If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BGR)   Former Apple exec: 'Apple haven't invented anything'   (bgr.com) divider line 76
    More: Interesting, Apple Inc., ipad app, iPads  
•       •       •

4262 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Sep 2012 at 2:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-11 12:06:20 PM  
Headline should read..... "Former Apple exec that was ousted more than 2 and half decades ago: 'Apple haven't invented anything'
 
2012-09-11 01:09:29 PM  
Rounding the corners off of rectangles in just the right way sounds pretty innovative to me.
 
2012-09-11 01:12:49 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-11 01:20:47 PM  
28.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-11 01:36:44 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Rounding the corners off of rectangles in just the right way sounds pretty innovative to me.


mimg.ugo.com
Premiered in 2003. Coincidence? I think not!
 
2012-09-11 01:48:32 PM  
The grammar in the headline quote is really bugging me. I probably need to get out and take a walk.
 
2012-09-11 02:05:39 PM  
But then Xerox made a prototype,
Steve Jobs came on the scene,
read "Of Mice and Menus," Windows, Icons
a trash, and a bitmap screen.

Well Stevie said to Xerox,
"Boys, turn your heads and cough."
And when no-one was looking,
he ripped their interfaces off.

Stole every feature that he had seen,
put it in a cute box with a tiny little screen,
Mac OS 1 ran that machine,
only cost five thousand bucks.
 
2012-09-11 02:05:58 PM  
I like the recipe analogy. What it makes me wonder is, I read somewhere that the reason recipes aren't patented is that an expert in the field knows that if you make something out of strawberries, it's going to end up tasting something like strawberries, and there's nothing really non-obvious to an expert about pretty much any recipe. So why wouldn't that same idea apply to things like business process patents, and design patents, and software patents?
 
2012-09-11 02:16:08 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I like the recipe analogy. What it makes me wonder is, I read somewhere that the reason recipes aren't patented is that an expert in the field knows that if you make something out of strawberries, it's going to end up tasting something like strawberries, and there's nothing really non-obvious to an expert about pretty much any recipe. So why wouldn't that same idea apply to things like business process patents, and design patents, and software patents?


Because then the legal firms that rigged the patent game to begin with would lose millions of dollars in billable hours every year?

Just a guess.
 
2012-09-11 02:17:41 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: The grammar in the headline quote is really bugging me. I probably need to get out and take a walk.


F*cking Brits.
 
2012-09-11 02:19:11 PM  

Ennuipoet: Marcus Aurelius: Rounding the corners off of rectangles in just the right way sounds pretty innovative to me.

[mimg.ugo.com image 564x318]
Premiered in 2003. Coincidence? I think not!


You misspelled "1980".
 
2012-09-11 02:24:05 PM  
So... Apple didn't build it?
 
2012-09-11 02:36:44 PM  

Mugato: You misspelled "1980".


I don't recall the Original Incarnation having rounded corners. Plus, unless you are referring to the Abomination that was Battlestar Galactica 1980 (unclean!) then it was 1978.

/NERD FIGHT!
 
2012-09-11 02:44:10 PM  

Nadie_AZ: But then Xerox made a prototype,


Every OS sucks.

Here are your Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie.
 
2012-09-11 02:56:20 PM  
In truth there are some things that Apple did invent, but they are fewer and further between than Apple would have people think. Plus they aren't remotely as interesting as the whole designs.
 
2012-09-11 02:59:01 PM  

Ennuipoet: Mugato: You misspelled "1980".

I don't recall the Original Incarnation having rounded corners. Plus, unless you are referring to the Abomination that was Battlestar Galactica 1980 (unclean!) then it was 1978.

/NERD FIGHT!


Hmm. You're right about the date, but the Cylon you pictured is clearly from the original series.

1980 1978

byyourcommand.net

2003

bp0.blogger.com

or if you prefer

static.tvguide.com
 
2012-09-11 02:59:09 PM  
Being a reporter or an analyst for Apple products is the easiest job on the planet. Just be overtly bombastic and proclaim everything to be the best ever.
Recycle for the next launch.

It's just lazyspeak nowadays. Every Apple launch is the same "biggest launch ever" and "the most advanced iPhone ever", no shiat sherlock.

That's why I hate the Apple culture. They love making the obvious extraordinaire.
 
2012-09-11 03:04:26 PM  
This guy uses French as his mother tongue. No one should fault him for using the wrong word
 
2012-09-11 03:05:30 PM  
The funny thing is that he was being snarky about people making that very claim. The next paragraph was:

By this myopic logic, Einstein didn't invent the theory of relativity, Henri Poincaré had similar ideas before him, as did Hendrik Lorentz earlier still. And, come to think of it, Maxwell's equations contain all of the basic ingredients of relativity; Einstein "merely" found a way to combine them with another set of parts, Newtonian mechanics.

/Gotta love the press
 
2012-09-11 03:08:36 PM  

Mugato: Hmm. You're right about the date, but the Cylon you pictured is clearly from the original series.


No, the original picture was a Cylon Centurion Model 0005, from the original Cylon Wars. They were shown in the new BSG miniseries as a reference to the old series. Later in the new BSG series we saw several appearances of the "old style" Cylons, as flashbacks in the TV Movie "Razor", and in the finale of the new BSG, at the battle on the Cylon's colony world, we saw a number of them, including the ones that were fighting on Galactica's side.

Link
 
2012-09-11 03:09:32 PM  

rocky_howard: It's just lazyspeak nowadays. Every Apple launch is the same "biggest launch ever" and "the most advanced iPhone ever", no shiat sherlock.


I don't think that the releases of the iPhone 4s or the iPad3 match your characterization.
 
2012-09-11 03:11:51 PM  

The Homer Tax: I don't think that the releases of the iPhone 4s or the iPad3 match your characterization.


Opinions.

Not that it matters though as I'm not talking about how the launches end up being but what's reported BEFORE the release actually takes place.
 
2012-09-11 03:16:35 PM  

cman: This guy uses French as his mother tongue. No one should fault him for using the wrong word


3.bp.blogspot.com

Ah, the *mother's the heroine. Nice twist. How far have we got, then? Old Mother Tongue is in love with George the Hero. Now what about murders? Mother Tongue doesn't get murdered, does she?
 
2012-09-11 03:17:43 PM  

cman: This guy uses French as his mother tongue. No one should fault him for using the wrong word


Especially if he uses the right word.
 
2012-09-11 03:18:05 PM  

Silverstaff: Mugato: Hmm. You're right about the date, but the Cylon you pictured is clearly from the original series.

No, the original picture was a Cylon Centurion Model 0005, from the original Cylon Wars. They were shown in the new BSG miniseries as a reference to the old series. Later in the new BSG series we saw several appearances of the "old style" Cylons, as flashbacks in the TV Movie "Razor", and in the finale of the new BSG, at the battle on the Cylon's colony world, we saw a number of them, including the ones that were fighting on Galactica's side.

Link


Oh. You win.
 
2012-09-11 03:28:35 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: The grammar in the headline quote is really bugging me. I probably need to get out and take a walk.


I think the way it basically work is in British English, a company/corporation is plural as if it was a group of people: "they haven't invented anything." In American English, we view them as a single entity person: "he hasn't invented anything."

It sounds odd, but it makes more sense. Wacky Brits.
 
2012-09-11 03:31:05 PM  

ProfessorOhki: It sounds odd, but it makes more sense. Wacky Brits.


More like Wacky Americans that treat companies as people.
 
2012-09-11 03:33:35 PM  
Uh oh! Better make extra copies of the butt-hurt form for the fanbois!
 
2012-09-11 03:36:33 PM  

Mugato: but the Cylon you pictured is clearly from the original series.


The pic is from the Mini-Series in which the Colonial officer is waiting at Armistice Station reviewing historical documents from the First Cylon War, and thus the older model Centurion. It was done as an homage to the first series.

/Wow, I used to laugh at people who could quote Chapter and verse from Star Trek and Star Wars, and look me now.
 
2012-09-11 03:37:54 PM  
Uh, no shiat, Sherlock.
 
2012-09-11 03:39:09 PM  
Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.
 
2012-09-11 03:39:56 PM  

Ennuipoet: Mugato: You misspelled "1980".

I don't recall the Original Incarnation having rounded corners. Plus, unless you are referring to the Abomination that was Battlestar Galactica 1980 (unclean!) then it was 1978.

/NERD FIGHT!


The original was shiat, too. It was just slightly less shiatty than Galactica '80. "Tune in next week for the next episode of Mormans In Space!!!!!"
 
2012-09-11 03:41:10 PM  

ProfessorOhki: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: The grammar in the headline quote is really bugging me. I probably need to get out and take a walk.

I think the way it basically work is in British English, a company/corporation is plural as if it was a group of people: "they haven't invented anything." In American English, we view them as a single entity person: "he hasn't invented anything."

It sounds odd, but it makes more sense. Wacky Brits.


Yeah. As I implied, it depends on how you regard "Apple", as either singular or plural. It's right up along the lines of how "Please do the needful" is proper, if archaic, English.
 
2012-09-11 03:42:07 PM  
img1.fark.net
 
2012-09-11 03:50:28 PM  

rocky_howard: ProfessorOhki: It sounds odd, but it makes more sense. Wacky Brits.

More like Wacky Americans that treat companies as people.


Its less a matter of treating a company as a person than as a singular entity and not a group of people.

that said. if you generalize enough no one invents anything then. So there are equal parts "duh" and "derp" to what he said. Apple is just good at marketing the result

and marketing matters.
 
2012-09-11 03:59:11 PM  

Mugato: Ennuipoet: Mugato: You misspelled "1980".

I don't recall the Original Incarnation having rounded corners. Plus, unless you are referring to the Abomination that was Battlestar Galactica 1980 (unclean!) then it was 1978.

/NERD FIGHT!

Hmm. You're right about the date, but the Cylon you pictured is clearly from the original series.

1980 1978

[byyourcommand.net image 770x499]

2003

[bp0.blogger.com image 365x377]

or if you prefer

[static.tvguide.com image 300x385]



I don't get it. Why does everyone insist that she is somehow sexy?
And those new Cylons, while not the worst possible design, suffer from
horrible, horrible animation.

Katee Sackhoff, though, well.. I'd dive facefirst into her cockpit, boy, I would. woof.

What were we talking about again? Oh right. Apfel. Who gives a fark?
 
2012-09-11 03:59:21 PM  
Congratulations Subby, that straw man has been beaten into mulch.
 
2012-09-11 04:04:54 PM  

bingethinker: Congratulations Subby, that straw man has been beaten into mulch.


Aww. He mad.
 
2012-09-11 04:07:42 PM  
Can we trust a man who doesn't know how to properly use "haven't" and "hasn't"??
 
2012-09-11 04:11:51 PM  
I'll say it beofre and I'll say it again. The Patent system is badly broken and while there are no quick fixes there are three things we could do tomorrow that would make things VASTLY better:

1) Reduce the time for tech patents to 5 years or less. 20 years is an absurd amount of time to hold a patent on anything tech related. 5 years is about two full generations of a product these days, and that's enough

2) Reverse the court decision that allowed the patenting of software code. Software should be protected by copyright, not patents so you can copyright how YOU implement a particular software function, but not the IDEA of that function or its "look and feel"

3) Allow companies to sue patent holders for "lost opportunity" costs if a patent is found to be overly broad or obvious, the companies who were chilled from entering the market because of that patent should be able to sue the holder
 
2012-09-11 04:20:15 PM  

sure haven't: Can we trust a man who doesn't know how to properly use "haven't" and "hasn't"??


It's a British thing. Even when the name of a company or group of people uses a singular noun, it's seen as a reference to several people rather than an individual entity, and thus considered plural as far as verb conjugation is concerned.
 
2012-09-11 04:25:05 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I like the recipe analogy. What it makes me wonder is, I read somewhere that the reason recipes aren't patented is that an expert in the field knows that if you make something out of strawberries, it's going to end up tasting something like strawberries, and there's nothing really non-obvious to an expert about pretty much any recipe. So why wouldn't that same idea apply to things like business process patents, and design patents, and software patents?


An invention is obvious if one or more prior art references teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. In the case of recipes, strawberries are known, milk is known, sugar is known, and freezing while churning is known, so strawberry ice cream involving those things combined would be obvious. Basically, you're always using known materials in a predictable combination and not getting any unexpected results. It would be different if, say, you combined strawberries (known) and duck breast (known) and got a foaming stable hydrocolloid that tastes like mint (wtf?).

Why doesn't that apply to business methods and software? Because there's almost always going to be some element in the claims that isn't known. So it's strawberries+milk+chemical X+churning, and that's not obvious to someone who doesn't know anything about chemical X.

And why doesn't that apply to design patents? Because they're an entirely different animal, more like trade dress. There, the test is whether an ordinary observer would consider the prior art designs and the claimed inventive design substantially similar. The "best" analogy to strawberries would be that if an ordinary person can tell a strawberry and a cherry apart, then the strawberry isn't obvious to someone who knows about cherries. But that's a terribly analogy.
 
2012-09-11 04:29:07 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I like the recipe analogy. What it makes me wonder is, I read somewhere that the reason recipes aren't patented is that an expert in the field knows that if you make something out of strawberries, it's going to end up tasting something like strawberries, and there's nothing really non-obvious to an expert about pretty much any recipe. So why wouldn't that same idea apply to things like business process patents, and design patents, and software patents?


Because enforcement of the "non-obvious" part of the patent requires somewhat intimate knowledge of the topic at hand. With regard to design and software patents, that's not always possible as most people with intimate knowledge will be working in the field either creating or actively promoting such patents.

Patents have come a long way since the days of "hey, I figured out how to tie two wires together" and it takes more and more education and working knowledge to understand the inventions of today; something the patent office is not up to the task of.
 
2012-09-11 04:31:41 PM  

gunther_bumpass: I don't get it. Why does everyone insist that she is somehow sexy?


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-11 04:33:15 PM  

Magorn: I'll say it beofre and I'll say it again. The Patent system is badly broken and while there are no quick fixes there are three things we could do tomorrow that would make things VASTLY better:

1) Reduce the time for tech patents to 5 years or less. 20 years is an absurd amount of time to hold a patent on anything tech related. 5 years is about two full generations of a product these days, and that's enough


a) Is this retroactive, or just for future patents?
b) What about examination delays - are you proposing 5 years from issue?
c) Should every industry have its own, unique patent duration? Like 5 years for "anything tech related" but 20 years for pharma? What about the automotive industry? What about toys? What about textiles? And should "tech related" be such a broad brush? What about operating systems vs. video games vs. machine vision vs. telecommunications algorithms? 5 years each, or different for each?

2) Reverse the court decision that allowed the patenting of software code. Software should be protected by copyright, not patents so you can copyright how YOU implement a particular software function, but not the IDEA of that function or its "look and feel"

And since there are thousands of ways to write code, you may have addressed piracy but have failed to address infringing competitors. So, as a result, each company would (a) happily steal from little inventors and indie developers, and (b) move everything to hosted services with locked down code and license agreements, and rely on trade secrets and contracts for protection... resulting in such protection lasting a lot longer than a mere 20 year patent term.
I'm not sure this is a good result for consumers.

3) Allow companies to sue patent holders for "lost opportunity" costs if a patent is found to be overly broad or obvious, the companies who were chilled from entering the market because of that patent should be able to sue the holder

They can, it's called an action for declaratory judgement. But there's no damages involved, since there's no way that those damages could be foreseeable to a patent holder. So unless you're saying that due process should be thrown out, I don't think you've thought this through.
 
2012-09-11 04:37:16 PM  

Theaetetus: Magorn: I'll say it beofre and I'll say it again. The Patent system is badly broken and while there are no quick fixes there are three things we could do tomorrow that would make things VASTLY better:

1) Reduce the time for tech patents to 5 years or less. 20 years is an absurd amount of time to hold a patent on anything tech related. 5 years is about two full generations of a product these days, and that's enough

a) Is this retroactive, or just for future patents?
b) What about examination delays - are you proposing 5 years from issue?
c) Should every industry have its own, unique patent duration? Like 5 years for "anything tech related" but 20 years for pharma? What about the automotive industry? What about toys? What about textiles? And should "tech related" be such a broad brush? What about operating systems vs. video games vs. machine vision vs. telecommunications algorithms? 5 years each, or different for each?


I realize you're trying to make the "it'll be so complicated" argument. But can you not at least agree that given the intent of patents, the length of protection should vary depending on the industry, application and product?

2) Reverse the court decision that allowed the patenting of software code. Software should be protected by copyright, not patents so you can copyright how YOU implement a particular software function, but not the IDEA of that function or its "look and feel"

And since there are thousands of ways to write code, you may have addressed piracy but have failed to address infringing competitors. So, as a result, each company would (a) happily steal from little inventors and indie developers, and (b) move everything to hosted services with locked down code and license agreements, and rely on trade secrets and contracts for protection... resulting in such protection lasting a lot longer than a mere 20 year patent term.
I'm not sure this is a good result for consumers.


This is what mostly happens today anyway. I'm unfamiliar with the numbers but my gut guess -- and by all means it could be wrong -- is that software patents are more often claimed by large companies against other large companies than used by indie developers to protect their application.
 
2012-09-11 04:42:56 PM  

blahpers: gunther_bumpass: I don't get it. Why does everyone insist that she is somehow sexy?

[i.imgur.com image 500x395]


Ha. good one. No really. OOh. ya got me. -flop-

Seriously though - she's like Ann Coulter in space. I don't get it.
 
2012-09-11 04:49:40 PM  

imgod2u: Theaetetus: Magorn: I'll say it beofre and I'll say it again. The Patent system is badly broken and while there are no quick fixes there are three things we could do tomorrow that would make things VASTLY better:

1) Reduce the time for tech patents to 5 years or less. 20 years is an absurd amount of time to hold a patent on anything tech related. 5 years is about two full generations of a product these days, and that's enough

a) Is this retroactive, or just for future patents?
b) What about examination delays - are you proposing 5 years from issue?
c) Should every industry have its own, unique patent duration? Like 5 years for "anything tech related" but 20 years for pharma? What about the automotive industry? What about toys? What about textiles? And should "tech related" be such a broad brush? What about operating systems vs. video games vs. machine vision vs. telecommunications algorithms? 5 years each, or different for each?

I realize you're trying to make the "it'll be so complicated" argument. But can you not at least agree that given the intent of patents, the length of protection should vary depending on the industry, application and product?


Not at all. To paraphrase Judge Easterbrook, there's no "law of the horse". We don't have a separate tort law for torts committed in cars as opposed to torts on horseback, or torts committed while facing north, or torts committed on Tuesdays, because (i) the law is supposed to be efficient and pragmatic, and requiring different statutes or case law for every situation or industry would balloon it out to the point where no one could reasonably understand it (see, e.g. taxes); and (ii) listing protections that depend on industry would inherently create the potential argument that any new invention is actually a new, un-listed industry ("sure, it's 5 years on operating systems, but this is actually a hyper-parallel device subcomponent management method, so I should get the full 20 years as a new industry with no known life cycle").

It's also why, for example, 35 USC 101 lists the categories of "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereon" rather than "food, toy, medical device, vehicle, textile, chemical, transmitter, refrigerator, etc." Congress knew that, since you're talking about inventions, there's no way that you could reasonably specify narrow categories years in advance, because we have no idea what will be invented. Could someone in 1820 have predicted airplanes? Could someone in 1920 have predicted iPhones? Could someone in 1960 have predicted multiple virtual machines sharing the same physical hardware?

Legal systems need to be pragmatic. That's why you get a single drinking age, or a single driving age, even though individuals may have vastly different capabilities. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a better and more efficient system than requiring individual multi-year court cases for every person wanting a drink... or every inventor applying for a patent.

2) Reverse the court decision that allowed the patenting of software code. Software should be protected by copyright, not patents so you can copyright how YOU implement a particular software function, but not the IDEA of that function or its "look and feel"

And since there are thousands of ways to write code, you may have addressed piracy but have failed to address infringing competitors. So, as a result, each company would (a) happily steal from little inventors and indie developers, and (b) move everything to hosted services with locked down code and license agreements, and rely on trade secrets and contracts for protection... resulting in such protection lasting a lot longer than a mere 20 year patent term.
I'm not sure this is a good result for consumers.

This is what mostly happens today anyway. I'm unfamiliar with the numbers but my gut guess -- and by all means it could be wrong -- is that software patents are more often claimed by large companies against other large companies than used by indie developers to protect their application.


Tell that to Microsoft, if they have any time between writing checks to i4i. ;)
But no - indie developers with good IP protection usually sell to the big companies. Like the inventors of multitouch gestures at Fingerworks who sold to Apple.
 
2012-09-11 04:49:53 PM  

justtray: Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.


The term "patent" isn't even in TFA. But keep screaming at that wall...
 
2012-09-11 04:54:54 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: justtray: Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.

The term "patent" isn't even in TFA. But keep screaming at that wall...


Oh, come on... It's an article about whether Apple has invented anything and what it means to "invent", and it talks about the recent Samsung-Apple case, which was 90% on patents. Are you really telling us that you think discussing patents is off topic?
 
2012-09-11 05:04:35 PM  

cyberspacedout: sure haven't: Can we trust a man who doesn't know how to properly use "haven't" and "hasn't"??

It's a British thing. Even when the name of a company or group of people uses a singular noun, it's seen as a reference to several people rather than an individual entity, and thus considered plural as far as verb conjugation is concerned.


Interesting, didn't actually know that.

Those Brits are just way out there eh.
 
2012-09-11 05:13:02 PM  

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: justtray: Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.

The term "patent" isn't even in TFA. But keep screaming at that wall...

Oh, come on... It's an article about whether Apple has invented anything and what it means to "invent", and it talks about the recent Samsung-Apple case, which was 90% on patents. Are you really telling us that you think discussing patents is off topic?


I figured you of all people would appreciate such pendantry.

In any event, who the fark was he responding to? All two of the posts upthread from him that mentioned it?
 
2012-09-11 05:13:39 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I figured you of all people would appreciate such pendantry.


I mis-splort pedantry.
 
2012-09-11 05:14:20 PM  
Hey! Having not invented anything that they are making bank on is google's mantra!
 
2012-09-11 05:33:11 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: justtray: Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.

The term "patent" isn't even in TFA. But keep screaming at that wall...

Oh, come on... It's an article about whether Apple has invented anything and what it means to "invent", and it talks about the recent Samsung-Apple case, which was 90% on patents. Are you really telling us that you think discussing patents is off topic?

I figured you of all people would appreciate such pendantry.

In any event, who the fark was he responding to? All two of the posts upthread from him that mentioned it?


Fair 'nuff.
 
2012-09-11 05:48:23 PM  

Theaetetus: Not at all. To paraphrase Judge Easterbrook, there's no "law of the horse". We don't have a separate tort law for torts committed in cars as opposed to torts on horseback, or torts committed while facing north, or torts committed on Tuesdays, because (i) the law is supposed to be efficient and pragmatic, and requiring different statutes or case law for every situation or industry would balloon it out to the point where no one could reasonably understand it (see, e.g. taxes); and (ii) listing protections that depend on industry would inherently create the potential argument that any new invention is actually a new, un-listed industry ("sure, it's 5 years on operating systems, but this is actually a hyper-parallel device subcomponent management method, so I should get the full 20 years as a new industry wi ...


You didn't answer my question. I did not ask whether laws enacted to enforce such a principle would be pragmatic; I asked whether you agreed with the principle that not all patents across different industries, applications, etc. are equal. Whether or not it's pragmatic to create laws that try to enforce along such granularity is an entirely different argument. Although your quoted hyperbole isn't exactly convincing. Following that logic, we shouldn't have different laws for, say, degrees of murder either because "it'd be too complicated!"

Legal systems need to be pragmatic. That's why you get a single drinking age, or a single driving age, even though individuals may have vastly different capabilities. It's not perfect, but it's certainly a better and more efficient system than requiring individual multi-year court cases for every person wanting a drink... or every inventor applying for a patent.

Except you don't have a single drinking age or single driving age in the US....

And plenty of laws vary depending on circumstance....

And again, you're throwing out hyperbole. Just because someone argues against a single, ultimate patent length doesn't mean they want a different patent length for every single patent. There are infinitely different levels of granularity in between and not all of them are non-pragmatic.

Tell that to Microsoft, if they have any time between writing checks to i4i. ;)
But no - indie developers with good IP protection usually sell to the big companies. Like the inventors of multitouch gestures at Fingerworks who sold to Apple.


You've listed 2 anecdotal examples. Again, I claimed I didn't know the numbers. But this is almost entirely a case where wholely statistical numbers are needed. How often are patents used and helpful to indie developers vs large corporations in both number of suits and in $$ amount? That'll give us an idea of how helpful vs harmful software patents really are on the whole. Using anecdotal examples of how the poor wee developer here or there gained an upper hand is at best political slight-of-hand.
 
2012-09-11 06:04:27 PM  

Nadie_AZ: But then Xerox made a prototype,
Steve Jobs came on the scene,
read "Of Mice and Menus," Windows, Icons
a trash, and a bitmap screen.

Well Stevie said to Xerox,
"Boys, turn your heads and cough."
And when no-one was looking,
he ripped their interfaces off.

Stole every feature that he had seen,
put it in a cute box with a tiny little screen,
Mac OS 1 ran that machine,
only cost five thousand bucks.


But it was slow, it was buggy,
so they wrote it again,
And now they're up to OS 10,
they'll charge you for the Beta, then charge you again,
but the Mac OS still sucks.

/Every OS Sucks, by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie
//My favourite. I even paid real money for my copy of the video,
 
2012-09-11 06:20:02 PM  

rocky_howard: ProfessorOhki: It sounds odd, but it makes more sense. Wacky Brits.

More like Wacky Americans that treat companies as people.


I'm sorry, but "Microsoft is evil" sounds a lot better on the ears than "Microsoft are evil".

Microsoft might not be a person, but it is an entity and it's strange to treat it like a plural noun. It makes you sound like Bizzaro.
 
2012-09-11 06:58:30 PM  

Magorn: 2) Reverse the court decision that allowed the patenting of software code. Software should be protected by copyright, not patents so you can copyright how YOU implement a particular software function, but not the IDEA of that function or its "look and feel"


What happens if you and your competitor write your code in a different way but the compiler optimizes them into the same binary?
 
2012-09-11 07:48:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Rounding the corners off of rectangles in just the right way sounds pretty innovative to me.


Innovative and inventive are two different words. The article basically describes apple as masters of innovation but not inventors. And he is 100% accurate.

They did not have the first computer
They did not have the first phone (or even smart phone)
They did not have the first portable music player
They did not have the first web streaming service
They did not have the first hand-held computer
They did not have the first "All-in-one" computer
They did not have the first laptop

Point is. They had successes in all of the above markets. However, it was due to their innovation and not invention.
 
2012-09-11 07:49:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Rounding the corners off of rectangles in just the right way sounds pretty innovative to me.


And SOB I read your innovative as inventive and ranted :)
 
2012-09-11 07:58:54 PM  

Kazrath: Innovative and inventive are two different words. The article basically describes apple as masters of innovation but not inventors. And he is 100% accurate.


That's not true. Apple 'innovated' this piece of crap:
cdn-static.cnet.co.uk

I'm not letting them off that easy.
 
2012-09-11 08:12:49 PM  
Is Jean-Louis Gassee still sad that 1990s Apple picked NeXT and Steve Jobs instead of Be and Jean-Louis Gassee to save Apple? Because I can see how he might take a dim view of all that Apple has done since then.
 
2012-09-11 08:16:52 PM  

abhorrent1: fan


Whew! I was wondering when Fark would greenlight an Israel-bashing thread. After all, it's been at least a day or two.

Oh...this is an Apple-bashing thread? My bad.,,sorry. Carry on!
 
2012-09-11 08:18:09 PM  
WTF? Somehow I the whole thing.
 
2012-09-11 08:51:05 PM  
Duh, and according to HTC they aren't introducing anything once they file their lawsuits.
 
2012-09-11 09:20:20 PM  
Theaetetus:And since there are thousands of ways to write code, you may have addressed piracy but have failed to address infringing competitors. So, as a result, each company would (a) happily steal from little inventors and indie developers, and (b) move everything to hosted services with locked down code and license agreements, and rely on trade secrets and contracts for protection... resulting in such protection lasting a lot longer than a mere 20 year patent term.
I'm not sure this is a good result for consumers.

Umm, this is what happens now. The trade secrets would be the source code. With the exception of open source companies (who for the most part aren't patenting everything), source code is very closely guarded. There is no 'disclosure-for-the-common-good' type of thing going on in the software world. On top of that, most of the well known patented stuff is only safe to develop for under NDA and kept hidden and licensed for protection. As an example, ActiveSync: Even open source companies that deal with it, have to keep that part closed source, due to licensing agreements.
 
2012-09-11 09:38:39 PM  

gunther_bumpass: blahpers: gunther_bumpass: I don't get it. Why does everyone insist that she is somehow sexy?

[i.imgur.com image 500x395]

Ha. good one. No really. OOh. ya got me. -flop-

Seriously though - she's like Ann Coulter in space. I don't get it.


She seems attractive enough to me. Still, de gustibus non est disputandum.
 
2012-09-11 10:15:21 PM  

gunther_bumpass: I don't get it. Why does everyone insist that she is somehow sexy?


Well I have to assume you are trolling because I would stab you in the eye to get to that female
 
2012-09-12 12:03:07 AM  

sure haven't: cyberspacedout: sure haven't: Can we trust a man who doesn't know how to properly use "haven't" and "hasn't"??

It's a British thing. Even when the name of a company or group of people uses a singular noun, it's seen as a reference to several people rather than an individual entity, and thus considered plural as far as verb conjugation is concerned.

Interesting, didn't actually know that.

Those Brits are just way out there eh.


Yeah, took me a while to figure it out, the first few times when I saw its use. Apparently this concept of notional agreement just isn't as popular in American English, but we still have a word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesis
 
2012-09-12 12:13:49 AM  
BeOS was nice. Lot's of spinning tea pots, rabid fan base.
 
2012-09-12 12:43:15 AM  
i486.photobucket.com
Dillon Aero didn't invent the gun.
 
2012-09-12 12:43:47 AM  
uh. multiple colors via phase shift IS a clear and clever invention.
 
2012-09-12 04:43:13 AM  

justtray: Patent law is confusing. It's not surprising so many uneducated youths get so upset about it's application.


totaly wrong.
As I was young and uneducated, like 10 years old, I used to think " patent are sweet, I can invent something, ... ? ... , PROFIT"
Then I got older, actually invented things, and discovered that patents cost a lot of money, a lot of time, and in the end, are only as good as your lawyer and as long as you can pay them.

Basicaly, if you don'tn have like 100 000 you can loose without blinking on a project, don't take a patent.
 
2012-09-12 04:57:53 AM  

sure haven't: cyberspacedout: sure haven't: Can we trust a man who doesn't know how to properly use "haven't" and "hasn't"??

It's a British thing. Even when the name of a company or group of people uses a singular noun, it's seen as a reference to several people rather than an individual entity, and thus considered plural as far as verb conjugation is concerned.

Interesting, didn't actually know that.

Those Brits are just way out there eh. innit


There, fixed that for you old chap. Unless you happen to be Canadian in which case I offer my sincerest apologies.
 
2012-09-12 10:49:38 AM  

Theaetetus: law of the horse


Indeed. But we already do have a spearate patent regieme for say, drugs than we do for mechanical inventions. you only can patent drugs for 10 years and then they belong to the public domain. Why? because the utility of drugs is deemed to be too great to allow them to be locked away with one manufacturer for more than a decade, and 10 years of exclusive sales is deemed to be enough to reward innovation.

Since the very purposes of having the government grant patents in the first place is to ""To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it seems that almost by necessity, the terms and protections of the patents can and must vary by industry and area of science.

It would not be an excessively difficult thing to assemble experts from each industry to advise the government of the nature and shape of a patent scheme that would work best for that industry. Does it make any sense at all to you that current Internet giants can be sued by tiny companies that exist solely for the prupose of buying up moribund patents from defunct companies and trying to squeeze money out of them. Should British tlecom really be able to enfore a patent it got on hyperlinking in 1990 against the entire World Wide Web which has never heard of , or in any way benefitted from thier patent?
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report