it's a "method and apparatus", not just the mere concept of translucent images.
YOU are the dickwad and ignoramus. Atleast the parent had the courage to log in and post.
The method and apparatus for implementing translucent images, and many more advanced image processing techniques, have existed long before this patent was applied for. Read this post for reference.
Yes, there is a patent on translucent images; granted to Apple. Despite the fact that there's been tons of prior art from many other software implementations for layered imaging techniques.
According to one of Floriam Mueller's posts, Apple has got 100s of multi-touch patents alone, and 1000s of patents on non-touch features related to smartphones.
Until Apple came along, hardware and software companies armed themselves with patents to ward off threats from trolls, or as a defensive measure alone. Now this company which has built an empire using copied technologies; has filed and gotten patents for obvious, trivial extensions of the same. Worse, they are using these patents to try and secure billions as 'security money' instead of competing in the markets based on the superiority of their products.
About 15 years ago, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. Now they have presumably the largest cash reserves of any technology company. And their ex-CEO who is now dead, proclaimed that he did not want merely monetary compensation of billions of dollars. He wanted total destruction of entire competing platforms, period. One such platform is the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS for short) platform to which Android belongs.
Linux, Android, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL are a few examples of leading FOSS products which have completely changed the technology landscape over the past 2 decades. Companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. have built their empires using FOSS almost exclusively. Even Apple's earlier software offerings were based on FOSS products such as OpenBSD.
A patent regime does not sit well with the FOSS philosophy, and companies like Apple, Microsoft and Oracle have tried directly or covertly to litigate FOSS based competing products by behaving like litigious thugs. The referenced blog by Florian Mueller is tiled FOSS-Patents; however he is very much anti-FOSS; and indeed has acknowledged receipt of monies from the above companies in their anti-FOSS campaigns.
There are many such absurdities in the patent wars being waged, which have come to a head in recent years, because of enormous monies involved. Many companies like HTC have caved in and settled in the face of such absurdities, which causes higher prices for customers. It also results in lucrative business opportunities for lawyers, and so-called IP experts such as Florian Mueller. None of which serve the purpose of granting patent monopolies - which is to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts.
So you need not be surprised at the existence of patents on translucent images. There are patents on glossiness, rounded corners, shapes of icons, black colour, etc. based on which some schizophrenic companies expect billions in compensation from 'violating' companies.
Here's the thing: if decisions are made ex parte and in secret, the odds that these decisions will be strictly limited to include only cases of "gambling, child pronography, and copyright infringement" are just about zero per cent.
Fair enough, maybe it was worded that way to make it palatable to the legislators... a bit like SOPA was worded, and later rejected. While Israleis are normally a very clever bunch of people, a sizable number of them might not know what is good for themselves, and might be falling prey to dangerous activities occurring on the internet. They might need to be protected from themselves and this legislation could be of help, and indeed might be the only practical way to limit great harm. It is an issue best left to the legislators voting on the Bill.
And who decides what's "best suited for its citizen's good"? Democratically elected officials who are trying to get this Bill passed. They have the right to decide what's good for their citizens.
If it's not a superior being then it needs to be voted upon by the citizenry.
Not every single issue merits going through a public referendum. If it's such a big deal, the citizenry could vote out those in power and get a better party in its place.
If democratically elected officials are following due process, and coming to arbitrary conclusions, their people deserve it, and need to elect someone else. That is a lesser burden on society than unfettered crime on the internet that does not go away.And if/. be deemed to be a dangerous site, so be it.
I always love the "freedom of speech may work in the US but its not necessarily appropriate for my country..."
Freedom of speech isn't the only thing at issue here; consider a company known to clandestinely distributing malware / legitimate software that monitors user's activities by reporting back to its servers. I'm talking about CarrierIQ which is installed in many mobile devices; reporting back keystrokes, messages etc., getting access to data even before it is encrypted on the device.
There was lots of noise about a year or so ago as I recall; followed by total silence. The Trevor Eckart's video revealed potential abuse of several federal laws, and yet the company seems to be operating unscathed.
Now, the Israel govt. has the choice to bring legal proceedings followed by lengthy trials etc.; but seeing as this matter has been hushed; might feel the publicity might not be worth the effort. So it could simply issue a blacklist order on all ISPs to simply blacklist the offending IP address and be done with it; pending investigation. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue; more of a national security issue.
Each nation should be able to legislate and govern internet access in the way it sees fit; and best suite for its citizen's good. What's good for the US may not be good enough for Israel or even the UK, China or India. Just because the internet as it has eveolved so far is inter-operable across nations, does not mean it should be governed by a single set of rules, protocols and conventions.
They should have called them Microsoft Design, Microsoft Blend, etc
I call bullshit. It doesn't matter what Microsoft called it. Obviously after the success of eXPerience, they felt eXPression would be as successful as Windows XP. Vista was a good name, and many successful non-operating systems are branded by that name and do well. But in Microsoft's case, a more apt name would've been Shit-sta.
The newest OSes are named 7 and 8 - totally un-imaginative names. While 7 has got a 'harmless' reputation, slowly getting mindshare away from XP unlike Vista, 8 has been very polarising in the market - with extreme feedback in both directions coming from the customers. Names or brands mean very little in the eventual success and adoption of a product. What matters more is performance, quality and reputation.
Yes, we all got the memo... Just a few more hours for the whole World to end, anyways; so what if record temperatures were set? Or Fox news reported the truth?
They "deserve" it because it is their service and someone is willing to pay.
So if someone sends a helpful message to strangers offering to lengthen their pelvic protrusions, or induce mammary hyperplasia, Facebook gets laid... er paid? Very sound business strategy, I should say.
So fine, Apple has designed a novel powering device with a non-standard connector. But what sort of intellectual property protection mechanism is Apple using to protect others from offering the same functionality at a reduced price? Is Apple's desire to make more profits more of a priority to protect, rather than the desire of customers to obtain low cost products?
What if Apple stops manufacturing a connector that works on old models, forcing buyers to discard their entire device and buy a new one?
I would install Embedded Vista in all guns, which has a very strict safety algorithm built into its core. You lift the gun, and it says:
Are you sure you want to lift a loaded gun? If Yes, press the 3rd button under the barrel to continue.
You do that, and take aim; it says:
Are you sure you are aiming at the correct target? If Yes, press the blue button to continue.
You manage to do that, and press the trigger, you hear a voice:
Do you really want to shoot?
If Yes, turn the gun around and aim at your head. And like all faithful, intelligent Vista users, the idiot blows his brains out. Very safe and foolproof design. And besides, you have to sign the EULA when you purchase it as well..
Yeah... they could only squeeze a billion dollars in damages out of that verdict...What can you even buy with a billion dollars these days?
Very true. Which is why the idiot Steve Jobs said:
"I don't want your money. If you offer me $5bn, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."
So the Judge Koh has denied Steve Job's death wish. Besides, as I understand she has yet to rule on the $1 bn damages figure, arrived at by the jury. And again, even if she upholds it, it looks very likely that Samsung would prevail on an appeal, since many of the underlying patents based on which Apple brought this case, are looking very shaky on review, around the World.
About half of American homes have at least one gun.
For me, that is the most important point in your reply. Puts your original point of about 100 people dying every day due to firearms, in perspective. Where enormous commercial interests are involved, the first casualty is truth, followed by public good. I can see no easy solution to this mammoth problem; but thanks for your informative reply anyway.
Have no felonies and over 18 years old? Drive to WalMart and buy one...
Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety? It is asking too much of the collective sensibilities of millions of citizens.
$300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work....
As I said, I am highly ignorant on the capabilities of the above listed equipment; I would just like to know if one can kill several people at once with these devices, without reloading.
Your lengthy post makes for very chilling reading... I ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?
As if your home-brew Linux shitbox is any more noble than an iPhone.
You insensitive clod, I use Windows on occasion, not an iThing or Linux. And I'm not addicted to Microsoft. I don't stand in a queue waiting for Windows8 to get released so I can buy it My trusty XP laptop is 9 years old and going strong... I don't throw good money to be able to do the same things in a newly designed OS or gadget.
purchasing export-restricted devices within the US for the sole purpose of taking them outside the US to resell.
Are iPhones barred from being exported and sold to China? Or any other country for that matter? An iPhone is not like PuTTY, it is freely sold all over the World, at different rates, decided by the Corporation. It is not illegal for normal buyers to resell their property elsewhere, if doing so is profitable for them.
Of course, it would mean lesser profits for Apple, but that is their problem, and using the police to enforce their world-view is shocking, to say the least.
Hmmm.. makes perfect sense. Addiction to iThings very similar to addiction to drugs. Both are equally craved; largely empty and useless... they give you a 'kick' for a while, and then you feel wistful and want something slightly better for which you are ready to part with loads of cash for no reason in particular.She must be sent to a de-addiction center to help recover from the fruity company craze.
Apple's at risk of having their portfolio of absurd patents squashed.
According to the referenced article by Florian, Apple has hundreds of touch related patents and thousands of phone related patents. Squashing just 2 patents (only preliminary, not yet final) has already cost the market millions of dollars, and billions more yet to come. At this rate it will take decades or centuries for Apple's portfolio of absurd patents to be squashed.
In the meanwhile, the only ones who will survive are the cash-rich giants like Apple and Microsoft. So my point is that this is too little too late. What will be really GOOD for the entire market is for software and computing patents to be abolished entirely.
Utterly wrong. This is a crude, barbaric brand of nihilism.
Capitalism believes in the unbridled accumulation of wealth. But the neurotic psychopath Steve Jobs was not after wealth. In his own words:
"I don't want your money. If you offer me $5bn, I won't want it. I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want."
A pure nuanced capitalist would've licensed the thousands of patents at a realistic price and made lots of money for himself and his shareholders. But Jobs wasn't a capitalist, he was a self-confessed copycat, an anarchist, nihilist and narcissist rolled into one.
Slashdot Mirror
it's a "method and apparatus", not just the mere concept of translucent images.
YOU are the dickwad and ignoramus. Atleast the parent had the courage to log in and post.
The method and apparatus for implementing translucent images, and many more advanced image processing techniques, have existed long before this patent was applied for. Read this post for reference.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3335227&cid=42372453
Yes, there is a patent on translucent images; granted to Apple. Despite the fact that there's been tons of prior art from many other software implementations for layered imaging techniques.
According to one of Floriam Mueller's posts, Apple has got 100s of multi-touch patents alone, and 1000s of patents on non-touch features related to smartphones.
Until Apple came along, hardware and software companies armed themselves with patents to ward off threats from trolls, or as a defensive measure alone. Now this company which has built an empire using copied technologies; has filed and gotten patents for obvious, trivial extensions of the same. Worse, they are using these patents to try and secure billions as 'security money' instead of competing in the markets based on the superiority of their products.
About 15 years ago, the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. Now they have presumably the largest cash reserves of any technology company. And their ex-CEO who is now dead, proclaimed that he did not want merely monetary compensation of billions of dollars. He wanted total destruction of entire competing platforms, period. One such platform is the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS for short) platform to which Android belongs.
Linux, Android, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL are a few examples of leading FOSS products which have completely changed the technology landscape over the past 2 decades. Companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. have built their empires using FOSS almost exclusively. Even Apple's earlier software offerings were based on FOSS products such as OpenBSD.
A patent regime does not sit well with the FOSS philosophy, and companies like Apple, Microsoft and Oracle have tried directly or covertly to litigate FOSS based competing products by behaving like litigious thugs. The referenced blog by Florian Mueller is tiled FOSS-Patents; however he is very much anti-FOSS; and indeed has acknowledged receipt of monies from the above companies in their anti-FOSS campaigns.
There are many such absurdities in the patent wars being waged, which have come to a head in recent years, because of enormous monies involved. Many companies like HTC have caved in and settled in the face of such absurdities, which causes higher prices for customers. It also results in lucrative business opportunities for lawyers, and so-called IP experts such as Florian Mueller. None of which serve the purpose of granting patent monopolies - which is to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts.
So you need not be surprised at the existence of patents on translucent images. There are patents on glossiness, rounded corners, shapes of icons, black colour, etc. based on which some schizophrenic companies expect billions in compensation from 'violating' companies.
Here's the thing: if decisions are made ex parte and in secret, the odds that these decisions will be strictly limited to include only cases of "gambling, child pronography, and copyright infringement" are just about zero per cent.
Fair enough, maybe it was worded that way to make it palatable to the legislators... a bit like SOPA was worded, and later rejected. While Israleis are normally a very clever bunch of people, a sizable number of them might not know what is good for themselves, and might be falling prey to dangerous activities occurring on the internet. They might need to be protected from themselves and this legislation could be of help, and indeed might be the only practical way to limit great harm. It is an issue best left to the legislators voting on the Bill.
And who decides what's "best suited for its citizen's good"?
Democratically elected officials who are trying to get this Bill passed. They have the right to decide what's good for their citizens.
If it's not a superior being then it needs to be voted upon by the citizenry.
Not every single issue merits going through a public referendum. If it's such a big deal, the citizenry could vote out those in power and get a better party in its place.
And let /. be the first on that secret list.
If democratically elected officials are following due process, and coming to arbitrary conclusions, their people deserve it, and need to elect someone else. That is a lesser burden on society than unfettered crime on the internet that does not go away.And if /. be deemed to be a dangerous site, so be it.
I always love the "freedom of speech may work in the US but its not necessarily appropriate for my country..."
Freedom of speech isn't the only thing at issue here; consider a company known to clandestinely distributing malware / legitimate software that monitors user's activities by reporting back to its servers. I'm talking about CarrierIQ which is installed in many mobile devices; reporting back keystrokes, messages etc., getting access to data even before it is encrypted on the device.
There was lots of noise about a year or so ago as I recall; followed by total silence. The Trevor Eckart's video revealed potential abuse of several federal laws, and yet the company seems to be operating unscathed.
Now, the Israel govt. has the choice to bring legal proceedings followed by lengthy trials etc.; but seeing as this matter has been hushed; might feel the publicity might not be worth the effort. So it could simply issue a blacklist order on all ISPs to simply blacklist the offending IP address and be done with it; pending investigation. This is not a Freedom of Speech issue; more of a national security issue.
There could be many more such scenarios.
Each nation should be able to legislate and govern internet access in the way it sees fit; and best suite for its citizen's good. What's good for the US may not be good enough for Israel or even the UK, China or India. Just because the internet as it has eveolved so far is inter-operable across nations, does not mean it should be governed by a single set of rules, protocols and conventions.
They should have called them Microsoft Design, Microsoft Blend, etc
I call bullshit. It doesn't matter what Microsoft called it. Obviously after the success of eXPerience, they felt eXPression would be as successful as Windows XP. Vista was a good name, and many successful non-operating systems are branded by that name and do well. But in Microsoft's case, a more apt name would've been Shit-sta.
The newest OSes are named 7 and 8 - totally un-imaginative names. While 7 has got a 'harmless' reputation, slowly getting mindshare away from XP unlike Vista, 8 has been very polarising in the market - with extreme feedback in both directions coming from the customers. Names or brands mean very little in the eventual success and adoption of a product. What matters more is performance, quality and reputation.
you *know* we're in trouble.
Yes, we all got the memo... Just a few more hours for the whole World to end, anyways; so what if record temperatures were set? Or Fox news reported the truth?
They "deserve" it because it is their service and someone is willing to pay.
So if someone sends a helpful message to strangers offering to lengthen their pelvic protrusions, or induce mammary hyperplasia, Facebook gets laid... er paid? Very sound business strategy, I should say.
So fine, Apple has designed a novel powering device with a non-standard connector. But what sort of intellectual property protection mechanism is Apple using to protect others from offering the same functionality at a reduced price? Is Apple's desire to make more profits more of a priority to protect, rather than the desire of customers to obtain low cost products?
What if Apple stops manufacturing a connector that works on old models, forcing buyers to discard their entire device and buy a new one?
I would install Embedded Vista in all guns, which has a very strict safety algorithm built into its core. You lift the gun, and it says:
Are you sure you want to lift a loaded gun? If Yes, press the 3rd button under the barrel to continue.
You do that, and take aim; it says:
Are you sure you are aiming at the correct target?
If Yes, press the blue button to continue.
You manage to do that, and press the trigger, you hear a voice:
Do you really want to shoot?
If Yes, turn the gun around and aim at your head. And like all faithful, intelligent Vista users, the idiot blows his brains out. Very safe and foolproof design. And besides, you have to sign the EULA when you purchase it as well..
Very true. Which is why the idiot Steve Jobs said:
So the Judge Koh has denied Steve Job's death wish. Besides, as I understand she has yet to rule on the $1 bn damages figure, arrived at by the jury. And again, even if she upholds it, it looks very likely that Samsung would prevail on an appeal, since many of the underlying patents based on which Apple brought this case, are looking very shaky on review, around the World.
Unfortunately Steve Jobs is not alive to celebrate his thermonuclear war flops.
About half of American homes have at least one gun.
For me, that is the most important point in your reply. Puts your original point of about 100 people dying every day due to firearms, in perspective. Where enormous commercial interests are involved, the first casualty is truth, followed by public good. I can see no easy solution to this mammoth problem; but thanks for your informative reply anyway.
I can purchase a large knife even more quickly.
Killing 26 people with a knife, however sophisticated, would take atleast 10 minutes, as opposed to 10 seconds or less with guns.
I can also purchase a car ... can be used for evil purposes as well as good..
Are you being facetious here???
Have no felonies and over 18 years old?
Drive to WalMart and buy one...
Is that all? With such a low threshold for acquiring an easily operated killing device, how can there be any feeling of safety? It is asking too much of the collective sensibilities of millions of citizens.
$300 would get you a 12gauge.. but, honestly it may be possible to get around that even.. a little effort and a ramset could probably be pretty deadly... or a bbgun... or a paintball gun... or you could make a pretty nice spear with a tiny amount of work....
As I said, I am highly ignorant on the capabilities of the above listed equipment; I would just like to know if one can kill several people at once with these devices, without reloading.
Your lengthy post makes for very chilling reading... I ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?
As if your home-brew Linux shitbox is any more noble than an iPhone.
You insensitive clod, I use Windows on occasion, not an iThing or Linux. And I'm not addicted to Microsoft. I don't stand in a queue waiting for Windows8 to get released so I can buy it My trusty XP laptop is 9 years old and going strong... I don't throw good money to be able to do the same things in a newly designed OS or gadget.
purchasing export-restricted devices within the US for the sole purpose of taking them outside the US to resell.
Are iPhones barred from being exported and sold to China? Or any other country for that matter? An iPhone is not like PuTTY, it is freely sold all over the World, at different rates, decided by the Corporation. It is not illegal for normal buyers to resell their property elsewhere, if doing so is profitable for them.
Of course, it would mean lesser profits for Apple, but that is their problem, and using the police to enforce their world-view is shocking, to say the least.
buying iPhones for cash, then reselling them.
Hmmm.. makes perfect sense. Addiction to iThings very similar to addiction to drugs. Both are equally craved; largely empty and useless... they give you a 'kick' for a while, and then you feel wistful and want something slightly better for which you are ready to part with loads of cash for no reason in particular.She must be sent to a de-addiction center to help recover from the fruity company craze.
A store doesn't have to sell you multiple copies of something.
Multiple copies of iPhones? First time I'm hearing of such a thing. Oh, you mean, like Android phones being copycats of iThings?
Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit.
Has Samsung caused acute shortages of component supplies leading to this rationing of iThings?
Apple's at risk of having their portfolio of absurd patents squashed.
According to the referenced article by Florian, Apple has hundreds of touch related patents and thousands of phone related patents. Squashing just 2 patents (only preliminary, not yet final) has already cost the market millions of dollars, and billions more yet to come. At this rate it will take decades or centuries for Apple's portfolio of absurd patents to be squashed.
In the meanwhile, the only ones who will survive are the cash-rich giants like Apple and Microsoft. So my point is that this is too little too late. What will be really GOOD for the entire market is for software and computing patents to be abolished entirely.
Isn't that capitalism at its finest?
Utterly wrong. This is a crude, barbaric brand of nihilism.
Capitalism believes in the unbridled accumulation of wealth. But the neurotic psychopath Steve Jobs was not after wealth. In his own words:
A pure nuanced capitalist would've licensed the thousands of patents at a realistic price and made lots of money for himself and his shareholders. But Jobs wasn't a capitalist, he was a self-confessed copycat, an anarchist, nihilist and narcissist rolled into one.