or who have been making minimal payments may need to pay more than they’re used to.

The one caveat with closing out a credit card is that it can have a temporary negative impact on your credit score. Credit bureaus factor in a consumer’s debt-to-credit ratio when tallying up their scores, so closing out a line of credit while retaining the same level of debt means that ratio increases.

[via Credit.com]

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

One of Amazon’s patent applications.

There can be a lot of worry over getting a package from Amazon delivered successfully — but what if your item never had to travel farther than the distance between the curb and your door? Amazon has filed a few patent applications in an effort to perhaps make curbside 3D printing a reality for the future.

These “mobile manufacturing hubs” would allow drivers to pop out products right outside the customer’s home, reports the Wall Street Journal, all from the delivery truck that’s already driving around dropping off other products.

The explanation for the patents says that using such a system would cut down on the time it takes to deliver a package, and also cut down on how much warehouse space Amazon needs to hold all its products.

“Time delays between receiving an order and shipping the item to the customer may reduce customer satisfaction and affect revenues generated,” Amazon wrote in the applications. “Accordingly, an electronic marketplace may find it desirable to decrease the amount of warehouse or inventory storage space needed, to reduce the amount of time consumed between receiving an order and delivering the item to the customer, or both.”

This kind of thing could be good if you needed replacement car parts or other 3D printed items on the day you’re set to go on a road trip, posits the WSJ, but find something is missing. It could also mean that some products would never be out of stock, meaning less frustration on the customer end once you find that perfect item you absolutely must have.

When Drones Aren’t Enough, Amazon Envisions Trucks with 3D Printers [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNKa















February 27, 2015 at 10:09PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vG1KkO







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1ExeWdJ



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIFPX

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AABHfc































February 27, 2015 at 09:55PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18uicLc















February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1LRvL5c







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1Ahaiu4



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18unfuV

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNdj















February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1vG1Itb







February 27, 2015 at 10:12PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AhaitR



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIFj1

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

Amazon Imagines A Future Where Delivery Trucks Print 3D Products At The Curb

One of Amazon’s patent applications.

There can be a lot of worry over getting a package from Amazon delivered successfully — but what if your item never had to travel farther than the distance between the curb and your door? Amazon has filed a few patent applications in an effort to perhaps make curbside 3D printing a reality for the future.

These “mobile manufacturing hubs” would allow drivers to pop out products right outside the customer’s home, reports the Wall Street Journal, all from the delivery truck that’s already driving around dropping off other products.

The explanation for the patents says that using such a system would cut down on the time it takes to deliver a package, and also cut down on how much warehouse space Amazon needs to hold all its products.

“Time delays between receiving an order and shipping the item to the customer may reduce customer satisfaction and affect revenues generated,” Amazon wrote in the applications. “Accordingly, an electronic marketplace may find it desirable to decrease the amount of warehouse or inventory storage space needed, to reduce the amount of time consumed between receiving an order and delivering the item to the customer, or both.”

This kind of thing could be good if you needed replacement car parts or other 3D printed items on the day you’re set to go on a road trip, posits the WSJ, but find something is missing. It could also mean that some products would never be out of stock, meaning less frustration on the customer end once you find that perfect item you absolutely must have.

When Drones Aren’t Enough, Amazon Envisions Trucks with 3D Printers [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEzNKa







February 27, 2015 at 10:09PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1Ahaidr



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18unczk

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

TiVo Picks At The Scraps Of Aereo’s Remains

(Reflection717)

It’s been about eight months since a divided U.S. Supreme Court thrust a dagger through the gut of streaming video startup Aereo, and three months since the company filed for bankruptcy protection. And any hope that the company might be sold or resurrected has vanished with news that its name and patents have been sold off like parts of an old used car.

GigaOm points to a bankruptcy court filing showing the results of an assets auction that only brought in around $2 million, a small fraction of what investors had hoped to get from bidders.

We may someday here the Aereo name again, with DVR-maker TiVo snatching up the company’s trademarks and its list of customers. Perhaps TiVo will use the name for an upcoming version of its DVR that records over-the-air network feeds, or maybe it will just plaster the name on a wall at TiVo HQ as a reminder to employees of what can happen when you anger the TV networks.

Another company, RPX, managed to walk off with Aereo’s patents for what appears to be a steal. In total the auction didn’t even manage to bring in a full $2 million. Investors had hoped for upwards of $100 million.

“We are very disappointed with the results of the auction,” Aereo’s counsel tells GigaOm. “This has been a very difficult sales process and the results reflect that.”

For those who missed out on the whole Aereo thing, it was a service that used arrays of tiny antennae to capture freely available over-the-air TV feeds, which were then streamed to paying customers. Because each antenna was dedicated to a single end-user, and since it only allowed users to see broadcast feeds in their market, the company and its supporters contended that Aereo was nothing but a rooftop antenna with a really long cord.

The networks contended that Aereo was violating their copyright by rebroadcasting their signals for a fee without permission and without paying the mandatory retransmission fees that cable companies pay.

After winning multiple federal appeals court battles, Aereo ultimately lost when the matter came before SCOTUS, the majority of whom felt that the company was operating a service that was substantively no different than a cable TV provider.

And so after shutting down its streaming business days after the SCOTUS ruling, Aereo tried to make the argument that if it was going to be considered a pay-TV operator than it should be able to license the networks’ content for a reasonable fee.

But the U.S. Copyright Office disagreed and a federal appeals court wouldn’t hear Aereo’s case, effectively putting the nail in the startup’s coffin.

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1wqvhdA































February 27, 2015 at 09:54PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1AABHfc















February 27, 2015 at 09:55PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/18uicLc







February 27, 2015 at 09:56PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1ExeTi0



February 27, 2015 at 10:15PM

via Blogger http://ift.tt/1FEIEf5

February 27, 2015 at 10:34PM