In reality, such a move on Apple’s part would be quite surprising.  In addition to the fact that simply matching the competition seems to offer far less reward than the effort would be worth given that the iBooks store has failed to really take off so far anyway, Apple is already making about as much on each book sold to owners of their devices as they would be likely to make off a program competitive enough to draw in new authors.  Keeping in mind the fact that anybody publishing through Amazon’s KDP program, or even Barnes & Noble’s slightly less popular PubIt, will already be available to iOS users, the only real motivation for Apple here would be to draw authors into an exclusive arrangement in some way to enhance the iBooks selection.  Amazon has already begun a similar effort tied into their Kindle Owners’ Lending Library, so this would not necessarily be a shocking move, but there is little reason to suspect that Apple is desperate to suddenly push into the eBook market in a major way.

Since we can be fairly certain that whatever the announcement is about will be related to publishing in some way, however, there are a few other possibilities.  Textbook rental is one of the more likely possibilities.  While Amazon’s new Kindle Format 8 provides some more robust formatting options to publishers and the Kindle Fire obviously handles the demands of textbooks more easily than E INK reading devices, so far the Kindle Textbook Rental program has failed to draw much attention.  Given the iPad’s larger screen and Apple’s strong presence on college campuses, it would make sense for them to jump to fill in this gap in the market before anybody else beats them to it.

It is also possible that this has something to do with the ongoing class action lawsuits against Apple and the Big 6 publishers over price fixing and the imposition of the Agency Model around the time the iPad was released.  In the past month the situation has become quite a bit more intense, with the US Justice Department joining in and at least 15 ongoing suits.  It would seem unlikely that the company would want to comment on an ongoing legal battle, but given claims of detailed inside information on the part of certain plaintiffs there is always the chance that preemptive spin on an anticipated settlement attempt might be in order.

The one thing everybody agrees on is that this will not be a hardware announcement.  While there is still speculation with varying degrees of believability about a smaller iPad meant to compete with the Kindle Fire, that will have to wait until later.  For now, it’s hard to know exactly what to expect.

Related Posts

• January 26, 2012 -- Apple Attacks Kindle Publishing With iBooks Author, Drama Ensues (0)
• August 19, 2011 -- Class Action Lawsuit Seeks To Bring Value Back To Kindle eBooks (1)
• October 28, 2011 -- Apple May Be Bringing 7″ iPad To Compete With Kindle Fire (1)
• July 7, 2011 -- Why Amazon’s Upcoming Kindle Tablet Has A Chance Against The iPad (0)

In 2011 alone already Amazon has been hit with 11 lawsuits over 30 alleged patent infringements, two of which have been dismissed completely.  The majority of them have been in relation to the technology being put in place to pave the way for the launch of the Kindle Fire.  This includes cloud computing (admittedly even more useful in other areas, but vital for things like the Kindle Fire’s Silk web browser), streaming services, site personalization, and a number of things that relate to other Kindles as well.  Last year, they didn’t face a third so much attention over patents.

As the 15th of Nov. rolls around, whole new areas of vulnerability open up.  Android has thus far been a highly disputed OS.  Apple has been particularly active in using legal tactics to beat down any potentially successful competing tablets, both in the US and abroad, but they are not the only ones.  Microsoft has managed to convince Samsung to pay royalties over supposed Android related patents, for example, though MS has not as yet brought any major action against the source.  It’s possible that Google is too big to attack at the moment?  That says nothing of the increasingly common “patent troll” crowd that exists for no reason other than to acquire intellectual property and make money suing people over it.  The mobile device market is their favorite playground.

While there is a great deal of criticism of the patent system floating about at the moment, chances are good that any reform of that system is a long way off.  For the time being this is the environment we are stuck with no matter how much it would seem doomed to stifle any form of innovation in technology.

We’ll see where things go in the next year.  Some have predicted Amazon acquiring HP’s WebOS and the associated intellectual properties as a way to bolster their position in the event of extended legal battles.  Google made a similar move in acquiring Motorola’s mobile division, so there’s certainly precedent for such a move.  Whether or not that happens, though, Amazon has expressed an intent to defend themselves against all comers.  This could be enough to scare off potential complaints.  Nobody interested in repeating lawsuits for income wants such a high profile case setting precedent against them. The Kindle Fire isn’t likely to be blocked as easily as some other tablets and cell phones have been before now.

Related Posts

• November 22, 2011 -- Nook Tablet’s Larger Storage Offers Less Than Kindle Fire (0)
• November 14, 2011 -- Amazon Confirms Apps For Hulu Plus, ESPN, and More! (0)
• November 11, 2011 -- Kindle Fire Rooting Likely To Come Quickly (0)
• November 8, 2011 -- Kindle vs Nook: DC Debacle Spurs B&N To Dumb Move (7)

While I’m not intricately familiar with patent law, it would seem from an intuitive standpoint that the Kindle is safe.  As far as I, or seemingly anybody else covering the topic for that matter, recall, there was no effort made previous to these suits(at least that managed to achieve public recognition) by Discovery to defend their rights in the matter. Given that the patents in question were assigned in 1999 and 2007, it would seem rather late in the game to expect results on this front.  Again, I’m no expert and don’t claim to have the only, or even the best, interpretation of what the outcome will be.  All I can say is that I’m not terribly concerned for my Kindle.

Related Posts

• November 6, 2011 -- Has The Kindle Fire Opened Amazon To Patent Lawsuits? (1)
• January 14, 2012 -- “Send to Kindle” Simplifies Kindle File Transfers (0)
• December 21, 2011 -- Audible Promo Makes Kindle Touch & Kindle Fire Even More Affordable (0)
• November 29, 2011 -- Penguin, Overdrive, and Amazon: Kindle Library Lending Gets Complicated (2)

Kindle DX Lawsuit

When Amazon Kindle DX with 9.7″ eInk screen was announced it was dubbed “academic eReader”. Academic publications and textbooks don’t display well on a smaller 6″ screen. When the device was released, several universities and colleges announced pilot programs aimed at evaluating its effectiveness in replacing classic textbooks. However these programs hit the same roadblock everywhere: despite having Text-to-Speech capability (which not other eBook reader has), Kindle DX wasn’t accessible to vision-impaired students. This mostly had to do with the fact that menus and other controls don’t have audio. After this concern was raised repeatedly, Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) promised to address it in a software update that is expected to be publicly released in Q2 2010.

However several educational institutions decided to go ahead with pilot programs regardless. This caused Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) to file complaints against Princeton University with Department Of Justice. These complaints led to a lawsuit that was recently settled in a peaceful manner. Princeton University was not held accountable for any wrongdoing and in exchange promised to stop pilot program and only resume it after Kindle DX or any other eReader is fully accessible as required by law. Here’s official DOJ letter that settles the case:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Disability Rights Section – NYA
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
March 24,2010

Hannah S. Ross, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
Princeton University
120 Alexander Road, Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Re: Letter of Resolution, D.J. No. 202-48-213 Princeton University

Dear Ms. Ross:

As you know, this matter began with complaints filed by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) with the Department of Justice, on behalf of the organizations and their members who are current and prospective college students, alleging that Princeton University has violated title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 5 947(a), by using the Kindle DX, an innovative, hand-held electronic book reader that is not accessible to students with visual impairments, in a classroom setting. According to the complaints, Princeton University is offering a pilot program that began in the fall 2009 semester. The object of this pilot is to test the utility of the Kindle DX in a classroom setting.

The Department of Justice is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of titles II and III of the ADA. The Department decided to investigate this matter because the Kindle DX is inaccessible to an entire class of individuals with disabilities – individuals with visual impairments. According to its product descriptions, the Kindle DX provides several benefits that make it a potentially superior tool to a standard textbook, including the ability to download all textbooks instantaneously, the ability to carry all textbooks on a hand-held device that weighs just over a pound, the ability to search words and concepts instantly on the device’s web browser, while retaining all the characteristics of a standard text book, such as annotating, highlighting, and taking notes. Under title III, blind students must be provided with “full and equal access” to all of the goods and services of the university, 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a); must be provided with an equivalent opportunity to participate in and benefit from its goods and services, 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(a), (b); and, must not be provided different or separate accommodations unless doing so is necessary to ensure access to goods and services that is equally as effective as that provided to others, 28 C.F.R. 36.202(c).

The Department acknowledges both that Princeton University denies any violation of the Americans with Disabilities Acts and that it has stated its commitment to ensuring equal access to educational programs, activities and opportunities for students with disabilities.

Both the Department of Justice and Princeton University agree that the emergence of new electronic book reading technologies that benefit the sighted have the potential to benefit blind students and faculty as well. The Department of Justice and Princeton University have decided that it is in their interest to resolve this matter amicably. In consideration of the agreement by Princeton University to undertake the actions set forth below, the United States will close its investigation of this matter.

Princeton University agrees to the following actions:

1. The University will not require, purchase, or incorporate in its curriculum the Kindle DX or any other dedicated electronic book reader for use by students in its classes or other coursework unless or until such electronic book reader is fully accessible to individuals with visual impairments. Alternatively, Princeton may comply with the terms set forth in paragraph 5.
2. The phrase “other dedicated electronic book reader” means any wireless, hand-held, electronic book reader that has been or will in the future be produced or offered by Amazon.com or any other corporation, such as but not limited to the Barnes and Noble nook, the Sony PRS-600, PRS-700, PRS 505 or upcoming Sony Daily Edition, and others.
3. Princeton University will commit a policy reflecting the terms of this agreement to writing within 30 days of the date of the last signature below.
4. Princeton University agrees that its commitments in paragraphs 1-4, herein, will, take effect on the date following the last day of the pilot project with Amazon.com, Inc., which will terminate no later than the conclusion of the fall 2009 semester,’and will remain in effect through June 30,2012.
5. As a reasonable modification, the University may provide its students with visual impairments with a dedicated electronic book reader that ensures that individuals who are blind or have low vision are able to access and acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted individuals with substantially equivalent ease of use.

This agreement does not constitute a finding by the United States that Princeton is in full compliance with the ADA, or an admission by Princeton University of fault or noncompliance with the ADA. This letter agreement does not alter nor enlarge the legal obligations of the University, and shall not form the basis for any enforcement action against Princeton University. The decision to close our file in this matter does not affect the rights of private individuals or of the complainants to enforce their rights under the ADA against Princeton University. As indicated in paragraph 4, above, this agreement also has no effect on Princeton University’s current pilot program testing the Kindle DX.

Please countersign and return a copy of this letter to us, indicating your agreement with the representations and terms set forth herein. Once we have received your countersigned copy, we will consider this matter resolved. We will take no further action on this matter unless we become aware of new information suggesting that Princeton is not complying with its obligations under the ADA or this agreement.

We appreciate your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns regarding this agreement, please do not hesitate to contact the Department.

Sincerely,

THOMAS E. PEREZ
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

SAMUEL R. BAGENSTOS
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

JOHN L. WODATCH
Chief

PHILIP L. BREEN
Special Legal Counsel
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
Deputy Chief

BY:
ALLISON NICHOL
Deputy Chief
KATE NICHOLSON
Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Tel: (202) 5 14-8301
Fax: (202) 305-9775

Countersigned:

BY:
HANNA S. ROSS, ESQ.
Counsel for Princeton University
120 Alexander Road, Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: 609-258-2525
Fax: 609-258-2502

Personally, I believe that eBooks and eReaders are the future of education and when done properly they can provide levels of accessibility previously unobtainable. Hopefully the software updates will be released soon and XXI century publishing can finally happen for textbooks.

Related Posts

• July 2, 2009 -- Arizona State University Being Sued For Discrimination Over Use of Kindle DX (0)
• May 31, 2011 -- 2011 Book Expo America Free Kindle Samples and more (0)
• November 12, 2011 -- Kindle Fire to Offer Apps for Pandora, Netflix, and More (0)
• May 23, 2011 -- AccessTechGeek now a Kindle Blog (0)

Big Brother

In the swarm of controversy around Amazon’s book-deletion, Amazon managed to mostly finish cleaning things up with their customers.  One thread left unresolved, however, had been the the lawsuit. A student began a suit against Amazon when the deletion of 1984 and Animal Farm from his Kindle resulted in losing the notes for his homework.  The suit has now been settled and Amazon owes $150,000.

This amount obviously won’t hurt Amazon.  The company probably avoided the pursuit of a larger, class-action settlement by preemptively offering $30 refunds to everyone effected.  The amount is what was settled on as appropriate for the plaintiff’s specific damages.

My favorite part about this story has to be the plans of the law firm.  This kind of litigation has a reputation of being simple money-grabbing, but that’s not the case here.  The lawyers seemed to be involved simply because they didn’t agree with the actions Amazon took.  As such, they are donating all of their earnings from this suit to charity.  They launched the suit jut to tell Amazon something, and I think that they were successful.

Related Posts

• September 6, 2009 -- Amazon Orwell Book Deletion Controversy May Be Reaching Some Closure (3)
• August 2, 2009 -- Amazon Book Deletion Leads to Lawsuit (5)
• July 29, 2009 -- Free Software Foundation is Launching a Kindle Petition (3)
• July 21, 2009 -- Update On Amazon Book Deletion (6)

Interestingly, the annotations themselves did not seem to get deleted.  They are, however, completely useless without the passages they are referring to.  His notes say things like “this paragraph” or “this section.”  Since they are linked to indexing that refers to a now non-existent data file, the lawsuit claims they are completely unsalvageable.  I think this is an interesting angle for the suit to take. In a way, Amazon is technically leasing books and retains the rights to do things like remote deletion.  User created annotations, however, can’t be said to be owned by Amazon in any way.  Perhaps that’s why they weren’t removed along with the books.

So far, a man from California has also jumped on board as a plaintiff and the suit is moving towards class-action status.  That’s rough news for Amazon, who has already been faced with another class-action lawsuit this summer.  Amazon has already made promises to avoid book deletion practices in the future, but they have been met with some skepticism.

Related Posts

• October 3, 2009 -- Orwell Lawsuit is Over: Amazon Paying $150,000 (2)
• September 6, 2009 -- Amazon Orwell Book Deletion Controversy May Be Reaching Some Closure (3)
• July 29, 2009 -- Free Software Foundation is Launching a Kindle Petition (3)
• July 21, 2009 -- Update On Amazon Book Deletion (6)

Amazon Kindle DX Leather Cover

The Kindle is an expensive gadget, so many owners take precautions to protect it.  One popular Kindle accessory is Amazon’s own leather cover, which adds a layer of insulation to prevent everyday mishaps.  The only problem is that the hinges on the cover have apparently cracked the cases on a number of Kindle 2′s and Kindle DX‘s, with the damage sometimes even resulting in a frozen display.

After a $5 million lawsuit filed against the company, Amazon agreed to replace Kindles that have been damaged by the cover.  This is a reversal of Amazon’s previous practice of charging $200 for the replacement.  Even though Amazon’s now trying to address the issue, the lawsuit has yet to be withdrawn.  The company, however, refuses to comment on the suit itself since it’s against their policy to discuss ongoing litigation.

So far I don’t see any traces of damage on either of my Kindles but this piece of news has got me strongly considering investing in another kind of Kindle cover. On the other hand should 3rd party cover crack my Kindle, Amazon would be reluctant to exchange it for free. I’m curious, has anyone run into these problems with the Amazon case?

Related Posts

• October 5, 2009 -- Solution for cracked Kindle problem (1)
• May 5, 2011 -- Kindle Case Gift-Giving Suggestions (3)
• December 22, 2010 -- Kindle Covers Catalog (0)
• September 9, 2009 -- Make Your Own Kindle Case That Doubles as a Stand (0)

The two organizations have jointly filed suit against ASU in an attempt to stop the Kindle’s planned usage.  While the Kindle does include a text-to-speech feature, all menus and navigation, including the ability to activate text-to-speech, are completely inaccessible to blind students.  According to the lawsuit, if any University uses the Kindle as their primary means of textbook distribution, it is in clear violation of federal accessibility standards.  A press release detailing the plaintiff’s position can be found here.

Public Universities, being governmental institutions, are required by federal law to meet strict guidelines regarding accessibility.  Since the Kindle clearly does not meet these guidelines, there only seems to be two possible ways this could turn out: Either ASU (and the five other schools) cancel their plans to use the Kindle, or Amazon releases  an update which adds accessibility features to the Kindle Store and menus.  It would be a relatively simple software change for Amazon to make, so hopefully that is the route that things take.  Then, the only problem would be the legal issues surrounding text-to-speech itself.

Related Posts

• May 6, 2010 -- Kindle DX accessibility lawsuit settled (2)
• November 12, 2011 -- Kindle Fire to Offer Apps for Pandora, Netflix, and More (0)
• May 31, 2011 -- 2011 Book Expo America Free Kindle Samples and more (0)
• May 23, 2011 -- AccessTechGeek now a Kindle Blog (0)

My guess is that legally both comanies are in the wrong but not because they are criminal but because current US patent system is not appropriate for modern intellectual property. Things like double-click get patented left and right. For the most part it’s done to protect against patent predators. So when somebody sues you over a bougus patent you are likely to find some other patent to sue them back for. Usually it ends up with undisclosed out-of-court settlement.

Most likely this will be the case here are well. We’ll see.

Original story can be found at Wall Street Journal.

Related Posts

• March 17, 2009 -- Discovery Communications Sues Amazon For Patent Infringement In Kindle (0)
• September 24, 2009 -- E-book industry in one picture (0)
• July 11, 2009 -- Amazon files Patents For In-Book Advertisements (8)

Looks like more and more people realize that there is money in eBooks and market is growing day-by-day. Now suddenly everyone wants a piece of this pie. Just recently Authors Guild threatened to sue Amazon over text-to-speech feature in Kindle 2. Then it was Amazon sending “cease and desist” letters to MobileRead.com and possibly other websites about script that allowed books purchased from eBooks vendors other than Amazon to be read on Kindle.

As the market will grow more I’m sure we’ll see more turf wars like this one. As for patents… nowadays for any given thing you can find someone who holds a patent and “believes that he/she is entitled for compensation“…

Related Posts

• May 22, 2009 -- Amazon sues Discovery Communications Back (0)
• September 24, 2009 -- E-book industry in one picture (0)
• July 11, 2009 -- Amazon files Patents For In-Book Advertisements (8)

My personal opinion is that it’s not as simple as Engadget and TechDirt would like to portray it. For one, Engadget’s statement that the script “script, which can’t actually be used to break Kindle DRM” is misleading. I will not elaborate why. If you research the matter yourself, you may find out what I mean. I don’t want to take sides on this particular issue, I just want to point out that there’s more to it than meets the eye or what’s written in mainstream news.

While I am personally a big supporter of open information market where content creators and distributors are fairly compensated for their work and law-abiding users are not limited by crippling DRM systems that bind them to specific hardware. But before this can happen market should get big enough. Otherwise it may collapse because of extreme competition. Amazon is currently the biggest driver or eBook market growth. Cut their profits, their eBook business may collapse and there will be no market at all. Recent release of Kindle application for iPhone and iPodTouch is a step in the right direction towards more open information market. Because it allows usage of purchased digital content to be freely used across two different software and hardware platforms. Hopefully soon more steps like this will follow.

Related Posts

• December 26, 2007 -- Kindle DRM Hacked – Allows Mobipocket eBooks (4)
• October 30, 2011 -- Amazon Updates Kindle Book Format From Mobi 7 To KF8 (5)
• July 10, 2011 -- Kindle DRM Debate Magically Reignited By Harry Potter (2)
• June 26, 2011 -- Stallman vs Amazon Kindle: Are eBooks Bad? (4)

Well.. this seems to settle it. In my personal opinion text-to-speech was no threat to audio books because although much better than most voice synthesis systems I’ve experienced so far it still falls way short of professionally read audiobooks. It is also as much copyright infringement as me reading bed time stories to my daughter… But that’s just my personal opinion. It’s amazing what a law suit threat can do in a modern corporate world.

I just hope that few copyright holders would actually choose to exercise this ability to opt-out because this feature actually comes quite handy on long commutes when I don’t have any audiobook to listen to.

Related Posts

• January 25, 2012 -- OverDrive Gets a Huge Membership Boost after Launching Kindle Library Lending (2)
• January 14, 2012 -- “Send to Kindle” Simplifies Kindle File Transfers (0)
• December 21, 2011 -- Audible Promo Makes Kindle Touch & Kindle Fire Even More Affordable (0)
• December 12, 2011 -- Audio & The Kindle Fire: Win Some, Lose Some (2)