Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Claim Threatens To Block Or Delay W3C
Kelson writes "The W3C Widget specification is running into a problem: Apple claims a patent on automatic updates and is unwilling to license it royalty-free in the event that it impacts the spec. The W3C is investigating to determine whether the spec includes anything covered by the patent, and decide what to do."
I hope this is a legitimate claim, or I'll have to start hating you, too.
How dare you mean spirited people use Apple patented stuff because you do not know how to use it properly unlike the insanely great people at Cupertino
FTFP:
A software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer.
As long as the user is notified or must explicitly grant permission, the update process is not transparent to the user.
Apple claims a patent on a stealth method.
It's all about money, Apple fans. Seriously. I have tried to tell you this before, but they do not care about you at all.
This is a good peer review of the patent.
I just read it, and it looks like stuff engineers have been doing way before 1998 (granted date).
I would imagine one or more slashdot readers will/could file prior-art to this via an old log book.
Thanks slashdot...
Are we hating Apple today or loving them?
From the article "It probably helped that in those days we avoided patents and other restrictions; without any financial incentive to control the protocols, it was much easier to reach agreement." Exactly why patents don't work in their current form.
Now it seems more appropriate for this story.
*sigh* Patent 5155847, referenced in Apple's patent, covers everything Apple's does. The only differences are obvious minor adaptions based on the different communications channels in use, things any network programmer does automatically every day.
If you read this claim, it seems that any webpage loaded through a caching web-browser *could* fall under it.
1. A method for automatically updating software programs on a computer, comprising the steps, of:
storing an updated version of a program at a designated location in a remote memory that is accessible to the computer;
Being that most browsers will check a cache to see if it already has your content, the act of overwriting the cache before loading the asset for your page seems to run afoul of this auto-update process.
The articles linked seem to act as if there's only one update scheme in existence and we need to sit patiently until Apple decides if we can use it or not. In my humble opinion, tell Apple to shove their update schema until they reach their elbow and write a(or utilize an already written)schema that is deemed to differ from this ridiculous patent enough to be used. Oh, and quit buying their damned products too. You guys are just encouraging them.
Apple is a member of the W3C, and even advertises on it's own web page (Click Here) that it supports an immutable commitment to royalty free licensing on W3C standards, per the W3C patent policy. Sounds like Apple is only interested in other companies licensing Royalty Free terms to them, but not the other way around....
Um, the patent was filed in 1995, I believe that anything after the patent was file wouldn't count for prior art. I'm not sure how anything could be patented if that were the case.
And you certainly wouldn't see any items appearing until the patent was granted.
They should be booted out if so.
First of all, I'm not entirely sold on the source of this story, since it does come from Opera's website.
Assuming this story is true, and while I normally rush to Apple's defence, this is totally unacceptable. This sort of patent stockpiling is getting as bad as that of Microsoft or IBM. Worse, at least IBM uses some of their patents to protect open source projects (and I'm not an IBM fan by any means).
I'm not sure what their purpose is, other than to give their browser a leg up over those of their competitors.
This space left intentionally blank.
The broadest claim the patent makes (bullet points mine):
1. A method for automatically updating software programs on a computer, comprising the steps, of:
Could one not simply have the client software send a request to the server software saying "send me the stored version, if it is modified since version 12.34"
Hence it would not be the current version carrying out the action of determining whether a the newest version of the program is more recent than the current version of the program; rather it would be being performed at the server.
Indeed, HTTP already includes an "If-Modified-Since" header the client can send to the server, though the HTTP header uses a date rather than a version number.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
ok, 1995. But still, These "replace thyself" systems have been around since the Gemini program!
It will be great if the W3C sort-a ban apple from using the HTTP and other W3C tech in OS X...when your the owner you can give and take permission whenever you like so...give em' a taste of they're own medicine. I'll die laughing if that happens!
... and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer.
In my book that means: no need for a restart. Completely different from what i.E. FireFox / Thunderbird and the like do - needing to ask the user to stop with his / her work in order to perform the update.
Not trivial.
According to the Patent Advisory Group they've formed to deal with this hurdle, the PAG membership includes "Advisory Committee Representatives of each Member participating in the Web Applications Working Group".
Of course, the Web Applications Working Group includes: "Apple, Inc. (4 representatives)".
Isn't it kind of a conflict of interest for Apple to be sitting on the committee that has the purview to:
?
coding is life
I don't know of any update system which fulfils:
without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer
Do you?
Let me quote the important and not at all minor difference:
without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer
Updating a running program without interruption is everything but trivial.
What's ironic, is this getting posted just after the story on the first RFC turning 40.
What's "brassy" is the balls of the legal wingnuts at Apple fucking about with the advance of open standards.
W3C should not be having to waste people's time picking through this patent and designing around it. The idea might have been mildly innovative in 1998, but now it's sorta "well-duh!" and I am sure has been implemented in a number of independent cases where there was no reliance on Apple's patent.
P.S. Apple - your Windows software update tool sucks donkey balls. Even after I thought I'd got rid of it there is still something that periodically bugs me to update QuickTime.
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
If everybody is stockpiling software patents then you have to as well. Or you are at the mercy of those have. A bit like the nuclear arms race - evil but once you started there is no stopping.
I know. The content of the patent is almost impossible to implement with current operating systems.
this patent is total BS!
the patent description makes it sound like we're talking about a system for automatically updating any program while its running without any interruption (which would be quite a feat if accomplished, but still not worthy of a process patent because its an obvious goal).
However the operation the patent actually describes is as follows:
1) I click on an icon to launch an application,
2) a process starts that checks to see if I have the latest version of the application
2a) if I have the latest, it launches the application
2b) if I don't have the latest, it replaces my copy with the latest and the launches the application
this stuff about "transparently running" and "no need for restart" is a red herring. of course there's no need for restart, the program isn't running yet!
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I know. I have not seen a valid software patent. This one is almost impossible to implement. Apart from Web-2 applications. And this is probably why it popped up.
As much as I hate to say: JavaScript is a programming language and there are quite a few very nifty JavaScript applications out there. If you cache the JavaScript applications then you might violate the patent.
This is the third time I quote this:
without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer
I don't know of any application which can do that. With current operating systems almost impossible. But browser based applications are a different matter. Here it could work.
It shouldn't be possible to hold a patent on anything in a public standard.
I think so too. This is what it is all about.
Right - but the user must not notice. So it will only work for very small applications which load very fast.
IMHO TheAnswer (famous Z-NETZ client)
and other, similar networking applications on the Amiga featured such automated update processes, downloading required data from the network.
And also IMO this was around or before the time that patent was filed. Does anybody know more about it?
ok, 1995. But still, These "replace thyself" systems have been around since the Gemini program!
And those patents do not apply to Apple's patent, because patents protect implementations.
Starting and Stopping Word as fast as a memory swap?
Ok for very small applications it works. And this is the problem: W3C want's to use it for Widget.
Or for applications that are slow and unresponsive all the time.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Or for applications that are slow and unresponsive all the time.
**insert Vista joke here**
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
is there something Apple dont want to patent? its gettin rediculous!
Except you can't because someone patented "a trap to catch mice or other vermin".
If the patent doesn't tell people who are skilled in the art whether they're violating it, how can it be well written for someone skilled in the art to recreate it?
If there's no source code, HOW is it built. Buildings and machines have blueprints. Software has source code. Where's the source code?
If there's no source code, then how can the patent be broken? That's like breaking a patent on an engine when all that's in the patent is how an internal combustion engine works.
discuss ways to design around the claims excluded by Apple Inc.
If you think of it from the perspective of someone simply trying to solve the problem at hand (patent cannot be licensed, so it must be worked around), it actually makes the most sense to have Apple people working on this (at least in part). Who else would have the best understanding of what solutions do manage to work around the patent in question than Apple people who would understand what Apple would or would not do in response?
Having people sit out makes sense where there is a conflict of interest. But there is no conflict of interest on Apple's part in wanting the eventual standard to not conflict with Apple's patents. There is no monetary gain to be had from Apple in having a solution worked up that successfully works around Apple's patent.
Having Apple not sit in would only be retribution, not a choice made from thinking about the issue in practical terms.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So if you are doing a massive 3d render (or other processing job) which takes hours or days and the program doesn't store its work on disk until it is finished, then you lose all that work because MS decided at that time to update your computer. How nice.
Or perhaps it does save, but you lose the time it would be working because obviously you aren't at your work computer at 4AM to restart it.
Everyone knows that APPLE isnt like evil microsoft, trying to use its patents and lawyers to aggressively attack any potential competition!
...
Okay now that i've said the obligatory- id like to point out that Apple is JUST as much a big, heartless corporation as microsoft. They are in this for money, and they would make 90% of moves microsoft made, they just were beaten to the punch. So, even if they make nice products, they aren't necessarily nice people.
Some months ago the W3C was pressured by Apple and Nokia to remove the inclusion of unencumbered audio and video codecs from video tag support in the HTML5 draft. The W3C recognized that only with the existence of a widely supported baseline could we escape the closing of the web which is currently happening through patented media formats.
Of course, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Now that Apple has seen that the W3C is subject to their manipulation on licensing related matters we can hardly blame them for continuing to use their new found power over this standards group.
I wrote code for that functionality in the mid to late 1980s as part of a government contract. Assuming I could dig it up (I don't know if the diskettes are still readable) who could make use of it and what sort of evidence would they need to do so (source code, design documents, executable, etc)?
Then WTF is W3C so concerned about?
$ make available
Or for applications that are slow and unresponsive all the time.
That basically is the definition of all Apple products I have used (like the one I am writing this with at the moment). Full of crap and unnecessary features. Which also applies to many other SW vendors and opensource stuff as well. What happened to simplicity?
GameRanger works this way (or at least used to). When you start GameRanger, it checks the server for a new update, automatically downloads any new update, trashes the old version and restarts using the updated version. It tells the user that it is doing all of this, but the "transparent to the user" part is not a requirement of the patent, only a possibility. (That is, nothing in the patent actually bars the application from notifying the user that the update is occurring.)
if apples patent does not contain a specific implementation that can be avoided, then the patent is not valid.
Programs often get borked when they're upgraded on the fly. Firefox certainly does this if you upgrade it while it's running, as do various pieces of server software which HAVE to undergo a restart to update the data and config files.
You have to restart everything that was affected to be sure (including the OS if you upgrade the kernel).
You know what? Widgets, no matter how you look at it, is a chaotic mess. Unless there is some standard by a neutral authory like W3C, it will keep to be a mess and nobody will take them serious.
I know lots of people who hates the entire concept of it but let me show just how many "standards" there are, including mobile.
1) Apple Widgets (OS X only)
2) Yahoo Widgets (OS X and Windows), the original Konfubulator
3) Adobe Air stuff (most are actually Widgets)
4) Opera Widgets (Don't even bother counting how many platforms supported)
5) Nokia Widgets (yes, millions of downloads, see (6) for a laugh)
6) Nokia Widgets in J2ME, it is completely different idea and multi platform. Named Widsets. Don't try to understand why Nokia competes itself.
7) New to appear, if Sun doesn't go bust, Java Widgets, I forgot what it is called and Sun seems to forget they already HAD similar thing on Windows, java embedded apps inside Active Desktop items. Like the one from JPL/NASA. It was a torture.
There are MANY more specs around, these are the only ones I tried personally. They all lack a spec especially user prefs storage, Yahoo won't check your mail without your pwd, it saves it but they don't have brain enough to keep basic widget installation data in your account. Opera may do some Opera Link goodness (guessing from how it goes) in future but that is all.
If there is hope for Widgets to be taken serious both by users and developers, it is W3C, standards based storage, Mozilla/Webkit/Opera following the standard and as usual MS ignoring it. Damn things should be stored on some standard form, on remote and local and they should be interchangeable. Don't let the OS X dashboard scene fool you, they aren't really liked and seen like real apps.
This appears to be a patent on *silently* updating a program.
I don't want any software on my computer, widget or otherwise, silently updating itself. I damn well want it to pop up a dialog and say "There's a new version of me out there, do you want me to update"? I want to be able to say "No, because I just read on Slashdot that the new version might brick my computer".
Someone from Apple scene does use that concept. Intego Netupdate. It has a preference to automatically install and reboot after updates, without even asking to user. Thank God, it is disabled by default.
In fact, it performs exactly the way patent says. You may even be greeted by "Enter serial number you purchased while you upgrade your software" message.
Apple being victim of their stupid lawyers as usual, not even surprised. They should separate RIAA/MPAA iTunes types from the Technical types.
What if MS steals their concept as usual and implements like its own? Well, it has been solved by Real Networks for their million dollar patents. Free to GPL, patented for closed source. As people here busy with "buffering" jokes and spyware allegations regarding their free/open source software, I better remind it.
I followed the link (not the one to the pathetic opinionated article, but the one to the short email message), and this is what seems to have happened: Apple told the W3C people that they have a patent that they believe might cover something that W3C is trying to standardize. So they have done exactly what Rambus _failed_ to do when they participated in memory standardisation, which since then has caused dozens of lawsuits over hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. This will not happen here because Apple disclosed their patent.
That email doesn't say in any way that Apple is doing anything inappropriate or is threatening anyone or refusing to give anyone a license. What is happening is a very simple process that W3C is prepared for: Apple was kind enough to inform them that there is a patent, so they will now look at the patent, which will or will not turn out to be relevant, and if it is relevant, something will be sorted out.
Now that fine article (or whatever the f in RTFA stands for) calls Apple "patent-lawsuit happy". So who exactly is Apple suing right now? Maybe the manufacturer of a new phone that is vastly outselling the iPhone, except that it doesn't do that quite yet, because it is not for sale right now, so not a single Palm Pre has been sold, and Apple hasn't sued them, because as long as Palm doesn't sell its phone there is nothing to sue them for?
It is like Sparkle framework, only the Sparkle update checker part runs before the application itself and updates application if necessary. Sparkle became de-facto standard software update checker in OS X, there are even people asking Apple to include it in standard OS X Frameworks.
So lets say, when you launch Adium, its update checker will run first, make sure it is current version and actually run it after updating.
One must ask... Is Apple preparing a Konfubulator against Sparkle in Gold Master of Snow Leopard? Not like Sparkle go out of business (!), it is open source framework which we (users) just hope multi million/billion dollar companies using it are donating.
http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/
Erlang, from what I recall has had the ability to replace running programs in place since forever. A quick look on Amazon shows the first Erlang book dated at 1993. And I think that's probably where I remember reading about it. I thought what a clever technique they had at the time.
Quoting from the an Erlang white paper:
"Hot code upgrade - Many systems cannot be stopped for software maintenance. Erlang allows program code to be changed in a running system. Old code can be phased out and replaced by new code. During the transition, both old code and new code can coexist. It is thus possible to install bug fixes and upgrades in a running system without disturbing its operation. "
(Whoever owns that one copy might want to up their price about now. And I think I may go see if I still have my copy to sell to the next highest bidder. Do I hear any Apple patent lawyers bidding? )
With just a little luck this will point help to point out to companies that asserting patent claims over prospective standards is a bad idea, sure to cost more money than it makes.
The patent claims "A software program running on a computer automatically replaces itself with a newer version in a completely automated fashion, without interruption of its primary function, and in a manner that is completely transparent to the user of the computer. "
Getting around it is (quite obviously?) simple.
Just inform the user that you're updating the software, then it is no longer "completely transparent." You don't have to get the user's permission, just make it "completely apparent." It's the decent thing to do, anyway.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
can be found in U.S. patent 5,790,664 and its descendants. A brief analysis of this and other broadly applicable IP can be found (PDF) at
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?3yqiwiyzmzz
software patents threaten to stifle innovation.
People, this isn't what patents were intended for. Software patents need to die. Copyright is the proper body of law to cover software.
The introduction of the patent concludes: "With this arrangement, software upgrades can be effected in an efficient and automatic manner, without resort to any external resources."
If I'm not mistaken, the internet forms a pretty significant resource. Automatic upgrades of objects that require the internet to store newer versions of the objects gets around the patent by default, don't they?
And the concluding introductory statement also goes against the body of the patent which requires access to "resources" in the form of "storage ... in remote memory."
After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with iTunes in the far future, and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a 10-Q with the Securities Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) as a corporate policy.
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!Ã
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."
Sergey Brin of Google said, "Of course, we're still not evil. You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
So long as they license it on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.. is there an issue?
An open standard need not be a free (beer) standard..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
What are you talking about? Most Apple software is quite Spartan when compared to OSS alternatives or even MS's own software. Compare WMP to iTunes, aside from the integrated store, there is much more "bloat" in WMP in terms of little used features, etc and in interface design. Sure, iTunes is slow on Windows because its basically a port of a Mac application while capturing the Mac look and feel, this adds considerable bloat compared to a native Windows app.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Itunes is slow and seems overly bloated on my on my Core Duo Mac Mini. Granted it is keeping track of 1500+ avi movies, so that may cause some of it's sloth. Doesn't explain why VLC on the same machine appears to be able to handle it far less better.
I like OS X as an operating system, but some of Apples applications need to be attacked with a machete to lop off the useless crap and speed them up. What ever happened to one program doing one thing very well. Instead we get one program that does one thing fairly well and a bunch of other things like shit.
Beside the point, that this is a "we have software patent" country issue only, the Debian project exists since 1993. And dselect was in use for Debian since March 1995. So I guess they discussed this package replacement stuff before that date.
Why would OpenOffice.org find mismatching libraries, even after an in-place upgrade of running software?
If I install an executable, it's dynamically linked to /usr/lib/libwhatever.so.n, I run it, and then I upgrade /usr/lib/libwhatever.so.n while the program is still running, the running executable is *still* using the old version of the file, which is still on the disk - even though it's been deleted from /usr/lib, the reference from the running program prevents it from being erased until the program quits.
A decade ago when glibc was in regular flux and I was reluctant to reboot my computer even for the most basic upgrades, I think at one point I had nearly half a dozen different versions of libc.so itself running together, without noticing any broken apps or even weird behavior...
Of course, it's possible to do fancy things that screw this up, but that's how the simplest library linking works. Why would OpenOffice go to extra trouble to make their software less functional? I don't disbelieve you. I've seen how Firefox gets hosed when it's upgraded while running, for example. I'm just curious as to what the failure mechanism is and why it isn't treated as a bug to be fixed. Windows has slowly been getting better at allowing upgrades and configuration changes without unnecessary restarts. It would be sad if Linux (or even Windows-centered free software with Linux ports) was regressing, even a little.
is a red herring. of course there's no need for restart, the program isn't running yet!
I've had to restart my computer a number of tymes after updating software on it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
We need someone to confess he was using MacOS back in 1990s, tough job on Slashdot :)
I used it then. And Linux and Windows.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Tell that to Apple. Every iMac I've ever used was "shiny" and also sucked in terms of performance.
After having used Windows PCs for years I switched. The quality of my Mac is so much better than any of my PCs, both Linux and Windows. Now I'm not saying it's all been roses, there have been thorns, but my Macs has performed a lot better.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Yes patents can be revoked. In the US anyone can file to have a patent revoked.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
This is the nature of the problem.
You don't have inventions in software. You have ideas, and implementations. There is no in-between.
The idea of patenting a software algorithm is equivalent to patenting a mathematical expression.
Personally, I think that software patents are just a flat-out bad idea, so while I appreciate the manner in which Apple refused to license the patent, I'm not feeling much love for them either. If a company or person possesses a software patent which is hindering the creation of open standards then I am doubly at odds as to why they should be indulged.
I agree, software should not be patented. However because businesses are granted patents on software others need to stockpile software patents as well as a defensive measure. Apple has been and will again be sued for patent infringement and by having their own patents they could defend themselves against being sued.
Would the employees, in the process of drafting the spec, purposefully leave out interesting mechanisms so that they could later be patented by Apple?
They could but if it is documented then Apple applies for a patent then the patent could be appealed.
Obviously there's a technically simple method to solve this, outlaw software patents. Unfortunately it's a lot harder to solve politically.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Did you just contradict yourself? First saying that iTunes has no bloat, and contains few unnessasary features compared to WMP.
Then justifying the bloat saying its just a port of a MacOS app, and adds "considerable" bloat to maintain its "Mac look and feel" on a platform where the "MacOS look and feel" make it seem like an odd man out? Whats wrong with making iTunes on windows, More Windows like? (and if it ever reaches Linux, more Linux-Like). I hate apps that enforce the look and feel of another OS on a third OS.
And it IS possible to have a cross platform media application that can be lean, yet look native on all platforms. Take VLC. Oh and that happens to be an OSS project, which you, quote:
Most Apple software is quite Spartan when compared to OSS alternatives or even MS's own software.
Have a nice day!
Really, how would we know for sure?
http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/index.html
Yes I know, no one will ever check all the traffic.
Try looking at Altiris - it does automatic updates transparently - and you for the most part don't have ANY restarts. I know My company uses this bloated piece of $hit software!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Did you just contradict yourself? First saying that iTunes has no bloat, and contains few unnessasary features compared to WMP.
No, because he specifically qualified the comment about bloat to the Windows version of iTunes, which is a secondary port. iTunes on OS X has exactly the attributes he described (or, did back in version 4.2 - later ones have all been a step backwards in terms of usability and bloat).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The "Detailed Description" describes what looks like a crippled version of Cron-apt built into each application. It completely ignores shared libraries and other dependencies and so would be useful only for monolithic programs.
The claims, on the other hand, look rather as if someone at Apple was observing Apt development and taking notes.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
my5sense on this.... I don't know why people are just now starting to hate Apple. I've hated them for quite some time now. :) While they haven't reached the HATECON Level 1 that MS has, they are still a rangy bunch of arrogant, money-greedy technologists that enforce their will upon the masses. "We'll inactivate your iPhone that YOU bought with YOUR money if we find it's been unlocked." "We won't sell anyting at the Apple Store that actually generates healthy competition with any of our applications, because we only want you to buy our apps, and we don't want competitors to influence what we develop, we want to figure that out on our own." How about this one: "We'll release this fantastic phone, but not release a SDK so that you HAVE to use only what we put on the phone and if we don't sell it, you don't deserve to have it." (on YOUR phone.) Granted I know the 3G phone changed that somewhat, but it was because people were outraged. Maybe we need to be outraged over this - if in fact it's legitimate.
That's all been crap - it's just the diehard Apple people defend that monopolistic (I may have invented a word just now.) business methodology, WHILE BASHING MS. They are both about nothing but money and dominance. (I love capitalism) If it means screwing us - in terms of software availablility, or creating and maintaining competitive markets that ignite fantastic software/hardware development like we have never seen in the past 20 years, then so be it. Apple isn't really different on the outside, but the same cold, sinister heart that beats in Redmond beats at Cupertino. They are just different and therefore assumed to be the good guy, while Bill & company are the bad guys. I say #)$*Q#&$! They are all bad.
Not to mention a comment that MAY have been directed at Palm for IP theft in regards to the Pre. (maybe it was, maybe it wasn't)
Let's face it - Apple may not be the Evil Emperor, but they make a dang good Darth Vader. Let's see if in the end, they allow themselves to be redeemed.
W3C
Yes indeed - Chome could easily update large parts of itself without interruptions. Of course that does not mean they do.
Because it's software and is written. Writings already enjoy copyrights. Patents protect actual physical goods. A specific implementation of a CPU, car engine, or knife. And a patent application used to require a working model of what is being patented. However while patents may of been helpful at one tyme they no longer are. Instead they delay progress.
Since the article being discussed deals with Apple patents and Apple not willing to let the W3C use them, here's another story about Apple and patents: "Taiwan's Elan sues Apple over touchscreen patents"". I don't know how many patents are sought for these reasons but a number of patents are either held by patent trolls or are for protection, you come up with something you think is unique and use it. Now if you don't patent it someone else may slap you with a patent infringement lawsuit. But of you have a bunch of patents you may find one the other party uses, so you can sign a cross licensing agreement.
A good proportion of undergraduate computer scientists can not explain RSA after having it explained to them more than once. Society as a whole has benefited from having it disclosed - the entire reason patents exist -
Copyrights also require disclosure, so patents are not needed for this.
Unlike most software patents, it is not something that could be easily reproduced by someone seeing the effect.
It is an algorithm and they should not be patented. Neither should business methods.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?