And interestingly those complaining don't see the irony. At every software patent story they shout:
You can't patent that... it's the same thing as this physical device or existing process... only "with a computer".
And then this story comes out and they're all:
OMG...the man already does this in real life... if I hang out with drug dealers they think maybe I'm a drug dealer (or user). But this shouldn't be allowed. This this is different... it's "with a computer".
I think there would be much heavier bar traffic and larger superbowl parties (people without cable would choose one of those). People would not all just decide to spend $600 for a year of basic cable (typical minimum contract length) just to watch the superbowl. Hell do that two years and you can buy a ticket to the actual game... they're not buying cable just for that.
I had a friend who actually had a dog named "cable". I asked him why and he said when they had kids and the kids got old enough they wanted to get the kids a pet. But, the family had to choose between a pet and cable; they simply couldn't afford both. They chose to name their new pup "Cable".
Same friend played fantasy sports with us, but was always into football much more than the other sports. His reasoning made sense... he could watch all the NFL games, but the other leagues didn't give a shit about the fans. This was back when Monday Night Football was on over the air TV. MLB, most of the games are on cable only. Very few games for the NBA are on over the air TV. I thought he was crazy when he first expressed it, but when MNF went to ESPN I knew what a shame it was and how it had an affect on fans. I'd be interested to see what happened with cable subscriptions when that happened, but I doubt there was a major shift up or down. I cancelled my cable some time after that and while I occasionally get a bug to watch some MNF, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money for it. Hopefully one of the over the air networks will buy it back, but if not, then I'll just miss out or it will be a treat when I get to catch a game at a friends house.
I think that people are watching their money a little closer and are more likely to defect from a sport or go hang with a friend than to spend significantly more money trying to watch an extra game.
Arguably, in software this core rationale for patents no longer applies.
Arguably, yes, and well, arguably, no.
Patents should cover software for the very reasons that you claim they need not... I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do want to point out the other side of the "arguably" fence.
Software patents are legitimately needed for the little guy developer. People have ideas of "software than can do something" just like they have ideas about "things that do something". A single developer can spend years developing a product to do a particular needed task. Then they have to fund marketing. Have to fund support. Have to fund distribution. And so on. There are still MANY costs to the "inventer" even if they manage to spend nothing other than their own time in building the prototype code.
Now, if it is the least bit useful then it opens up a new set of worries for the small developer (and simultaneously makes the project worth while). There is a chance that someone with more resources sees the potential value of this software and decides to buy their own copy and then just rebuild it using their own staff. Perhaps this new group even makes great improvements and puts out an even better product in the end than the original developer would have. But the implementation of what the software IS (the core of it) and how all the components fit together came from the original creator of the software. If that original creator can patent that magic combination then they have an incentive to put together a such a product and nurture it along without fear of someone else swooping in after the hardest work is done. In the worst case they will be compensated for their troubles when someone else decided they want to use that idea. But, if they know that someone else with a giant marketing department and development staff can just snatch up their invention and its core concepts then it's reasonable on the inventors part to just not take the time to innovate and not turn ideas into inventions.
This is actually a great idea. Sell the book (assuming your kickstarter project description doesn't rule that out) and then make it clear that it can be had for "free" if someone asks. Maybe you have them agree to sign up for a newsletter you do or something like that as well. This gives you a chance to reach them down the road when you have something else of value to share. Maybe they can pay for it then, and maybe they can't, but it's one more potential customer that you have immediate access to and who will be an advocate for you due to your generous gift the first time around.
Here, maybe this will help. Read it PLEASE. I included an excerpt below.
The Federal Circuit outlined the "ordinary observer" test of design patent infringement in its en banc Egyptian Goddess decision. Here, the court fleshed-out that test with further details and nuances. Infringement of a design patent requires proof that an "ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design." The hypothetical ordinary observer is considered to have knowledge of the prior art. Thus, "if the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design assume more importance to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer." "The ordinary observer test applies to the patented design in its entirety, as it is claimed. [Therefore, minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and [do] not, prevent a finding of infringement.” (quoting Payless Shoesource and Litton Sys.).
The court again emphasized that the test considers the design as a whole and that the court should not use drawing details to create an infringement checklist because "concentration on small differences in isolation distract[s] from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features." Rather, a better tool for determining infringement is a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product.
On the facts of this case, the Federal Circuit found that the allegedly infringing shoes were "nearly identical" to the patented design. "If the claimed design and the accused designs were arrayed in matching colors and mixed up randomly, this court is not confident that an ordinary observer could properly restore them to their original order without very careful and prolonged effort. . . . [T]his court perceives that the accused products embody the overall effect of the ’789 design in sufficient detail and clarity to cause market confusion. Thus, the accused products infringe the ’789 design."
Now let's look at your comment:
If Apple design a flux capacitor and make it look exactly like the one in the movie... [they could not patent it]
And since there are previous examples of something which looks very similar... [they cannot patent it]
You're calling my argument bad? Please reread your own response. You actually tried to equate "exactly" and "very similar"! And my argument is bad?
Look, I said in my last post and i'll say it again here. You don't get a design patent for "very similar"! It is a extremely exact thing - or atleast a very, very, very, very, similar thing... to the point of being indistinguishable - just look at the shoe design patent link I provided. That's why the case was thrown out in favor of Samsung. The judge said "Apple, Samsung's design is different in these ways... it's not as cool. I can tell the difference and I don't think an ordinary observer would be fooled. Therefore no infringement." It's also why these other designs from the specifically mentioned TV shows / movies are NOT prior art... because you can look at a startrek tablet and then look at an ipad and easily discern one from the other.
I don't think I'm confused. I know I'm not confused about what I said, but I suppose I could have misunderstood the OP. Scroll down a few comments or click on my name and see the other comment on this top and you'll see that I very clearly explained to someone else exactly what you just shared. It's two different topics. One is on design patents and the other is on what counts as "prior art" of a utility patent.
My comment (that you responded to) is a response to TWX's assertion that because something was shown in Star Trek or Back To The Future that it is somehow prior art (for a utility patent) - an absurd concept. If, however, TWX was actually discussing the design patent problems then he's still wrong and perhaps even more so than I originally thought. None of what was seen on Star Trek, etc was an exact copy of the iPad's design. And, as you no doubt know, design patents are extremely specific. So if the iPad was different than a Trek based handheld then it was just different... nothing else really to be said. Which explains why in this case the judge said, "Ummm... Apple, you do realize this Samsung device looks different in these certain ways, right? Good. Case dismissed. Now say you're sorry and go away."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're wrong about the meat of what you said... You just described design patents. I just think it was out of place, but that might be because we have two different interpretations of what the OP meant. Either way the OP was wrong and we've now iterated over all the things they COULD have meant (well, except plant patents but surely we can exclude that) and all the ways to correct their view no matter which one they actually meant... so good discussion I guess.
All of the people that modded this down are confused. You think if someone actually invents a "flux capacitor" and makes it work that they shouldn't be able to patent it? Just because they saw something in a movie? People, that doesn't mean that it is off limits in terms of being invented. Having an idea and having actually invented something are two very different things.
It's not an "idea". It's a design. And the fact that Samsung's were different AT ALL is why Apple lost out. It would be total garbage if Ferrari were to make a new, super sleek car and then someone from Honda came along and just copied it outright and then sold it at a lower price point. So the design patent keeps that from happening - as it should. The same is true with smaller devices. Even electronic ones.
This is close to what happens where I live now. Water is $35 or so for the first 1000 gallons and then some number of centers per gallon beyond that. We almost always pay the minimum at our house... normal water bill around $42 including garbage collection. I thought this tiered pricing was how it was everywhere... except that in some places that flat fee was more / less. I've got friends that live in the next city over that pay close to $80 per month for water and I just assumed their tier started higher.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and share. I'm glad you had the sense to follow your instincts and get out of there. We're all part of the food chain, but you don't want to be anybody's dinner when you can avoid it!
wait wait wait. I have to hear more about this. You were hunted by a cougar... a large cat? Please share more. How close was it? How did you know? How did you "escape"?
In spite of the ambiguity of your statement I won't even bother correcting it... Plus I can use it to illustrate a point I'd like to make anyway. Let' just give you your little 'functions' statement and go from there.
I can't patent a hexnut. I can't patent a screw. I can't patent a lever. I can't patent steel. I can't patent dirt or oil. All of these things are things that have either been patented and those patents have expired or they are natural. With me?
But I can patent an invention that combines those elements in a novel way. I won't have a patent on oil, but I can patent plenty of items that make use of oil. I can't patent a hexnut, but I can patent something that uses a hexnut.
My understanding is that software patents are the same thing. You can't patent the "operations", but you can patent a collection of operations arranged in a certain way to yield a certain result. I see no reason that software "engineer" shouldn't get the same protection that a mechanical "engineer" gets when each of them simply takes (or makes) raw materials and then combines them in novel / useful ways in order to solve a problem.
I am glad you're only beginning to believe it... there's still hope for you to turn it around.
When was the last time any one of the moderators who bumped this all the way up to 'insighful' thought about starting a business and said "oops, better not do that... I might get sued for patent infringement"? I'm betting never. And if so, did they actually get an attorney do a search to see (or do a patent search themselves via the USPTO)? I'm betting that finishes off the entire bunch if any made it past the first filter.
I won't get into my opinion about why small businesses are failing to get started, but I will say that IF it is for the reason you stated THEN we have a country full of chicken shits who apprently prefer to make excuses about why they will fail rather than putting forth the actual mental / physical effort it may take to succeed.
This is true, but it hardly accounts for the entire market. Even if just Fanny/Freddie were making shitty loan guarantees, it doesn't explain the collapse in value.
It easily explains the collapse in value. When it became apparent to those in the know that a large segment of the loan base couldn't pay back their loans then it also became obvious that the property "backing" those loans would soon have to be put on the market. Either the banks would put it on the market (foreclosure) or the "owners" would put it on the market (regular sale). With an increase in supply what happens? You guessed it... the price goes down for every bit of the supply. Then the "average time on market" significantly increases due to the higher volume of houses on the market and now you've got a real panic - even from people who could afford their houses! Since panic tends to amplify issues (if high demand then "panic" will make people spend way too much; if high supply then "panic" tends to make people sell to quickly or too low) the actual problem itself was amplified.
Every bit of this can be traced back to banks giving out risky loans that were backed by the US government. I don't necessarily blame the banks... they were asked to do it and they had "nothing to lose". But I do blame people who should have known better (yes, personal responsibility). And I do blame the government for trying to engineer a solution to a problem that wasn't really a problem ("low" home ownership) and passing legislation that created way more issues than it solved.
I stand corrected on the point about vector maps being an improvement only available on the iPhone 5... I'll be spared from using the same (poor) example again if the topic ever comes up... thanks for that...
In spite of my poor example, the opinion I was expressing still holds. Increased innovation is more likely now that there is actual competition by two entities that want to be king of the hill. Before there was one obvious leader with a stellar (in today's world) product and they were able to improve at their leisure. They no longer have that luxury and in the end we'll probably end up with better products far sooner. The consumer will be the real winner down the road even if right now some of the consumers lose a bit. I can live with that... and I, unlike Android users, am one of those who could actually be affected by the map situation.
Dave, I think that's the whole point. Google was the map provider for Droid and iOS, but they weren't keeping the iOS version up-to-date in terms of functionality like the were the Droid versions. That's exactly why Apple told them to take a hike. Apple wanted to offer its users a better experience and Google wasn't willing to make a deal that Apple could live with to make that happen.
I agree, this is going to hurt Apple in the short term, but it's a great business decision and in the end users will win no matter who they go with because competition will cause improvement all around.
Apple has already somewhat innovated (or at least done something better) in their unpolished product. They're using vector based map images rather than the more images in Google maps. It allows you to see zoom in a more continuous fashion (as opposed to discreet zoom levels) and allows up to 300 miles of visibility rather than the 35 miles Google maps allows in the event that the phone goes off line.
I have an iPhone 5 and I can tell the difference in the maps, but does anyone else actually care right NOW? Probably not - not when it's showing the wrong map based on your location. But when maps has gotten the first few major bugs out of its system this improvement will definitely be a feather in the iOS map's hat that Google will have to work to keep up with. In the end this decision is good for everyone and I think a lot of the advertising by Google focusing on iOS maps shortcomings is a sign of how concerned Google is... which is also a sign of how hard they'll be working improve their own product.
I understand your tailgating comment. I hate that too. But if you're literally slowing down traffic and there's a designated slow lane right next to you then who's being the unsafe asshole... that's right, buddy, you're in the lead.
That's not was Jesus said and I think it's probably a stretch to get all the way there from what he did actually say. I am interested though in hearing how you got to this interpretation as I've never heard it before. Could make for some interesting reading if you've got links that ANYONE interprets the "render unto Ceaser" stuff to mean what you seem to think it means.
The conservative/liberal dynamic applied to software development is total bullshit.
Except that the two words "conservative" and "liberal" have actual meanings outside of the political realm. Sometimes using a single word (OMG... a label!) goes a long way towards making discussions more fruitful and less laborious.
My gut reaction was the same as yours... this is crazy! But the essay makes some good points. You're correct in that there is a split, but there are a huge number of subjects to split on and most people lean one way or the other on the majority of those items. Sure, there are those who are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal... and the same can occur in software ideals / behaviors. The author didn't call anything right or wrong - he used the words exactly as they are defined.
Sometimes it's easier to just know that even if Fred is one liberal dude outside of work he is, at the same time, the most conservative software guy in the company. The probability of getting him to sign off on your new technology being used for a critical application is next to zero. Don't waste your time. He might not be against the tech itself, but not for that application - not at that time.
I can see other uses for this way of looking at things as well. Both in actual sales and in "selling" you ideas. Sometimes being able to simply "frame" the problem in the "right way" according to who you're talking to will help you get more done in communicating and significant increase your odds. There's nothing new here, right. Just classifications. Marketers advertise differently and stress different benefits to different target audiences. When I'm talking to a software liberal about a new project I can explain how awesome it's going to be because things will get done faster and be more flexible, but when I'm talking to a software conservative about the same project I can explain how it will be more "fool proof", have better error handling, be more effiecient, etc.
I'm don't know if you actually read the article (it's quite long so I doubt it based on how quickly this was posted), but the article actually goes into a lot of detail regarding the varying "conservative" software development practices, "liberal" software development practices, and the likelihood of types of companies (and right on down to the developers) that utilize each. If you don't like the labels then change them to whatever you want. Call it already done if you want, but I think the discussion (and the labels) helps to make it more concrete that there are "different strokes for different folks" and in the software world where those differences often lie.
I want to take your idea and extend it. Make it possible to say "nope, this is in fact not an infringement" and get it automatically reinstated, but then if there is still an issue... let 'em race for the slips. Some corp wants to issue a take down request that's fine. But if it is argued that it's a BS request then it is referred to a real "deciding body" of some sort.
Whoever loses in this process loses their youtube channel and / or rights to request take downs for a certain time period (extended with each failed request). My guess is that a $100 penalty is a joke to almost everyone issuing complaints, but a real chance at losing your ability to protect legitimate, important Intellectual Property is going to be a wake up call. I'm not against IP, copyrights, patents (even software patents), but I'm against someone (corps included) being lazy asses who put the onus on someone else to defend themselves just because there will be no repercussions if they DO successfully defend themselves.
99 weeks of unemployment would vary depending on your original salary and the state you live in, but it would be closer to $40k (or $20k/yr) than it would be to $100k.
I already addressed the math error. The original comment sat there for 4 hours without anyone saying anything. I responded to my own comment pointing out my own error and 1/2 hour later here comes a message telling me my math was wrong.
What I always find interesting when the topic comes up is that everyone seems to think they know what the riches "fair share" is. What is it? Is it somehow more (percentage wise) than everyone elses? The answer is that the value is going to be different in everyone's opinion. The "not rich" sit around and talk about it like there's some definite hard value that should be imposed on the rich like some constant of the universe that is being ignored to humanities peril. The rich know that their fair share of taxes is whatever the law says it is. So right now, they're paying their "fair share". When the tax cuts expire they'll be paying their "fair share" then. If new cuts are made then it'll be the same again. The difference we'll see is how much people are willing to pay in taxes before they say... screw it... it's safer to just not risk my money and not earn anything and not pay any taxes.
You can say that something is in jeopardy without saying it's under full assault. The reason I even got into this conversation is because a commenter tried to distort capitalism by pointing to the few crappy outlier aspects. Then we got a follow up where someone claimed that the rich are assaulting the poor. My view is that the rich are simply living and the poor are simply living. But fear and envy has people lashing out with a class warfare type attitude saying it's that guys fault because they are either greedy or lazy. Understand that I'm not calling either group greedy or lazy... I'm just saying what the arguments tend to be once the rhetoric gets to flying.
Everybody wants to blame. I hear it was Obama's healthcare. I hear it was the wars by Bush. Or it was Clinton's homes initiatives. Or it was Reagan did this. Or it was Carter did that. We've had people that have thrived through all of these. And I'm pretty sure we've had people that blamed those that thrived through all of these. What's happening in Washington is just very likely to not affect your day to day ability to get ahead. And how much taxes the rich pay above what they are already paying isn't going to be the difference maker. That's my point.
They weren't born and raised in Uganda. Well, probably not anyway... maybe one was... wouldn't that blow your theory! Or would they be the 1%? And if so... would that be bad... seems that's the 1% we want! In any case, they are american citizens and the american right to pursue happiness is theirs. How they would have performed in Uganda is completely off topic as I've never claimed these people to be "better" than anyone else - but they also shouldn't be punished or blamed for succeeding.
Sorry to respond to my own comment, but I had a HUGE math fail above. In my haste I used benefits per month as benefits per week. The amount of benefits (cash) for unemployment was more like 30k over 99 weeks than 100k. The premise still holds true though. That is that it's far more rational to take $15k for "free" then to get up and work for it.
It was true, but not complete. And intentionally misleading. Those are worth double points if you were in either talk radio or Network TV news. But seeing as how you're not... it's just being putz. I swear I even thought as I typed it "I wonder which smartass is going to point out that delusional people don't know that they're delusional". I was betting on some anonymous coward / peanut gallery type person. Definitely not someone actually in the discussion. Seeing as how that's all you found relevant to respond to this just makes me a wonder a little more about type of person I'm dealing with and if their purpose is to discuss or to distort.
Slashdot Mirror
And interestingly those complaining don't see the irony. At every software patent story they shout:
You can't patent that... it's the same thing as this physical device or existing process... only "with a computer".
And then this story comes out and they're all:
OMG...the man already does this in real life... if I hang out with drug dealers they think maybe I'm a drug dealer (or user). But this shouldn't be allowed. This this is different... it's "with a computer".
I think there would be much heavier bar traffic and larger superbowl parties (people without cable would choose one of those). People would not all just decide to spend $600 for a year of basic cable (typical minimum contract length) just to watch the superbowl. Hell do that two years and you can buy a ticket to the actual game... they're not buying cable just for that.
I had a friend who actually had a dog named "cable". I asked him why and he said when they had kids and the kids got old enough they wanted to get the kids a pet. But, the family had to choose between a pet and cable; they simply couldn't afford both. They chose to name their new pup "Cable".
Same friend played fantasy sports with us, but was always into football much more than the other sports. His reasoning made sense... he could watch all the NFL games, but the other leagues didn't give a shit about the fans. This was back when Monday Night Football was on over the air TV. MLB, most of the games are on cable only. Very few games for the NBA are on over the air TV. I thought he was crazy when he first expressed it, but when MNF went to ESPN I knew what a shame it was and how it had an affect on fans. I'd be interested to see what happened with cable subscriptions when that happened, but I doubt there was a major shift up or down. I cancelled my cable some time after that and while I occasionally get a bug to watch some MNF, I'm not willing to spend that kind of money for it. Hopefully one of the over the air networks will buy it back, but if not, then I'll just miss out or it will be a treat when I get to catch a game at a friends house.
I think that people are watching their money a little closer and are more likely to defect from a sport or go hang with a friend than to spend significantly more money trying to watch an extra game.
Arguably, in software this core rationale for patents no longer applies.
Arguably, yes, and well, arguably, no.
Patents should cover software for the very reasons that you claim they need not... I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do want to point out the other side of the "arguably" fence.
Software patents are legitimately needed for the little guy developer. People have ideas of "software than can do something" just like they have ideas about "things that do something". A single developer can spend years developing a product to do a particular needed task. Then they have to fund marketing. Have to fund support. Have to fund distribution. And so on. There are still MANY costs to the "inventer" even if they manage to spend nothing other than their own time in building the prototype code.
Now, if it is the least bit useful then it opens up a new set of worries for the small developer (and simultaneously makes the project worth while). There is a chance that someone with more resources sees the potential value of this software and decides to buy their own copy and then just rebuild it using their own staff. Perhaps this new group even makes great improvements and puts out an even better product in the end than the original developer would have. But the implementation of what the software IS (the core of it) and how all the components fit together came from the original creator of the software. If that original creator can patent that magic combination then they have an incentive to put together a such a product and nurture it along without fear of someone else swooping in after the hardest work is done. In the worst case they will be compensated for their troubles when someone else decided they want to use that idea. But, if they know that someone else with a giant marketing department and development staff can just snatch up their invention and its core concepts then it's reasonable on the inventors part to just not take the time to innovate and not turn ideas into inventions.
What the hell is a frogturtle? And more importantly... and can I patent it?
This is actually a great idea. Sell the book (assuming your kickstarter project description doesn't rule that out) and then make it clear that it can be had for "free" if someone asks. Maybe you have them agree to sign up for a newsletter you do or something like that as well. This gives you a chance to reach them down the road when you have something else of value to share. Maybe they can pay for it then, and maybe they can't, but it's one more potential customer that you have immediate access to and who will be an advocate for you due to your generous gift the first time around.
The Federal Circuit outlined the "ordinary observer" test of design patent infringement in its en banc Egyptian Goddess decision. Here, the court fleshed-out that test with further details and nuances. Infringement of a design patent requires proof that an "ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design." The hypothetical ordinary observer is considered to have knowledge of the prior art. Thus, "if the claimed design is close to the prior art designs, small differences between the accused design and the claimed design assume more importance to the eye of the hypothetical ordinary observer." "The ordinary observer test applies to the patented design in its entirety, as it is claimed. [Therefore, minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and [do] not, prevent a finding of infringement.” (quoting Payless Shoesource and Litton Sys.).
The court again emphasized that the test considers the design as a whole and that the court should not use drawing details to create an infringement checklist because "concentration on small differences in isolation distract[s] from the overall impression of the claimed ornamental features." Rather, a better tool for determining infringement is a side-by-side comparison of the patented design and the accused product.
On the facts of this case, the Federal Circuit found that the allegedly infringing shoes were "nearly identical" to the patented design. "If the claimed design and the accused designs were arrayed in matching colors and mixed up randomly, this court is not confident that an ordinary observer could properly restore them to their original order without very careful and prolonged effort. . . . [T]his court perceives that the accused products embody the overall effect of the ’789 design in sufficient detail and clarity to cause market confusion. Thus, the accused products infringe the ’789 design."
Now let's look at your comment:
If Apple design a flux capacitor and make it look exactly like the one in the movie... [they could not patent it]
And since there are previous examples of something which looks very similar... [they cannot patent it]
You're calling my argument bad? Please reread your own response. You actually tried to equate "exactly" and "very similar"! And my argument is bad?
Look, I said in my last post and i'll say it again here. You don't get a design patent for "very similar"! It is a extremely exact thing - or atleast a very, very, very, very, similar thing... to the point of being indistinguishable - just look at the shoe design patent link I provided. That's why the case was thrown out in favor of Samsung. The judge said "Apple, Samsung's design is different in these ways... it's not as cool. I can tell the difference and I don't think an ordinary observer would be fooled. Therefore no infringement." It's also why these other designs from the specifically mentioned TV shows / movies are NOT prior art... because you can look at a startrek tablet and then look at an ipad and easily discern one from the other.
I don't think I'm confused. I know I'm not confused about what I said, but I suppose I could have misunderstood the OP. Scroll down a few comments or click on my name and see the other comment on this top and you'll see that I very clearly explained to someone else exactly what you just shared. It's two different topics. One is on design patents and the other is on what counts as "prior art" of a utility patent.
My comment (that you responded to) is a response to TWX's assertion that because something was shown in Star Trek or Back To The Future that it is somehow prior art (for a utility patent) - an absurd concept. If, however, TWX was actually discussing the design patent problems then he's still wrong and perhaps even more so than I originally thought. None of what was seen on Star Trek, etc was an exact copy of the iPad's design. And, as you no doubt know, design patents are extremely specific. So if the iPad was different than a Trek based handheld then it was just different... nothing else really to be said. Which explains why in this case the judge said, "Ummm... Apple, you do realize this Samsung device looks different in these certain ways, right? Good. Case dismissed. Now say you're sorry and go away."
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're wrong about the meat of what you said... You just described design patents. I just think it was out of place, but that might be because we have two different interpretations of what the OP meant. Either way the OP was wrong and we've now iterated over all the things they COULD have meant (well, except plant patents but surely we can exclude that) and all the ways to correct their view no matter which one they actually meant... so good discussion I guess.
All of the people that modded this down are confused. You think if someone actually invents a "flux capacitor" and makes it work that they shouldn't be able to patent it? Just because they saw something in a movie? People, that doesn't mean that it is off limits in terms of being invented. Having an idea and having actually invented something are two very different things.
It's not an "idea". It's a design. And the fact that Samsung's were different AT ALL is why Apple lost out. It would be total garbage if Ferrari were to make a new, super sleek car and then someone from Honda came along and just copied it outright and then sold it at a lower price point. So the design patent keeps that from happening - as it should. The same is true with smaller devices. Even electronic ones.
This is close to what happens where I live now. Water is $35 or so for the first 1000 gallons and then some number of centers per gallon beyond that. We almost always pay the minimum at our house... normal water bill around $42 including garbage collection. I thought this tiered pricing was how it was everywhere... except that in some places that flat fee was more / less. I've got friends that live in the next city over that pay close to $80 per month for water and I just assumed their tier started higher.
Thanks for taking the time to respond and share. I'm glad you had the sense to follow your instincts and get out of there. We're all part of the food chain, but you don't want to be anybody's dinner when you can avoid it!
wait wait wait. I have to hear more about this. You were hunted by a cougar... a large cat? Please share more. How close was it? How did you know? How did you "escape"?
In spite of the ambiguity of your statement I won't even bother correcting it... Plus I can use it to illustrate a point I'd like to make anyway. Let' just give you your little 'functions' statement and go from there.
I can't patent a hexnut. I can't patent a screw. I can't patent a lever. I can't patent steel. I can't patent dirt or oil. All of these things are things that have either been patented and those patents have expired or they are natural. With me?
But I can patent an invention that combines those elements in a novel way. I won't have a patent on oil, but I can patent plenty of items that make use of oil. I can't patent a hexnut, but I can patent something that uses a hexnut.
My understanding is that software patents are the same thing. You can't patent the "operations", but you can patent a collection of operations arranged in a certain way to yield a certain result. I see no reason that software "engineer" shouldn't get the same protection that a mechanical "engineer" gets when each of them simply takes (or makes) raw materials and then combines them in novel / useful ways in order to solve a problem.
I am glad you're only beginning to believe it... there's still hope for you to turn it around.
When was the last time any one of the moderators who bumped this all the way up to 'insighful' thought about starting a business and said "oops, better not do that... I might get sued for patent infringement"? I'm betting never. And if so, did they actually get an attorney do a search to see (or do a patent search themselves via the USPTO)? I'm betting that finishes off the entire bunch if any made it past the first filter.
I won't get into my opinion about why small businesses are failing to get started, but I will say that IF it is for the reason you stated THEN we have a country full of chicken shits who apprently prefer to make excuses about why they will fail rather than putting forth the actual mental / physical effort it may take to succeed.
This is true, but it hardly accounts for the entire market. Even if just Fanny/Freddie were making shitty loan guarantees, it doesn't explain the collapse in value.
It easily explains the collapse in value. When it became apparent to those in the know that a large segment of the loan base couldn't pay back their loans then it also became obvious that the property "backing" those loans would soon have to be put on the market. Either the banks would put it on the market (foreclosure) or the "owners" would put it on the market (regular sale). With an increase in supply what happens? You guessed it... the price goes down for every bit of the supply. Then the "average time on market" significantly increases due to the higher volume of houses on the market and now you've got a real panic - even from people who could afford their houses! Since panic tends to amplify issues (if high demand then "panic" will make people spend way too much; if high supply then "panic" tends to make people sell to quickly or too low) the actual problem itself was amplified.
Every bit of this can be traced back to banks giving out risky loans that were backed by the US government. I don't necessarily blame the banks... they were asked to do it and they had "nothing to lose". But I do blame people who should have known better (yes, personal responsibility). And I do blame the government for trying to engineer a solution to a problem that wasn't really a problem ("low" home ownership) and passing legislation that created way more issues than it solved.
I stand corrected on the point about vector maps being an improvement only available on the iPhone 5... I'll be spared from using the same (poor) example again if the topic ever comes up... thanks for that...
In spite of my poor example, the opinion I was expressing still holds. Increased innovation is more likely now that there is actual competition by two entities that want to be king of the hill. Before there was one obvious leader with a stellar (in today's world) product and they were able to improve at their leisure. They no longer have that luxury and in the end we'll probably end up with better products far sooner. The consumer will be the real winner down the road even if right now some of the consumers lose a bit. I can live with that... and I, unlike Android users, am one of those who could actually be affected by the map situation.
Dave, I think that's the whole point. Google was the map provider for Droid and iOS, but they weren't keeping the iOS version up-to-date in terms of functionality like the were the Droid versions. That's exactly why Apple told them to take a hike. Apple wanted to offer its users a better experience and Google wasn't willing to make a deal that Apple could live with to make that happen.
I agree, this is going to hurt Apple in the short term, but it's a great business decision and in the end users will win no matter who they go with because competition will cause improvement all around.
Apple has already somewhat innovated (or at least done something better) in their unpolished product. They're using vector based map images rather than the more images in Google maps. It allows you to see zoom in a more continuous fashion (as opposed to discreet zoom levels) and allows up to 300 miles of visibility rather than the 35 miles Google maps allows in the event that the phone goes off line.
I have an iPhone 5 and I can tell the difference in the maps, but does anyone else actually care right NOW? Probably not - not when it's showing the wrong map based on your location. But when maps has gotten the first few major bugs out of its system this improvement will definitely be a feather in the iOS map's hat that Google will have to work to keep up with. In the end this decision is good for everyone and I think a lot of the advertising by Google focusing on iOS maps shortcomings is a sign of how concerned Google is... which is also a sign of how hard they'll be working improve their own product.
I understand your tailgating comment. I hate that too. But if you're literally slowing down traffic and there's a designated slow lane right next to you then who's being the unsafe asshole... that's right, buddy, you're in the lead.
Jesus said to leave Caesar's work to Caesar.
That's not was Jesus said and I think it's probably a stretch to get all the way there from what he did actually say. I am interested though in hearing how you got to this interpretation as I've never heard it before. Could make for some interesting reading if you've got links that ANYONE interprets the "render unto Ceaser" stuff to mean what you seem to think it means.
The conservative/liberal dynamic applied to software development is total bullshit.
Except that the two words "conservative" and "liberal" have actual meanings outside of the political realm. Sometimes using a single word (OMG... a label!) goes a long way towards making discussions more fruitful and less laborious.
My gut reaction was the same as yours... this is crazy! But the essay makes some good points. You're correct in that there is a split, but there are a huge number of subjects to split on and most people lean one way or the other on the majority of those items. Sure, there are those who are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal... and the same can occur in software ideals / behaviors. The author didn't call anything right or wrong - he used the words exactly as they are defined.
Sometimes it's easier to just know that even if Fred is one liberal dude outside of work he is, at the same time, the most conservative software guy in the company. The probability of getting him to sign off on your new technology being used for a critical application is next to zero. Don't waste your time. He might not be against the tech itself, but not for that application - not at that time.
I can see other uses for this way of looking at things as well. Both in actual sales and in "selling" you ideas. Sometimes being able to simply "frame" the problem in the "right way" according to who you're talking to will help you get more done in communicating and significant increase your odds. There's nothing new here, right. Just classifications. Marketers advertise differently and stress different benefits to different target audiences. When I'm talking to a software liberal about a new project I can explain how awesome it's going to be because things will get done faster and be more flexible, but when I'm talking to a software conservative about the same project I can explain how it will be more "fool proof", have better error handling, be more effiecient, etc.
I'm don't know if you actually read the article (it's quite long so I doubt it based on how quickly this was posted), but the article actually goes into a lot of detail regarding the varying "conservative" software development practices, "liberal" software development practices, and the likelihood of types of companies (and right on down to the developers) that utilize each. If you don't like the labels then change them to whatever you want. Call it already done if you want, but I think the discussion (and the labels) helps to make it more concrete that there are "different strokes for different folks" and in the software world where those differences often lie.
I want to take your idea and extend it. Make it possible to say "nope, this is in fact not an infringement" and get it automatically reinstated, but then if there is still an issue... let 'em race for the slips. Some corp wants to issue a take down request that's fine. But if it is argued that it's a BS request then it is referred to a real "deciding body" of some sort.
Whoever loses in this process loses their youtube channel and / or rights to request take downs for a certain time period (extended with each failed request). My guess is that a $100 penalty is a joke to almost everyone issuing complaints, but a real chance at losing your ability to protect legitimate, important Intellectual Property is going to be a wake up call. I'm not against IP, copyrights, patents (even software patents), but I'm against someone (corps included) being lazy asses who put the onus on someone else to defend themselves just because there will be no repercussions if they DO successfully defend themselves.
99 weeks of unemployment would vary depending on your original salary and the state you live in, but it would be closer to $40k (or $20k/yr) than it would be to $100k.
I already addressed the math error. The original comment sat there for 4 hours without anyone saying anything. I responded to my own comment pointing out my own error and 1/2 hour later here comes a message telling me my math was wrong.
What I always find interesting when the topic comes up is that everyone seems to think they know what the riches "fair share" is. What is it? Is it somehow more (percentage wise) than everyone elses? The answer is that the value is going to be different in everyone's opinion. The "not rich" sit around and talk about it like there's some definite hard value that should be imposed on the rich like some constant of the universe that is being ignored to humanities peril. The rich know that their fair share of taxes is whatever the law says it is. So right now, they're paying their "fair share". When the tax cuts expire they'll be paying their "fair share" then. If new cuts are made then it'll be the same again. The difference we'll see is how much people are willing to pay in taxes before they say... screw it... it's safer to just not risk my money and not earn anything and not pay any taxes.
You can say that something is in jeopardy without saying it's under full assault. The reason I even got into this conversation is because a commenter tried to distort capitalism by pointing to the few crappy outlier aspects. Then we got a follow up where someone claimed that the rich are assaulting the poor. My view is that the rich are simply living and the poor are simply living. But fear and envy has people lashing out with a class warfare type attitude saying it's that guys fault because they are either greedy or lazy. Understand that I'm not calling either group greedy or lazy... I'm just saying what the arguments tend to be once the rhetoric gets to flying.
Everybody wants to blame. I hear it was Obama's healthcare. I hear it was the wars by Bush. Or it was Clinton's homes initiatives. Or it was Reagan did this. Or it was Carter did that. We've had people that have thrived through all of these. And I'm pretty sure we've had people that blamed those that thrived through all of these. What's happening in Washington is just very likely to not affect your day to day ability to get ahead. And how much taxes the rich pay above what they are already paying isn't going to be the difference maker. That's my point.
They weren't born and raised in Uganda. Well, probably not anyway... maybe one was... wouldn't that blow your theory! Or would they be the 1%? And if so... would that be bad... seems that's the 1% we want! In any case, they are american citizens and the american right to pursue happiness is theirs. How they would have performed in Uganda is completely off topic as I've never claimed these people to be "better" than anyone else - but they also shouldn't be punished or blamed for succeeding.
Sorry to respond to my own comment, but I had a HUGE math fail above. In my haste I used benefits per month as benefits per week. The amount of benefits (cash) for unemployment was more like 30k over 99 weeks than 100k. The premise still holds true though. That is that it's far more rational to take $15k for "free" then to get up and work for it.
You finally said something true! Congrats.
It was true, but not complete. And intentionally misleading. Those are worth double points if you were in either talk radio or Network TV news. But seeing as how you're not... it's just being putz. I swear I even thought as I typed it "I wonder which smartass is going to point out that delusional people don't know that they're delusional". I was betting on some anonymous coward / peanut gallery type person. Definitely not someone actually in the discussion. Seeing as how that's all you found relevant to respond to this just makes me a wonder a little more about type of person I'm dealing with and if their purpose is to discuss or to distort.