Don't you even want to wait until they actually do it? Right now it's just speculation. And if and when they do do it, maybe you'd want to evaluate their claims first?
You want a guaranteed result, with perfect prediction. Huge, complex projects are impossible to predict. They're also impossible to completely spec, so the whole proposition is a fantasy. But if you want someone else to take all the risk that doesn't come for free and it doesn't come cheap. This is true throughout life, not just in your scenario.
Maybe governments should start writing contracts that only pay up if a usable systems s delivered at the end of it ?
Sure, you can do that if you're willing to pay ten times as much for the work. And write a complete spec that never changes during the course of development.
I don't really get the whole appitis thing that seems to have infected everyone in the 1st world...
Humans are lazy. Making accurate comparisons and judgements between two things can be very difficult, and so those things that can be easily quantified become the measure. That's why processor speed was so important for so long, that's why reviews contain checklist-comparisons, and that's why even "going all the way to 11," even though it's obviously silly, would actually work if hand't been for that movie. Certainly no loudspeaker manufacturer would dare put out one with a dial that went only up to, say, 7.
And so counting apps, while not irrelevant, is given a lot more importance than it deserves.
I meant it to apply a bit further up the chain of the argument. I did take your entire post to be a bit tongue in cheek, but the mods seem to have seen it differently.
You can't copyright a number. I was attempting to expose the silliness of his argument by pointing all that all digital files can be viewed as single, albeit very large, numbers.
I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word mimicking. It's an apt description. And why do you transform that into the borderline straw man of invention? All products have a trade dress. Samsung's Galaxy S shamelessly mimics the iPhone's trade dress right down to the packaging. Here's a pretty good example.
I think you're missing his point. He was not arguing in favor of your friend's position, but was attempting to humorously point out that your position is at odds with reality. Samsung is not "independently thinking." It's doing the opposite - mimicking Apple's products. that's where Apple's objections lay.
The patent describes a system which takes a block of text, analyzes it, isolates revealed structured data such as a phone number or email address, highlights or otherwise indicates the structured data to the user, offers a choice of actions upon each item, and upon command executes the user's choice.
Whether or not that is a patent-worthy invention is a different argument, but it is not the same as the system you described. Prior art, as well as any possible infringing implementations, would have to do all of those things. For 1996 that is a reasonably novel achievement.
Thanks for the link. There are a bunch there that I'm not qualified to have a reasonable opinion about. I notice that the two today that were "upheld" against HTC are quite old; from 1994 and 1996.
Overall I'd be much happier if software patents underwent enormous reform or, if that's not possible, complete abolition. I think small independent developers will soon find it impossible to do business, and that's bad for everyone and is contrary to the original spirit of patents.
Trade dress and "look and feel" are a different thing. Companies such as Apple and others go to great effort to make things easier and more pleasant to use. But once it's been shown it's easy to mimic. I think there should be a short-term reward for making things easy to use. That it's a difficult thing to achieve is easy to see by looking at everyday items that are simply horrible. The clock radio, for example. Microwave ovens. Television sets. Car stereos. These are simply horrible to use, despite the fact that the makers would surely like to make them easy. Great design is very difficult and should be greatly encouraged and rewarded (at least briefly.)
Unless you think all patents are bogus, I'm not aware of good examples that. Can you cite a few? It doesn't have to justify "often," as you say, but a few citations would be helpful.
Considering the difference between phones before and after the iPhone, and tablets before and after the iPad, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect Apple to have one or two non-bogus patents worth defending.
It's a necessity today for companies to patent everything they possibly can. It is becoming impossible to create anything without having an arsenal of patents to fire back at the inevitable patents suits against your own device or software.
Look at Google. They've (seemingly sensibly) not accumulated a huge portfolio of patents. The unfortunate consequence of that is that Android is going to get squeezed more and more by patent claims.
Patent trolls' strongest weapon is the fact that they don't make anything, and so there's nothing against which a counter-claim can be made.
The long-term bright side of this is that sooner or later Google and others will have no choice but to mount a campaign for sweeping change in the patent system. But until then, small developers will find it harder and harder to produce useful software and devices without spending all their income defending patent claims.
It's at least even-handed. The current party in power is the wealthier one, them being cut off from facebook and twitter is a bigger handicap to them than it is to the opposition, whose supporters are more rural and poor.
Incorrect, support for apps written for Android has already been implemented for the playbook
A rigged demo does not mean it's done and delivered. If you're the guy who bought the Playbook, go ahead and fire it up (If you can't find it it's over there, propping open the kitchen door.) Now see if you can run an Android app on it. No, you can't. And now the kitchen door has slammed shut. Nice going.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you even want to wait until they actually do it? Right now it's just speculation. And if and when they do do it, maybe you'd want to evaluate their claims first?
You want a guaranteed result, with perfect prediction. Huge, complex projects are impossible to predict. They're also impossible to completely spec, so the whole proposition is a fantasy. But if you want someone else to take all the risk that doesn't come for free and it doesn't come cheap. This is true throughout life, not just in your scenario.
And from the actual statement:
Sure, you can do that if you're willing to pay ten times as much for the work. And write a complete spec that never changes during the course of development.
Humans are lazy. Making accurate comparisons and judgements between two things can be very difficult, and so those things that can be easily quantified become the measure. That's why processor speed was so important for so long, that's why reviews contain checklist-comparisons, and that's why even "going all the way to 11," even though it's obviously silly, would actually work if hand't been for that movie. Certainly no loudspeaker manufacturer would dare put out one with a dial that went only up to, say, 7.
And so counting apps, while not irrelevant, is given a lot more importance than it deserves.
Between just you and the two others that's 13 fake accounts. plus presumably three real ones. Makes one wonder about that 750,000,000 users figure.
Here's an almost overwhelming amount of information. Siracusa is amazing.
I meant it to apply a bit further up the chain of the argument. I did take your entire post to be a bit tongue in cheek, but the mods seem to have seen it differently.
You can't copyright a number. I was attempting to expose the silliness of his argument by pointing all that all digital files can be viewed as single, albeit very large, numbers.
I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word mimicking. It's an apt description. And why do you transform that into the borderline straw man of invention? All products have a trade dress. Samsung's Galaxy S shamelessly mimics the iPhone's trade dress right down to the packaging. Here's a pretty good example.
By that logic all music, movies, broadcasts, and other works can each be reduced to a single number and so should not be protected in any way.
I think you're missing his point. He was not arguing in favor of your friend's position, but was attempting to humorously point out that your position is at odds with reality. Samsung is not "independently thinking." It's doing the opposite - mimicking Apple's products. that's where Apple's objections lay.
Samsung had no role in the design.
The patent describes a system which takes a block of text, analyzes it, isolates revealed structured data such as a phone number or email address, highlights or otherwise indicates the structured data to the user, offers a choice of actions upon each item, and upon command executes the user's choice. Whether or not that is a patent-worthy invention is a different argument, but it is not the same as the system you described. Prior art, as well as any possible infringing implementations, would have to do all of those things. For 1996 that is a reasonably novel achievement.
Overall I'd be much happier if software patents underwent enormous reform or, if that's not possible, complete abolition. I think small independent developers will soon find it impossible to do business, and that's bad for everyone and is contrary to the original spirit of patents.
Trade dress and "look and feel" are a different thing. Companies such as Apple and others go to great effort to make things easier and more pleasant to use. But once it's been shown it's easy to mimic. I think there should be a short-term reward for making things easy to use. That it's a difficult thing to achieve is easy to see by looking at everyday items that are simply horrible. The clock radio, for example. Microwave ovens. Television sets. Car stereos. These are simply horrible to use, despite the fact that the makers would surely like to make them easy. Great design is very difficult and should be greatly encouraged and rewarded (at least briefly.)
Unless you think all patents are bogus, I'm not aware of good examples that. Can you cite a few? It doesn't have to justify "often," as you say, but a few citations would be helpful.
Considering the difference between phones before and after the iPhone, and tablets before and after the iPad, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect Apple to have one or two non-bogus patents worth defending.
Look at Google. They've (seemingly sensibly) not accumulated a huge portfolio of patents. The unfortunate consequence of that is that Android is going to get squeezed more and more by patent claims.
Patent trolls' strongest weapon is the fact that they don't make anything, and so there's nothing against which a counter-claim can be made.
The long-term bright side of this is that sooner or later Google and others will have no choice but to mount a campaign for sweeping change in the patent system. But until then, small developers will find it harder and harder to produce useful software and devices without spending all their income defending patent claims.
Then you missed out on a good talk. Give it another try.
What's weird is that where you typed hunter2 I only see *******.
Unless during the course of it the robber tells them they're you, in which case the bank will say "oh no, that's identity theft, not robbery".
Summary by Paul McCartney.
OK, you made me laugh. That's pretty funny.
Actually that's just an old wise tale.
It's at least even-handed. The current party in power is the wealthier one, them being cut off from facebook and twitter is a bigger handicap to them than it is to the opposition, whose supporters are more rural and poor.
A rigged demo does not mean it's done and delivered. If you're the guy who bought the Playbook, go ahead and fire it up (If you can't find it it's over there, propping open the kitchen door.) Now see if you can run an Android app on it. No, you can't. And now the kitchen door has slammed shut. Nice going.