Yes, exactly, we all know it's ok for Apple because they had 9 less buttons on the bottom whereas Samsung does not so, by the law of button count infringement, that means Apple doesn't infringe on the 2001 device but Samsung infringes on Apple's device.
The many buttons (or lack thereof) are an immediately-evident detail that shows we're not looking at a genuine iPad in 2001. When I searched on Google (for "2001 ipad" I think) to eventually find that page, I noticed small dots at the bottom of the 2001 tablet. That difference was evident in a thumbnail of a scene shot from a perspective of being 3 meters high overhead. That's a very obvious detail, and it contributes greatly to having an overall different appearance.
Apple has a symmetric bezel as opposed to an asymmetric bezel and because of the well-known bezel symmetry vs beveled edge inequality
The bezel is the frame around the screen. On the 2001 device, there's a thin bezel going around three sides of the screen, and a large bezel at the bottom to hold the buttons. The iPad has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides. The Galaxy Tab has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides.
it means that technically Apple's bezel is different to that of the device show[n] in 2001
Yes, exactly. Apple's bezel is different, because it's not the same.
but the beveled edges (show[n] here) are exactly identical.
Not exactly identical, but that's not really an issue. The bevel (meaning the smoothing of the edge, which is unrelated to the bezel being the frame around the screen) is a subtle enough detail that even a major change (like having no bevel at all) wouldn't do much to distinguish a Galaxy Tab from an iPad. At a glance, they look the same. Also note that the bevel can only really be seen in profile...
And lastly with the profile, we come to another law of inequality regarding profile and aspect ratio, profiles differ but 4:3 is exactly equal to 16:9 and thus the latter does not constitute a difference.
That's not what profile means. It means "outline as seen from the side", and again the 2001 design is significantly different from the iPad. Not only do the buttons appear to be raised from the surface, but the bezel with the buttons looks slanted upwards at the bottom. When viewed from the side, the 2001 tablet would have a distinctly different appearance from the iPad. The Galaxy Tab appears to be the same thickness as the iPad, with the same perfectly-flat design.
Also sorry Samsung but the fact that your corner radius is different won't save you either, we can come up with a way to oppose that one if you choose to use it as a defense so don't bother.
That's another ridiculously subtle difference that would only be apparent in a side-by-side comparison.
All together, there are enough similarities in the design and few enough differences that from a distance, it's unreasonable to expect people to see the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab. Conversely, there are enough differences that an iPad is clearly not copying any design from 2001. No, this is not an absolute definition, and there are no fixed rules on what makes something different enough to not infringe on a trademark.
For a simple test of whether something is likely to infringe on another product's design, try this test: Write down a verbose description of the design, using as few actual measurements as possible. For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a ho
(unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition)
Ah, Slashdot... as professional as ever!
Apple's patent doesn't cover just a "rectangle". Apple has design patents and trademarks covering the overall look of the device, including the rounded corners, glossy panel, and size of the bezel. As a trademark, people should be able to look at an iPad and say "Oh, that's an iPad!" without seeing the logo. Upon a cursory review, Samsung's product looks very similar to an iPad, to the point of diminishing the uniqueness of the trademarked design. Samsung certainly appears to be aiming to cash in on the elitist market by offering a similar-looking product at a lower price. It's the computer equivalent of a Canal Street counterfeit Rolex watch. A non-infringing product would be one with a screen extending all the way to the edge of the device, or one with more decoration on the front, or any of myriad other alterations to the basic "rectangle" pattern.
Samsung's patents are technical in nature because they're for technology, not design.
Compared to fully-attentive driving, using a cell phone while driving in Nebraska is no safer than anywhere else in the world. Text while driving, and you give X% less attention to the road. Being in central Nebraska just means you have less stuff you're likely to hit, so all driving is safer.
Think of it this way: If it's reasonably safe to drive in Nebraska while using a cell phone, imagine how safe it'd be if you didn't!
Squirrels are a very common nuisance for folks building big holiday displays. They'll gnaw straight through the wires, bite off bulbs, and pull down strings. That it's a problem for other kinds of cables doesn't surprise me.
On weekends, I "work" (stage tech is also my hobby, so I don't like calling it actual work) as a lighting technician in a local theater. I'm not actually allowed to hang my own lights, because that's a union carpenter's job. I can't plug them in, because that's a union electrician's job. I can't touch any set pieces, because that's a union stage hand's job.
This would be just fine, if the union carpenters were there more than once a week (on Thursdays, when I'm not there), or if the electricians were there after the carpenters (on Tuesdays, before the lights are hung), or if the stage hands were there for anything other than performances (which is really a bad time to be changing the lighting, anyway).
Instead, the technicians put in change requests on weekends, and wait two weeks for the lights to be hung and plugged in. The carpenters have to do their work on lifts and ladders, because the stage hands won't move set pieces out of the way for lights to be lowered to the stage. I pointed out to the unions how horribly inefficient this is, and I was promptly told that I really shouldn't be stirring up trouble and I should accept that the unions are doing what's best for everybody.
As someone who doesn't blindly accept the union doctrine, I can easily see how useless unions are in practice.
All of which is irrelevant, because this patent claims something different from the original Xerox patent. The difference lies in the first claim of each patent. In the Xerox "unistroke" patent, the symbols are defined as being one continuous movement, detected by a mechanism that's specifically looking for a particular set of motions, which correspond only to textual elements. In the later PalmSource patent, the symbols are complex arrangements of possibly-multiple strokes which, once the drawing is complete, are compared to a table of symbols and used to initiate actions.
In true Slashdot form, it's time for an analogy. The Xerox patent is like looking at a novelty clock face: Even if the numbers are distorted, you know exactly what they say because you know what to expect in each number's place. The PalmSource patent is like reading a prescription from a stereotypical doctor: It's a complex set of symbols, but all you need to recognize is what you have to do with it.
I'll say it again: The patent appears to cover later implementations of Graffiti.
Facebook's another victim here, more or less. From TFA, it appears one approach is promoting malicious Facebook apps. Personal opinions of Facebook aside, it seems reasonable. If I trust Initech.com, I'd be me likely to approve a Facebook app from facebook.initech.com.
I was planning a nice long item-by-item rebuttal, then I realized that you really just don't know what you're talking about, despite claims to the contrary. Let's proceed on the assumption that you aren't trolling, and just hit the major fallacies:
Have you never seen POS devices? I agree with the first comment in this thread, which describes a PDA is a computer in a small form factor. Whether the software resides on a desktop, laptop, handheld computer, wrist-top computer, etc... shouldn't determine the software's patentability.
At this point it's clear that you've never learned how patents work. See, it's the claims that matter. Not the title, not the general idea, but the actual specific claims. POS devices don't use complex gestures, so they aren't covered by the patent in question, and aren't prior art. It's that simple. Patents intentionally cover using existing mechanisms in new ways, because that's a major part of inventing.
Microsoft provided an official download knows as Multi-Calendar viewer for Outlook 2000, which could display up to 6 calendars side by side. This was released well before the patent application.
The viewer was published on January 27th of 2000.That is not "well before" the calendar patent's filing date of April 8th, 1999, so this is also not prior art.
However, the only FUD being spread is by the patent trolls, aimed at software developers. Attempts at creating something new and improved are thwarted by fear of copyright infringement.
No, they aren't. Patents and copyright are completely separate. And by now spreading FUD about copyright being involved, you've also shown that first statement invalid as well.
I agree with argument that all programs can be reduced to mathematical expressions, and therefore are not patentable.
Physical inventions can be modeled with a simulator written in software, and therefore can also be reduced to mathematical expressions. It doesn't make sense to draw an arbitrary line where some math is bad because we knew about it in 1790, and some math is good because it's new.
By definition a patent must be new, useful, and non-obvious.
No. By definition a patent is the grant of an exclusive right to produce a particular invention. By United States law (and international treaties), it must be new, useful, and non-obvious.
While the methods listed in the patents are useful, they are neither new, nor non-obvious.
Let's look at the actual claims, then, and think about the history involved.
In the first patent from TFA, the invention claimed is (in simple terms) a system for accepting various commands drawn onto a touch-sensitive display. Yes, we've had touch-sensitive screens for years, but they've never used complex symbols (like circles, polygons, or letters) as commands. It's always been touching single points to select buttons, up until Palm created Graffiti. What does this patent cover? That's another rhetorical question. The patent appears to cover later implementations of Graffiti, which isn't surprising since it was filed by PalmSource, Inc. At the time, was it new? Pretty much, yes. A lot of it is based on earlier Graffiti work, but some the claims cover new functionality relating to what commands can be done with the input system. It's using an old idea in a new way. In 2000 when the patent was filed, most of the actions claimed were unheard of for a handheld terminal to use, like connecting a writing tablet to an optical projector. Skilled in the arts or not, that kind of system wouldn't really be obvious to anyone twelve years ago.
Now let's look at the second patent. This one's pretty easy to see the new and non-obvious use, because the first claim is quite clear:
A portable data storage module for simultaneously depicting multiple calendars on a single display...
Multiple calendars at once, on a single display. Note that we're not talking about having multiple sets of events like most calendar programs do, but showing separate calendars. Later in the claims it's clear that the calendars can be independently controlled to show different time scales. As a software programmer for over 15 years, I personally can't think of any instance where this was done before the patent was filed. I myself certainly wouldn't have thought of it, even if I had been working on a calendar application. It seems quite new and non-obvious to me.
Either the USPTO employees are ill-educated on software methodologies, or just plain lazy.
There is another alternative. You could just completely misunderstand patents, and therefore don't understand how the patent examiners come to their decisions. Just because any programmer could create a similar system, does not mean that the idea isn't worth protecting. Any engineer could have built Jacques Cousteau's diving regulator, if they'd had the idea to assemble all of the parts together in that particular way. No other engineer did, though, and it's unlikely any other programmer is going to produce the exact same software solution without seeing (or reverse-engineering) the original first.
I agree that the whole of civilization has been built by minor improvements. So, why should we slow that process down with software patents?
There is no guarantee and little indication that software patents would slow down innovation. Instead, there is just wild speculation and a lot of FUD.
The basis for rejecting software patents comes from the fact that all programs are merely mathematical expressions, written in a particular notation. Mathematics is not patentable because math is considered a fundamental truth of the universe, and therefore not invented but discovered.
Personally, I take an opposing view: Algorithms are not so much fundamental truth
And every particle used to make every invention existed in some form in the mid-1500s BC. Does that invalidate every patent?
Of course not. Patents are a specific assembly of specific solutions to specific problems. If a patent turns out to not be specific enough, it can be made specific later or discarded entirely. The mere existence of similar solutions does not invalidate a patent, nor should it. The whole of civilization has been built by minor improvements.
This is Slashdot. We will devise a brilliant solution, utilizing the latest technology from around the world, in a complex yet elegant manner. Once this solution is established, no faults will be acknowledged, for we are faultless. The next time such a situation arises, we will angrily wonder why our solution was ignored by those evil profit-oriented corporations.
This is Slashdot. Practicality isn't very welcome here.
If I were in this situation, this is almost exactly how I'd handle it. I'd explain the offer to the old employer, explain how the commute is much better, and that the past few years were great. I'd then offer,to answer any questions about the existing project via phone or email as time allows. Don't let it interfere with the new job, but I see no problem with dedicating some of the extra 90 minutes of personal time to keeping professional friends.
Now, I don't like such absolutes as "never", because they're so... absolute. It's fully possible to, while following the scientific method perfectly, prove a hypothesis correct. It just takes a very particular kind of hypothesis, and a very particular kind of experiment.
As an example, consider the hypothesis that of Foo, Bar, and Baz, Foo is the most quiggle. This hypothesis can indeed be proven correct, but only by testing every possibility, which of course results in proving other hypotheses wrong.
As for the fields of pharmacology and medical science, your complaint of worthless research seems to be based on the assumption that only perfect knowledge is worthwhile. Quite the contrary, actually: Medical treatments can be effective even if we don't know why. The pain-relieving quality of willow bark was known 2300 years before its pharmacological mechanism was understood. Research into new treatments is very valuable, even without full understanding of the mechanisms involved. Of course such knowledge is preferred, but that's another several years of research after the initial findings.
The only "huge issue" I see with pharmacology and medical science is that they're so intently watched by the media and "science fans" for any sign of a coming miracle cure, in the constant hunt for headlines. Any finding of anything affecting any kind of cancer cells is reported as a "potential cure". In the actual research paper, the findings are almost always stated exactly as they should be: some indications, little concrete evidence, and suggestions for further avenues of research. Other sciences are picking up this attention, as well, but still usually maintain their integrity. Electrical engineering hits the news whenever some transparent, tiny, or shiny prototype finally works. Psychologists are asked for comment when there's a serial killer running amok. Sociology has its fifteen minutes of fame when there's some new theory to explain 4chan. Disease is just constantly affecting millions of people, so it's always interesting news.
Except these guys didn't get rid of the original DNA. That's what made this attempt work, and also what makes it clinically useless.
The good news is that now we know what to look for next: Ways to remove the original DNA from the egg, without making it stop dividing after a few rounds.
An engine comes out of the factory, but it's only half complete. It's installed into a car, and the car goes nowhere. Usually in cases like this, the manufacturer would put in a new engine, and the car would run fine for a bit, then stop for no known reason. Now a bunch of researchers have come along, and put a complete engine into the car, and it can suddenly drive! Now, those researchers didn't remove the old engine, so the car's slower than it should be and doesn't really run well, but it runs and, for still-unknown reasons, keeps running.
They took an egg. They inserted a full copy of the DNA, and the egg did what eggs normally do when they have a full copy of DNA: it started growing. The difference from previous attempts is that the single chromosome set that originally was in the egg was left in, when usually, it's removed. That difference led to different results. Previous attempts to clone humans have failed after a few cell divisions, but now the cells are able to continually divide! There's an extra set of chromosomes, which means the produced cells aren't really useful for clinical use, but it's a step in the right direction.
Your analogy describes turning one kind of fully-grown and mature cell into something completely and utterly different, like turning a skin cell into a neuron. A more apt analogy for this process is turning a half-installed Debian system into a booting Red Hat system by just reinstalling over the half-installed copy. It boots and seems functional enough, but you know it's not quite right.
Science only very rarely shows that some hypothesis is correct. More often, it shows that every other tested hypothesis is wrong, and that the one that's left is just the most likely.
The "vaccines cause autism" hypothesis has been tested, and is shown to most likely be wrong. The "magic space fairy causes autism" hypothesis hasn't yet been tested, or the "too many hard sneezes while pregnant causes autism" hypothesis, nor a few hundred others. We have such a long way to go...
I expect they already are bargaining as low as they need to. I just apparently expect a bit more than these analysts. $10 is a small enough margin that Amazon could be getting several components for just slightly less than the analysts expect, and be breaking even. Given that Amazon's main revenue source for the Kindle is selling content, breaking even would be a perfect target - then those jerks who buy it to hack aren't costing the company anything.
So a company with the bargaining power of Amazon makes a new product, and can't get the price down $10 more? I find that hard to believe. On top of that, the component prices in TFA are estimates. I see no indication of how accurate they are. I also don't see any point to this story.
I have a friend with joint problems. She has difficulty walking up stairs, so she's been considering getting a stair lift to help. There's only one problem. She's concerned that the noise would drive her up a wall.
As a Unitarian, let me assure you that we couldn't get out of committee meetings long enough to attempt any sort of terrorist action. Our secret plots all come out easily, anyway, because a major tenet of our faith is open discussion around the Sacred Coffeepot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, exactly, we all know it's ok for Apple because they had 9 less buttons on the bottom whereas Samsung does not so, by the law of button count infringement, that means Apple doesn't infringe on the 2001 device but Samsung infringes on Apple's device.
The many buttons (or lack thereof) are an immediately-evident detail that shows we're not looking at a genuine iPad in 2001. When I searched on Google (for "2001 ipad" I think) to eventually find that page, I noticed small dots at the bottom of the 2001 tablet. That difference was evident in a thumbnail of a scene shot from a perspective of being 3 meters high overhead. That's a very obvious detail, and it contributes greatly to having an overall different appearance.
Apple has a symmetric bezel as opposed to an asymmetric bezel and because of the well-known bezel symmetry vs beveled edge inequality
The bezel is the frame around the screen. On the 2001 device, there's a thin bezel going around three sides of the screen, and a large bezel at the bottom to hold the buttons. The iPad has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides. The Galaxy Tab has a roughly half-inch bezel around all four sides.
it means that technically Apple's bezel is different to that of the device show[n] in 2001
Yes, exactly. Apple's bezel is different, because it's not the same.
but the beveled edges (show[n] here) are exactly identical.
Not exactly identical, but that's not really an issue. The bevel (meaning the smoothing of the edge, which is unrelated to the bezel being the frame around the screen) is a subtle enough detail that even a major change (like having no bevel at all) wouldn't do much to distinguish a Galaxy Tab from an iPad. At a glance, they look the same. Also note that the bevel can only really be seen in profile...
And lastly with the profile, we come to another law of inequality regarding profile and aspect ratio, profiles differ but 4:3 is exactly equal to 16:9 and thus the latter does not constitute a difference.
That's not what profile means. It means "outline as seen from the side", and again the 2001 design is significantly different from the iPad. Not only do the buttons appear to be raised from the surface, but the bezel with the buttons looks slanted upwards at the bottom. When viewed from the side, the 2001 tablet would have a distinctly different appearance from the iPad. The Galaxy Tab appears to be the same thickness as the iPad, with the same perfectly-flat design.
Also sorry Samsung but the fact that your corner radius is different won't save you either, we can come up with a way to oppose that one if you choose to use it as a defense so don't bother.
That's another ridiculously subtle difference that would only be apparent in a side-by-side comparison.
All together, there are enough similarities in the design and few enough differences that from a distance, it's unreasonable to expect people to see the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab. Conversely, there are enough differences that an iPad is clearly not copying any design from 2001. No, this is not an absolute definition, and there are no fixed rules on what makes something different enough to not infringe on a trademark.
For a simple test of whether something is likely to infringe on another product's design, try this test: Write down a verbose description of the design, using as few actual measurements as possible. For the iPad, this would be something like "A rectangular platform with a glossy front surface. The front has a touch screen surrounded by a bezel roughly half an inch wide. There is a single concave button on a short side of the bezel with a picture of a ho
The PADDs had larger bezels and buttons on the front. The iPad trademark (and the infringing Samsung products) do not.
You mean the one with an asymmetric bezel, 10 buttons, and a completely different profile?
(unlike the patent-a-rectangle nature of the opposition)
Ah, Slashdot... as professional as ever!
Apple's patent doesn't cover just a "rectangle". Apple has design patents and trademarks covering the overall look of the device, including the rounded corners, glossy panel, and size of the bezel. As a trademark, people should be able to look at an iPad and say "Oh, that's an iPad!" without seeing the logo. Upon a cursory review, Samsung's product looks very similar to an iPad, to the point of diminishing the uniqueness of the trademarked design. Samsung certainly appears to be aiming to cash in on the elitist market by offering a similar-looking product at a lower price. It's the computer equivalent of a Canal Street counterfeit Rolex watch. A non-infringing product would be one with a screen extending all the way to the edge of the device, or one with more decoration on the front, or any of myriad other alterations to the basic "rectangle" pattern.
Samsung's patents are technical in nature because they're for technology, not design.
Compared to fully-attentive driving, using a cell phone while driving in Nebraska is no safer than anywhere else in the world. Text while driving, and you give X% less attention to the road. Being in central Nebraska just means you have less stuff you're likely to hit, so all driving is safer.
Think of it this way: If it's reasonably safe to drive in Nebraska while using a cell phone, imagine how safe it'd be if you didn't!
Squirrels are a very common nuisance for folks building big holiday displays. They'll gnaw straight through the wires, bite off bulbs, and pull down strings. That it's a problem for other kinds of cables doesn't surprise me.
On weekends, I "work" (stage tech is also my hobby, so I don't like calling it actual work) as a lighting technician in a local theater. I'm not actually allowed to hang my own lights, because that's a union carpenter's job. I can't plug them in, because that's a union electrician's job. I can't touch any set pieces, because that's a union stage hand's job.
This would be just fine, if the union carpenters were there more than once a week (on Thursdays, when I'm not there), or if the electricians were there after the carpenters (on Tuesdays, before the lights are hung), or if the stage hands were there for anything other than performances (which is really a bad time to be changing the lighting, anyway).
Instead, the technicians put in change requests on weekends, and wait two weeks for the lights to be hung and plugged in. The carpenters have to do their work on lifts and ladders, because the stage hands won't move set pieces out of the way for lights to be lowered to the stage. I pointed out to the unions how horribly inefficient this is, and I was promptly told that I really shouldn't be stirring up trouble and I should accept that the unions are doing what's best for everybody.
As someone who doesn't blindly accept the union doctrine, I can easily see how useless unions are in practice.
All of which is irrelevant, because this patent claims something different from the original Xerox patent. The difference lies in the first claim of each patent. In the Xerox "unistroke" patent, the symbols are defined as being one continuous movement, detected by a mechanism that's specifically looking for a particular set of motions, which correspond only to textual elements. In the later PalmSource patent, the symbols are complex arrangements of possibly-multiple strokes which, once the drawing is complete, are compared to a table of symbols and used to initiate actions.
In true Slashdot form, it's time for an analogy. The Xerox patent is like looking at a novelty clock face: Even if the numbers are distorted, you know exactly what they say because you know what to expect in each number's place. The PalmSource patent is like reading a prescription from a stereotypical doctor: It's a complex set of symbols, but all you need to recognize is what you have to do with it.
I'll say it again: The patent appears to cover later implementations of Graffiti.
Facebook's another victim here, more or less. From TFA, it appears one approach is promoting malicious Facebook apps. Personal opinions of Facebook aside, it seems reasonable. If I trust Initech.com, I'd be me likely to approve a Facebook app from facebook.initech.com.
I was planning a nice long item-by-item rebuttal, then I realized that you really just don't know what you're talking about, despite claims to the contrary. Let's proceed on the assumption that you aren't trolling, and just hit the major fallacies:
Have you never seen POS devices? I agree with the first comment in this thread, which describes a PDA is a computer in a small form factor. Whether the software resides on a desktop, laptop, handheld computer, wrist-top computer, etc... shouldn't determine the software's patentability.
At this point it's clear that you've never learned how patents work. See, it's the claims that matter. Not the title, not the general idea, but the actual specific claims. POS devices don't use complex gestures, so they aren't covered by the patent in question, and aren't prior art. It's that simple. Patents intentionally cover using existing mechanisms in new ways, because that's a major part of inventing.
Microsoft provided an official download knows as Multi-Calendar viewer for Outlook 2000, which could display up to 6 calendars side by side. This was released well before the patent application.
The viewer was published on January 27th of 2000.That is not "well before" the calendar patent's filing date of April 8th, 1999, so this is also not prior art.
However, the only FUD being spread is by the patent trolls, aimed at software developers. Attempts at creating something new and improved are thwarted by fear of copyright infringement.
No, they aren't. Patents and copyright are completely separate. And by now spreading FUD about copyright being involved, you've also shown that first statement invalid as well.
I agree with argument that all programs can be reduced to mathematical expressions, and therefore are not patentable.
Physical inventions can be modeled with a simulator written in software, and therefore can also be reduced to mathematical expressions. It doesn't make sense to draw an arbitrary line where some math is bad because we knew about it in 1790, and some math is good because it's new.
Why do you ask a question, then answer it yourself?
Because it's a device.
By definition a patent must be new, useful, and non-obvious.
No. By definition a patent is the grant of an exclusive right to produce a particular invention. By United States law (and international treaties), it must be new, useful, and non-obvious.
While the methods listed in the patents are useful, they are neither new, nor non-obvious.
Let's look at the actual claims, then, and think about the history involved.
In the first patent from TFA, the invention claimed is (in simple terms) a system for accepting various commands drawn onto a touch-sensitive display. Yes, we've had touch-sensitive screens for years, but they've never used complex symbols (like circles, polygons, or letters) as commands. It's always been touching single points to select buttons, up until Palm created Graffiti. What does this patent cover? That's another rhetorical question. The patent appears to cover later implementations of Graffiti, which isn't surprising since it was filed by PalmSource, Inc. At the time, was it new? Pretty much, yes. A lot of it is based on earlier Graffiti work, but some the claims cover new functionality relating to what commands can be done with the input system. It's using an old idea in a new way. In 2000 when the patent was filed, most of the actions claimed were unheard of for a handheld terminal to use, like connecting a writing tablet to an optical projector. Skilled in the arts or not, that kind of system wouldn't really be obvious to anyone twelve years ago.
Now let's look at the second patent. This one's pretty easy to see the new and non-obvious use, because the first claim is quite clear:
A portable data storage module for simultaneously depicting multiple calendars on a single display...
Multiple calendars at once, on a single display. Note that we're not talking about having multiple sets of events like most calendar programs do, but showing separate calendars. Later in the claims it's clear that the calendars can be independently controlled to show different time scales. As a software programmer for over 15 years, I personally can't think of any instance where this was done before the patent was filed. I myself certainly wouldn't have thought of it, even if I had been working on a calendar application. It seems quite new and non-obvious to me.
Either the USPTO employees are ill-educated on software methodologies, or just plain lazy.
There is another alternative. You could just completely misunderstand patents, and therefore don't understand how the patent examiners come to their decisions. Just because any programmer could create a similar system, does not mean that the idea isn't worth protecting. Any engineer could have built Jacques Cousteau's diving regulator, if they'd had the idea to assemble all of the parts together in that particular way. No other engineer did, though, and it's unlikely any other programmer is going to produce the exact same software solution without seeing (or reverse-engineering) the original first.
I agree that the whole of civilization has been built by minor improvements. So, why should we slow that process down with software patents?
There is no guarantee and little indication that software patents would slow down innovation. Instead, there is just wild speculation and a lot of FUD.
The basis for rejecting software patents comes from the fact that all programs are merely mathematical expressions, written in a particular notation. Mathematics is not patentable because math is considered a fundamental truth of the universe, and therefore not invented but discovered.
Personally, I take an opposing view: Algorithms are not so much fundamental truth
And every particle used to make every invention existed in some form in the mid-1500s BC. Does that invalidate every patent?
Of course not. Patents are a specific assembly of specific solutions to specific problems. If a patent turns out to not be specific enough, it can be made specific later or discarded entirely. The mere existence of similar solutions does not invalidate a patent, nor should it. The whole of civilization has been built by minor improvements.
This is Slashdot. We will devise a brilliant solution, utilizing the latest technology from around the world, in a complex yet elegant manner. Once this solution is established, no faults will be acknowledged, for we are faultless. The next time such a situation arises, we will angrily wonder why our solution was ignored by those evil profit-oriented corporations.
This is Slashdot. Practicality isn't very welcome here.
If I were in this situation, this is almost exactly how I'd handle it. I'd explain the offer to the old employer, explain how the commute is much better, and that the past few years were great. I'd then offer ,to answer any questions about the existing project via phone or email as time allows. Don't let it interfere with the new job, but I see no problem with dedicating some of the extra 90 minutes of personal time to keeping professional friends.
Hence why it's only applicable to hypotheses where "every possibility" is a well-defined finite set.
Now, I don't like such absolutes as "never", because they're so... absolute. It's fully possible to, while following the scientific method perfectly, prove a hypothesis correct. It just takes a very particular kind of hypothesis, and a very particular kind of experiment.
As an example, consider the hypothesis that of Foo, Bar, and Baz, Foo is the most quiggle. This hypothesis can indeed be proven correct, but only by testing every possibility, which of course results in proving other hypotheses wrong.
As for the fields of pharmacology and medical science, your complaint of worthless research seems to be based on the assumption that only perfect knowledge is worthwhile. Quite the contrary, actually: Medical treatments can be effective even if we don't know why. The pain-relieving quality of willow bark was known 2300 years before its pharmacological mechanism was understood. Research into new treatments is very valuable, even without full understanding of the mechanisms involved. Of course such knowledge is preferred, but that's another several years of research after the initial findings.
The only "huge issue" I see with pharmacology and medical science is that they're so intently watched by the media and "science fans" for any sign of a coming miracle cure, in the constant hunt for headlines. Any finding of anything affecting any kind of cancer cells is reported as a "potential cure". In the actual research paper, the findings are almost always stated exactly as they should be: some indications, little concrete evidence, and suggestions for further avenues of research. Other sciences are picking up this attention, as well, but still usually maintain their integrity. Electrical engineering hits the news whenever some transparent, tiny, or shiny prototype finally works. Psychologists are asked for comment when there's a serial killer running amok. Sociology has its fifteen minutes of fame when there's some new theory to explain 4chan. Disease is just constantly affecting millions of people, so it's always interesting news.
Except these guys didn't get rid of the original DNA. That's what made this attempt work, and also what makes it clinically useless.
The good news is that now we know what to look for next: Ways to remove the original DNA from the egg, without making it stop dividing after a few rounds.
An engine comes out of the factory, but it's only half complete. It's installed into a car, and the car goes nowhere. Usually in cases like this, the manufacturer would put in a new engine, and the car would run fine for a bit, then stop for no known reason. Now a bunch of researchers have come along, and put a complete engine into the car, and it can suddenly drive! Now, those researchers didn't remove the old engine, so the car's slower than it should be and doesn't really run well, but it runs and, for still-unknown reasons, keeps running.
They took an egg. They inserted a full copy of the DNA, and the egg did what eggs normally do when they have a full copy of DNA: it started growing. The difference from previous attempts is that the single chromosome set that originally was in the egg was left in, when usually, it's removed. That difference led to different results. Previous attempts to clone humans have failed after a few cell divisions, but now the cells are able to continually divide! There's an extra set of chromosomes, which means the produced cells aren't really useful for clinical use, but it's a step in the right direction.
Your analogy describes turning one kind of fully-grown and mature cell into something completely and utterly different, like turning a skin cell into a neuron. A more apt analogy for this process is turning a half-installed Debian system into a booting Red Hat system by just reinstalling over the half-installed copy. It boots and seems functional enough, but you know it's not quite right.
Science only very rarely shows that some hypothesis is correct. More often, it shows that every other tested hypothesis is wrong, and that the one that's left is just the most likely.
The "vaccines cause autism" hypothesis has been tested, and is shown to most likely be wrong. The "magic space fairy causes autism" hypothesis hasn't yet been tested, or the "too many hard sneezes while pregnant causes autism" hypothesis, nor a few hundred others. We have such a long way to go...
I expect they already are bargaining as low as they need to. I just apparently expect a bit more than these analysts. $10 is a small enough margin that Amazon could be getting several components for just slightly less than the analysts expect, and be breaking even. Given that Amazon's main revenue source for the Kindle is selling content, breaking even would be a perfect target - then those jerks who buy it to hack aren't costing the company anything.
So a company with the bargaining power of Amazon makes a new product, and can't get the price down $10 more? I find that hard to believe. On top of that, the component prices in TFA are estimates. I see no indication of how accurate they are. I also don't see any point to this story.
I have a friend with joint problems. She has difficulty walking up stairs, so she's been considering getting a stair lift to help. There's only one problem. She's concerned that the noise would drive her up a wall.
As a Unitarian, let me assure you that we couldn't get out of committee meetings long enough to attempt any sort of terrorist action. Our secret plots all come out easily, anyway, because a major tenet of our faith is open discussion around the Sacred Coffeepot.
Swords into plowshares on a farm that feeds the military?