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.

(Apple Insider)   Apple patents time machine; Woz to return to 1974, give Bill Gates atomic wedgie   (appleinsider.com) divider line 121
    More: Obvious, gates, Mac OS, first-to-file, rewriting, word processors, chronologies, OS X, plain  
•       •       •

10447 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2012 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-13 09:46:21 AM
So they patented an automatic "Save As" function?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-13 09:46:26 AM
It reads like a clumsier version of VMS file version numbers. Or maybe the archival filesystem from Plan 9, which was for version control an inferior alternative to the Apollo filesystem that later became ClearCase.
 
2012-11-13 09:50:27 AM
Safety not guaranteed.
 
2012-11-13 10:08:05 AM

ZAZ: It reads like a clumsier version of VMS file version numbers.


Unpossible. VMS was the height, the pinnacle, of clumsiness. Nothing could come close, let alone exceed it.

/unless you went on to use AOS/VS II, like I did
 
2012-11-13 10:16:48 AM

ZAZ: It reads like a clumsier version of VMS file version numbers


Wow that takes me back. Took assembly in college on a VAX.
 
2012-11-13 12:47:41 PM
GOTTA GO BACK IN TIIIIIIIIIIME

geektyrant.com
 
2012-11-13 12:48:01 PM
The laws of physics states that a time machine cannot go back in time any further than the date it was turned on.
 
2012-11-13 12:48:52 PM
GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.
 
2012-11-13 12:49:20 PM
Time Machine is pretty great. Not only does it continually back your computer, you can go back in time to get previous versions of files. And it's wireless. When I get home from work, my laptop recognizes my home network and launches a TM back up of all that has changed since I left that morning.
 
2012-11-13 12:50:21 PM

basemetal: Safety not guaranteed.


Have you done this before? How many times?
 
2012-11-13 12:51:10 PM
1. A method comprising: initiating a backup operation of data including determining that a plurality of items to be included in the backup operation are related items, using one or more processors, where related items are items that require a particular relationship between each other in order to execute a function; monitoring the plurality of related items for modifications occurring to one or more items of the plurality of related items during the backup operation including receiving notification of file system changes and determining whether a file system change occurred to one or more items of the plurality of related items; completing the backup operation including backing up the modified one or more related items; and when a modification occurred to one or more related items, the completing the backup operation includes performing a second backup operation for the one or more modified items of the plurality of related items, wherein the second backup operation includes replacing the modified one or more related items backed up during the backup operation with versions of the modified one or more related items that existed when the backup operation was initiated.

The claim, for those too lazy to look it up and assume an article summarizing the summary is whats patented.
 
2012-11-13 12:51:18 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.


[Citation needed]

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Because angry swears and yelling are much more persuasive, amirite?
 
2012-11-13 12:52:33 PM

hammer85: 1. A method comprising:
     initiating a backup operation of data including determining that a plurality of items to be included in the backup operation are related items, using one or more processors, where related items are items that require a particular relationship between each other in order to execute a function;
     monitoring the plurality of related items for modifications occurring to one or more items of the plurality of related items during the backup operation including receiving notification of file system changes and determining whether a file system change occurred to one or more items of the plurality of related items;
     completing the backup operation including backing up the modified one or more related items; and
     when a modification occurred to one or more related items, the completing the backup operation includes performing a second backup operation for the one or more modified items of the plurality of related items, wherein the second backup operation includes replacing the modified one or more related items backed up during the backup operation with versions of the modified one or more related items that existed when the backup operation was initiated.


More readable.
 
2012-11-13 12:52:47 PM
Woz is too nice to give wedgies. He'd most likely just run up Bill's long distance phone costs.
 
2012-11-13 12:54:23 PM
Interestingly, while the Time Machine moniker was not yet introduced to the public at the time of the patent's filing, the invention does use the term "time machine" when it refers to the consistent backup system.

Not that interesting, actually.
 
2012-11-13 12:54:30 PM
Oh good, I'll be ready for the US Festival in a few years.
 
2012-11-13 12:56:34 PM
Going back in time to give Bill Gates an atomic wedgie sounds like a perfectly cromulent use of a time machine to me. Not an abuse of great power at all. A very responsible use of great power, in fact. Superman probably wishes he had thought of it first.

Personally, I'd go back and get my name on Richard Nixon's Enemies List. That's on my Time Machine Bucket List. The greatest honour, if not of all history, at least of 1968-1974, well, in the USA perhaps.

I'd also like to have the patent on the paperclip. Think of it. A royalty on every paperclip used in history. There's no telling what introducing the paperclip to Augustan England or pre-Revolutionary France might accomplish. Valuable papers would be kept organized and safe from blowing away all through history if you introduced it early enough.

What would Rome have become with the paper clip? Would Greek democracy have survived much longer if they could clip pieces of paper together. I was thinking it might be used for holding votes together but that's a crazy idea. Voting with pieces of paper! You'd have to be insane. Bits of broken pottery, that's the ticket! You can't forge a piece of broken pottery. If the pieces don't fit, they didn't come from the same urn.
 
2012-11-13 12:56:35 PM

StrikitRich: Woz is too nice to give wedgies. He'd most likely just run up Bill's long distance phone costs.


He'd probably also avoid Steve Jobs after the shiat he did to the Woz
 
2012-11-13 12:56:38 PM
1. Go back in time.
2. Tell Steve Jobs that holistic medicine doesn't work
 
2012-11-13 12:57:01 PM
Watch out H.G. Wells... You are now in Apples sights to be suited for patent infringement.
 
2012-11-13 12:57:17 PM
Actually, that claim's kinda quirky. Do a backup operation, and if you notice that one of the items changes during backup, you then do a second backup operation replacing the changed item with a previous version. Almost like backup a file; notice a change occurred to a file during back; and roll back the backup for that second file.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-13 12:57:26 PM
determining that a plurality of items to be included in the backup operation are related items

So it's different from VMS (1970s) because VMS implicitly assumes your entire document is in one file.
 
2012-11-13 12:58:46 PM
Time magazine has been by Apple lawyers, along with Rage Against the Machine.

My alarm clock is called "Time Machine" better scratch that out before the boys in shiny white plastic come knocking.
 
2012-11-13 12:59:23 PM
1.- Go back in time to 1999
2.- Tell myself to get off your farking ass and study you lazy piece of shiat!
3.- Also, maybe prevent 9/11, just avoid all the fun stuff that's going on right now
 
2012-11-13 01:02:34 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.


Ah, Trolly, calm down now. And when you do, come back and tell us what equivalent Windows has? (Let's make it easier for you: nothing). Is Time Machine unique? No. Is it a lifesaver? You bet it is. It's saved my butt a couple of times.
 
2012-11-13 01:03:20 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.


While I agree with you in principle, the truth is there is nothing out there today like the Time Machine on apple's OSXes.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-13 01:04:21 PM
The grouped file part is functionally the same as a cron job that applies a branch tag each night, which is 1980s rather than 1970s technology. Perhaps it is legally considered "innovative" because the new method has round corners. Definitely less sharp edges for users to hurt themselves with.

Cron+SCCS tag might even be 1970s, but you need the versioning filesystem to make it work like time machine. That's late 1980s or early 1990s (Apollo, ClearCase, Plan 9).

At a previous job one of the rules the boss had for picking a version control system was atomic updates. If it allowed two parts of the "same" thing to be seen with inconsistent versions, he wouldn't let us use it.
 
2012-11-13 01:04:56 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

[Citation needed]

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Because angry swears and yelling are much more persuasive, amirite?


Welcome to Fark.tm

Anyone who has any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman can see it for what it is.

Besides, picking each of these ridiculous things apart is akin to trying to fight the political tactic of telling so many lies that your opponent can't possibly keep up.

The system as a whole is broken.

hammer85: 1. A method comprising: initiating a backup operation of data including determining that a plurality of items to be included in the backup operation are related items, using one or more processors, where related items are items that require a particular relationship between each other in order to execute a function; monitoring the plurality of related items for modifications occurring to one or more items of the plurality of related items during the backup operation including receiving notification of file system changes and determining whether a file system change occurred to one or more items of the plurality of related items; completing the backup operation including backing up the modified one or more related items; and when a modification occurred to one or more related items, the completing the backup operation includes performing a second backup operation for the one or more modified items of the plurality of related items, wherein the second backup operation includes replacing the modified one or more related items backed up during the backup operation with versions of the modified one or more related items that existed when the backup operation was initiated.

The claim, for those too lazy to look it up and assume an article summarizing the summary is whats patented.


Point out the innovative part. At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".
 
2012-11-13 01:05:32 PM

JackieRabbit: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Ah, Trolly, calm down now. And when you do, come back and tell us what equivalent Windows has? (Let's make it easier for you: nothing). Is Time Machine unique? No. Is it a lifesaver? You bet it is. It's saved my butt a couple of times.


I've got a sizable media library that I used to use RAID mirrored drives for, but now I just have a main drive and a time machine backup... it's easier to rebuild, and if a file gets corrupted but the drive doesn't crash, such corruption isn't mirrored and I can just roll back to the pre-corrupted version.
 
2012-11-13 01:05:49 PM
Is this worth patenting? Unless you're patenting the *idea* of incremental backups, which I think would be a pretty tough sell, it just seems like a case where you say, "Oh, that method is patented? We'll do it this way instead", for a million different varieties of "this".
 
2012-11-13 01:06:49 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Anyone who has any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman can see it for what it is.


SacriliciousBeerSwiller: At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".


So, since that's not what it is, you don't have any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman? Fair enough, and farky'd as such.
 
2012-11-13 01:07:18 PM
System Restore Time Machine pat. pend. = Profit
 
2012-11-13 01:08:20 PM
morphemedictionary.com

/oblig
 
2012-11-13 01:08:23 PM
Hold on, I forgot the crystals.
 
2012-11-13 01:09:46 PM

you have pee hands: Is this worth patenting? Unless you're patenting the *idea* of incremental backups, which I think would be a pretty tough sell, it just seems like a case where you say, "Oh, that method is patented? We'll do it this way instead", for a million different varieties of "this".


The patent (i) prevents others from directly copying you, and if you believe that your method is superior/more efficient/easier then making them perform inefficient methods is valuable, and (ii) prevents others from getting a patent covering your technology and trying to prevent you from using your system.
But yeah, design arounds are always an option, and a good one that should be encouraged.
 
2012-11-13 01:12:18 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

[Citation needed]

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Because angry swears and yelling are much more persuasive, amirite?

Welcome to Fark.tm

Anyone who has any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman can see it for what it is.

Besides, picking each of these ridiculous things apart is akin to trying to fight the political tactic of telling so many lies that your opponent can't possibly keep up.

The system as a whole is broken.

hammer85: 1. A method comprising: initiating a backup operation of data including determining that a plurality of items to be included in the backup operation are related items, using one or more processors, where related items are items that require a particular relationship between each other in order to execute a function; monitoring the plurality of related items for modifications occurring to one or more items of the plurality of related items during the backup operation including receiving notification of file system changes and determining whether a file system change occurred to one or more items of the plurality of related items; completing the backup operation including backing up the modified one or more related items; and when a modification occurred to one or more related items, the completing the backup operation includes performing a second backup operation for the one or more modified items of the plurality of related items, wherein the second backup operation includes replacing the modified one or more related items backed up during the backup operation with versions of the modified one or more related items that existed when the backup operation was initiated.

The claim, for those too lazy to look it up and assume an article summarizing the summary is whats patented.

Point out the innovative part. At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".


The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim
 
2012-11-13 01:12:34 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Anyone who has any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman can see it for what it is.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".

So, since that's not what it is, you don't have any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman? Fair enough, and farky'd as such.


Coming from the self-professed iFanboy guy who defended the "rounded corners" patent as "very specific".

Please, tell me, in your own words, what the patent says, since it's not ultimately about backing up relevant data. I'll wait for your entirely non-pedantic answer.
 
2012-11-13 01:13:19 PM
My question *as a layman* is, would disallowing these types of patents really hurt innovation?

Seems to me if we don't allow ourselves to stand upon e/o shoulders a bit, we are in-fact....not helping.
 
2012-11-13 01:13:54 PM

hammer85: The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim


I said point out the innovation. Combining peanut butter and jelly isn't innovation.
 
2012-11-13 01:14:20 PM
Um, isn't backing up your hard drive automatically so you can go back to different versions of your files what those external back-up drives are for? Don't they pretty much do the whole job provided you set them that way? I know I haven't be using mine that way because it slows my laptop to a crawl when I want to watch a movie or TV show, but that's the theory, right? Real time backup of all the file types you select, recoverable for each time period you select to back-up.

Of course, it would take a lot of power to back-up absolutely every second--a lot of editors I know back things up manually with every document change of any importance whatsoever. And years and years ago, back in the 1990s, I used something which allowed multiple editors to work simultaneously on a file with all of their edits saved and available for compiling and approval by a master editor. It was called "group ware", I believe. All of this hardware and software seems to have a built-in "time machine" function of some sort.

Is Apple taking a patent out on the wheel? the gear? the pulley? the lever?

They seem to be patent-prone. They took a patent out on the rectangle and the bevelled edge, apparently. The lawsuits have been many and costly to date, and I predict that in some future time, an Android phone is going to come back from the future and try to kill the Beatles to prevent Apple from being born.

That would make a great movie.
 
2012-11-13 01:14:31 PM

EdNortonsTwin: My question *as a layman* is, would disallowing these types of patents really hurt innovation?

Seems to me if we don't allow ourselves to stand upon e/o shoulders a bit, we are in-fact....not helping.


Lawyers gotta eat.
 
2012-11-13 01:16:04 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

/would like a word...
 
2012-11-13 01:19:05 PM
A great story relevant to the subject at hand: "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson.

The "elephants never forget" meme is the source of the title, I assume.

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

I have read many of Spider Robinson's campier SF stories but I am impressed what he can write when he is being serious and not laying on the corn. Not that there is anything wrong with corn. Mmmmm ... corn. Tasty niblets of camp, comedy and satire.
 
2012-11-13 01:21:31 PM

hammer85: SacriliciousBeerSwiller:Point out the innovative part. At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".

The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim


Also, you're answer to "point out the innovation" is basically "it's a patent thus it's innovative"? Logical fallacy much?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-13 01:21:55 PM
brantgoose

A modern document may have several components: the style, the main body, a bunch of images, etc. Suppose you're writing a report.

Original: photo of a monkey with caption "primitive hominid"

New: photo of President Obama with caption "leader of Free World."

It would be highly embarrassing, at least, if you exchanged text and caption. But the backup could happen in between saving the new text into one file and saving the new photo into another. The patent has the document editor write metadata the backup software can read telling it not to save the new caption unless it also saves the new photo.
 
2012-11-13 01:22:08 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: hammer85: SacriliciousBeerSwiller:Point out the innovative part. At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".

The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim

Also, you're your answer to "point out the innovation" is basically "it's a patent thus it's innovative"? Logical fallacy much?


FTFMDA.
 
2012-11-13 01:22:35 PM
what the deuce
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-13 01:24:18 PM
Previous should read "exchanged photo and caption".
 
2012-11-13 01:28:08 PM
can he go back and instead fix the glitches with IOS6 (especially around Home Share)?

'cause that would be nice
 
2012-11-13 01:29:06 PM

KingKauff: The laws of physics states that a time machine cannot go back in time any further than the date it was turned on.


And of course the most interesting place to visit is the exact time the machine was turned on. Thus the whole of history comes to visit and causes a total collapse of space-time.

Maybe.

Look, I read it in a comic book so it must be true!
 
2012-11-13 01:30:15 PM
I wonder how long it'll be before Apple just stops making software entirely and focuses only on defending its patents?
 
2012-11-13 01:34:03 PM
A restore function? Hasn't this been around since forever?
 
2012-11-13 01:34:13 PM
On the one hand, they just patented git/svn/your favorite repo.

On the other hand, Time Machine is pretty damn slick. I've got it backing up to my Ubuntu server.
 
2012-11-13 01:37:25 PM
BORING as hell !
 
2012-11-13 01:39:56 PM

Sim Tree: basemetal: Safety not guaranteed.

Have you done this before? How many times?


Do I still have to bring my own weapons?
 
2012-11-13 01:41:25 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Anyone who has any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman can see it for what it is.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".

So, since that's not what it is, you don't have any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman? Fair enough, and farky'd as such.

Coming from the self-professed iFanboy guy


Beg pardon? Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

who defended the "rounded corners" patent as "very specific".

Actually, I believe I defended design patents in general as being "very specific," because, you know, they are. They cover exactly what's shown in the drawings and any imperceptible variations. That's pretty darn specific.
The "rounded corners" patent, as you like to call it, is very specific - it covers exactly what's illustrated, no more, no less. And that's not just "rounded corners", but very specific rounding and curvature ratios, as well as all of the other features shown in the patent.

Sorry, bucky, but just because someone says your interpretation of the law is incorrect doesn't suddenly make them an "iFanboy," whatever you think that is.

Please, tell me, in your own words, what the patent says, since it's not ultimately about backing up relevant data. I'll wait for your entirely non-pedantic answer.

I think I already have. Perhaps your not-even-layman's knowledge of computers means you can't use a scroll bar either?
 
2012-11-13 01:42:37 PM
If it's not Patent #1...it's not a time machine.
 
2012-11-13 01:42:41 PM

This text is now purple: 1. Go back in time.
2. Tell Steve Jobs that holistic medicine doesn't work


Having just read his biography, I'm going to guess that #2 would've only make him try more holistic medicine. Facts weren't really relevant to him if they meant he couldn't get something done.
 
2012-11-13 01:43:30 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: hammer85: The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim

I said point out the innovation. Combining peanut butter and jelly isn't innovation.


Show references that describe the "peanut butter" and "jelly" in that claim, even if they're separate. If you can do that, then you can make a good case that it's obvious. But if all you've got is "peanut butter" and you've never heard of "jelly", then a peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn't obvious, by definition.
 
2012-11-13 01:46:38 PM

brantgoose: Um, isn't backing up your hard drive automatically so you can go back to different versions of your files what those external back-up drives are for? Don't they pretty much do the whole job provided you set them that way? I know I haven't be using mine that way because it slows my laptop to a crawl when I want to watch a movie or TV show, but that's the theory, right? Real time backup of all the file types you select, recoverable for each time period you select to back-up.


Yep. But this patent is not claiming that.

Of course, it would take a lot of power to back-up absolutely every second--a lot of editors I know back things up manually with every document change of any importance whatsoever. And years and years ago, back in the 1990s, I used something which allowed multiple editors to work simultaneously on a file with all of their edits saved and available for compiling and approval by a master editor. It was called "group ware", I believe. All of this hardware and software seems to have a built-in "time machine" function of some sort.

Those are commonly referred to as concurrent versioning systems (CVS).

Is Apple taking a patent out on the wheel? the gear? the pulley? the lever?

Nope, no, nyet, and nein. How did you get this impression?

They seem to be patent-prone. They took a patent out on the rectangle and the bevelled edge, apparently.

Ah, that's how. Stop listening to SacriliciousBeerSwiller. As he admitted, he doesn't have any level of formal computer experience beyond that of a layman.
 
2012-11-13 01:47:38 PM
I would go back in time to the 90s and spend every last dime I had on Apple stock.


Then come back to now AND SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL.
 
2012-11-13 01:47:42 PM

brantgoose: Um, isn't backing up your hard drive automatically so you can go back to different versions of your files what those external back-up drives are for?


Actually no. A lot of them work by just dumping the contents to a compressed file of some description. It's up to YOU as the user to figure out your scheduling and version control of those backups. At least this is how most of the traditional backup systems work and indeed the majority of home user software does exactly this.

The Apple 'Time Machine' system is as far as home user suff is concerned a fairly major departure from the norm. Built in versioning, no 'full' vs 'incremental' problems and generally a total turn key back up solution that will for the most part look after itself. I'm not saying bolting CVS to your backup engine is all that innovative though, nifty it might be but not all that innovative.

It should also be noted that this patent was filled in 2006, one year before Time Machine appeared in OS X and it has taken this long to make its way though the system. I think 6 years of waiting and nobody contesting it is sufficient.
 
2012-11-13 01:48:51 PM

brantgoose: A great story relevant to the subject at hand: "Melancholy Elephants" by Spider Robinson.


No relation. That story is about copyright extensions and term limitations. This is about patents. Patent term is unlikely to ever be extended, because, unlike copyright, there's just as much money with interest in having things fall into the public domain.
 
2012-11-13 01:52:17 PM

Vaneshi: It should also be noted that this patent was filled in 2006, one year before Time Machine appeared in OS X and it has taken this long to make its way though the system. I think 6 years of waiting and nobody contesting it is sufficient.


Doesn't work like that, though... It was examined and repeatedly amended to narrow the claims and overcome various prior art rejections from the Examiner. In fact, a quick look on PAIR shows that it was rejected seven times before finally being allowed (a far cry from the "Hurr durr patent office just rubber stamps everything!" claims).
 
2012-11-13 01:55:24 PM

TheTrashcanMan: I would go back in time to the 90s and spend every last dime I had on Apple stock.


Then come back to now AND SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL.


You have a time machine you moron. Why come back to Nov 2012 and sell the stock? A simple look at AAPL's stock since the 90's says you've overshot the current peak by at least TWO WHOLE MONTHS.

Besides which you have no idea if the stock price will peak higher in the future as you've only made two trips: The first to buy the stock and the second to return to Nov 2012.

Are you sure your time machine didn't come from a farking Kinder Egg?
 
2012-11-13 01:58:13 PM

JackieRabbit: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Ah, Trolly, calm down now. And when you do, come back and tell us what equivalent Windows has? (Let's make it easier for you: nothing). Is Time Machine unique? No. Is it a lifesaver? You bet it is. It's saved my butt a couple of times.


Since Vista windows has backup that automatically keeps a last known good image of the system(xp as well) as well as Shadow back up you can creat images with, and windows backup does differential backups of files, so you can restore from previous dates.

Yep it does it.... Sorry to burst your little bubble.

Windows has had utilities you could purchase for years. You can image to a USB drive, thunb, drive or a DVD, dvdr.

Just because you did not know about it, does not mean it is not there.
 
2012-11-13 01:58:42 PM

Theaetetus: Vaneshi: It should also be noted that this patent was filled in 2006, one year before Time Machine appeared in OS X and it has taken this long to make its way though the system. I think 6 years of waiting and nobody contesting it is sufficient.

Doesn't work like that, though... It was examined and repeatedly amended to narrow the claims and overcome various prior art rejections from the Examiner. In fact, a quick look on PAIR shows that it was rejected seven times before finally being allowed (a far cry from the "Hurr durr patent office just rubber stamps everything!" claims).


In that case I revise my statement:

It should be noted that this patent was filed in 2006, one year before Time Machine appeared in OS X and it has taken this long to work its way through the system and be granted. I think 6 years and no outright challenge of prior art invalidating it as a whole is sufficient.
 
2012-11-13 01:58:46 PM
Meh. I don't like Apple nearly as much as the next guy, but this isn't something I have the time or energy to invest in researching just because "someone is wrong on the internet." If the patents do infringe on previous patent-holders, then let their lawyers work it out.
 
2012-11-13 02:02:01 PM

Vaneshi: TheTrashcanMan: I would go back in time to the 90s and spend every last dime I had on Apple stock.


Then come back to now AND SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL.

You have a time machine you moron. Why come back to Nov 2012 and sell the stock? A simple look at AAPL's stock since the 90's says you've overshot the current peak by at least TWO WHOLE MONTHS.

Besides which you have no idea if the stock price will peak higher in the future as you've only made two trips: The first to buy the stock and the second to return to Nov 2012.

Are you sure your time machine didn't come from a farking Kinder Egg?


Good call, come back to Sept. 2012 and then SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL

/if Apple breaks ties with Intel that stock is going to plummet.
 
2012-11-13 02:03:47 PM

theflatline: Since Vista windows has backup that automatically keeps a last known good image of the system(xp as well) as well as Shadow back up you can creat images with, and windows backup does differential backups of files, so you can restore from previous dates.


The equivalent Windows system doesn't, in my experience, actually work.

Still this seems like the sort of engineering problem that has myriad possible different solutions so a patent doesn't give you much of a leg up on the competition, it just keeps you from getting trolled.
 
2012-11-13 02:07:45 PM

theflatline: Windows has had utilities you could purchase for years. You can image to a USB drive, thunb, drive or a DVD, dvdr.

Just because you did not know about it, does not mean it is not there.


Except that isn't what Time Machine does. It writes a ".sparsebundle" directory out and builds the backup from a snapshot of the system when it was first started and hard links to changes made to individual files, at preset intervals (or when space becomes an issue) it starts merging these changes back in to the root version. You can, using the command line I admit, browse around inside the directory quite happily and drag stuff back out manually if you so wish; not something you can easily do with a compressed image.

This is very different from writing what amounts to a tar.gz'd image of the whole file system (or incremental changes made) out to media and not something that has shipped as standard with Windows since XP as you'd intimated.
 
2012-11-13 02:09:42 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.


THIS. A journaling filesystem with snapshots is not innovative.

I will not WAFL on this.
 
2012-11-13 02:11:32 PM

TheTrashcanMan: Good call, come back to Sept. 2012 and then SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL


Better. But you've forgotten to loop back with this cycles earnings to buy more of it on the next trip.

See. Time machine's, for when you absolutely, positively need to break the stock market.
 
2012-11-13 02:14:10 PM

KingKauff: The laws of physics states that a time machine cannot go back in time any further than the date it was turned on.


only given that the time machine itself acts as a time bridge, and not a time vehicle.
 
2012-11-13 02:15:55 PM
Apple patents time machine; Woz to return to 1974, give Bill Gates atomic wedgie

Naw.

He should first punch Steve Jobs in the throat for the years of screwing him over and taking credit for his hard work, and then state "I hope you get cancer and die."

Manical laughter is optional at this point, but expected.
 
2012-11-13 02:15:59 PM

JackieRabbit: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Ah, Trolly, calm down now. And when you do, come back and tell us what equivalent Windows has? (Let's make it easier for you: nothing).

www.mtp-usa.com

Well, that, and any time you run a Windows

Is Time Machine unique? No. Is it a lifesaver? You bet it is. It's saved my butt a couple of times.

It's certainly not unique. As others have pointed out, there are pre-existing filesystems which do versioning. As I understand it, Time Machine is basically a versioning system on a separate drive, with a pretty GUI.

 
2012-11-13 02:18:34 PM

burndtdan: KingKauff: The laws of physics states that a time machine cannot go back in time any further than the date it was turned on.

only given that the time machine itself acts as a time bridge, and not a time vehicle.


That time belongs to everyone. It's this farking entitlement mentality "all the time is mine" that is ruining this country.
 
2012-11-13 02:20:02 PM

Vaneshi: TheTrashcanMan: Good call, come back to Sept. 2012 and then SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL

Better. But you've forgotten to loop back with this cycles earnings to buy more of it on the next trip.

See. Time machine's, for when you absolutely, positively need to break the stock market.


Even better. Go back to 1985, buy all the stock I can. Come back to Sept 2012, sell everything. Take earnings. Go back to 1985 and buy more. Come back to Sept '12 and sell again. Repeat.

/but wouldn't my earnings from my first round be enough to buy out the entire stock in 1985? There for limiting trips back to buy more with earn earnings?
//my brain is starting to hurt.
 
2012-11-13 02:23:45 PM

Vaneshi: TheTrashcanMan: Good call, come back to Sept. 2012 and then SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL

Better. But you've forgotten to loop back with this cycles earnings to buy more of it on the next trip.

See. Time machine's, for when you absolutely, positively need to break the stock market.


Actually could use the earnings from buying so much apple stock, go back in time again and invest in Microsoft, AOL, and Google.

=Richest man in the universe.
 
2012-11-13 02:26:24 PM

ZAZ: Or maybe the archival filesystem from Plan 9


i.telegraph.co.uk

Approves
 
2012-11-13 02:26:25 PM

Theaetetus: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

[Citation needed]

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.

Because angry swears and yelling are much more persuasive, amirite?


Worked for Steve Jobs....
 
2012-11-13 02:28:51 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: hammer85: SacriliciousBeerSwiller:Point out the innovative part. At the end of the day, it's "backing up what needs backing up".

The entire claim in combination with each other as it's a patent. Well...that was easy.

Now your turn, show the prior art (you know, evidence) that reads (alone or in combination) on every limitation of the claim

Also, you're answer to "point out the innovation" is basically "it's a patent thus it's innovative"? Logical fallacy much?


As opposed to your answer to "point out the lack of innovation" is basically "talking out of your ass"? Logical fallacy much?

Someone already went through the evidence and procedures to grant this case a patent, which clearly makes it innovative until applicable evidence can be presented.

And here's a hint, HERPADERPPATENTOFFICEMORONAPPLESUXLOL is not applicable evidence.

Put up or shut up.
 
2012-11-13 02:31:45 PM
*sigh* People, patents do not protect ideas. They protect implementations of an idea. Apple's implementation of its backup system is unique and different from anyone else's implementation. It's based on technologies that have been around for ages, but it's the combination of them, in this way, which makes it patentable.

And I have to add: Time Machine is one of the best implementations of a backup system I have ever seen. It'd be nice if it had an easy way to ship those backups off-site, but for your basic luser who doesn't even understand why they need to back anything up but will scream when they lose data, it's a really great system.
 
2012-11-13 02:31:46 PM
FTW: "First filed for in August 2006..."

aaaaand we're done already. Kudos to the idiots who jumped on this article about a 6 year old patent filing as if it was being done today.
 
2012-11-13 02:32:40 PM

TheTrashcanMan: /but wouldn't my earnings from my first round be enough to buy out the entire stock in 1985? There for limiting trips back to buy more with earn earnings?
//my brain is starting to hurt.


You'll have to be really careful about how you take those earnings back to 1985, too. I guess gold bullion would work but it would be a little suspicious.
 
2012-11-13 02:35:03 PM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: GOD DAMMIT THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE HERE.

F*ck Apple and anyone who defends this shiat.


Seriously... havent people been doing this for longer than 5 years? (2007 patent)
 
2012-11-13 02:35:25 PM

you have pee hands: TheTrashcanMan: /but wouldn't my earnings from my first round be enough to buy out the entire stock in 1985? There for limiting trips back to buy more with earn earnings?
//my brain is starting to hurt.

You'll have to be really careful about how you take those earnings back to 1985, too. I guess gold bullion would work but it would be a little suspicious.


From what I learned from time traveling via Terminator movies, the only possible way of carrying that bullion would be inside the body, and so that is quite a few trips, because the average human rectum can only hold so much.
 
2012-11-13 02:36:40 PM
....and Apple has a patent on page turning.

/pay up book worms.
 
2012-11-13 02:38:02 PM

stonicus: burndtdan: KingKauff: The laws of physics states that a time machine cannot go back in time any further than the date it was turned on.

only given that the time machine itself acts as a time bridge, and not a time vehicle.

That time belongs to everyone. It's this farking entitlement mentality "all the time is mine" that is ruining this country.


There are 47% of this country that feel entitled to homes, and food, and time.
 
2012-11-13 02:39:28 PM
Did apple just get the patent on diff?

So, they're trying to just piss off every revision management system creator ever? One person who comes to mind is Linus Torvalds. If they're trying to troll him they just made a huge mistake.

This patent is stupidly invalid on so many levels it's not even funny. How about delta-based differential backup? or b-tree filesystems? Or FREAKING CRON JOBS?

That's it, I'm gonna figure out whose ass it is that I need to kick over even submitting this patent.
 
2012-11-13 02:53:27 PM

Mutiny32: Did apple just get the patent on diff?


No.

So, they're trying to just piss off every revision management system creator ever?

Nope.

One person who comes to mind is Linus Torvalds. If they're trying to troll him they just made a huge mistake.

This patent is stupidly invalid on so many levels it's not even funny. How about delta-based differential backup?


Not that either.

or b-tree filesystems?

Or this.

Or FREAKING CRON JOBS?

And certainly not this.

That's it, I'm gonna figure out whose ass it is that I need to kick over even submitting this patent.

Perhaps your outrage is a wee bit misplaced.
 
2012-11-13 02:54:08 PM

theflatline: you have pee hands: TheTrashcanMan: /but wouldn't my earnings from my first round be enough to buy out the entire stock in 1985? There for limiting trips back to buy more with earn earnings?
//my brain is starting to hurt.

You'll have to be really careful about how you take those earnings back to 1985, too. I guess gold bullion would work but it would be a little suspicious.

From what I learned from time traveling via Terminator movies, the only possible way of carrying that bullion would be inside the body, and so that is quite a few trips, because the average human rectum can only hold so much.


But are you not allowed to take multiple people with you on the time travel? That what you could fill multiple rectums with bullion?
 
2012-11-13 02:57:05 PM
Apple's latest patent: the processing of information and display of information onto a readable screen.
 
2012-11-13 03:02:33 PM
Theaetetus, please don't take this as offensive, but is there any way you could explain how the patent differs from any currently-present implementation in your own words? As it is, you aren't winning any supporters with "No. Nope. Not that either. Or this." I'm sure that at least one other FARKer exists with knowledge "beyond that of a layman" that could translate it for the rest of us.
 
2012-11-13 03:07:43 PM

Counter_Intelligent: Theaetetus, please don't take this as offensive, but is there any way you could explain how the patent differs from any currently-present implementation in your own words? As it is, you aren't winning any supporters with "No. Nope. Not that either. Or this." I'm sure that at least one other FARKer exists with knowledge "beyond that of a layman" that could translate it for the rest of us.


I thought I already did, way back early in the thread. Specifically, this patent unrolls changes to files that occur during the backup time - it's an interesting way around the problem of letting a user keep working while you back up files that they're working on. Many other systems require explicit locking of files until backup is complete, including many of the ones mentioned in this thread as supposedly being invalidating prior art.
Now, there are other systems that let users keep working while backups are in process... but I don't think they do it the same way, by backing up modified files and then rolling them back to a pre-modified state.
 
2012-11-13 03:09:45 PM

TheTrashcanMan:

From what I learned from time traveling via Terminator movies, the only possible way of carrying that bullion would be inside the body, and so that is quite a few trips, because the average human rectum can only hold so much.

But are you not allowed to take multiple people with you on the time travel? That what you could fill multiple rectums with bullion?


Terminator rules: Only living organisms can travel in time, this includes living flesh wrapped around a metal endoskeleton. So it doesn't need to be living, just 'alive' (and a very loose definition of such) at the moment you hit the 'Go' button.

What is the largest animal you could gut and empty whilst chemical processes needed for 'life' remained active in the skin? How much bullion could you shove inside said animal?

Now you are welcome to attempt this endeavour with a 24 carat solid gold buttplug installed if you so wish however I could really do with a hand emptying out this Sperm whale carcass... I'm in a bit of a hurry.
 
2012-11-13 03:11:05 PM
Oh, and of course, I'm not going to win any supporters with the "No. Nope. Not that either." Those people have already made up their minds, which is why they ask a bunch of rhetorical questions and then jump to outrage, never realizing that the answers to their rhetorical questions were not the ones they presumed. It may, however, cause others to stop and say "wait, maybe Apple didn't try to patent 'diff'. Perhaps I should look a little deeper or ask some questions."
 
2012-11-13 03:11:21 PM

Vaneshi: Terminator rules: Only living organisms can travel in time, this includes living flesh wrapped around a metal endoskeleton


I know they covered this in the third movie, but why didn't they just wrap a gun in living flesh. You could have sent back a fleshbag holding a giant pile of weapons along with the Terminator.
 
2012-11-13 03:13:54 PM

Theaetetus: "wait, maybe Apple didn't try to patent 'diff'. Perhaps I should look a little deeper or ask some questions."


As a Time Machine user, it's pretty obvious on its face that Time Machine has some significantly different implementation details. At a very facile level, all it really does is take a single "full" backup, and then does differential backups via hard-links. It can then present file-system views of each point-in-time backup, without having to worry too much about the differences.

But there's a big layer of deep indexing that makes this work. It's largely powered by Spotlight, which is a file-system-level metadata tagging and searching service. I think there are even a few steps that might involve using resource forks, which isn't typically part of any backup strategy (because nobody really understands resource forks).
 
2012-11-13 03:19:03 PM

TheTrashcanMan: But are you not allowed to take multiple people with you on the time travel? That what you could fill multiple rectums with bullion?


If Primer is to be believed, as soon as you start to travel you'll start to multiply. So you just need to figure out where future/past yous would/will put the gold so you can take it before/after they do.
 
2012-11-13 03:19:41 PM

t3knomanser: Vaneshi: Terminator rules: Only living organisms can travel in time, this includes living flesh wrapped around a metal endoskeleton

I know they covered this in the third movie, but why didn't they just wrap a gun in living flesh. You could have sent back a fleshbag holding a giant pile of weapons along with the Terminator.


No idea. Why send a single infiltrator unit to do the job when all it needs to do is leave a message 'somewhere' that at X time the target is at Y location... then, literally, drop a HK on its head.

The short lived TV show did actually show a Terminator cutting open it's leg to retrieve a hand gun, which would be the most logical way of arming your infiltrator as opposed to it visiting the nearest gun shop and using period weapons.

Hell for a gun you don't even need the synthetic flesh. Just a glass tank full of bacteria. The tank won't make it (glass != alive) but the bacteria and the contents will.... followed by a splash and the gun on the floor next to your soldier. No mess to hide afterwards.
 
2012-11-13 03:21:04 PM

Vaneshi: TheTrashcanMan:

From what I learned from time traveling via Terminator movies, the only possible way of carrying that bullion would be inside the body, and so that is quite a few trips, because the average human rectum can only hold so much.

But are you not allowed to take multiple people with you on the time travel? That what you could fill multiple rectums with bullion?

Terminator rules: Only living organisms can travel in time, this includes living flesh wrapped around a metal endoskeleton. So it doesn't need to be living, just 'alive' (and a very loose definition of such) at the moment you hit the 'Go' button.

What is the largest animal you could gut and empty whilst chemical processes needed for 'life' remained active in the skin? How much bullion could you shove inside said animal?

Now you are welcome to attempt this endeavour with a 24 carat solid gold buttplug installed if you so wish however I could really do with a hand emptying out this Sperm whale carcass... I'm in a bit of a hurry.


Okay, so say we got the money there some how. What are the slight odds of a butterfly effect happening. Maybe me going back and buying a ton of stock changes things slightly making Apple less successful then they have in recent years? What does Doc have to say about this?
 
2012-11-13 03:23:44 PM

TheTrashcanMan: What does Doc have to say about this?


It's [the sperm whale stuff full of bullion] heavy.
 
2012-11-13 03:33:08 PM

Theaetetus: you have pee hands: Is this worth patenting? Unless you're patenting the *idea* of incremental backups, which I think would be a pretty tough sell, it just seems like a case where you say, "Oh, that method is patented? We'll do it this way instead", for a million different varieties of "this".

The patent (i) prevents others from directly copying you, and if you believe that your method is superior/more efficient/easier then making them perform inefficient methods is valuable, and (ii) prevents others from getting a patent covering your technology and trying to prevent you from using your system.
But yeah, design arounds are always an option, and a good one that should be encouraged.


Except when I look at the claims, I don't see specifics. I see a process. A fairly broad process at that. I don't see software. I don't see specifics. Please. Point out to me how this is specific and how it's -NOT- a fairly general process. I don't care if its been done before, enlighten us. Where is the specificity?
 
2012-11-13 03:33:18 PM

Theaetetus: Counter_Intelligent: Theaetetus, please don't take this as offensive, but is there any way you could explain how the patent differs from any currently-present implementation in your own words? As it is, you aren't winning any supporters with "No. Nope. Not that either. Or this." I'm sure that at least one other FARKer exists with knowledge "beyond that of a layman" that could translate it for the rest of us.

I thought I already did, way back early in the thread. Specifically, this patent unrolls changes to files that occur during the backup time - it's an interesting way around the problem of letting a user keep working while you back up files that they're working on. Many other systems require explicit locking of files until backup is complete, including many of the ones mentioned in this thread as supposedly being invalidating prior art.
Now, there are other systems that let users keep working while backups are in process... but I don't think they do it the same way, by backing up modified files and then rolling them back to a pre-modified state.


I could cite Btrfs or XFS as being able to do this. Or Volume Shadow Copy. Or any storage hypervisor like LVM. As for prior art to the original concept, I'll just go ahead and say the Fossil file system that uses the 9P for Bell Labs' Plan 9 operating system, which, in this case is licensed under the Lucent Public License 1.02 and is considered to be OSS by bothe the OSI and the FSF.

And oh my, who is the President of the FSF? The one and only RMS.

That guy will literally burn Apple to the ground if he ever decides to go after them.
 
2012-11-13 03:35:51 PM

dbirchall: Unpossible. VMS was the height, the pinnacle, of clumsiness. Nothing could come close, let alone exceed it.


VMS : Windows NT :: NeXT : OS X
 
2012-11-13 03:40:24 PM

Theaetetus: I thought I already did, way back early in the thread.


Regrettably, no. The only instance I see is where you quoted another FARKer.
 
2012-11-13 03:41:29 PM

Theaetetus: I thought I already did, way back early in the thread. Specifically, this patent unrolls changes to files that occur during the backup time - it's an interesting way around the problem of letting a user keep working while you back up files that they're working on. Many other systems require explicit locking of files until backup is complete, including many of the ones mentioned in this thread as supposedly being invalidating prior art.
Now, there are other systems that let users keep working while backups are in process... but I don't think they do it the same way, by backing up modified files and then rolling them back to a pre-modified state.


Thank you.
 
2012-11-13 03:41:36 PM
I'm not a patent attorney and I have no idea whether the "Time Machine" invention is unique and non-obvious enough to be patent-worthy, but I will say it's the only consumer-grade backup solution I've ever used that's worth a damn.
 
2012-11-13 03:50:35 PM

Mutiny32: Theaetetus: Counter_Intelligent: Theaetetus, please don't take this as offensive, but is there any way you could explain how the patent differs from any currently-present implementation in your own words? As it is, you aren't winning any supporters with "No. Nope. Not that either. Or this." I'm sure that at least one other FARKer exists with knowledge "beyond that of a layman" that could translate it for the rest of us.

I thought I already did, way back early in the thread. Specifically, this patent unrolls changes to files that occur during the backup time - it's an interesting way around the problem of letting a user keep working while you back up files that they're working on. Many other systems require explicit locking of files until backup is complete, including many of the ones mentioned in this thread as supposedly being invalidating prior art.
Now, there are other systems that let users keep working while backups are in process... but I don't think they do it the same way, by backing up modified files and then rolling them back to a pre-modified state.

I could cite Btrfs or XFS as being able to do this. Or Volume Shadow Copy. Or any storage hypervisor like LVM. As for prior art to the original concept, I'll just go ahead and say the Fossil file system that uses the 9P for Bell Labs' Plan 9 operating system, which, in this case is licensed under the Lucent Public License 1.02 and is considered to be OSS by bothe the OSI and the FSF.


Which part of "this", and what do you mean by "being able to"? Do they do it or are they merely capable of doing it? If you're referring to the fact that they're backup systems, then you haven't really gotten the right "this".

And they don't do "this" - both Fossil and VSC use COW, which wouldn't help in the case where the file gets modified during backup. In fact, you'd end up with the modified file, which is the opposite of the behavior in the claims.
 
2012-11-13 04:12:03 PM

poot_rootbeer: I'm not a patent attorney and I have no idea whether the "Time Machine" invention is unique and non-obvious enough to be patent-worthy, but I will say it's the only consumer-grade backup solution I've ever used that's worth a damn.


Like all things Apple it looks pretty but has some pretty spectacular failure modes. As with all journaling/delta solutions, recovery is predicated on being able to read earlier data from the repository. A single bad block can render a restore impossible. It's important to have the backup repo on RAID at least or multiple copies in case of read failure.
 
2012-11-13 04:37:09 PM

t3knomanser: I think there are even a few steps that might involve using resource forks


Ha ha, resource forks. You the real deal, t3knomanser.
 
2012-11-13 08:45:04 PM
Always a good backup plan: The 3-2-1 Rule

I've lost way too many drives over the years.

Time Machine and to a lesser extent Windows Backup at least give the average person a fighting chance.
 
2012-11-13 09:19:33 PM
"Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,311,988" when i read that, i can't not think Apple has just over 8 million patents
 
2012-11-14 12:48:11 AM
Ummmm...isn't this just Autosave? Hasn't it been around forever?
 
2012-11-14 03:01:06 AM

Emposter: Ummmm...isn't this just Autosave? Hasn't it been around forever?


Read the thread. Take your time, don't let your lips get tired.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-14 08:03:00 AM
isn't this just Autosave?

More like atomic autosave. Which is what you expect save to be -- either the old or the new version is saved. Originally documents were in one file and saving was effectively atomic. Then documents were split across files but you could use a version control system to keep them in sync, possibly automatically using emacs version control hooks. Now the editor applies metadata using a different, rounder mechanism.
 
2012-11-14 11:12:53 AM

Mutiny32: I could cite Btrfs or XFS as being able to do this. Or Volume Shadow Copy. Or any storage hypervisor like LVM. As for prior art to the original concept, I'll just go ahead and say the Fossil file system that uses the 9P for Bell Labs' Plan 9 operating system, which, in this case is licensed under the Lucent Public License 1.02 and is considered to be OSS by bothe the OSI and the FSF.


THIS

It's basically rsync in daemon mode. And OK, with a few tweaks. So, fine, write up "Method of detecting significant user input", and only that, because that's a novel invention.

The system is clearly broken when it hits 8.3m things. Patents should be about the truly novel, whether in terms of things no-one had ever thought of before, or people solving hard-to-solve problems. When they just do stuff that others are kinda working on, or making a slightly improved version (and really just about personal preference), it's engineering.

Incidentally, I didn't realise that it did any sort of judgement based on changes. That would worry me. If I change a file, I want the new version backed up. I don't care if the software thinks my changes matter or not. I do.
 
2012-11-14 11:55:55 AM

farkeruk: If I change a file, I want the new version backed up. I don't care if the software thinks my changes matter or not. I do.


Relax, guy, your changes to the file will be backed up the next time the Time Machine service runs an hour from now.

If it was really important for that change to be in the previous backup, well, you should have saved it a microsecond sooner.
 
2012-11-14 08:33:10 PM

brantgoose: Um, isn't backing up your hard drive automatically so you can go back to different versions of your files what those external back-up drives are for? Don't they pretty much do the whole job provided you set them that way? I know I haven't be using mine that way because it slows my laptop to a crawl when I want to watch a movie or TV show, but that's the theory, right? Real time backup of all the file types you select, recoverable for each time period you select to back-up.

Of course, it would take a lot of power to back-up absolutely every second--a lot of editors I know back things up manually with every document change of any importance whatsoever. And years and years ago, back in the 1990s, I used something which allowed multiple editors to work simultaneously on a file with all of their edits saved and available for compiling and approval by a master editor. It was called "group ware", I believe. All of this hardware and software seems to have a built-in "time machine" function of some sort.

Is Apple taking a patent out on the wheel? the gear? the pulley? the lever?

They seem to be patent-prone. They took a patent out on the rectangle and the bevelled edge, apparently. The lawsuits have been many and costly to date, and I predict that in some future time, an Android phone is going to come back from the future and try to kill the Beatles to prevent Apple from being born.

That would make a great movie.


You sir, are a glorious entity.
 
2012-11-16 06:46:29 AM
"Woz to return to 1974,"

Is there any evidence he ever left?
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report