If you love a celebrity getting all self-righteous on the world, especially the tech world, then here’s a big plate of Richard Dreyfuss for you.

He tsk-tsks all over the stage in this video of highlights from the 16th Annual Webby Awards, which took place last night in New York.

That includes calling out Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s “Eric” Brin — which I am assuming is a mutant mash-up of Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin — for some sort of clickety-click-clack Internet crimes against humanity.

Thankfully, there is a very lovely tribute to Apple legend Steve Jobs at the end that includes President Barack Obama.

Enjoy:

Aaron Sorkin’s Steve Jobs will be the best or worst movie I’ve ever seen.

– Dan Frommer, via Twitter

And on top of it all, it’s May 14 — Mark’s 28th birthday.

Aside from the intense scrutiny of the company by the tech and financial press leading up to the IPO, Zuckerberg is doing all right. Especially when stacked up against some of the biggest names in tech that came before him.

Consider Steve Jobs. He was zooming along just fine in his twenties. Until, that is, in his 28th year he recruited the man who would eventually become his — and Apple’s — undoing (temporarily, of course). That man was John Sculley, then CEO President of Pepsi-Cola, who traded the position to be the CEO of Apple Computer after intense courting from Jobs. Of course, Sculley would eventually play a part in Jobs’s ouster from Apple; Sculley would also oversee the company in what proved to be the darkest years in its 36-year history. Jobs was also in the process of launching the Lisa when he was 28, one of the biggest commercial computer hardware failures the company has ever released. In other words, 28 wasn’t the greatest year of Jobs’s career.

Amazon luminary Jeff Bezos’s best years were yet to come. At 28, he was still at his hedge fund gig, where he first saw the opportunity in the fast-growing Internet use around the country. Two years later, he would go off on his own to start Amazon.

Bill Gates, on one hand, had founded Microsoft in 1976 — then known as “Micro-Soft,” begun in a small Albuquerque office in partnership with Paul Allen — at the ripe age of 20. It’s the same age Zuck was when he officially founded Facebook in his Harvard dorm room. At 28, Gates was certainly upwardly mobile — the year before his 28th saw him begin to license MS-DOS — though his best years were yet to come: In two years, Gates would launch the first retail version of the Windows operating system.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin were still three years off from Google’s IPO when they turned 28 (Page in March of 2001, Brin in August). It was that year in which the two — who had run Google since they co-founded it in 1998 — decided to turn the reins over to Eric Schmidt, a learned executive well versed in leading technology companies. Unlike Zuckerberg, who retains full control over Facebook with his majority of voting rights, Page and Brin let a seasoned Valley veteran guide Google through its early days.

In all, it seems Zuck is doing just fine. Still two years off from the big 30, he’s number 35 on Forbes’ Billionaires List with an estimated net worth of $17.5 billion. Better still, he’s got a longtime live-in girlfriend and an adorable floor mop of a dog, “Beast.”

Happy birthday, Mr. Zuckerberg. And enjoy a quiet moment of reflection while you can; Friday isn’t too far off.

Although intellectual property law exists to encourage innovation and invention, patents have become the one legal way private companies can exercise a monopoly over the market. Oversized patent portfolios and prolonged patent lawsuits translate into less consumer choice and higher prices. Effectively, patents become the end in and of themselves, and no longer a means for supporting innovation.

These lawsuits have caused real concern at the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, where the patent wars have raised the prospect of anti-competitive activities. The DOJ is charged with viewing the market as a whole. For that reason, the Department of Justice has invoked a little-known form of consumer protection in ensuring the Patent Wars don’t put new technologies out of the consumer’s reach.

It has been well publicized that the battles between tech powerhouses like Google, Apple and Microsoft go far beyond the features of their latest devices. As many of these companies continue to focus large amounts of time and treasure in the courtroom, there is a concern that innovation will take a backseat to genuine competition on tech. Since Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility last year, things have especially heated up among the three major players — a situation that can only worsen with Microsoft’s acquisition of AOL’s patent portfolio, which is a symptom of a patent “arms race.”

No longer obtained to protect a new technology or a particular state of art, patents are now used in the smartphone arena to block other players from entrance into the arena, or to stop one company from achieving a dominant position.

A patent-centric strategy works extremely well in the software industry because sets of international standards allow our mass communications devices to work together seamlessly. If a company obtains a patent governing one of these standards, or for technology that is widely relied upon (even if not directed to a specific standard), that company can put a chokehold on the market.

Specifically, rival companies have attempted to block Google’s Android operating system and handsets, which Google licenses to other companies for free, while Apple and Samsung have been engaged in a number of lawsuits over handset technology. One such lawsuit resulted in a suspension of iPad and iPhone sales in Germany.

In fact, when so many patents protect vital, standardized technologies with such broad language, lawsuits are certain to follow. And a glut of patent lawsuits can mean licensing deals, which in turn mean higher prices as the costs of production come to include those licensing deals. In a worst case scenario, a licensing deal can’t be reached and the technology is unavailable to the consumer.

And while the lawsuits have played out largely amid corporate attorneys and IP specialists, the consumer isn’t without an advocate as the patent wars rage. As leverage to avoid antitrust lawsuits, the Department of Justice has emphasized a little-known tool to regulate the cost of patent licenses. It can exert pressure to require that crucial patents be licensed under a set of terms known as FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms.

These terms set strict guidelines regarding the costs of licensing and prevent companies holding vital patents from setting exorbitant, unfair prices. For example, the DOJ recently pressured a consortium led by Apple to commit to FRAND licensing when it bought various Nortel and Novell patents. The government tacitly hinted that it would block the acquisition if the consortium didn’t agree to FRAND terms. If the DOJ hadn’t stepped in, the consortium would have been able to exert enormous leverage on the consumer electronics market.

Google is being required to maintain FRAND terms with the patents that it received upon purchasing Motorola Mobility. Google also bought patents from IBM under those terms.

In fact, companies holding patents which are considered to be crucial to a particular standard may be required to license those patents by the relevant governing standards body under FRAND terms.

Some companies do choose to license their patents widely, even without explicit FRAND requirements. Microsoft, for example, has chosen to license its patents widely, having reached licensing agreements with makers of more than 70 percent of the Android-based smartphones sold in the U.S. On the other hand, Steve Jobs famously threatened to do whatever was necessary to force Google to significantly change Android to remove features that Jobs felt were proprietary to Apple, refusing to even consider payment from Google to license Apple’s patents.

It’s likely the smartphone war will end in a variety of licensing agreements and cross-licensing agreements. Whether those agreements result in competitive prices for the consumer depends on how effectively the DOJ wields its “FRAND” sword.

D’vorah Graeser, Ph.D., is the founder and CEO of Graeser Associates International (GAI), an international intellectual property firm specializing in the preparation, filing and prosecution of medical device, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, bioinformatics and software patents. Dr. Graeser is a U.S. Patent Agent and is not an attorney at law; none of the above should be construed as legal advice.

In a ruling that came down late Wednesday (see the opinion below), Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the existence of agreements between the various companies not to “cold call” employees of the other supports a “plausible inference” that the agreements were signed off at the highest levels by senior executives of each company.

Plaintiffs in the case, all former software engineers who have worked for the various companies, have claimed that the late Apple CEO Steve Jobs, negotiating with Ed Colligan, the former CEO of Palm (now a unit of Hewlett-Packard), talked directly about the matter. Their complaint quotes Jobs as telling Colligan, “We must do whatever we can” to stop cold-calling efforts between the two companies.

The companies being sued are Apple, Intel, Adobe, Google, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, a unit of Walt Disney. The complaint alleges that the companies conspired to make it harder for employees to move to different jobs between the companies, thus limiting their ability to earn higher salaries. The companies had sought to get the case thrown out.

You can read Judge Koh’s opinion below.

Poaching Case Ruling

An obvious guess for Apple’s new product would be the much-anticipated Apple television. Or a re-imagining of the Apple Store.

Here’s another: Nothing.

Reached for comment, an Apple spokeswoman said the company is not working on a new product or project with Starck. And while she declined to speculate about what the designer might have been referring to when he told France Info Radio that he and Apple “have a big project together that will be out in eight months,” there’s a good explanation for the remark.

Prior to his death, Apple CEO Steve Jobs was working with Starck on a yacht. And this is very likely the “fairly, if not very, revolutionary” project he was talking about. To be built by luxury superyacht builder Feadship, the yacht is believed to have a very minimalist and sleek design with a main feature being 40 foot long glass walls. And Starck has been involved in its design.

Starck refused to offer any further details, citing Apple’s “culte du secret religieux,” but he’d clearly already lost his membership.

One of the joys of running a Web site is the constant interaction with readers from around the globe. At any time of the day or night, you, our readership, can read what we write and respond with censure, praise and ideas that take our work in new directions. We value the commenters who post on this site.

Really. We do.

However, one of the truly painful aspects of running a Web site is the constant interaction with readers from around the globe. At any time of the day or night, you, our readership, can read what we write and respond with unfiltered hate, pointless name-calling and blatant accusations. There are times when it becomes difficult to value the commenters who post on this site.

Just for example, in the comments following the death of Steve Jobs, there were many heartfelt expressions of sadness and loss. There were also more than a few comments — quickly deleted by AllThingsD — that used the opportunity to spew vitriol of a particularly venomous nature. We won’t tolerate that sort of thing. At all.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the other types of comments we will delete without remorse:

• Self-advertising: If you include a URL of any kind, the comment will probably not make it through our spam filter. All comments are reviewed by hand, so some comments with URLs will make it back into the comment thread — if they are deemed relevant. However, if you include a link to your own blog in an effort to advertise on this site, those comments will be deleted. If your URL is part of your sig file, you might want to consider taking it out.
• Accusations of biased reporting: It is fruitless to remind you that this is a news Web site and that we adhere to high standards of journalistic conduct. All you have to do is read the ethics statements of every writer. If, for example, you choose to suggest — even obliquely — that one of our writers is receiving money from a company in return for coverage, or is selling a stock short in order to take advantage of insider knowledge, your comment will be deleted. Since we don’t edit comments, if you write a long thoughtful letter about your reaction to one of our stories and then throw in an unsupported accusation at the end, the whole comment will be deleted. And that’s a shame.
• Accusations aimed at the companies we cover: It is more than acceptable to disagree in the comments with the choices made by companies or individuals, but to make the leap to saying so-and-so is a “douchebag” (a favorite term, apparently, among commenters), or to speculate about that person’s sexual preferences as regards certain farm animals — that’s personal, unnecessary and delete-worthy.
• Personal comments about the writers on this site: Do we really need to get into this? Really? Okay, in a nutshell, don’t call names. Your second-grade teacher had it right. Your comment will stand in a corner for all eternity if you decide it is necessary to pick on the person behind the pixels.

“But your comment section is so mild compared to others on the Web!” We get that a lot. And we like it that way. There are many, many other places you can get your hate on. This just isn’t one of those places.

AllThingsD appreciates the willingness of our readers to engage with us in the pursuit of tech news and interesting stories. Please believe us when we say we will work tirelessly to keep our comments hate-free and on-topic. If you have a contrarian view, great, share it. If you have criticism of the site or of its subjects, go for it, post away. Just keep it polite. And, if you can’t keep your bile inside where it belongs, post somewhere else.

If you want to know more, please re-read our crystal-clear Comments Policy here.

Walt Mossberg and I could not be more thrilled to announce that Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, will be the opening-night speaker at our 10th D: All Things Digital conference.

It will be Cook’s first appearance at D, as well as his first time being onstage at an event not run by Apple or for investors since he was named CEO last August.

Since then, Cook has increased the enormous progress made under the late Apple CEO and co-founder Steve Jobs, with the iconic Silicon Valley giant putting out a number of new and innovative products and also becoming one of the most valuable companies on earth.

(Of course, Jobs had made a half-dozen always memorable visits to our stage over the last decade, the last of which was in 2010 at D8.)

So we are looking forward to hearing Cook’s perspective on where the industry and Apple is going, and perhaps to get a glimpse into what makes its new leader — who is also a longtime Apple vet — tick.

And Cook knows a lot, to be sure.

Before he was named CEO, Cook played a critical role as COO at Apple, responsible for worldwide sales and operations from its supply chain to sales activities to service and support globally. Cook also ran Apple’s Macintosh unit.

Before Apple, he worked at Compaq, Intelligent Electronics, and even spent a dozen years at IBM.

Cook joins a D10 speaker list that is full of major players in tech and media, including: New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz, as well as many more.

(And we still have more speakers to come.)

A month ago, I posted an initial list of speakers for the 10th D: All Things Digital conference.

After a decade, the event — which is held in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., just south of Los Angeles, at the end of May — has attracted another amazing group of speakers, including: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; serial entrepreneur Sean Parker, who will appear with Spotify co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek; Zynga founder and CEO Mark Pincus; Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz; LinkedIn Chairman and VC Reid Hoffman, who will appear with the social business site’s CEO Jeff Weiner; and Skype CEO Tony Bates.

Now, here’s another group of stellar speakers we’ve added to the programming lineup (and there are still even more big names to come in the weeks ahead): Oracle CEO Larry Ellison; former tech analyst superstar and now VC Mary Meeker of Kleiner Perkins; Intellectual Ventures’ Nathan Myhrvold; Pixar co-founder and Disney animation head Dr. Ed Catmull; and Visa President John Partridge.

Larry Ellison, CEO and founder of the enterprise giant Oracle, needs little introduction, as one of tech’s highest profile figures and a true Silicon Valley icon. Frankly, I think the short bio that’s on Oracle’s Web site says it all: “Larry Ellison has been CEO of Oracle Corporation since he founded the company in 1977. He also races sailboats, flies planes, and plays tennis and guitar.” There will be a lot to talk about with the voluble and always entertaining exec — who appeared at the D conference once before many years ago — from the current state of the tech industry to insights to where it’s all going. (In addition, Ellison has agreed to appear on a panel we are doing as a tribute to his close friend, Apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs.)

Another well-known tech figure is Meeker, who is now a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, having joined the storied venture capital firm in early 2011. She focuses there on investments in its digital practice and via KP’s Digital Growth Fund, working with companies such as Spotify, Jawbone and One King’s Lane. But Meeker is perhaps best known for her long stint — 1991 to 2010 — as a star Internet research analyst at Morgan Stanley, where she brought many of the Internet’s great companies to the attention of Wall Street and beyond. She also wrote a series of groundbreaking reports on the landscape. That includes her annual “State of the Internet,” which Meeker will debut this year at the conference in an extended demo of her always riveting Internet trends presentation.

Nathan Myhrvold is also a tech legend, having worked for 14 years as chief strategist and CTO of Microsoft. But, instead of retiring, the avid inventor decided to focus on patents, founding and leading a controversial company called Intellectual Ventures, which buys them up and licenses them out (or sues if it doesn’t sell). With all the mishegas around patents right now, it’s a good time to have Myhrvold back to explain it all and perhaps to take some of the blame for the explosion in intellectual property lawsuits. (Myhrvold also co-authored a cookbook, “Modernist Cuisine,” so we hope we will also get some sort of futuristic cooking demo. Perhaps, Patently Delicious Flan?)

Speaking of tasty, the animation from Pixar over the years has been just that and it’s been one of Disney’s greatest acquisitions. Given how much Pixar has contributed to animation technology, we are glad to finally get Dr. Ed Catmull onstage. As co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios and president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios, he will discuss where entertainment and technology are intersecting and where they are not. Catmull is a geek’s geek in the industry — having also founded the computer graphics laboratory at the New York Institute of Technology, the computer division of Lucasfilm, as well as Pixar, which he did with chief creative officer John Lasseter. Get ready to talk about image compositing, motion blur, subdivision surfaces, cloth simulation and rendering techniques, texture mapping and the z-buffer. Also, Catmull’s five Academy Awards.

Lastly, it is perfect timing for bringing on John Partridge, president of Visa. With swirling issues around online identity theft, digital privacy, the future of money and the rise of upstart competitors such as Square, Partridge has his hands full at the credit card giant. One of the most neglected arenas in tech, the way we manage payments is perhaps the biggest story of the next era, especially as it relates to mobile and the rise of smartphones as all-purpose devices.

Original photo by Andy Hertzfeld

Photo illustration by AllThingsD

During a lecture Wednesday evening at the U.K.’s Royal Institution, Isaacson took issue with Page’s remarks, stressing that Jobs was hardly kidding around when he threatened to destroy Android, which he lambasted as a stolen product.

“[Apple's iOS] is almost copied verbatim by Android,” Isaacson said as reported by Macworld UK. “And then they licence it around promiscuously. And then Android starts surpassing Apple in market share, and this totally infuriated [Steve]. It wasn’t a matter of money. He said: ‘You can’t pay me off, I’m here to destroy you.’”

It would seem, then, that Page in his comments to Bloomberg really is attempting to rewrite history here and downplay the contention between Apple and Google over Android. Which is a silly exercise given all the related litigation and Jobs’s original comment, which totally defies Page’s interpretation.

To refresh, here’s what Jobs told Isaacson:

“Our lawsuit is saying, ‘Google, you fucking ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off.’ Grand theft. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. They are scared to death, because they know they are guilty. Outside of Search, Google’s products — Android, Google Docs — are shit.”

That’s a rant uttered for show? A little anecdote to give Apple employees an “obvious competitor … to rally around”?

Hardly.

If you want to talk about turns of phrase that are for show, Larry, here’s a good one: Don’t be evil.

Speaking to Bloomberg Businessweek’s Brad Stone, Page said he didn’t think former Apple CEO Steve Jobs really meant what he said about going to “thermonuclear war” with Google over Android because it was a stolen product.

“I think the Android differences were actually for show,” Page said.

Page, in fact, is above the fray of mere earthly competition, he said.

“For a lot of companies, it’s useful for them to feel like they have an obvious competitor and to rally around that. I personally believe that it’s better to shoot higher. You don’t want to be looking at your competitors. You want to be looking at what’s possible and how to make the world better.”

Page did comment a little more directly on his competitors. He argued that Facebook declining to allow Google to import its friend lists — what’s been called “contact reciprocity” — is “completely unreasonable.” He also said Google+ is exceeding all expectations, and bragged that he has two million followers. And he said that suing people over patents is “a sad thing.”

Stone asked, why aren’t big tech companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon working together these days?

Because it’s hard and doesn’t often turn out that well, Page replied. For example, integrating Google Talk and AOL Instant Messaging was “a tremendous amount of technical effort” that he no longer believes was worth it.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Indeed, after just 10 months, Cook already ranks as the country’s top-rated chief executive, based on sentiment within the company. And not just in tech — across all industries.

According to the anonymous Apple employee rankings posted to careers community Glassdoor.com, Cook has a 97 percent approval rating among the rank and file. That’s the same cumulative rating Jobs had when he stepped down as CEO — and two points better than the rating given him in his final year in that role.

Not bad for a new CEO who’s following a guy with one of the most impressive legacies in tech.

Clearly, Cook, who worked closely with Jobs after joining Apple in 1998, is intent on hewing to the vision of his predecessor, while putting his own mark on the company as well — instituting a charitable matching program for employees, for example.

As Cook told Apple employees at Jobs’s memorial last October, “Among [Steve's] last advice for me, and for all of you, was to never ask what he would do. ‘Just do what’s right.’”

And according to Cook’s employees, he’s doing exactly that. His 97 percent ranking placed him ahead of not only Qualcomm’s Paul Jacobs and Ernst & Young’s Jim Turley, but Google’s Larry Page and American Express’s Ken Chenault, as well.

go to our new Timeline or share your top tech on Facebook

There aren’t too many techie happenings that are greeted with grumpy ire as when Facebook makes an interface change.

So when the social networking site rolled out Timeline to brand pages a few weeks back, we just decided to embrace it and have some fun.

To do so, we’re celebrating a decade of the AllThingsD conference, given it is our 10th anniversary this year.

We’ve selected about 50 of the biggest moments from the past decade in tech and placed them in our new Facebook Timeline , culled from a decade’s worth of significant people and stand-out gadgets collected by our ace editorial team.

The Timeline features commentary, links to articles from way back when and original, unpublished images from deep in the AllThingsD archives.

And when we didn’t have the right images, we just mashed some up, as you’ll see.

Looking for never-before-published images of a bearded Steve Jobs of Apple onstage at the very first D conference?

They’re in there (May 2003).

Or Kara Swisher’s very first snarktacular post on AllThingsD.com Yup, that too (April 2007).

Walt Mossberg’s thoughts about the very first version of Mozilla Firefox?

Certainly (November 2004).

Bonus points to you if you can find our special photoshop of Léo Apotheker “passing the Hewlett-Packard baton” to Meg Whitman (hint, look in September, 2011).

I’m pretty proud of that one.

But the Timeline of Tech is only half of what we’re launching on Facebook this week.

Our audience at the conferences and here at AllThingsD.com is full of well-informed tech insiders, so we also want everyone to hear your picks for the top moments in tech, as well.

To facilitate that, we’ve added a few questions for you to answer in a special Facebook tab called “Top Tech, which we’ll leave open for the next week or so.

Do you think that the interactivity of the Flip video camera changed the game? Would we all be talking via telegraph, if not for the release for the Microsoft Kin? And where would QR-code technology be without the CueCat?

Your top tech answers might just make it onto our permanent list.

After we take in all your submissions and talk them over, we’ll then pick the best to be permanently added to our Timeline of Tech.

We’ll even make sure that the ones we choose get the special AllThingsD Photoshop treatment.

Thanks in advance for your help — now go browse our picks and give us your suggestions for the most influential gadgets and biggest tech moments since 2003.

Go To our New Timeline or Share Your Top Tech on Facebook

I didn’t get the sense that Mike was anti-Apple. I think he loves Apple’s products and I told this to Steve Jobs. I think Mike was looking at Apple to become one of the positive forces for having influence on improving things.

– Steve Wozniak, in an interview with CNET’s Greg Sandoval about Mike Daisey

And something co-founder Steve Jobs famously refused for years to give it.

Asked in 2010 why Apple has never paid a dividend and rarely bought back its own stock, Jobs said dividends do not increase the value of the company for shareholders. “Our goal is to increase enterprise value,” he said. “Which would you rather have us be? A company with our stock price, and $40 billion in the bank? Or a company with our stock price and no cash in the bank?”

To Jobs, the answer to that question was clear, and the reason Apple last paid a dividend in 1995 — the year prior to his return to the company.

So why pay a dividend now? And what does the decision to do so say about Apple? Is it undergoing some great philosophical shift?

Consensus among the analysts and insiders is that it’s not. The company’s attitude toward what is today the largest cash balance in the tech industry isn’t particularly new, it’s just one that wasn’t ever expressed while Jobs was alive.

As one analyst quipped, “The driving reason for the dividend? Tim Cook actually meets with and listens to investors and shareholders. Steve Jobs did not.”

That’s an observation I’ve heard time and again this morning.

“Apple would have never paid a dividend under Jobs,” Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster told AllThingsD this morning. “Apple paying a dividend is evidence that the company is making its own decisions, not just blindly following in Jobs’s footsteps.”

So Apple under Cook is something of a different animal than it was under Jobs. And as much as Cook insists that he is keen on preserving Apple’s culture, he’s not unwilling to put his own mark on it. Particularly around a long-simmering issue like this, which has become a point of exasperation for many investors.

As Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi told AllThingsD this morning, “I think the cash balance was overwhelming and the rationale for retaining it was becoming increasingly incomprehensible, particularly given the company’s capital requirements and the prevailing yield on cash.”

Ultimately, dividends are not just for slower-growth companies. They’re for companies like Apple that are still rich with ideas and poised for more growth. As Cook said this morning, “We can do this and still maintain a war chest and plenty of money to run our business. This will not close any doors for us.”

In the end, the biggest message given by Apple’s issuance of a dividend: “Under new management.”

Several of the parties have held talks to settle the antitrust case and head off a potentially damaging court battle, these people said. If successful, such a settlement could have wide-ranging repercussions for the industry, potentially leading to cheaper e-books for consumers. However, not every publisher is in settlement discussions.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

You never think about it, and yet every time you attach a photo or a Word document, or practically anything else to an email message, you’re using it.

It was created by Nathaniel Borenstein, a computer researcher who, 20 years ago, worked for Bellcore, the research arm of the Baby Bell telephone companies. At the time, no one really gave much thought to the idea that email could or even should comprise any more than basic text messages, and when attachments were involved, incompatible formats caused the kind of headaches that we would consider unacceptable today. Curiously obsessed with the evolution of email, Borenstein teamed up with Ned Freed, a fellow Internet pioneer, to write the MIME standard that is the backbone of email attachments today, supporting more than 1,300 types of files and enabling billions of email users to ignore any worries about compatibility among email programs.

The first message containing a MIME-encoded attachment was sent on March 11, 1992, and today the standard is used something like a trillion times a day. And no, he didn’t get rich (but he did once turn down a job offer from Steve Jobs). He’s now the chief scientist of Mimecast, a cloud-based email outsourcing company that just happens to riff on the name of the standard he helped create. I got a chance to talk to him by phone a few weeks ago. Here are some highlights from our conversation:

AllThingsD: Nathaniel, no one really thinks about MIME, but everyone uses it. Tell me how it happened. The story goes, you thought that one day you’d like to use email to receive photos of your grandkids. Is that true?

Borenstein: I can’t say it was my primary motivation, but it was an easy way to explain what I was thinking of. Email had been around since 1965 on time-sharing systems, and then moved to the fledgling Arpanet. Then more and more people outside the English-speaking world started to come up with a lot of incompatible ways to encode their email. At the same time, people wanted to send around files occasionally. The only way that was really safe to do it was to package up a file with a program called UUencode, which had multiple versions that weren’t always compatible. There were all these ad hoc things that people were doing for these complementary needs. In 1980, I was a grad student at Carnegie Mellon, and I was put in charge of maintaining an email program. It was just a job at first. Then we got some Unix machines. I thought I could do a better job by rewriting the email program. And I was also in charge of running an email system. It became sort of a hobby. Then, later, after I finished my dissertation, my adviser asked me to write what he described as the world’s best email programs. Suddenly my career was my hobby.

So what was it you were asked to work on?

It was Carnegie Mellon’s Andrew Project, which was intended to envision the next generation of computing environments for campuses. What was really interesting then was that it had very advanced — for that time — multimedia capabilities. And so we had a chance to make multimedia work. There were a few programs with multimedia that came before, but we had the chance to get it into people’s hands. And then something interesting happened. Steve Jobs came to visit. This was in the days that he was running NeXT. [Jobs founded NeXT after leaving Apple in 1985, and ran it until he sold it to Apple in 1996. -Ed.] He came to the campus, and a light went off in his mind when he saw the mail system. He had not completely gotten email until he saw what we could do with it, and so he tried to hire our entire team. And he got none of us. None of us wanted to go to work for NeXT.

Why was that? Was it about Steve, or about NeXT?

I’m not sure we all had the same reasons. In my case, it was that I had heard from other people that working for him was difficult. I have enormous respect for him, because he was one of the captains of our industry. But I had a feeling that if you went to work for him and you had a disagreement with him, you lost. It was that simple.

And let me guess: He built email into the NeXT operating system anyway?

His team built NeXTMail, which looked a lot like Andrew did. In fact, if you use Apple’s Mail.app on the Mac, you’re using something that looked a lot like Andrew did. But he did something interesting. He created a way for people to send files around. And so you had two communities of users on NeXT and on Andrew who couldn’t send files to each other. So after I left Carnegie Mellon, I went to work for Bellcore, which was the research arm of the Baby Bell phone companies. My job was as a researcher, and my mandate was to work on things that would encourage the use of bandwidth. I thought I was done working on mail. Then I started noticing these problems with compatibility, plus I had an idea for something I called active messages. And Bellcore was a very heterogeneous computing environment. There were all these Unix hackers, and each person had their favorite email program — I counted more than 20 in use. And I wanted them all to be able to read these active messages. So what I did was start patching them all. That led to something I called Metamail, which would be triggered by a header in the email that would then call on any one of a number of other programs. So if you received a JPG image in Atomic Mail, which was one of the programs in use at the time, it would display the JPG in Atomic Mail.

So this led to the MIME standard how?

Metamail was already in use when the work that led to MIME started up. I got involved with some efforts at IETF [Internet Engineering Task Force]. I got introduced to Einar Stefferud, and he became a mentor of mine, and introduced me to Ned Freed, who became my co-author on MIME. I was worried about email and multimedia compatibility, and Ned was working on email gateways — the problems of translating messages between different email realms — because we weren’t all running SMTP back then. Stef thought we should work together. Now, Bellcore had allowed me to take Metamail and contribute it to the public domain, or what we would now call open source, and so anyone was allowed to modify it. So every time there was a new draft of the MIME standard, I could update to support the new standard. So when the first public draft of the MIME standard was ready, I was ready with Metamail, and it was just picked up at an incredible rate. I wrote it for Unix, and three days after the release, someone had already adapted it for Microsoft DOS. That’s what told me I had a hit on my hands.

What about MIME made it flexible?

One of the reasons I think we were successful with it was the fact that we had an incomplete vision. Yes, I was thinking about pictures of grandchildren someday — I am a grandfather now, by the way — but I knew that there would be things coming that I couldn’t forsee, and I didn’t want the system we designed to have to be completely redesigned in order to accommodate the new things. That is why the MIME type system is so open. You just go to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and register a new MIME type. The original supported 16 MIME types, and when I checked a few years ago, we were up to 1,309 different supported file types. When I tried to explain why I wanted it to be open-ended, I tried to explain things that you could, at the time, just barely imagine. I had two examples — one was smell. I thought that one day you might be able to send files containing smells, and one day you might, but no one is really focused on it yet. The other was one I thought of almost as a joke. I proposed a MIME type for matter transport. I thought we could send matter around as an email attachment, and in a way, it came true. When you think about 3-D printing and the models for that, people are sending around schematics for 3-D objects that can then be printed. So open-ended is very good in a world where science fiction is quickly getting overtaken by reality.

You now work for a company called Mimecast. What do you do there?

The short tag line is that we do unified email services in the cloud. We take all the things that surround and administer your email, and everything except the basic core operation of it, we outsource to the core. We archive your email, we set policies about how and when it can be deleted. We do data-loss prevention. We do continuity and disaster recovery. Our BlackBerry users didn’t notice when the service went down last year. And I’m not the founder. A lot of people think I am, but I’m not. I just work for the company as its chief scientist. Once you get all those things in one place, there’s a lot of potential. You can do things that you couldn’t do before. I’ll give you just one example: Imagine you’re composing an email, and as you type, there’s a sidebar next to it. In the style of Google Instant, it becomes an implicit search query that searches both your email archive, but also, say, news stories. The point is that it might help you shape your message or change what you want to say in your email, who you want to say it to, or whether or not you want to say it at all. Having an email archive solves a very deep problem, which is organizational memory. Everyone wonders from time to time whether someone knows the answer to some question. The point is that the bigger an organization is, the more often it’s necessary to rediscover the same thing over and over. Having an email program that searches for things that might help you would go a long way toward solving this.

Here’s the Infographic on the history of MIME. Click to see it bigger:

And that’s what Beyond Oblivion pulled off. The would-be service closed down at the end of last year, before it ever started up.

My hunch is that the company was doomed from the get-go, but Evolver.fm’s Eliot Van Buskirk diligently digs in behind the scenes to find out exactly what happened, and where the money went. It’s a great, gruesome read.

What’s particularly notable about Beyond Oblivion’s collapse is that you can’t accuse the big music labels of killing it with extortionate fees. They planned to get extortionate fees, and Beyond Oblivion’s strategy apparently involved complying — the company had planned to hand over $150 million in upfront licensing payments.

But they never got a chance. Instead, the money went into to all sorts of other stuff that didn’t involve delivering music to consumers. Like expensive marketing consultants. And a promotional video, featuring a vocal-fried narrator, that you can see at the bottom of this post.

Oh. And there was also a fake Steve Jobs:

At CES 2011, [CEO Adam Kidron] already hired a Steve Jobs impersonator to interrupt business meetings between himself and would-be partners “as a joke.” The Steve Jobs look-alike also apparently “roamed the show floor to fool attendees, while an employee filmed the whole thing” — a film that may have been meant for promotional purposes somehow, but which was only seen by employees.

At least Beyond Oblivion’s investors (who include News Corp., which also owns this Web site), didn’t lose any money on this year’s CES show.

Kidron planned to hire models to walk the CES show floor with the words “wanna boinc” on their panties and T-shirts, in the case of the females, or on their chests in the case of Speedo-wearing males. All of the models would have offered demonstrations to CES attendees, giving them a button with the words “I boinced at CES” printed on them. The buttons would also have functioned as the invitation to a private party at a Las Vegas strip club. These plans were scrapped in November as the company unraveled.

Now it is trying the same gambit, but with Mark Zuckerberg instead of Steve Jobs. If you want to read “Inside Facebook,” Miguel Helft and Jessi Hempel’s pre-IPO profile, you’ll need to pay up.

I just plunked down $1.99 for the Amazon edition, and zipped through it this morning. Like the Apple story, this one is focused on the company’s structure and management philosophy more than anything, which is quite useful for outsiders. Alas, no org chart.

And if you’re into profiles of big Silicon Valley companies in big business magazines, this is your lucky week: Businessweek’s Brad Stone profiles Twitter in a story out now.

The cover art is very promising:

First is fixing our execution, ensuring we have the right systems, processes and people. This includes things like optimizing our supply chain, including SKU reduction, to remove unnecessary complexity from the way we design, manufacture and deliver products; upgrading our sales tools and systems to respond more quickly to customers; and increasing the productivity of our sales force by rationalizing our go-to-market.

For those who don’t know, a SKU — pronounced “skew” — refers to something called a stock-keeping unit. It’s business shorthand for a particular model or type of product. A PC with a certain processor, certain amount of memory and certain capacity hard drive, and in a particular color, is a SKU. The same goes for models of printers, smartphones, or different versions of products sold into different distribution channels or with different options inside the box.

What Whitman is saying is that HP is producing too many different types and configurations of products, and this is injecting a lot of expensive operational complexity that might be getting in the way.

My ears perked up at this during the conference call, and when she repeated the phrase on CNBC today (see video below). It took me back in time to — of all things — the very first Steve Jobs MacWorld keynote I ever attended. The year was 1998, the MacWorld Expo that year was in New York and I had begged my boss at the time to let me go. Apple was in those days a company that many media organizations could afford to ignore because its relevance was limited to people who used Macs, which included me.

This was the year the first iMac was about to explode on the scene, and indeed, Jobs talked in great detail about it during this keynote. But not before he set about explaining the strategic problems at Apple he had sought to solve during the preceding several months.

One of them was the fact that Apple made a comparatively dizzying array of computers, nearly all of them labeled with numbers that had no clear meaning to anyone. During his talk (part of which I’ve embedded in a grainy video below), Jobs wiped away the complex list in favor of a four-square grid with four kinds of products. Consumer desktops, consumer notebooks, pro desktops and notebooks.

For a young business reporter just starting out, which I was, the clarity of Jobs’s argument was a revelation: A complex product offering can cause problems both for the customer and the company selling the goods. First, it muddies the waters for customers, especially when two or more versions of a product suit a particular need. Second, it adds operational cost and complexity.

One product — say, a printer — may be manufactured in just one way, but then customized in a mind-numbing set of different variations for different lines of business. There may be different accessories in the box or different service options, or whatever. Each of these is a SKU all its own that has be tracked and marketed and sold and supported, adding costs along the way.

Being the biggest tech company by revenue, working in five major business segments and operating in 166 countries adds plenty of complexity by itself. Why make it more complex than it has to be? Clarity and simplicity work.

Let’s compare Apple and HP on their choice of computers. Shop for a Mac today, and the four-square grid that Jobs showed in 1998 still stands, mostly: There are two kinds of notebooks, and they vary by screen size, and three kinds of desktop machine each aimed at unmistakably different needs, for a total of six. Of course there are variations within them for memory and hard drive and screen size, but you get my point.

On HP.com I see six different notebooks for “everyday computing,” five ultra-mobile machines, six “high performance” notebooks and four machines sold under its “Envy” brand. I count 21 different notebook options, and I haven’t even looked at the desktop models yet. Does anyone really need that many choices?

A sense of clarity is good for business, and it’s an important lesson that many companies of a certain size have to re-learn from time to time. When Jobs learned it at Apple in 1998, its product complexity was nowhere near the level that Whitman now faces at HP. But we all know how keeping it simple worked out for Apple. And while the problem is probably an order of magnitude more complicated at HP, the fundamental business lesson still stands: A stripped-down product portfolio could work for HP, too.

Here’s part of the Steve Jobs keynote I mentioned above. This is Part 2, and he goes on to describe the simplified product strategy in the the first few minutes of part three here.

And here’s Whitman’s appearance from CNBC earlier today.

More Kindle Fire augury, I know. But it does jibe with recent reports from China Times and Pacific Crest analyst Chad Bartley, who both claim that Amazon’s got a bigger Fire in the pipeline.

Why does Amazon even need to bring a larger Fire to market? Perhaps to take on the iPad in the market it created? Or perhaps it has decided that the device’s current 7-inch form factor isn’t as optimal as it once thought — something Apple CEO Steve Jobs remarked on back in 2010.

“One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70 percent of the benefits of a 10-inch screen,” Jobs said. “Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45 percent as large as iPad’s 10-inch screen. You heard me right: Just 45 percent as large. If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view, and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on these seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad’s display. This size isn’t sufficient to create great tablet apps, in our opinion. … The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

The furor eventually prompted Steve Jobs to hold an unprecedented press conference to defend the phone’s design. The issue eventually went away, but not completely, due to the inevitable class action suits.

But now those are gone, too. A settlement will give iPhone 4 buyers who never exchanged their phones for a new one — and didn’t take up Apple’s offer for a free “bumper” back in 2010 — a chance to get a new bumper, or take a $15 payout.

CNET has more details, and Apple PR rep Natalie Harrison offered this comment over the phone: “This settlement relates to a small number of customers who indicated that they experienced antenna or reception issues with their iPhone 4 and didn’t want to take advantage of a free case from Apple while it was being offered in 2010.”

From what I can tell the settlement applies to anyone who’s ever bought an iPhone 4, including people who are buying them at this very moment — there doesn’t appear to be any kind of end date.

If you’re looking for ways to spend that $15, by the way, Apple just happens to have iTunes gift cards, in two very nice designs, in that exact denomination.

“Accepting this award means so much to me, because music meant so much to him,” Cue said during the awards ceremony. “He told us that music shaped his life. It made him who he was. Everyone who knows Steve knows the profound impact that artists like Bob Dylan and the Beatles had on him.”

Video and a transcript of Cue’s speech below:

On behalf of Steve’s wife, Laurene, his children, and everyone at Apple, I’d like to thank you for honoring Steve with the Trustees Grammy Award. Steve was a visionary, a mentor, and a very close friend. I had the incredible honor of working with him for the last fifteen years.

Accepting this award means so much to me because music meant so much to him. He told us that music shaped his life … it made him who he was. Everyone that knows Steve knows the profound impact that artists like Bob Dylan and The Beatles had on him.

Steve was focused on bringing music to everyone in innovative ways. We talked about it every single day. When he introduced the iPod in 2001, people asked “Why is Apple making a music player?” His answer was simple: “We love music, and it’s always good to do something you love.”

His family and I know that this Grammy would have been very special to him, so I thank you for honoring him today.

But he said Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure, which attempts to bring physical toys to life through videogames, has been worth it.

“It was scary,” he said. “But if you truly have a breakthrough idea, then you have to have the confidence to treat it as one because they don’t come around very often.”

To be sure, the game was a major deviation from the company’s war-based roots.

It melds physical toys with videogames by using a “portal,” which is plugged into the game console. Once a Skylanders toy is placed on the portal, the character transports into the game and comes to life on the screen.

In 2011, the game was the tenth-best seller after launching in October, and was the only title to make the list that wasn’t a sequel. Additionally, it was the only kids game.

Hirshberg appeared this morning as the keynote speaker at DICE, an annual videogame summit held in Las Vegas.

His speech, titled “The Eric Hirshberg Experiment,” addressed how he has a nontraditional background as a CEO, but that Activision Blizzard’s CEO Bobby Kotick saw the usefulness of his creative background. Rather than being a trained operations or finance manager, Hirshberg is a marketing type who is more likely found drawing and bringing a sketch pad to meetings.

“There are other creative CEOs, but they generally founded the companies, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs,” he said. “But if creativity is at the core of your business, maybe it should be at the core of how they make decisions.”

Skylanders is just one case in point.

To make it the best experience possible, Hirshberg said they delayed the game’s launch by a year and spent the time getting the toys right, so they could compete side by side with characters developed by Pixar or Disney.

They also spent time making sure the game could work across platforms, so kids could play it at any of their friends’ houses regardless if they had a PC, Xbox, Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Wii.

As a result, every decision resulted in taking on more risk and spending more money.

Last night, Skylanders was voted as the most outstanding innovation in gaming as part of the 15th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, which are decided on by members of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences.

“We knew a lot of things had to go right — the core to that was bringing the toys to life. We knew that was magical, and if we got it right, it would have huge potential,” Hirshberg said. “We had the whole package. We had a great game and a great story and then pushed with all of our might with a big marketing plan.”

Yesterday, Activision reported fourth-quarter results, reporting well above its internal guidance and Wall Street analyst expectations, driven by extremely strong sales of Call of Duty, but also strong sales of Skylanders as well as, plus stable subscriber figures of its online game, World of Warcraft.

Additionally, the NPD Group said yesterday that the Skylanders toys were a top-selling accessory in January. It said that the toys were the highest-ranking item last month, and that collectively, Skylanders accessories represented 22 percent of all accessory sales.

For sure, Hirshberg has early successes to point to, but the experiment is ongoing.

The agency just released its file on Jobs, compiled during a background check conducted in the 1990s, when Jobs was being considered for a spot on a White House council on exports. And, with the exception of a noteworthy nugget or two, it’s about as mundane as they come.

If you’ve read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs — or, frankly, any newspaper obituary of the man — then you’re already as well-informed on his life and peccadilloes as the FBI.

Put it this way: Among the highlights of the agency’s 191-page dossier is the observation that Jobs was a former hippie: “During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Mr. Jobs may have experimented with illegal drugs, having come from that generation.”

A few others:

• Jobs had a tendency to “twist the truth and distort reality in order to achieve his goals.”
• Jobs underwent a “change in philosophy by participating in eastern and/or Indian mysticism and religion. This change apparently influenced his personal life for the better.”
• Jobs was “strongwilled, stubborn, hardworking and driven, which … is why he is so successful.”
• Jobs liked to get his own way.
• Jobs was not a member of the Communist party.
• Jobs did “an outstanding job in the computer industry.”

Really, the FBI’s only discovery of note was that Jobs was inexplicably granted Top Secret security clearance by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office between 1988 and 1990. Oddly, those credentials were issued by Pixar, which may have done some government work around that time.

Beyond that? Not much. Had Isaacson written his biography of Jobs a few decades earlier, he would have saved the FBI a hell of a lot of work.

Below, the report in its entirety:

Jobs