Innovation Toronto
Innovation Toronto
This unassuming material is capable of capturing or releasing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in response to moisture swings.
Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air using moisture
A more efficient way to capture fresh water from the air
Bringing transformative potential to agriculture with a natural technology for ‘dimming’ genes
Staving off coral reef collapse via a new technique
Producing energy from evaporating tap or seawater with new nanoscale devices
Setting the stage for regenerative therapy by turning skin cells into limb cells

US Supreme Court conflicted over Indian-American’s breakthrough technology

April 23, 2014
Supreme Court (Photo credit: alexnobert)
Supreme Court (Photo credit: alexnobert)
“What disturbs me on the other side is I don’t understand what the decision for you or against you when I write it is going to do to all kinds of other technologies”

Chaitanya (“Chet”) Kanojia is holding his breath over a US Supreme Court ruling on his disruptive technology that he says will revolutionize broadcasting and cheer the public by lowering cost of services. For entirely different reasons, so are major broadcasters (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox etc): they see the technology gambit leading to copyright infringement, a massive loss of revenue, and the death of broadcasting as we know it.

On Tuesday, the country’s apex court did not give a whiff of which way it would go — itself torn between the two sides as it began hearing the landmark case that has transfixed most people plugged into broadcast, which is pretty much everyone.

At the heart of this profound case is whether Aereo, the nifty New York start-up founded by the Bhopal-born Indian-American, has the right to pick up broadcast signals off the air with its breakthrough technology — an antenna the size of a postage stamp — that it will giving subscribers for a fraction of the cost they pay for cable services. Aereo’s thumb-print sized device can capture TV signals from the airwaves and direct them to your laptop, tablet, or smartphone for as little as $ 8 compared to the up to $80 plus that people currently pay for cable services.

“Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don’t want to comply with,” Chief Justice John Roberts observed sharply at the hearing, seemingly reflecting the argument of the powerful plaintiffs that mooching TV signals off the air amounts to theft of content and copyright violation. Aereo says its technology does nothing more than what subscribers have been able to do lawfully since the time the old-fashioned rabbit ear antenna — watch free broadcast if you are able to catch signals over public airways.

“There’s no content being provided. There’s (only) equipment that’s being provided,” Aereo’s lawyers maintained before the court in Tuesday in a case that attracted nationwide attention.

Times have changed, technology has become niftier, and new trends have caught on — and the Supreme Court appeared to struggle with evolving a new consensus of how to protect traditional and time-tested business models while not putting a crimp on innovation. “What disturbs me on the other side is I don’t understand what the decision for you or against you when I write it is going to do to all kinds of other technologies,” Justice Stephen Breyer agonized.

Read more . . .

 

The Latest on: Disruptive technology

[google_news title=”” keyword=”Disruptive technology” num_posts=”10″ blurb_length=”0″ show_thumb=”left”]

via Google News

 

See Also

Harvard study: Why important innovations stall; understanding obstacles to change is key to future
The Latest on: Disruptive technology

via  Bing News

 

Tags
What's Your Reaction?
Don't Like it!
0
I Like it!
0
View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll To Top