Because no body really lost anything due to hacking. Do you really believe anything valuable (for the government and military) is even accessible from the internet? They have internal networks separated from the internet.
The reason the US is accusing China of hacking is simple a way to deepen the impression that the Chinese are pirates of intellectual properties. The US is probably using this as a bargaining chip. China of course has complained about a lot things on the US side but the US media will not report them or report them in way that makes China seem unreasonable.
I believe in the minds of most Americans China invokes the images of mass starvation because of the man made disasters in the 1960's. Those were the crazy years because a lot of production was simply not allowed because of ideology. Despite those years, in Mao' era, China's population actually doubled from like 400m to 800m. China's problem has always been ideology, causing man made disasters time and time again. This time I think Apple is doing the honorable thing, at least setting an example for doing the right thing.
Nonsense. The teenagers have a choice to make. They either fake their age and make some quick money working in a sweatshop, or get education and make a better life later. This has a similar version in America too. Young girls can do porn and make a lot of money.
Fast UI response requires multi-threading. There are many reasons that programmers are not implement it more often, but Java added one more: GC, which usually stops the world when it collects. Also programmers who replie on GC are often unable to plan resource usage very well, a skill crucial to multi-threading.
But it's just as bad when Google gets a software patent as when anyone else does. END - THEM - ALL
I have to disagree. Software Patent is not intrinsically different than any other patent. The definition of patent is "to copyright an invention", and invention is "devised method of organization". By this definition, there is really nothing special about software or hardware. It is the same.
So the focus really should be on invention. Is it original? Is it a just a design but not a method? These are the real issues. If there are reasons to get rid of all patents, that's an entire different issues than dealing with the current rampant patent trolling.
It is about bribery. When the government gets bribery, it is called lobbying. But if people bribe each other, they would forget to bribe the government. By the definition of "confiscate ", yes, only the government can do it.
You seem to just want some legal protection to prevent people from imitating you so you sue under the disguise of patents. Whether imitation is bad or not, you are still a patent troll no matter how you try to justify it. And now I think you are biased.
Are you saying you decide whether it is a patent or a copyright by a perceived, but who-knows-how-much, benefit? That's not how I see it.
Patent is defined as "copyright an invention" from the Online Etymology Dictionary. This means anything patentable must be an invention, otherwise it is only copyrightable for the original designer.
Invention is defined as "devised method of organization". This means if you have an original method to design icons, you can try to patent it. But for original icons you've designed using that method, they are just copyrightable.
And there is also the issue of exactly what is the thing that is copied, and whether similarity qualifies as copying, as they are not exact copies. Apple is playing an intriguing game here, and I don't know whether you are as biased as them or just have different ideas about patent and invention.
The meaning "copyright an invention" is first recorded 1822, from earlier meaning "obtain exclusive right or monopoly" (1789), a privilege granted by the Crown via letters patent. Related: Patented; patenting.
That's why calling a style "design patent" is specious.
Well my point is Apple should be protected by copyright law instead of the patent system. This so called design patent has the effect of making people think any style is a creation and should be protected. If that's the case, we can just spend all our time suing each other.
Perhaps you guys are designers and would regard this as a big deal. Maybe it is. But I am a programmer and Apple is making the issue of software patents much worse by calling a style a patent, or to make it more acceptable, "design patent". This is why I called it "specious". It is a shape, but not a patent.
I wouldn't call that a patent. It's called copyright. Clearly Samsung was trying to imitate Apple and I would also call that a knockout in regarding to the user interface. But it is not a exact copy. Looks like Samsung designed its own icons. Using one of the previous posters' term, Samsung also has its own brand of creativity.
I don't think the patent system was, or should be designed to prevent such imitation, because patent is to protect real inventions. Most people are mot creative and don't understand the difference. Apple is actually suing for publicity and thus, IMO, abusing the patent system.
Yes Samsung seems to be a copycat, but Apple is also trying to make itself looks like such an inventor it isn't. And all this publicity only feeds the patent trolls.
This concept of design patent sounds BS to me. Does a new invention of a wheel have a design? Apple is actually just trying to protect some kind of style that cannot be rigorously defined. Therefore they seem no different than other trolls to me.
If they raise prices their online competitors would take advantage of that. What is really changing is shopping is becoming more and more like typing on a keyboard and then wait for the knock on the door.
Production is still a matter a procedure, which builds on other procedures. But each procedure must serve its own purpose, just like the final product has to serve a purpose.
So patent should be awarded if a procedure is the only way to serve its purpose at the time of intention. The question still remains as to what the purpose is. If finding any energy is the purpose, no invention is needed. If the purpose is to achieve cold fusion, the first procedure to do so in a cost efficient way is an invention.
I think the patent office got caught up in technology terms too much instead, like the classical patent troll of imbedding a live video in an html document. This is a procedure combining so many prior procedures, but what purpose does it have on its own? Displaying a video on a screen. Many of Apple's patents fall into this category as well, as if we didn't know how to use our fingers.
I still believe there are software patents. The problem is people who can recognize such things are most likely neither working at a patent office nor as a lawyer fighting a war many wish never to end.
In China the abuse is in the culture, where almost everyone there does things in a similar way to others considered to have a lower social status. Inciting a revolution and having another group of people in power changes nothing but brings chaos and misery.
For American people capable of exert influence there, the best way to bring changes is not to do battle on the internet, but to persuade or force the government give up indoctrination. There is still a required course in China called Marxist Philosophy, which of course is total BS. If children grow up without that, the culture of abuse can be changed.
So if they say God started the big bang, you'd believe it?
The idea of God is to legitimate religion so that it is not out of influence or some people out of job. The harm is it makes people vulnerable to manipulation by forcing people to accept illogical thoughts. This is a powerful weapon for mediocre people to control smart people.
For example, you say you are OK with the idea that God directed how flies adapted. But can anything directs without transfer any information to the flies that do the actual thing? By accepting that idea without questioning it, you also accepted the idea of God without realizing that someone planted or solidified an idea in your mind.
No matter that idea or concept it is, there is a need to ask questions about exactly how it works. And that's exactly what science is all about and what religion doesn't want you to do.
You talk like a true believer. Why does God have to be something? Has it ever occurred to you that the idea of God is created to just confuse you or for you to confuse others?
Maybe religion was not meant to fool anyone at the beginning. But it is has evolved into a way of life and many are making a living out of it. The ingenious thing about religious leaders is they ask you to disprove God and to prove everything else. As there are always things unknown to humanity, like aliens, they can always find a way to instill qualms to minds.
Can religious leaders do something else to make a living? Perhaps not. The "noble" lie is just too big to change course. Do they have any qualms about their "noble lies"? I believe they do. If I ever encounter a true believe face to face, I'll ask about their qualms instead of any qualms may I have about the unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
So you want to declare war against a country that pollutes its land and exploits its labors in order to make products like the iPhone?
Because no body really lost anything due to hacking. Do you really believe anything valuable (for the government and military) is even accessible from the internet? They have internal networks separated from the internet.
The reason the US is accusing China of hacking is simple a way to deepen the impression that the Chinese are pirates of intellectual properties. The US is probably using this as a bargaining chip. China of course has complained about a lot things on the US side but the US media will not report them or report them in way that makes China seem unreasonable.
True. But in China parents consider their children as properties. Can you see the difference?
I believe in the minds of most Americans China invokes the images of mass starvation because of the man made disasters in the 1960's. Those were the crazy years because a lot of production was simply not allowed because of ideology. Despite those years, in Mao' era, China's population actually doubled from like 400m to 800m. China's problem has always been ideology, causing man made disasters time and time again. This time I think Apple is doing the honorable thing, at least setting an example for doing the right thing.
Nonsense. The teenagers have a choice to make. They either fake their age and make some quick money working in a sweatshop, or get education and make a better life later. This has a similar version in America too. Young girls can do porn and make a lot of money.
hmmm, how did the link get in there?
Not necessarily a bad thing though. On windows you can build very bloated applications using many libraries but you can also build http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/01/12/1332204/the-android-lag-fix-that-really-wasnt#state of the art stuff going low level yourself.
Fast UI response requires multi-threading. There are many reasons that programmers are not implement it more often, but Java added one more: GC, which usually stops the world when it collects. Also programmers who replie on GC are often unable to plan resource usage very well, a skill crucial to multi-threading.
But it's just as bad when Google gets a software patent as when anyone else does. END - THEM - ALL
I have to disagree. Software Patent is not intrinsically different than any other patent. The definition of patent is "to copyright an invention", and invention is "devised method of organization". By this definition, there is really nothing special about software or hardware. It is the same.
So the focus really should be on invention. Is it original? Is it a just a design but not a method? These are the real issues. If there are reasons to get rid of all patents, that's an entire different issues than dealing with the current rampant patent trolling.
It is about bribery. When the government gets bribery, it is called lobbying. But if people bribe each other, they would forget to bribe the government. By the definition of "confiscate ", yes, only the government can do it.
You seem to just want some legal protection to prevent people from imitating you so you sue under the disguise of patents. Whether imitation is bad or not, you are still a patent troll no matter how you try to justify it. And now I think you are biased.
Are you saying you decide whether it is a patent or a copyright by a perceived, but who-knows-how-much, benefit? That's not how I see it.
Patent is defined as "copyright an invention" from the Online Etymology Dictionary. This means anything patentable must be an invention, otherwise it is only copyrightable for the original designer.
Invention is defined as "devised method of organization". This means if you have an original method to design icons, you can try to patent it. But for original icons you've designed using that method, they are just copyrightable.
And there is also the issue of exactly what is the thing that is copied, and whether similarity qualifies as copying, as they are not exact copies. Apple is playing an intriguing game here, and I don't know whether you are as biased as them or just have different ideas about patent and invention.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary: Patent
The meaning "copyright an invention" is first recorded 1822, from earlier meaning "obtain exclusive right or monopoly" (1789), a privilege granted by the Crown via letters patent. Related: Patented; patenting.
That's why calling a style "design patent" is specious.
Well my point is Apple should be protected by copyright law instead of the patent system. This so called design patent has the effect of making people think any style is a creation and should be protected. If that's the case, we can just spend all our time suing each other.
Perhaps you guys are designers and would regard this as a big deal. Maybe it is. But I am a programmer and Apple is making the issue of software patents much worse by calling a style a patent, or to make it more acceptable, "design patent". This is why I called it "specious". It is a shape, but not a patent.
I wouldn't call that a patent. It's called copyright. Clearly Samsung was trying to imitate Apple and I would also call that a knockout in regarding to the user interface. But it is not a exact copy. Looks like Samsung designed its own icons. Using one of the previous posters' term, Samsung also has its own brand of creativity.
I don't think the patent system was, or should be designed to prevent such imitation, because patent is to protect real inventions. Most people are mot creative and don't understand the difference. Apple is actually suing for publicity and thus, IMO, abusing the patent system.
Yes Samsung seems to be a copycat, but Apple is also trying to make itself looks like such an inventor it isn't. And all this publicity only feeds the patent trolls.
This concept of design patent sounds BS to me. Does a new invention of a wheel have a design? Apple is actually just trying to protect some kind of style that cannot be rigorously defined. Therefore they seem no different than other trolls to me.
Aren't we talking about patents?
And the second sentence in your post is not actually an argument. Just thought to let you know.
You confused inventors with artists. There are so many specious points in your arguments that I think you are very good at it.
If they raise prices their online competitors would take advantage of that. What is really changing is shopping is becoming more and more like typing on a keyboard and then wait for the knock on the door.
Production is still a matter a procedure, which builds on other procedures. But each procedure must serve its own purpose, just like the final product has to serve a purpose.
So patent should be awarded if a procedure is the only way to serve its purpose at the time of intention. The question still remains as to what the purpose is. If finding any energy is the purpose, no invention is needed. If the purpose is to achieve cold fusion, the first procedure to do so in a cost efficient way is an invention.
I think the patent office got caught up in technology terms too much instead, like the classical patent troll of imbedding a live video in an html document. This is a procedure combining so many prior procedures, but what purpose does it have on its own? Displaying a video on a screen. Many of Apple's patents fall into this category as well, as if we didn't know how to use our fingers.
I still believe there are software patents. The problem is people who can recognize such things are most likely neither working at a patent office nor as a lawyer fighting a war many wish never to end.
In China the abuse is in the culture, where almost everyone there does things in a similar way to others considered to have a lower social status. Inciting a revolution and having another group of people in power changes nothing but brings chaos and misery.
For American people capable of exert influence there, the best way to bring changes is not to do battle on the internet, but to persuade or force the government give up indoctrination. There is still a required course in China called Marxist Philosophy, which of course is total BS. If children grow up without that, the culture of abuse can be changed.
If they were able to fake a Windows update server, it'd have to to be as effective as an inside job.
So if they say God started the big bang, you'd believe it?
The idea of God is to legitimate religion so that it is not out of influence or some people out of job. The harm is it makes people vulnerable to manipulation by forcing people to accept illogical thoughts. This is a powerful weapon for mediocre people to control smart people.
For example, you say you are OK with the idea that God directed how flies adapted. But can anything directs without transfer any information to the flies that do the actual thing? By accepting that idea without questioning it, you also accepted the idea of God without realizing that someone planted or solidified an idea in your mind.
No matter that idea or concept it is, there is a need to ask questions about exactly how it works. And that's exactly what science is all about and what religion doesn't want you to do.
You talk like a true believer. Why does God have to be something? Has it ever occurred to you that the idea of God is created to just confuse you or for you to confuse others?
Maybe religion was not meant to fool anyone at the beginning. But it is has evolved into a way of life and many are making a living out of it. The ingenious thing about religious leaders is they ask you to disprove God and to prove everything else. As there are always things unknown to humanity, like aliens, they can always find a way to instill qualms to minds.
Can religious leaders do something else to make a living? Perhaps not. The "noble" lie is just too big to change course. Do they have any qualms about their "noble lies"? I believe they do. If I ever encounter a true believe face to face, I'll ask about their qualms instead of any qualms may I have about the unknown.
Looks like one cult trying to pick a fight with another.