Journalist, content strategist and all-round geek.
Oh, you want a proper bio? Well here's what I put down when I'm being serious:
"Ian has been a journalist for 16 years, both in print and, since 1997, online. After editing MacUser magazine, he spent several years freelancing for eWeek, PC Pro, and many others, before joining Redwood in 2006. Since then he has worked with clients as diverse as BT, British Gas, Amnesty International and many others on both print and digital projects. He is currently Redwood's digital content strategist, working on a range of projects across the company's portfolio of clients.
In addition, Ian continues to write about technology for magazines including Tap!, MacFormat, MacUser and others.
In 2008 Ian was named one of the Top 20 influential UK bloggers by NowPublic, and this year featured in i Paper’s 100 most influential people in the UK on Twitter."
Meanwhile, in the Real World, companies are paying Microsoft an alleged $10-15 per device because they have patents that cannot be worked around. And they are soooo special that MS go to great lengths to make sure that no one finds out what they are.
No. They are paying Microsoft $10-15 per device because doing so is more cost-effective and quicker for them than developing their own alternative.
A patent which is part of a standard cannot be engineered around by anyone wanting to use that standard. Any other patent CAN be engineered or designed around. The result might not be as good as the patented method – but on the other hand, it might end up better. That’s the point.