<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>VentureBeat - Latest Comments in Roundup: Yahoo&amp;#8217;s hub, media deals galore, HD DVD dead, CES, more</title><link>http://venturebeat.disqus.com/</link><description>News about Tech, Business and Innovation</description><atom:link href="https://venturebeat.disqus.com/roundup_yahoo8217s_hub_media_deals_galore_hd_dvd_dead_ces_more/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:17:51 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Roundup: Yahoo&amp;#8217;s hub, media deals galore, HD DVD dead, CES, more</title><link>http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/08/roundup-yahoos-hub-media-deals-galore-hd-dvd-dead-ces-more/#comment-14681622</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Google’s patent application on technology that understands text in images and video — This would be huge for Google, if the patent were to be approved. It would make advertising beside all of its videos so much easier"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why would this be huge? There is a lot of previous work on recognizing text in images. Any reason why you think Google's approach is technically superior to others? Have you talked to experts on text recognition about their technique?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Don't get me wrong - there is a lot of potential in applying text recognition within Google's business, so this may indeed be "huge". But it is not clear that getting or not getting this patent will make much of a difference in their decision to implement this or not.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TS</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:17:51 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>