Amazon as promised announced the Kindle DX, its extra-large version of its e-book reader. The device centers on a 9.7-inch E Ink display that provides a larger view of newspapers and also has an iPhone-like accelerometer, twice as much storage, and (finally) native PDF support.
An anonymous reader writes “One day before Amazon is scheduled to unveil its widescreen Kindle aimed at newspaper readers, the e-commerce giant has been awarded its first US patent for an e-book reader. The new patent, D591,741, is a design patent which protects the look and feel of the Kindle shell, not for fundamental technologies. Those patents are mostly held by E Ink Corp., which makes the ‘liquidless paper’ display. Sony, IBM, and the Discovery cable TV network also have e-book patents. Amazon, though the leading e-book seller, has none, but the patent award indicates they’ve applied for at least four recently.” Also in Kindle news, PC World has a brief article up on the larger-screen Kindle DX (expected to launch Wednesday), including pictures first spotted on Engadget.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
kanewm writes with a snippet from Portable-Ebook-Reader.NET: “Samsung’s new, highly portable e-book reader, dubbed ‘Papyrus,’ will be available in Korea in June 2009 and in the UK and North America sometime later (likely within several months).” As the site notes, though, this lacks some features of the Kindle, the obvious choice for comparison in the American market.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Is Apple’s rumored “mediapad” entertainment device a threat to Amazon’s Kindle e-book reader? I think it is, but the only people who may care are current Kindle owners, some of whom may end up wishing they had waited on their purchase.
An anonymous reader writes “eReader.com seems to have begun applying distribution restrictions to its library. I first noticed that there was a FAQ page about distribution restrictions this morning. When I tried to order a few books this afternoon I simply couldn’t — a large banner on the order confirmation told me the books had distribution restrictions. I checked a number of titles but it seems a large number of books are no longer available to non-US citizens like me. It is interesting to note that this policy change got implemented shortly after Barnes&Noble purchased Fictionwise. I have no idea if the new owners are behind this new policy but it seems crazy to restrict sales of ebooks. I’ve bought dozens of ebooks from eReader the past 4 years. I still have 15 dollar store credit but cannot buy any of the books I am interested in.” (Right now, the link that should display these new geographic restrictions returns an error message that says the page is being updated.) Sounds like Barnes & Noble is taking its cues from Apple.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Because of quirks in many state laws, sales taxes may be levied on CDs sold in storefronts but not on iTunes and other digital downloads. This is the situation that recession-weary, tax-hungry politicians are hoping to change. A growing number of states are considering laws to tax digital goods, such as iTunes songs, Amazon MP3s, or e-books.
Thanks to Amazon.com’s Kindle, the e-book reader has gone from a niche curiosity to a mainstream, oft-cited technology in a little more than a year. But now buzz is snapping and crackling about a second wave of electronic readers coming down the pike to give Amazon a run for its undisclosed monies.
Amazon’s Kindle 2 is slimmer, faster and has longer battery life than its predecessor. But the newly launched e-book reader falls short when it comes to how well it displays text, say some users.
We’ve discussed the fallout from Google’s settlement with the Authors Guild a few times already. Now the issue is made pointed again by a Wall Street Journal editorial claiming that the settlement will ruin a functioning copyright system if it is finally ratified, as expected, in June by a federal court. Reader daretoeatapeach writes: “In the US this will establish a Book Rights Registry where authors can opt-in to 63% of the revenues of each book, the rest going to Google. While previously Amazon had cornered the market on e-books, Google’s partnership with Sony will create a serious dent: 500,000 books to Amazon’s 250,000. Though Google is currently only releasing the books that are in the public domain, they ultimately plan to sell the 7 million e-books they’ve scanned (and counting). This raises a lot of questions about the future of publishing: Do we want only one company (e.g. Google) controlling access to information? Should publishers get a cut of the money, at least as long as their book is being scanned? Will broader access to trade journals affect their relationship and reliance on libraries? If, in the future, more authors opt out of the traditional publishing model, when will this hit the ‘recession-proof’ book industry? And has the publishing industry learned any lessons from MP3s?”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
I Don’t Believe in Imaginary Property writes “Discovery Communications, the parent company of the Discovery Channel, is alleging that Amazon’s Kindle e-book reader infringes upon their patent for DRM-encumbered e-books (Discovery’s complaint, PDF). The patent in question was filed back in 1999 and issued in 2007 — coincidentally one day after Kindle 1.0 went on the market — and has claims for DRM implemented with a great many particular symmetric key ciphers and key exchange algorithms, (the patent has 171 claims). Unlike most software patents, this one goes into quite a lot of detail about how the encryption is to be performed. But it will still be interesting to see if it can pass the ‘machine or transformation’ test now that In Re Bilski is being accepted as precedent. After all, it seems like all of these encryption and e-book distribution schemes could be run on a general-purpose PC, so is the ‘invention’ actually tied to a ‘particular machine or apparatus’ just because an e-book ‘viewer’ (not to mention ‘home system’, ‘library’, and ‘kiosk’) happens to be specified in the patent’s claims? Or can the encryption of an e-book be claimed as some kind of ‘transformation’ when the law in that area is especially murky — when no one knows how In Re Bilski may affect the precedent of In Re Schrader?”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
