Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4263 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 26 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report