Slashdot Mirror

... Supreme Court has upheld the patentability of software concepts, while setting limits: Companies can't patent a mere abstract idea on a computer, but can patent software ideas that advance or improve upon existing ideas.

http://recode.net/2014/06/19/s...

> Last week, Apple execs were promising big announcements, the biggest since the Jobs era.

Citation needed. What *I* heard the execs saying was that they're going to have great products this year. They have 7 months left.

And FFS, this is the DEVELOPER conference. New product announcements here are few and far between. Here's an overview of the last ten years of WWDC. If you can read that list and still be surprised or disappointed at what was or wasn't announced today, you're an idiot.

The NDA was leaked. https://recode.net/2014/05/01/...

From the link:

"Id legal EVP J. Griffin Lesher signed the NDA, as did Luckey. Carmack is not named, nor did he sign the document, but the contention is that all his work — not just code he wrote — as a ZeniMax employee was owned by the company, which expected compensation if that work ever made it into a money-making product. A source familiar with the dispute said Carmack had negotiated an exception to his ZeniMax contract for his aerospace startup, Armadillo Aerospace, but that no such exception was negotiated for virtual reality."

I don't know who's right here. Neither side is saying specifically what's at issue. Zenimax give some generic "they've used some IP we own" and OR counters with "we haven't used any of Zenimax code." Zenimax's claim is too generic and OR's claim is too limited according to the NDA.

Sort of related. Seems like multiple independent sources have verified the key leakage. There seems to be article here.

So what does this mean? Assuming NSA has been collecting traffic from teh internet, and meanwhile been harvesting private keys from affected services since 2 years a go, then all that data is readable to them as in there had been no encryption to begin with (assuming no PFS etc). And meanwhile the sites are waiting to get new certs, they still can. And they can set up intercepting proxies with 'real' keys from the website they are masquerading as.

What all this is saying -- heed the warnings. Revoke and update your certs, have users change password. Carry on.

Why would she allow a prejudicial video when an alternative, with no products from either side, is available? The entire text of her ruling reads:

Samsung’s objection to Apple’s proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, “The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,” and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders.

The article apparently originally appeared on Recode.net so better to use primary source (which has the ruling and both videos.

That's incorrect. They do offer the subscription in-app. It goes through the App Store, and Apple takes 30% if you choose to do it that way.

http://recode.net/2014/03/27/m...

Almost from day one the internet was based on a user-pays model. ISPs A and B both have a lot of customers who want stuff from users on the other ISP. Data flows back and forth

It was never just "user-pays". The provider has always had to pay as well. I don't know where you got that from. In fact, things were symmetric in the early days, so "user-pays" wouldn't even make sense.

charge the content providers as well, for the exact same data transfer they are already charging their users for

It's not as simple as "data transfer" where peering agreements are involved. The fees you pay aren't there to allow Cogent to dump tons of data on one link of your ISP, forcing them to carry it on their backbone across the country to the end user there, rather than upgrading their own backbone to handle the traffic properly. If you want your ISP to just tolerate all the bad behavior of misbehaving peers, you'll quickly find your fees astronomical, as your ISP gets horribly taken advantage of, and ends up acting as a backbone for others.

Netflix offered them an optimized caching system so that instead of having to upgrade their systems to handle the load their customers demanded, as well as paying for the data itself, instead they could simply pay to transfer a single instance make all the free copies they wanted, saving them a bundle.

All other CDNs pay substantial amounts of money for what Netflix is telling ISPs they should be given for "free". Netflix calling it "free" is pure double-speak. They're the ones trying to get free space, electricity, and tons of bandwidth for their upstart CDN.

But if it's a battle between ISPs, why are they dragging Netflix into it?

They aren't. See the previous article:

http://recode.net/2014/02/11/n...

Threaten to blacklist or throttle Cogent

That's exactly what they're doing. As Cogent dumps more traffic on them, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs. Netflix is just the biggest customer, the one end users will notice, and Cogent and others like to spin it as a net-neutrality / conflict of interest type story to spin-up outrage, since that's cheaper than actually dealing with the issue, some others don't understand and misrepresent the issue, while some are intentionally promulgating the myth to serve their own purposes. Which are you?

As much as they might say they are still building hardware - obviously not to the same degree.

Instead Google is focusing on making other hardware makers produce better Android devices, the evidence of which is the smack-down Google gave Samsung at CES.