Slashdot Mirror
B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art
itwbennett writes "As Slashdot readers will recall, Barnes & Noble is being particularly noisy about the patents Microsoft is leveraging against the Nook. Now the bookseller has filed a supplemental notice of prior art that contains a 43-page list of examples it believes counters Microsoft's claim that Nook violates five of Microsoft's patents. 'The list of prior art for the five patents that Microsoft claims the Nook infringes is very much a walk down memory lane,' says Brian Proffitt. 'The first group of prior art evidence presented by Barnes & Noble for U.S. Patent No. 5,778,372 alone lists 172 pieces of prior art' and 'made reference to a lot of technology and people from the early days of the public Internet... like Mosaic, the NCSA, and (I kid you not) the Arena web browser. The list was like old home week for the early World Wide Web.'"
This post is prior art to everything else in this discussion!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?
Much was made of Bill Gates failure to recognise the prominent role the Web would play when he rolled out his book(!) The Road Ahead. Not to surprised the company seems to go around blinkered. Though much of the IP they're claiming is not used for visionary purposes, as this assault on Android illustrates, it's venal.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.
Why on Earth nobody else had the guts to stand up against MS if prior art seems to be so easy to find?
Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse delendam.
I have to wonder if because B&N are from a different field, where the BS of software patents isn't prevalent, that they're approaching this with a more reasoned perspective than traditional tech. companies do. That is, most software is pretty much the same fucking thing as 20 years ago, and letting people patent shit for tacking on the phrase "on the internet" or "on a tablet" is fucking ridiculous. Thus they have a huge laundry list of examples. Then again, it could be pure naiveté and a losing strategy, as judges are generally even more inept at making reasoned assessments of technology than the utterly incompetent and over-burdened patent clerks, and might do better with only a few examples.
Or perhaps this just stems from B&N not having the same paradoxical "we hate software patents because they hurt us but love them because they let us bully others" attitude of say Google or MS or Apple. Either way, fight the good fight B&N. You'll probably lose, but you're right.
Looks like they did their homework and so did their lawers. Even if they were not to win this is a HUGE way to attract customers to their hardware/online stores especially when they win. You couldn't get a more massive good will gesture then this especially before christmas shopping holiday.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Come on Samsung, and Google. Patents were supposed to spur innovation, not squash competition. The system is broken.
This will sound dumb, but what about the other companies that cut deals with MS? Can they back out of it and sue MS? It would be interesting to see law suits started against MS again, but this time, make it in multiple nations.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's it, everyone in my family gets a Nook this year.
Anyone care to recommend the Simple Touch, Color, or Tablet and the pro's and con's? Links to good reviews are sufficient.
With news from opera that they have duplicated the faster than light neutrinos does that mean that future art is now as valid a defense as prior art?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
More to the point, anyone skilled in the art should have know of such things - including any competent patent reviewer.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I thought with the new laws it was first to file. so prior art doesn't matter anymore.
So, yes, everything listed by B&N is prior art, but it's not necessarily all art that anticipates Microsoft's patents, or even necessarily renders them obvious. This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search... B&N hasn't yet said which piece or pieces of art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each element of the claims. In fact, they explicitly note that some of the references Moreover, while the prior art references listed below are categorized by patent-in-suit, the references listed relate "to the general knowledge".
Basically, it's a bit premature to claim that the list counters the patents. It may, once they've been mapped to the claims, but until then, it's just a list of art.
So, sorry B&N, you would have gotten 2 new customers if you would just sell your books and stuff to Europe.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
It has to do with stability. These other companies are willing to pay because they are stable enough to take the hit. It is not worth the risk of fighting it in court. B&N is not stable. B&N might not exit in 5 years. So B&N is going to take risks that other companies will not take.
All the other tech companies are used to dealing with Microsoft itself as partner, either for a product or in commitee. B&N probably has no relationship with MS other then as an end customer of Windows. Now that alone is enough to fuel a bitter hatred.
But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.
Meanwhile MS has in one move ruined ALL its attempts to appear as if it wasn't the old evil MS anymore. The MS apologists who claim MS is no longer against openess or unwilling to play fair... well... they got to crawl back under the rock they came from and claim that this time MS Mobile Windows Phone Gazillion will be it!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Method for producing patentable ideas.
1. Locate currently circulating ideas. For methods, see our other patent applications "Trolling the database of existing patents to extract ideas" and "Observing the behavior of already existing software to extract ideas."
2. Append the phrases "on the Internet," the phrase "on a tablet," and "on an Internet tablet" to separate copies of the idea acquired in step 1.
The result is three new patentable ideas.
Well, gates has a false legacy all around him. For starters, he was not the one that picked DOS. IBM did. Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix. Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. The net we all know about. I mean it continues on and on and on. The man was NOT that bright. Just in the right places at the right time, with the right ppl.
Sadly, since MS has such a dearth of talent (esp. with that idiot balmer), they have to resort to illegal tactics.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If only microsoft would put more effort either into new ideas (that are not stupid like metro) or into actually improving the performance of any of their products instead of wasting all their money, time, and effort suing people and incorporating drm into their products, well they just might stay relevant. I think as everything is going mobile microsoft is becoming obsolete.
MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.
Microsoft and Apple both produce actual products, while the standard definition of a patent troll is usually a corporation whose entire business is licensing and/or suing others while producing no products of their own.
MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.
Now B&N has absolutely no worries about being penalized on a business relationship they simply do not have. It's worth it for them to fight.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Google should make a change to their Android licensing terms. If you want a licence to the Google services or to even use Android commercially you must allow your patent portfolio to be used to defend the Android OS. With other companies in collusion and forming patent pools to attack Android this seems the best solution to smack down these patent trolls.
I am fed up with hearing how companies extort each other using NDA's and then litigate them into annihilation. I am glad Barnes & Noble is fighting this. I wish more companies would fight this type of patent and copyright abuse. I think a law should be passed to require companies to publicly identify which patents are infringing by a technology rather than fearmongering. Put up or shut up.
I don't think that Apple's using their patents on grounds of competition.
I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Their stock and their products have been stagnant for the past 10 years and I don't see that changing any time soon. It's pathetic that such a large corporation must stoop to this level considering all of the bad PR it brings along with it and the image it tags you with. Perhaps they'll come to the conclusion that they're better than this and focus on technology and innovation instead of using their position to try and crush their opposition in the court room.
But, they're fighting a war they can't win because they'll eventually need to face Google if they continue down this path. Although, I must admit it would be glorious to see Google shred through all of their frivolous and prior art ridden patent portfolio.
Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
The description of some those Microsoft patents seems to indicate they're quite old. I wonder how many of them will be expiring soon.
This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search...
I am sure that their lawyers looked into this in details and it wasn't a simple keyword search. For example, the patent number specified relates to retrieving the background and text differently so as to handle loading of a page over a slower connection. The patent was filed in 1996. However, this "tech" was part of HTML 3.0 and Netscape 1.1 which was released in 1995 (see Auto Load Images and Background attribute).
MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.
Except when you follow the links and read the article (I Know, I know) you see that trolling is exactly what is going on here.
Microsoft is trolling by proxy, using MOSAID in Canada as a non-practicing third party holder of these patents.
They (MOSAID) specifically state that they can't be counter sued for infringements because all they do is license patents
that Microsoft purchased from Nokia and deposited with MOSAID (after assigning themselves a free license to use them).
MOSAID does not practice these patents. They fit perfectly your definition of a TROLL.
Further Microsoft themselves don't practice most of these patents either, because they don't make phones. But because they licensed
these patents they are attempting to use them as a club to beat Android. So Troll again.
Nokia, not party to this action, retained a license when they sold these patents to Microsoft and their sock puppet MOSAID. They practice all of these patents, and therefore have stayed out of the way and kept their mouth shut on this issue.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
The Nook Tablet (unrooted) is slightly more open than the Kindle Fire (unrooted)
Some links:
My takeaway is if you have your gold geek card, get the Fire (less money) and root it. If you're less adventuresome, get the Nook for more openness, but get an micro-SD card or you're stuck with only 1GB of free memory.
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
> over the Android backstab
"over losing the battle to Android."
FTFY.
Open your product for sales to Canada!
I will DEFINITELY buy the Nook Tablet if you let me!
Not to mention for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation. think about it, what is the worst that will happen for MSFT? In a couple of years, maybe more as the case drags on and on AND ON those 5 patents get invalidated. The cost to MSFT? Not really anything, their lawyers are on the payroll and the court fees will be a joke. What do they gain? Well they have already made lots of money off of Android licensees, which BTW won't be affected at all by this since their contract was access to MSFT's patents not just these 5, so their contracts will still be upheld.
So while I have always said software patents shouldn't have been allowed in the first place it was actually a shrewd move on the part of MSFT. They probably scared some away from Android, others they got paid just like they were selling WinPhone, I bet if one looks at the final numbers MSFT will have made a pretty damned nice profit without having to sell a single unit. Man I wish i could get paid for nothing like that, must be nice.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I know, I know. but still.
http://www.slashgear.com/motorola-anti-icloud-patent-suit-success-tipped-for-2012-18196549/
Bit of a derrail here but an interesting point on Job's biography is that Jobs wanted to manufacture their products here, but no one was able to get the high numbers of entry level engeniers needed to operate the factories. He personally told Obama disapointing education standards are to blame. He even stated he was not talking about engeniers with BAs, simply vocational school levels of engeniering education. (Certain regulations were also blamed but only as delay factors, not roadblocks.)
It is sad when China beats us at a contract not due to cheap labor, but due to higher numbers of educated workforce.
Anyways, back to patent trolling!
Correction - MS and Apple both PAY CHINESE to produce actual products. There, fixed that for ya.
Correction - Apple PAYS Chinese to produce actual products, and Microsoft would too if they could find anyone they can sell them to.
> over the Android backstab
"over losing the battle to Android."
Sent from my iPhone
FTFY
help me fix this "Terrible" karma, please!
The Groklaw link mentions that Quinn Emanuel is now involved on the B&N's side against Microsoft. It's funny - a year or two ago I "donated" a really old and out-of-date C++ book to them. It had a section about the general concepts of object-oriented programming. In return, a partner in their San Francisco bought me a brand-new C++ book.
Perhaps I am indirectly helping fight ridiculous patents. Yay! Anyway, let this be a lesson to anyone with a stack of old and worthless tech books. Maybe a lawyer will buy them from you (and probably bill their client thousands of dollars).
for MSFT this really is a "heads I win, tails you lose' situation
Unless msft gets sued back. Google shareholders just voted to allow Google to aquire Motorola Mobility. That will give Google a nice patent arsenal.
It's possible that Google (and others) are getting fed up with msft's patent-parasite attacks on Android. Paybacks can be a bitch.
Correction to the correction - MS and Apple both pay the US, Japan, Korea, Germany, and several others for actual products which are all shipped to China where a Taiwanese company is paid to have the Chinese assemble them together.
That's the problem though. Nobody is buying WP7, so an injunction wouldn't hurt them very much and the damages wouldn't be very high.
Of course, if they found some patents that Windows 7 was infringing...
I'll call this one:
You'll soon see a news post on how Microsoft wants to reform certain parts of the patent law to protect from patent trolling ...
Someone will come in (probably first post) and state how Microsoft really is a great place to work and even though they are trying to do something good (patent reform) Slashdot will still berate them.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
MOSAID can say anything they want, it doesn't make it true.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Guess I'm buying a Nook...
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
Let me point something. You are an engineer, you have to look over a patent and decide its viability. That basically means that one of them is, is it physically possible. I suspect that they still get perpetual motion machines to this day. Now, the other issue is PRIOR art. Most of the engineers that are making these decisions are in their 30-40s. That means that these ppl were born in the 70s and 80's. What was imports like in China or even India back then? Most of it was NOT from the west. It was from local or even USSR. Now, how can you KNOW about prior art, unless you have seen it at least once? The other choice is to go through search engines, but that takes time to figure out variations on it. Well, if you have limited time and you have not seen it, then you have no choice but to not worry about it. That is obviously part of why the USPTO has told these engineers to not worry about it. HOWEVER, it is creating a NIGHTMARE for all of us. It is better to have a backlog of patents and have ppl screaming at CONgress for not doing their jobs, then to allow shady patents through. I do not blame the engineers. Nor was it racists in any fashion. What I maintain is that foreign raised engineers are NOT the right ppl CURRENTLY for USPTO when considering prior art. Oddly, in another 15-20 years, they will make better ones than Americans since we have gutted our manufacturing since 1981.
What is interesting, is that this is actually an opportunity for AI work. Google and USPTO are digitizing everything. By making it available, it should be possible for an AI engine to look at various designs and compare to previous patents. What is interesting about that, is that it would make a great X-prize.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Don't forget that browser was one of the first (in 1995) to support the CSS drafts that existed at the time (first dating back to October 1994!).
I think Steve was so genuinely butthurt over the Android backstab by Schmidt that's it's personal; not professional.
I'm glad he was finally able to get over it.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Don't kid yourself Google has been in this complaint
from the beginning. They've been waiting for someone
to step forward, Barnes & Noble is it. It didn't surprise
me at all. I'm guessing their paying the bill.
Nah, I kinda doubt that and here is why: Look at how many companies that HATE each other, like AMD and Intel, or AMD and Nvidia have cross licenses. Even when AMD and Intel were slugging it out in court neither tried to revoke those cross licenses, why? Because they knew that once you get into the thousands of patents you are looking at mutually assured destruction which is why you don't see these megacorps tear into each other as much anymore.
I have a feeling Google bought Motorola not because they give a shit about protecting android OEMs, after all they didn't give a shit before and it wasn't hurting them, no I think its because they still want into the "whole stack" approach ala Apple and MSFT with Nokia so they are buying their own warchest to make sure any attempt to troll them by MSFT will equal MAD.
Sadly the only ones that get slapped around by these things are the little guys. Compare B&N to someone like Google or MSFT and you'll see they aren't even in the same league which is why they are trying to fight back, they don't have as much to lose and every dime counts when they are facing the kindle. For everyone else they'll either cut the check or cross license, just one more way our system helps the big guy and fucks the little guy.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Apropo of nothing in particular, I see the gap between Google and Microsoft market cap has narrowed from about 20% to 10% over the last few months. Looks to me like Microsoft is just another few months away from sliding down another notch in the big n powerful sweepstakes, after first being passed with much fanfare by Apple then quietly by IBM. Who's next, Oracle?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Every venue statute I've ever read makes it fine to sue anyone/anything on the defendant's own turf. For federal law, check 28 USC 1391.
For patent cases against corporations, check 28 USC 1400(b) and see how it relates to 28 USC 1391(c). Basically, you can file a patent infringement suit against a corporation like microsoft in any federal district court..
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
I wonder how much of Apple's determination to use IP to force competitors out of the marketplace was due to Steve Jobs personally. A more pragmatic boss might take a different view.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
You sure it wasn't because he couldn't get people to accept $1.18/hour like in China?
Made my iStone pass my Windows...
http://www.istone.se/
Oh, crap... they are real... Hope they don't sue.. :)
(.. Are they some kind of supplier for government's in the middle-east? :o )
Nah, I kinda doubt that and here is why: Look at how many companies that HATE each other, like AMD and Intel, or AMD and Nvidia have cross licenses. Even when AMD and Intel were slugging it out in court neither tried to revoke those cross licenses, why? Because they knew that once you get into the thousands of patents you are looking at mutually assured destruction which is why you don't see these megacorps tear into each other as much anymore.
Exactly why I have been perplexed that this patent war has erupted in the mobile space. Yes, Google was lacking in patents to retaliate with, but Apple and Microsoft knew that to directly attack Google could backfire fast, so they went after smaller players. B&N just decided to find out if those patent nukes MS was threatening to throw were actually going to detonate, or if they were duds. Looks like the emperor's got no clothes on.
Now, the real question - if the court decides these patents are bogus (which I can't seem them not doing), what happens to the other companies who licensed from Microsoft? Can they have those agreements invalidated?
I don't see how as from what contracts have been summed up on the web the contracts are to give them access to the whole of MSFT's patents and weren't written to specifically call out any patents by themselves. it reminds me of that old story from Sun, where IBM basically aid 'If these patents don't get you do you REALLY want us to go back and find some that do?" and they cut the check so they'd walk away.
So from everything I've been taught about contracts frankly it doesn't matter if MSFT came in there with fedoras and acted like Al Capone, all that matters is in the contract itself. And from what has been leaked MSFT's lawyers earned their hookers as it is a standard blanket licensing agreement, nothing more. I don't see how they would have cause since the license agreement wasn't written about these specific patents so their status really wouldn't affect the contract.
Of course you and everyone else is betting they'll get tossed and while i still think software patents are shit that is a BIG IF my friend. hell who would have thought the courts would agree that a square plus icons equals Apple property but that is what they've ruled, and if the courts side with MSFT B&N is gonna be in a world of pain. MSFT can afford to lose, I have serious doubts with the kindle eating their lunch that B&N can say the same.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's not how it works.
The PTO looks at the patent, does a preliminary search of what's already patented, makes sure all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted, then GIVES YOU THE PATENT. There is no test for obviousness, there is not test for prior art, THERE CAN NOT BE ONE. The PTO is of the position that it's the burden of the patent holder to ensure they have a strong patent, and if the patent shouldn't have been granted then it will easily be invalidated in court.
HOWEVER, the courts are broken, and costly. They are resistant to invalidating the bogus patents. Here you have the PTO relying on the good faith of the businesses and the Judicial system, and THAT is where the real FAILURE is.
Go read the patents. Go read B&N's statements. I lived and through the "time of the filing" of which you speak as an individual ordinarily skilled in the said arts. B&N is right, these patents are not only iterative and trivial, they are also either inapplicable to the Nook, or MS is unable to specify HOW the Nook infringes the patent! Not only that, but I find that many of MY OWN creations prior to the patent filing are examples of prior art.
Accept it: These are bogus disposable patents.
Realize that: MS has other patents.
Conclude that: These are anti-competitive business practices aimed to tax Android out of existence.
I'll see the DOJ involved or I'll be leaving this shit-hole of a country.
I don't mind giving money to a company that's gone to the trouble of making a pleasant place for me to go and find an enjoyable book to read. They have comfortable lounge chairs that I can sit in for a while and read whatever I like. They serve decent coffee that I can enjoy while I read my book. They have a good selection of books, and my nook account shares seamlessly between my 1st gen Nook and my Verizon Droid2 phone.
Because of the local store, I would very much rather give them my money than Amazon or any other "pure online" retailer.
But now they are fighting patent trolling? Oh yeah!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Yes, yes; and I've read the pedantic tripe you're spouting off before as well. As if you're so much more clever than everyone else that you're higher IQ only serves to make you that much more dense.
Too dense to enable you to read and accept the intent that you claim to recognize as well as the obviousness that the absolute application of the “opaque” that you claim to prefer would in the end have the same effect as the “transparency” that you deplore - the obfuscation of facts and intent.
That you spout such foolishness on /. considering the recent application of selective variable transparency to various GUI components over the past few years would seem to indicate a terminal case of “head up his arse”.
(1) Submit the problem a patent is supposed to solve to ten independent peer reviewers (*not* patent clerks, but experts in the field).
(2) Collect their proposed solutions (just drafts).
(3) The more reviewers hit on the solution described in the original patent, the more expensive the application becomes (exponentially), e.g.:
- no hits: base rate (say, to put a number: 100 dollars
- one hit: base rate * 10
- n hits: base rate * 10^n
Once you commit to the process it's "pay or the patent goes to the public domain"
(I guess the one-click patent would have cost around 10^9 dollars :-)
last week I couldn't even spell engenier, and now I are one.
"Cats like plain crisps"
Just to be off-topic for a moment.. My mod points are wasted and unusable as *every* post on every thread seems to have been marked 5 interesting or 5 informative by some one, making the whole system worth shit
While this is true I think they have an ace in their sleeve and I'm not talking about that POS Windows 8, aka Ballmer's Folly. i'm talking about the X720 which the specs have slowly but surely been leaking and is looking to have either an HD5xxx or 6xxx Radeon GPU and be pretty damned loaded.
I have a feeling MSFT is gonna quietly (while having them sign NDAs up the ass and making it clear ANY leaks that get traced back to them they can kiss XBLA and DLC goodbye) have their top devs quietly cooking up X720 content with MSFT putting out a pretty wild Halo edition (possibly a remix of the first 3 in HD 3D) and then they are gonna spring that sucker when nobody expects it to catch Sony with their pants down. The Halo and Madden fans alone will make it a HUGE hit, money will be rolling and I'm betting they drop the X360 down to $99 and use it like Sony has the PS2 to cover the lower price points.
Don't forget the X360 has been making damned good money these past couple of years and with the exception of Japan which is VERY nationalistic and hasn't had a non Japanese consoles take the top spot in nearly 30 years it has taken a pretty good chunk of the market. if they spring the X720 with kick as hardware and some killer launch titles they are gonna possibly kill Sony outright while giving the casual market to Nintendo. If they play it right they can back up the money truck to the vault and start loading it up.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
ITT: hairyfeet pretends that Microsoft can't be sued for all fraudulently obtained licensing fees, and all legal expenses that resulted from their fraud. US legal system may be toothless, but it's not toothless enough for RICO to not apply after some point.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Installation isn't a user function, and if every PC came with no OS and a Windows disk with instructions on how to install it then we wouldn't be having this exchange (excuse the pun.) In other words, due to Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices people erroneously believe that Windows is "easier to use."
I can assure you that my mother finds Linux far easier to use than Windows, even though she doesn't know the difference between a dialog and an icon, as she has told me many times without my even asking.
Furthermore, installing Windows is far more time consuming, certainly no easier, and required periodically in many cases. It took me more than six hours to go from factory default to properly updated Windows to eliminate a particularly nasty piece of malware the other day. This required constant hand-holding and rebooting so that I had to be constantly watching the process. Once this was done I still had to worry about installing each proprietary software tool separately, which obviously took even more time and effort.
Once that was done I installed Linux, which took less than an hour and when I was done I already had every software tool the typical user could want and more installed. Updating involved clicking on an update icon, entering the root password, and just waiting for the process to complete, which took far less than six hours.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
With Sun (now Oracle) attempting to extract fees for mobile java
and with Microsoft attempting to extract computer system fees
it is clear that classification of systems is a tangle.
Current smart phones have more compute power and graphics
power than some GTX class SGI computers of historic interest.
At $10-40,000 these SGI systems would clearly qualify as COMPUTERS
for java licencing yet a phone of the same or more capability is not a computer
and incurs mobile java licencing fee.
I can see Oracle and Microsoft making conflicting sworn testimony in
litigation both attempting to extract fees and impose FUD on the
new phone and tablet market. Where those sworn testimony
are in conflict I wonder what the resolution is.
Of interest these sealed NDA settlements and agreements can be
torn up when law is being broken. I expect to see sealed "amicus curiae"
filings that disclose (to the court) some of these sealed contracts where it "appears" that
laws are being violated.
For example patent agreements that extract a fee yet in other sealed
contracts those same amounts are offset by discounts as part of a larger
manipulation of the market place. Like live locks in multiple processor
systems these need to be inspected to discover A-B, A-B-C, A-B-C-D
exclusion, live lock and lockout strategies (Per Brinch Hansen has some good books
on this topic). The interesting bit from Per Brinch Hansen is that some
contracts might establish locks on objects while other agreements would
establish monitors to enforce control.
In the above disclosure is a "system and method" for the
management of contracts and agreements to establish or avoid
legal or illegal business practices and models that are often
at issue in domestic and international trust litigation. An additional
claim includes data representation digital or on paper to this end and
an additional claim includes the use of such a system in a judicial
setting for binding arbitration or litigation. In addition this system
has application claims involving whiteboards, cork boards, black boards, slate
boards, Post It -notes, crayons, number 2 green pencils, permanent
markers, felt tip markers, foam presentatin boards, 8x10" glossy photos
with a paragraph of writing on the back, HTML markup, TeX markup.
At this point the list of patents is secret...
So which of this list applies.....
Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
AN/microsoft: 18907 patents.
I suspect that without disclosure of the list
the court must accept and consider prior art amicus curiae
filings for any and all of these patents. Including
any patent that mentions any of these 18907 patents.
To minimize additional filings the court would need
to disclose that only patents assigned to Microsoft
are part of the litigation. If patents not assigned to
Microsoft are involved then any patent (millions of them)
with any sniff of prior art of other conflict need
to be taken at issues to dispose of in the court.
Holding out hope is always nice, however MSFT's media lunch will be eaten by smartphones and netpads. It's game over for big console. Who cares about another solder melting desktop GPU chip crammed into an inadequately cooled cheapo enclosure sounding like a vacuum cleaner in your living room?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
What are you smoking, cause I'd like some! Smartphones and netpads? yeah for angry birds maybe, you sure as hell ain't gonna get 1080p HD3D on one of those devices. And don't bring up that streaming game service because the bandwidth simply isn't there except for a handful of major markets.
Those devices are fine...for your mom. someone who wants to play columns or Angry birds or maybe some shooter that looks like it was written for a first gen PS2, but the rest of the planet has gotten spoiled to the big 3D physics heavy boom fest. Hell the easiest sales I've ever had were for HTPCs where i just fire up just Cause II and set off some remote charges on the cooling towers. When people see my guy walk into the sunset while half the world crumbles around him into fire and debris? it is "Thank you come again" and cash the check.
This is the US of fricking A my friend, we like big cars, big screens, and big graphics.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What are you smoking, cause I'd like some! Smartphones and netpads? yeah for angry birds maybe, you sure as hell ain't gonna get 1080p HD3D on one of those devices.
First, you're already wrong and second, nobody cares. There's a sea change in the game market. It's away from the likes of Halo and towards easy feel good games played by people with money.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
You're right about one thing, nobody cares...about cell phones. they get them for cheap or free with contract and toss them when the contract is up, never to give a crap about them again. And that is Tegra GPU, that is designed for HD video and NOT for hardcore gaming.
And even with your "sea change" big games are KILLING, or are you gonna say that people are gonna give that up for some Peggle?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
According to the jobs bio, he wasn't concerned with beating android. It was about making cool shit.
He's used to living in the margins.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
You're right about one thing, nobody cares...about cell phones.
How's the weather on the planet you live on?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
but they didn't say how this patent was not covered by prior art or an obvious extension thereof.
he could just have hired all the auto-assembly guys.
but oh wait he would have had to pay them a salary and take the financial risk of actually building the actual factory - now foxconn is paying the mortage for foxconn city.. he wasn't lacking in engineers, he was lacking in assembly workforce. or perhaps missing in straight out of highschool guys who could build him a robot factory. the excuse would work if apple was building _something_ in usa and scaling that up. but they're not.
(what's wrong with non-entry level engineers anyhow? that they want to get paid something else than mcd pays?)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Right, we all know apple would never spend a penny building anything.
http://gigaom.com/apple/apples-new-north-carolina-data-center-ready-to-roll-2/
what's wrong with non-entry level engineers anyhow? that they want to get paid something else than mcd pays?)
The same thing that is wrong with heart surgeons accepting a nurse position.