Linked Data Rights 2.0: extension of ODRL for Licensing Linked Data

Linked Data assets (RDF triples, graphs, datasets, mappings...) can be object of protection by the intellectual property law, the database law or its access or publication be restricted by other legal reasons (personal data pro- tection, security reasons, etc.). Publishing a rights expression along with the digital asset, allows the rightsholder waiving some or all of the IP and database rights (leaving the work in the public domain), permitting some operations if certain conditions are satisfied (like giving attribution to the author) or simply reminding the audience that some rights are reserved.

Area-delay Trade-offs of Texture Decompressors for a Graphics Processing Unit

Graphics Processing Units have become a booster for the microelectronics industry. However, due to intellectual property issues, there is a serious lack of information on implementation details of the hardware architecture that is behind GPUs. For instance, the way texture is handled and decompressed in a GPU to reduce bandwidth usage has never been dealt with in depth from a hardware point of view. This work addresses a comparative study on the hardware implementation of different texture decompression algorithms for both conventional (PCs and video game consoles) and mobile platforms. Circuit synthesis is performed targeting both a reconfigurable hardware platform and a 90nm standard cell library. Area-delay trade-offs have been extensively analyzed, which allows us to compare the complexity of decompressors and thus determine suitability of algorithms for systems with limited hardware resources.

Rights declaration in Linked Data

Linked Data is not always published with a license. Sometimes a wrong license type is used, like a license for software, or it is not expressed in a standard, machine readable manner. Yet, Linked Data resources may be subject to intellectual property and database laws, may contain personal data subject to privacy restrictions or may even contain important trade secrets. The proper declaration of which rights are held, waived or licensed is a must for the lawful use of Linked Data at its different granularity levels, from the simple RDF statement to a dataset or a mapping. After comparing the current practice with the actual needs, six research questions are posed.

How vague can your patent be? Vagueness strategies in U.S. patents

Patent claims defi ne the protection scope of the intellectual property sought by the patent applicant or patentee. Broad claims are valuable as they can describe more expansive rights to the invention. Therefore, if these claims are too broad a potential infringer will more easily argue against them. But if the claims are too narrow the scope of protection of the intellectual property is greatly reduced. Patent claims have to be, on the one hand, determinate and precise enough and, on the other hand, as inclusive as possible. Therefore patent applicants must fi nd a balance in the broadness of the scope defi ned by their claims. This balance can be achieved by the choice of words with a convenient degree of semantic indeterminacy, by the choice of modifi ers or other strategies. In fact, vagueness in patent claims is a desirable characteristic for such documents. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a corpus of 350 U.S. patents provides a promising starting point to understand the linguistic instruments used to achieve the balance between property claim scope and precision of property description. To conclude, some issues relating vagueness and pragmatics are suggested as a line of further research.