I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago.
Great, so it's dead too since it hasn't changed for decades? Same as with COM, there's nothing stopping you from using it and it still works the same as it did many years ago. You can still use all the old technologies and they still all work just the same as they used to.
You'll never find a shortage of people who will take anything they can to shout about how microsoft is screwing everyone (these days it's often done with Apple too). Seriously this is entirely based on the fact that they announced that the apps they showed were based on HTML5 and Javascript, yet from that you end up with morons shouting 'MS are killing silverlight and.Net!!!'.
No, I need an example of prior art for this patent. This patent isn't "two fingers is different than one finger".
Im not saying the patent should be invalid based on prior art, im saying it has absolutely nothing inventive about it. Just like keyboard combinations a gesture has absolutely no purpose except to map to a function, all they are saying is 'this gesture maps to this function', that is *EXACTLY* what this patent is and that is *NOT* inventive.
This isn't simply patenting a mapping. It's not, "well, for each menu item or action a program can take, let's patent each possible keyboard combination!" You're reducing the issue to something less than it is, then refuting that. You are refuting an inequivalent stand-in.
Of course it is, what is the difference between this patent and all the inventions i came up with like 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, etc...? There is no difference but you would consider me inventive if i went and patented those, that's idiotic. I could come up with thousands of those and patent them all!
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic.
"absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention'" is utter nonsense. You are equating things that aren't equal.
If it was nonsense you would've told me what the difference is, they are equal. A gesture is the touch equivalent of a keyboard shortcut so mapping a gesture to a function is expected, in fact a gesture has no other purpose.
I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.
That doesn't answer the question, what have they actually *invented* here that is new?
Probably not
why not? how is that any different? there is no difference at all in terms of 'invention'.
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
You need an example of 2 fingers on a multitouch display? Really? You've never seen a 2 finger swipe before this? An example of scrolling a window within a window? You've never seen that before? Come on, don't be obtuse. Moreover they aren't trying to patent the gesture, they know the gesture isn't new.
Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea.
Why not? By your logic I could patent a 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, the list goes on and on and on. See how moronic that would be? Or would you consider me to be 'inventive' in doing something that doesn't already exist.
You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic. I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.
So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote: So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive. The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?
It's not because of prior art.
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious, in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
The problems i found with the N900 is the extremely basic stuff like the email client and package manager were awfully slow...this was one of the most common complaints on the forums too. Also having lots of media on the device slowed it to a crawl because of the indexing and the Ovi Maps app on there was way too slow. It has a lot of great features and as a pocket computer it's brilliant, so cool to have a fully featured linux system in your pocket, but if email and navigation are important to you then you'll need a smartphone as well.
Maemo/Meego for the highend linux touchscreen computer phones
How would that happen? They've already clearly stated that they'll go with WP7
They obviously can't use WP7 for their dumbphones and they've already stated that they are going to continue to have a team working on the 'next big thing'.
Well it's the new product that came out of taking parts of both Maemo and Moblin as well as adding a lot of new APIs.
Maemo distribution + Moblin distribution = MeeGo distribution
Kind of, they took parts of each and some new stuff to make Meego.
Maemo distribution - Moblin distribution = Harmattan distribution
That doesn't make any sense. Harmattan is Maemo + some parts of the new Meego OS (many of those new APIs that were added).
What matter it actually have as both use/includes same Linux Operating System, almost same system programs, almost same system libraries but the graphical system is same but with slightly different software platform running it and apps?
Maemo is mostly GTK+ (with Qt being supported) whereas Harmattan follows Meego and makes Qt the primary framework.
If only media players developed by Microsoft can play music in the background on Windows Phone 7, this privileges Microsoft's music service over third-party music services. I can see how Pandora, Spotify, etc. might have grounds for antitrust complaint against Microsoft.
Well there really aren't grounds for anti-trust, i mean apple pulls apps because they use APIs that are only available to Apple software, which is what MS got done for with their anti-trust case, but there are more factors to anti-trust than just anti-competitive behavior. Also Apple had the same situation before they introduced multitasking too.
In any case the 'Mango' update allows developers to integrate into the music and videos hub directly and will support multitasking.
My hope is Symbian for dumbphones, WP7 for most smartphones and Maemo/Meego for the highend linux touchscreen computer phones. That allows Nokia to just continue support at the low end, not have to worry about the software side of the larger smartphone market and to be able to focus on pushing highend devices with their own platform that should appeal to power users.
More or less. Harmattan is theoretically a hybrid release, with MeeGo elements on top of a Maemo core. If I recall, it was supposed to be API-compatible.
I remember it being positioned as the last in-development version of Maemo with the Meego Qt APIs added, not sure about other Meego APIs.
Looks impressive yet even on very powerful hardware it seems pretty sluggish moving around the UI. Perhaps there's room for optimisations but given this has been in development so long I would have thought it would be pretty slick by now. Certainly looks like this will be used for the really high-end phones, hopefully this will be the ideal 'geek smartphone' that they don't have to box in and dumb-down then with them also taking on WP7 it means they have a dumbed down consumer smartphone device to appease the masses too. It's a win-win.
The fact that music CDs don't have copy protection probably has something to do with the difference. Non-copy protected mp3s compete with non-copy protected CDs. Copy protected videos compete with copy protected DVDs/BluRay. Copy protected ebooks compete with non-copy protected, but cumbersome to copy, books.
Just because music went DRM free doesn't mean movies and books will as well.
The difference is that DRM had to go because it meant that the copy you bought was restricted to a device whereas CDs, books and DVDs/BluRays aren't restricted a location/device, you can use them anywhere, which is what most people want when they buy non-physical versions too.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean that rumor I heard about Steve Ballmer turning tricks in Bellingham are false?
I wouldn't go that far ;)
I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago.
Great, so it's dead too since it hasn't changed for decades? Same as with COM, there's nothing stopping you from using it and it still works the same as it did many years ago. You can still use all the old technologies and they still all work just the same as they used to.
You'll never find a shortage of people who will take anything they can to shout about how microsoft is screwing everyone (these days it's often done with Apple too). Seriously this is entirely based on the fact that they announced that the apps they showed were based on HTML5 and Javascript, yet from that you end up with morons shouting 'MS are killing silverlight and .Net!!!'.
No, I need an example of prior art for this patent. This patent isn't "two fingers is different than one finger".
Im not saying the patent should be invalid based on prior art, im saying it has absolutely nothing inventive about it. Just like keyboard combinations a gesture has absolutely no purpose except to map to a function, all they are saying is 'this gesture maps to this function', that is *EXACTLY* what this patent is and that is *NOT* inventive.
This isn't simply patenting a mapping. It's not, "well, for each menu item or action a program can take, let's patent each possible keyboard combination!" You're reducing the issue to something less than it is, then refuting that. You are refuting an inequivalent stand-in.
Of course it is, what is the difference between this patent and all the inventions i came up with like 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, etc...? There is no difference but you would consider me inventive if i went and patented those, that's idiotic. I could come up with thousands of those and patent them all!
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic.
"absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention'" is utter nonsense. You are equating things that aren't equal.
If it was nonsense you would've told me what the difference is, they are equal. A gesture is the touch equivalent of a keyboard shortcut so mapping a gesture to a function is expected, in fact a gesture has no other purpose.
I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
You keep making up these stupid claims.
I think you'll find it's a question, not a claim.
It's an invention, there's no prior art, and it's not obvious. That's what makes it patentable.
That doesn't answer the question, what have they actually *invented* here that is new?
Probably not
why not? how is that any different? there is no difference at all in terms of 'invention'.
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
You need an example of 2 fingers on a multitouch display? Really? You've never seen a 2 finger swipe before this? An example of scrolling a window within a window? You've never seen that before? Come on, don't be obtuse.
Moreover they aren't trying to patent the gesture, they know the gesture isn't new.
Only if they are new inventions. Multitouch is a new thing, there's a lot of open territory. You can't just patent a generic idea, or a list of examples of a generic idea.
Why not? By your logic I could patent a 2 finger swipe to make a game character jump, or a triple-tap to close an application, or a 3-finger-split to open an application, the list goes on and on and on. See how moronic that would be? Or would you consider me to be 'inventive' in doing something that doesn't already exist.
You keep thinking Apple patented some generic thing or some old thing. They didn't. They patented a specific thing that had never yet existed. That's exactly the sort of thing patents are meant to apply to!
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic. I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
Potentially, yes. What makes any specific mapping different will depend on the specific mapping. Whether it's also a valid patent depends on patent law.
What is so innovative about this mapping that makes it patentable? What is it specifically you think they have actually *invented* that is new?
Not likely. Keyboard mappings have prior art.
So do gesture mappings, mapping a gesture to a function is not *new*. Which is why i wrote:
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
So, I'll ask you to clarify: what does the obviousness of the ingredients of the patent have to do with the patent itself?
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive. The only thing that could possibly even be considered to be an 'invention' is the mapping, but this would mean i could come up with a list of gestures and a list of functions and patent all the possible mappings then sue anyone who uses them.
But the patent is about that specific mapping, nothing more. If you want to say that "obviousness" has anything to bear here, it has to apply to the actual patent, not some abstract notion. At least, if you want it to be relevant to the patent being discussed here.
And while that specific mapping may not be obvious there are potentially millions of non-obvious mappings, does every non-obvious mapping deserve patent protection or is there something different about this one? What is it about this patent that makes it different from other non-obvious mappings?
It's not because of prior art.
So any new keyboard shortcut can be patented then?
But, going forward, I do ask that your points be related to the patent in question. At least, if you want to get all worked up about being misunderstood.
It's pretty clear if you bothered to actually read what was written: an obvious gesture (2 fingers on a multitouch display) mapped to an obvious function (scrolling a text box) does not imply the mapping is obvious, in fact i even clarified it with an example, which you again either didn't read or couldn't comprehend.
Then when I said it's *not* an obvious mapping, why did you say:
"I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen"
Because your response was to something i never made claim to. I'm not saying the mapping is obvious, in fact if you'd bothered to read what i wrote (like i keep insisting) you would notice im directly comparing it to a non-obvious example: Ctrl-V to paste from the clipboard, that is not obvious yet you seem to think that just because it isn't obvious it should be patentable.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
I just assumed your argument had something to do with patents, which have to do with the obviousness of combining certain things together and that you weren't just rambling on about something wholly irrelevant.
It is about patents, you just didn't read it properly and interpreted it wrong which is why I said to you need to re-read it. The obviousness of mapping a gesture to a function is no different than mapping a key combination to a function, yet you seem to think such things should be offered patent protection.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
It's most certainly *not* obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen.
I didn't say it was obvious to combine the two in the manner chosen, i don't know how you came to that conclusion, you need to read it again. It's also not obvious to make Ctrl-V paste from the clipboard, but i suppose you consider that to be an invention.
1 finger, scroll the whole page, 2 fingers, scroll the text box.
That's just mapping existing obvious gestures to existing obvious functions, it's the same as someone trying to patent Alt-F4 to close an application, or Ctrl-O to open a document.
the N900 is quick and responsive.
The problems i found with the N900 is the extremely basic stuff like the email client and package manager were awfully slow...this was one of the most common complaints on the forums too. Also having lots of media on the device slowed it to a crawl because of the indexing and the Ovi Maps app on there was way too slow.
It has a lot of great features and as a pocket computer it's brilliant, so cool to have a fully featured linux system in your pocket, but if email and navigation are important to you then you'll need a smartphone as well.
maybe it was the video
Maemo/Meego for the highend linux touchscreen computer phones
How would that happen? They've already clearly stated that they'll go with WP7
They obviously can't use WP7 for their dumbphones and they've already stated that they are going to continue to have a team working on the 'next big thing'.
and they are dismantling their own platform: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/jobs/2011/04/27/nokia-announces-layoffs-and-symbian-outsourcing-40092621/ [zdnet.co.uk]
You do realise the title of the source article is 'Nokia halts MeeGo and N9 releases, says report' ? Yet here we are with the N9.
Same with their customers - I want a Linux phone, but there is no way I'd even look at this. It's a dead-end product.
So you don't have faith in open source then?
Ain't MeeGo the merge of Maemo and Moblin?
Well it's the new product that came out of taking parts of both Maemo and Moblin as well as adding a lot of new APIs.
Maemo distribution + Moblin distribution = MeeGo distribution
Kind of, they took parts of each and some new stuff to make Meego.
Maemo distribution - Moblin distribution = Harmattan distribution
That doesn't make any sense. Harmattan is Maemo + some parts of the new Meego OS (many of those new APIs that were added).
What matter it actually have as both use/includes same Linux Operating System, almost same system programs, almost same system libraries but the graphical system is same but with slightly different software platform running it and apps?
Maemo is mostly GTK+ (with Qt being supported) whereas Harmattan follows Meego and makes Qt the primary framework.
I was basing it on one of the videos, maybe it was just the video that was jerky.
Dell Venue Pro has capacitive convex AMOLED screen.
Good call. Not as curved, but you're right.
The main issue i see with that is dealing with the lack of hardware buttons.
Good question, also is the curved surfaced capacitive screen a first too? It's very striking in pictures from some angles
I can't think of another phone with a capacitive convex screen but the Nexus S has a concave one.
If only media players developed by Microsoft can play music in the background on Windows Phone 7, this privileges Microsoft's music service over third-party music services. I can see how Pandora, Spotify, etc. might have grounds for antitrust complaint against Microsoft.
Well there really aren't grounds for anti-trust, i mean apple pulls apps because they use APIs that are only available to Apple software, which is what MS got done for with their anti-trust case, but there are more factors to anti-trust than just anti-competitive behavior. Also Apple had the same situation before they introduced multitasking too.
In any case the 'Mango' update allows developers to integrate into the music and videos hub directly and will support multitasking.
My hope is Symbian for dumbphones, WP7 for most smartphones and Maemo/Meego for the highend linux touchscreen computer phones. That allows Nokia to just continue support at the low end, not have to worry about the software side of the larger smartphone market and to be able to focus on pushing highend devices with their own platform that should appeal to power users.
More or less. Harmattan is theoretically a hybrid release, with MeeGo elements on top of a Maemo core. If I recall, it was supposed to be API-compatible.
I remember it being positioned as the last in-development version of Maemo with the Meego Qt APIs added, not sure about other Meego APIs.
Looks impressive yet even on very powerful hardware it seems pretty sluggish moving around the UI. Perhaps there's room for optimisations but given this has been in development so long I would have thought it would be pretty slick by now. Certainly looks like this will be used for the really high-end phones, hopefully this will be the ideal 'geek smartphone' that they don't have to box in and dumb-down then with them also taking on WP7 it means they have a dumbed down consumer smartphone device to appease the masses too. It's a win-win.
It runs the Harmattan OS, which isn't related to the MeeGo project at all, and is not compatible with MeeGo even.
Isn't Harmattan the latest version of Maemo before the merge with Meego?
The fact that music CDs don't have copy protection probably has something to do with the difference. Non-copy protected mp3s compete with non-copy protected CDs. Copy protected videos compete with copy protected DVDs/BluRay. Copy protected ebooks compete with non-copy protected, but cumbersome to copy, books.
Just because music went DRM free doesn't mean movies and books will as well.
The difference is that DRM had to go because it meant that the copy you bought was restricted to a device whereas CDs, books and DVDs/BluRays aren't restricted a location/device, you can use them anywhere, which is what most people want when they buy non-physical versions too.