an iPhone with a beefier processor, some USB ports and a mini HDMI port (a la Macbook) and you have your next desktop replacement device. Not only would you have phone calls, but with an HDMI - VGA adaptor, you have a screen to do world processing, image editing, video editing, audio editing, 3D, whatever.
This is a joke right? No serious professional is going to be doing image/video editing or drawing on a color-inaccurate 3.5" screen.
My entire point, which you seemed to have missed, is that this notion that the USPTO rubber stamps patent applications (and especially software patent applications) is absolutely, demonstrably false.
How could I have missed that point if I was asking you why I should care if the USPTO is making it difficult for people to get patents (a.k.a. the opposite of rubber stamping)?
They could have 100 trillion in annual revenue, but if by spending that patent money on another quarter programmer's salary they could get more of a return on investment, then it'd still be a stupid decision to pursue the patent.
Says you. Call me crazy but I'm going to think that the management of IBM knows a lot more about what they are doing then some random person on Slashdot on how to run their business for the last 120 years. Secondly, paying $10k to get a patent that can one up your competition is hardly a frivolous expenditure.
Good for them. What does that have to do with kdawson, a native English speaker, being a horrible editor who repeatedly fails to miss obvious typos and grammatical errors in shit he posts?
If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.
You mean like this product that's been around for years?
Actually it's not irrelevant at all. The fact of the matter is that for someone like IBM it makes almost zero appreciable difference to their bottom line to send out a patent application even if it might get rejected.
Whether you're a big company or not, you can't afford to waste money on frivolous things.
Who says its going to be frivolous? The USPTO hasn't even ruled on it. Secondly, the fact that they are spending the money on it clearly means that they don't see it as frivolous.
You have to balance your expenditures versus what else you could be doing with that money.
Sure, but a company with $100 billion annual revenue isn't going to go in a panic attack over $10k in patent application fees.
Oh and to elaborate even more. They make $200,000 every minute of every day. The combined 5k retainer and 5-10k for a single patent fees you complain about they would earn the money to pay back in about 5 seconds of operating.
The amazing part is that IBM is wasting this kind of money applying for a patent...As in a $5k retainer, $5-10k total for a single patent, more if it takes multiple patents to ensure sufficient protection, and if you want international protection, it can go up to $100k or so.
You do realize that even the 100k cost is barely 1 millionth of a percent of their yearly revenue? It would also barely make a 1/100000th of a percent dent in their on hand cash.
concerns have been voiced over an exception clause in IBM's open source pledge."
Oh boohoo. Why would one expect IBM continue to give you protection against a lawsuit using these patents against you when you engage in a patent lawsuit against them? I don't see how this would worry anyone in the OSS community as they aren't known for launching patent claims against other OSS. I really feel no sympathy for any patent trolls who try to sue against OSS and then get caught in a shitstorm from IBM.
Most surprising find was that there was no correlation between price and low error count. At all.
By cheap I didn't mean price, I meant cheap as in cheaply manufactured. And yes there are plenty of expensive CD and DVD medium that are cheaply manufactured.
That and the fact that many of these languages touted as being faster than C usually have runtime environments that are written in C or C++. How they can be faster than the language their runtime environments are written in is an amusing thing to hear them try to explain away.
Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.
That would make sense if they were selling it, but it's a product they are giving away so other than sheer laziness there is no reason they shouldn't have been doing cross-platform work from the start.
Slashdot Mirror
That is assuming that the calendar words are now chosen from the dictionary at random by Chinese factory workers.
Unfortunately for kdawson they have a greater master of the English language than he does.
an iPhone with a beefier processor, some USB ports and a mini HDMI port (a la Macbook) and you have your next desktop replacement device. Not only would you have phone calls, but with an HDMI - VGA adaptor, you have a screen to do world processing, image editing, video editing, audio editing, 3D, whatever.
This is a joke right? No serious professional is going to be doing image/video editing or drawing on a color-inaccurate 3.5" screen.
Which leads me to ask why someone modded me redundant.
For asking why Polaroid hasn't designed something that it already clearly has?
No your error seems to be a complete inability to read. How is my comment in any way saying that the patent office rubber stamps applications?
Not so much that it was an iPhone, but that it was a handheld device.
Yeah it's not as if they haven't had handheld devices for drawing things for years now... Welcome to the world of tomorrow!
kdawson is just trying to make up for the dearth of Apple slashvertisements lately.
My entire point, which you seemed to have missed, is that this notion that the USPTO rubber stamps patent applications (and especially software patent applications) is absolutely, demonstrably false.
How could I have missed that point if I was asking you why I should care if the USPTO is making it difficult for people to get patents (a.k.a. the opposite of rubber stamping)?
They could have 100 trillion in annual revenue, but if by spending that patent money on another quarter programmer's salary they could get more of a return on investment, then it'd still be a stupid decision to pursue the patent.
Says you. Call me crazy but I'm going to think that the management of IBM knows a lot more about what they are doing then some random person on Slashdot on how to run their business for the last 120 years. Secondly, paying $10k to get a patent that can one up your competition is hardly a frivolous expenditure.
Yeah that's an error. It first came out around 2001 from what I can remember. All the reviews I found for it on CNET, etc were also from early 2001.
Consumer photo printers for digital cameras have existed for close to a decade. Just so you know...
Oops that was meant to be this product.
That product was already brought out by Polaroid last year.
Welcome to the world of 8 years ago!
Not everybody on /. is a native English speaker.
Good for them. What does that have to do with kdawson, a native English speaker, being a horrible editor who repeatedly fails to miss obvious typos and grammatical errors in shit he posts?
If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.
You mean like this product that's been around for years?
Polaroid Inc. stopping making
Does this clown even read the shit he posts?
Irrelevant.
Actually it's not irrelevant at all. The fact of the matter is that for someone like IBM it makes almost zero appreciable difference to their bottom line to send out a patent application even if it might get rejected.
Whether you're a big company or not, you can't afford to waste money on frivolous things.
Who says its going to be frivolous? The USPTO hasn't even ruled on it. Secondly, the fact that they are spending the money on it clearly means that they don't see it as frivolous.
You have to balance your expenditures versus what else you could be doing with that money.
Sure, but a company with $100 billion annual revenue isn't going to go in a panic attack over $10k in patent application fees.
Awww, do you want us to cry because you actually have to work hard to get a patent? Let me call the waaahmbulance for you.
Oh and to elaborate even more. They make $200,000 every minute of every day. The combined 5k retainer and 5-10k for a single patent fees you complain about they would earn the money to pay back in about 5 seconds of operating.
The amazing part is that IBM is wasting this kind of money applying for a patent...As in a $5k retainer, $5-10k total for a single patent, more if it takes multiple patents to ensure sufficient protection, and if you want international protection, it can go up to $100k or so.
You do realize that even the 100k cost is barely 1 millionth of a percent of their yearly revenue? It would also barely make a 1/100000th of a percent dent in their on hand cash.
concerns have been voiced over an exception clause in IBM's open source pledge."
Oh boohoo. Why would one expect IBM continue to give you protection against a lawsuit using these patents against you when you engage in a patent lawsuit against them? I don't see how this would worry anyone in the OSS community as they aren't known for launching patent claims against other OSS. I really feel no sympathy for any patent trolls who try to sue against OSS and then get caught in a shitstorm from IBM.
Most surprising find was that there was no correlation between price and low error count. At all.
By cheap I didn't mean price, I meant cheap as in cheaply manufactured. And yes there are plenty of expensive CD and DVD medium that are cheaply manufactured.
That and the fact that many of these languages touted as being faster than C usually have runtime environments that are written in C or C++. How they can be faster than the language their runtime environments are written in is an amusing thing to hear them try to explain away.
The papyrus medium developed by the Egyptians are still readable today
Only if they were stored under conditions conducive to them not rotting away which was the fate of most papyrus.
compared to DVD-RWs that can hold a few GBs of data, but only has a shelf life of a few years.
Stop buying cheap DVD-RWs and you don't have that problem.
Now, I agree that they should have began the development of the three branches in parallel from day one, but they are a for-profit company, so it makes business sense to give priority to Windows.
That would make sense if they were selling it, but it's a product they are giving away so other than sheer laziness there is no reason they shouldn't have been doing cross-platform work from the start.