Is it really just about "look and feel"? Is there no consideration of underlying substance? I would suggest there is a difference also between a company producing, say, postcards, and a sketch. This is more like "kit-cars". If any company produced a product that copied another's look and feel exactly I'd say "bad show". But to produce a theme builder that lets individuals paint their own interfaces and get upset that some would choose to implement an emulation strikes me as very small. I don't like the precedent. If they can force the themes offline, can they then stop people from sharing them? Then could they stop me from producing it for myself? I may be mistaken, yet regardless, I think I'm right.:-)
Do we know for sure Apple doesn't have a design patent on OSX? How does one search for such info? Is it possible to determine how much is covered without a lawyer? Would this cover "satire"? Isn't the whole thing funny? Is that satirical enough?
Wouldn't it be more like if someone took a chevy and replaced the chasis with a fiberglass mockup of rolls? With chevy motors, transmission, suspension, etc... but the external appearance of a rolls? If you don't use logos, is this really illegal? And remember, this isn't Chevy doing this, this is a private person doing this in their backyard. It is not commercial. Then the "plans" for molding the fiberglass are distributed (also for free). Notice Apple didn't go after the people who created or are using these skins. They merely want to keep them from being distributed.
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.
"The patent laws provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has
invented any new and nonobvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The
design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or
functional features. The proceedings relating to grantingThe patent laws provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has
invented any new and nonobvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The
design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or
functional features. The proceedings relating to granting of design patents are the same
as those relating to other patents with a few differences. See current fee schedule for
the filing fee for a design application. A design patent has a term of 14 years from
grant, and no fees are necessary to maintain a design patent in force. If on examination
it is determined that an applicant is entitled to a design patent under the law, a notice
of allowance will be sent to the applicant or applicant's attorney, or agent, calling
for the payment of an issue fee. The drawing of the design patent conforms to the same
rules as other drawings, but no reference characters are allowed and the drawing should
clearly depict the appearance, since the drawing defines the scope of patent protection.
The specification of a design application is short and ordinarily follows a set form. Only
one claim is permitted, following a set form. of design patents are the same
as those relating to other patents with a few differences. See current fee schedule for
the filing fee for a design application. A design patent has a term of 14 years from
grant, and no fees are necessary to maintain a design patent in force. If on examination
it is determined that an applicant is entitled to a design patent under the law, a notice
of allowance will be sent to the applicant or applicant's attorney, or agent, calling
for the payment of an issue fee. The drawing of the design patent conforms to the same
rules as other drawings, but no reference characters are allowed and the drawing should
clearly depict the appearance, since the drawing defines the scope of patent protection.
The specification of a design application is short and ordinarily follows a set form. Only
one claim is permitted, following a set form."
So I ask, is this a "new and nonobvious ornamental design", and is this an "article of manufacture"?
Is it not different, the case of someone cut&pasting your html vs. someone designing a system (like unto composer?) that allows anyone to merely sketch what they want? Can't I go to a museum and sketch the Mona Lisa? If I give away my sketches (for free, yet), documented as to how and who and what...is that "stealing" the Mona Lisa? Logos are one thing, perhaps. But surely "design" can be imitated (they call it a "knock off", yes?) freely. It surely should be.
What about Lotus 1-2-3? For that matter what about Visicalc? Isn't every spreadsheet in existance "looking and feeling" like other spreadsheets? I agree its ridiculus to think one owns a "look".
So perhaps we shouldn't sponser schools for the uneducated either? Do away with kindergarten since "they can't even read, what good is educating them"? There is more to empowering a lower middle class than "job skills".
Don't they all have 5'0 clock shadows and wear gray and white stripes? Accept the really good ones who shave and wear gray pinstripes?
Re:Rehabilitation - this eliminates the chance
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
I took a few Admin of Justice classes just for fun. Was taught that Rehabilitaion was "old-school", and not really a part of the Crininal Jusice System Way.
And yet his point is that innocent people were subjected to the scan. If someone had a warrant on them, then a strip search is no big deal. But to strip search 100,000 people looking for a possible terrorist is a big deal. Being scanned is less intrusive. This makes it better or more vile?
It sounds to me like the article is proposing the equivalent of KDE or Gnome, but without a desktop and panel. Yes!
Instead you would start an app and it basically takes over and is the only thing you see until you switch to another app. Why ever "switch apps"? The trick is to have one "application" with a single interface style that does everything. Like Emacs only more-so:-)
Like if I wanted to split panes right now, why not? If I wanted to "draw" a box in the bottom pane, why not? Select it and transform it into tv screen. The OS and the apps are hidden behind one interface.
This is all very nice and good, but what if you wanted to use a spreadsheet instead? Not everyone wants to only use a word processor.
Then you select what you've typed and apply the "table" operation to it. Poof, you are in a spreadsheet. Why differentiate between a spreadsheet and a wordprocessor? You can embedd an Excel spreadsheet in a Word document. Take it a step further, and embed Word into Excell. Why not be able to embedd anything into anything seamlessly?
Consider that when I copied the following from the summary, I selected it, right clicked, and choose "copy". I should be able to select *anything* on my screen, and copy/paste *anything* into anything. The context determines what form it takes, or I choose "copy special" rather than "copy".
"The present paradigm of desktop, applications, and documents can be replaced by a simpler, modeless concept of content and commands. In such an environment, vendors will sell command sets and transformers rather than applications, and a user may not have to deal with a huge application when all he wants is a few new abilities. Such a reorganization will also eliminate much redundant code now present in the multiple applications we use (consider how many different text editors reside on a typical personal computer: There's one for the word processor, one for the file name editor, one for dialog boxes.... But there need only be one set of commands for word processing functions)."
The trouble with the Start Menu is that it launches applications. I think whats intended by "the Humane Interface", via the summary, is that applications should disolve into libraries of content modifiers. The libraries are themselves unseen by the user, and yet show up in content context *everywhere*. Rather like the option of choosing vi vs. emacs commandline editing. If only I could stipulate one formand have it appear in every application's "commandline" context, which is really every text processing context.
Rather than saying, for instance, "should it open up a vector graphics or a bitmapped image manipulation program" one could say "it should open up a document where I add content". Then various applications open as I transform the content but I shouldn't have to know that they open or close. I see content, not applications. The very statement "it asks you which application" shows that you don't get it. Asking you "which" indicates a "mode". The key idea is totally modeless interfacing. Is it a graphics program? It is until I select something and copy it an email list (then its also an email client). It is until I copy it to my "todo" list (then its a PIM). Rather than standalone applications we are looking at the merging of applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really just about "look and feel"? Is there no consideration of underlying substance? I would suggest there is a difference also between a company producing, say, postcards, and a sketch. This is more like "kit-cars". If any company produced a product that copied another's look and feel exactly I'd say "bad show". But to produce a theme builder that lets individuals paint their own interfaces and get upset that some would choose to implement an emulation strikes me as very small. I don't like the precedent. If they can force the themes offline, can they then stop people from sharing them? Then could they stop me from producing it for myself? I may be mistaken, yet regardless, I think I'm right. :-)
What computer company? These are individuals creating skin-themes that are uploaded to be shared for free. We aren't talking about a "company" at all!
What computer company? These are individuals creating skin-themes that are uploaded to be shared for free. We aren't talking about a "company" at all!
My old monitor puts soft shadows around every large-contrast-difference area, does that count? :)
Come on, man, thats *funny*!
Do we know for sure Apple doesn't have a design patent on OSX? How does one search for such info? Is it possible to determine how much is covered without a lawyer? Would this cover "satire"? Isn't the whole thing funny? Is that satirical enough?
Wouldn't it be more like if someone took a chevy and replaced the chasis with a fiberglass mockup of rolls? With chevy motors, transmission, suspension, etc... but the external appearance of a rolls? If you don't use logos, is this really illegal? And remember, this isn't Chevy doing this, this is a private person doing this in their backyard. It is not commercial. Then the "plans" for molding the fiberglass are distributed (also for free). Notice Apple didn't go after the people who created or are using these skins. They merely want to keep them from being distributed.
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.
"The patent laws provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new and nonobvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features. The proceedings relating to grantingThe patent laws provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new and nonobvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features. The proceedings relating to granting of design patents are the same as those relating to other patents with a few differences. See current fee schedule for the filing fee for a design application. A design patent has a term of 14 years from grant, and no fees are necessary to maintain a design patent in force. If on examination it is determined that an applicant is entitled to a design patent under the law, a notice of allowance will be sent to the applicant or applicant's attorney, or agent, calling for the payment of an issue fee. The drawing of the design patent conforms to the same rules as other drawings, but no reference characters are allowed and the drawing should clearly depict the appearance, since the drawing defines the scope of patent protection. The specification of a design application is short and ordinarily follows a set form. Only one claim is permitted, following a set form. of design patents are the same as those relating to other patents with a few differences. See current fee schedule for the filing fee for a design application. A design patent has a term of 14 years from grant, and no fees are necessary to maintain a design patent in force. If on examination it is determined that an applicant is entitled to a design patent under the law, a notice of allowance will be sent to the applicant or applicant's attorney, or agent, calling for the payment of an issue fee. The drawing of the design patent conforms to the same rules as other drawings, but no reference characters are allowed and the drawing should clearly depict the appearance, since the drawing defines the scope of patent protection. The specification of a design application is short and ordinarily follows a set form. Only one claim is permitted, following a set form."
So I ask, is this a "new and nonobvious ornamental design", and is this an "article of manufacture"?
Is it not different, the case of someone cut&pasting your html vs. someone designing a system (like unto composer?) that allows anyone to merely sketch what they want? Can't I go to a museum and sketch the Mona Lisa? If I give away my sketches (for free, yet), documented as to how and who and what...is that "stealing" the Mona Lisa? Logos are one thing, perhaps. But surely "design" can be imitated (they call it a "knock off", yes?) freely. It surely should be.
What about Lotus 1-2-3? For that matter what about Visicalc? Isn't every spreadsheet in existance "looking and feeling" like other spreadsheets? I agree its ridiculus to think one owns a "look".
So perhaps we shouldn't sponser schools for the uneducated either? Do away with kindergarten since "they can't even read, what good is educating them"? There is more to empowering a lower middle class than "job skills".
(see my .sig ... )
"You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem." -- Edwards' Law
What about medicine? Penicillin? Birth control? Reading glasses? Hearing aids? etc...
Technology structures the context in which the social problem exists. Consider the printing press, telephone, railroads, etc...
HUGE class? -> individualized (programmed) instruction.
Bad teachers? -> Supplement them with online materials.
Cheap computers cost very little compared to salaries. They can provide an avenue of escape from a poor education for a bright child.
Try the new KDE beta. Konqueror rocks now.
Cheaper, and I bet you get more information faster. Better service isn't such a bad thing.
Ah yes. And when everything is illegal we control the people absolutely.
Don't they all have 5'0 clock shadows and wear gray and white stripes? Accept the really good ones who shave and wear gray pinstripes?
I took a few Admin of Justice classes just for fun. Was taught that Rehabilitaion was "old-school", and not really a part of the Crininal Jusice System Way.
And yet his point is that innocent people were subjected to the scan. If someone had a warrant on them, then a strip search is no big deal. But to strip search 100,000 people looking for a possible terrorist is a big deal. Being scanned is less intrusive. This makes it better or more vile?
They really don't care if you are liscensed as long as you insured.
It sounds to me like the article is proposing the equivalent of KDE or Gnome, but without a desktop and panel.
:-)
Yes!
Instead you would start an app and it basically takes over and is the only thing you see until you switch to another app. Why ever "switch apps"? The trick is to have one "application" with a single interface style that does everything. Like Emacs only more-so
Like if I wanted to split panes right now, why not? If I wanted to "draw" a box in the bottom pane, why not? Select it and transform it into tv screen. The OS and the apps are hidden behind one interface.
This is all very nice and good, but what if you wanted to use a spreadsheet instead? Not everyone wants to only use a word processor.
Then you select what you've typed and apply the "table" operation to it. Poof, you are in a spreadsheet. Why differentiate between a spreadsheet and a wordprocessor? You can embedd an Excel spreadsheet in a Word document. Take it a step further, and embed Word into Excell. Why not be able to embedd anything into anything seamlessly?
I think you get his idea because you said "there is no app to launch". What if most everything was this way?
Consider that when I copied the following from the summary, I selected it, right clicked, and choose "copy". I should be able to select *anything* on my screen, and copy/paste *anything* into anything. The context determines what form it takes, or I choose "copy special" rather than "copy".
:-)
"The present paradigm of desktop, applications, and documents can be replaced by a simpler, modeless concept of content and commands. In such an environment, vendors will sell command sets and transformers rather than applications, and a user may not have to deal with a huge application when all he wants is a few new abilities. Such a reorganization will also eliminate much redundant code now present in the multiple applications we use (consider how many different text editors reside on a typical personal computer: There's one for the word processor, one for the file name editor, one for dialog boxes.... But there need only be one set of commands for word processing functions)."
The trouble with the Start Menu is that it launches applications. I think whats intended by "the Humane Interface", via the summary, is that applications should disolve into libraries of content modifiers. The libraries are themselves unseen by the user, and yet show up in content context *everywhere*. Rather like the option of choosing vi vs. emacs commandline editing. If only I could stipulate one formand have it appear in every application's "commandline" context, which is really every text processing context.
Rather than saying, for instance, "should it open up a vector graphics or a bitmapped image manipulation program" one could say "it should open up a document where I add content". Then various applications open as I transform the content but I shouldn't have to know that they open or close. I see content, not applications. The very statement "it asks you which application" shows that you don't get it. Asking you "which" indicates a "mode". The key idea is totally modeless interfacing. Is it a graphics program? It is until I select something and copy it an email list (then its also an email client). It is until I copy it to my "todo" list (then its a PIM). Rather than standalone applications we are looking at the merging of applications.
Then again, I only read the summary.
Ah but one can type "gg:searchstring" in the location bar to automaticly go to a google search, which is way cool :-)