Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.
Yes, the USPTO sustains itself from the maintenance fees paid by patent holders (another incredibly stupid innovation which biases the system towards the large holders who can easily afford them.)
One has to defend them from infringements upon their research or they lose them. Grow up.
This is NOT true. If you allow someone to use your patent, you may not be able to later enforce your patent against that particular person/company (estoppel), but you can still enforce it against everyone else. Estoppel is rather narrow, it only hits you if you have fraudulent intent. Having a policy of defensive-only use of patents is certainly not fraudulent.
I think the GP must be thinking about trademarks... if you don't vigorously defend them you can lose them. People seem to regularly confuse patents, copyrights and trademarks around here...
Apple uses patents offensively to stifle competition. Your statement is loaded by implying otherwise.
They're not Google or even (arguably) Microsoft, who'll use patents defensively.
Yes, it's surprising, in fact, how unlitigious the Evil Empire is when compared to Apple. Oh sure, Microsoft does sue, and gets sued a lot, but for a company their size they let a lot of infringement slide on by. Don't really need the money and headaches, I guess.
Really, when you get right down to it we've always known, for the better part of thirty years, that Microsoft is a schlock outfit run by headcases (Gates, et al.) Good at business deals, good at marketing, and not good at much of anything else. Apple, on the other hand, is still playing off the nice-guy image they laid down in the Apple ][ days. It's amazing, really... incredible example of marketing prowess and the general gullibility of the buying population. Fact is, Apple is a particularly overbearing and obnoxious example of Corporate America. I won't give them a dime.
No, because he's trying to be cool by joining the "I hate Apple" crowd. Apple is changing the IT world balance and change makes people uncomfortable, usually people who don't understand it. Apple is no saint, but my experience is they are usually hated by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't have any firsthand experience with their products. I was one of them 7 years ago and my experience with Apple over the last 7 years has changed my opinion.
My first experience with Apple was about 32 years ago, and they were a completely different company. Spent the next several years cranking out applications for the Apple ][//e series. That was then. Nowadays, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole... not that the products are bad (they really don't suit my mentality... I'm not big on products that are basically designed for people too stupid to use a computer) but what they do, they do well. No, it's because I don't like the company, don't like its policies, and don't like the sociopath that runs it. Not that he'll be around much longer: Jobs is looking like hell lately. Might be a good time to dump your Apple stock: once he croaks that stock is going to tank.
"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.
That's the thing. Apple should be allowed to patent their particular implementation, for example, how they managed to recognize those gestures. They want to patent all implementations, without having to actually invent those implementations. That's pretty much the definition of an overbroad patent. This should never have been granted.
Besides, let's face it... patenting finger gestures. Here's one for you, Mr. Jobs... patent this!
If companies like Nokia can hold broad patents and require Apple to pay them $10 for every iPhone in licensing fees. Apple should be allowed to do the same to Nokia. The patent system has upheld these broad patents time and time again. If you want to do something in the publics interest, the entire patent system should be reformed.
But they're not just doing to Nokia. They're doing it to everyone.
Really though, does it matter what other countries are doing?
Yes because, you see, it's important that we "harmonize" our (ahem!) "intellectual property" laws with everyone else, so that when it turns out they they've screwed up we can fall into the pit right along with them. So far as I'm concerned, before Congress got involved with our patent system back in the last century, we could honestly say that our system (warts and all) did bring us to industrial pre-eminence. In other words, we had a good thing and we let those pricks hose it all up. Like they always do.
That goodness we have pope like you to judge the value of other peoples time.
You're no different the people who try to dictate what should be allowed on TV, which websites should not be allowed, and what god to follow.
A matter of personal opinion is trying to dictate? Suggestion: go have a nap, let me waste in peace some time and bandwidth... on/.
I agree. Now if you'd said, "Facebook should be made illegal" that would be different. I'd still agree with you, but that would be somewhat dictatorial.
Because they are very very scary and indicate how little money the company actually makes.
Well, sure. Where exactly does Facebook make its money? They don't charge for the service (as if anyone would pay for it, which should tell you something) Advertising? I suppose, but they're no Google... we're not Google's customers anyway. The advertisers are.
No way will it still be around in ten years. I'd be surprised if anyone still remembers it in three years. Right now, someone, somewhere is putting the finishing touches on the code of the Next Big Thing.
Probably not here in the U.S., not with the patent system in general (and software and business-method patents in particular) suppressing anyone that farts even the slightest hint of innovation or disruptive tech. There's a reason there haven't been any more Googles lately.
How dare an organization demand payment for news product that they invest capital to generate! Oh let me guess you can get it somewhere else free. Indeed. From one of the thousands of blogs, but then again there is no standard for that. You get super slanted surface skimmed coverage in most but not all cases. In this country where a man can hardly afford to buy an IPad how can he be expected to spends pennies a day to pay for content.
Next you will be will be complaining about paying taxes while demanding new roads and schools, life is so unfair.
No I do not work at a newspaper
You kinda missed the point. They didn't need to use an app for this, they could have just set up their Web site with a paywall. That would have accomplished the same thing (make users pay to see content) without all the controversy.
This might be interesting if it weren't for the fact that the content of New York Post's online edition is worth far less than the paper it's printed on (which is zero).
So, basically you're saying they should pay their readers.
Of course there are always those who would rather tell themselves that if Apple doesn't want them to do something then they shouldn't be wanting to do it in the first place.
Amen. I've noticed that effect on many occasions. It's not just Apple users, of course, the human mind has an almost infinite capacity to rationalize, rather than think rationally, but it's prevalent among that crowd. Back in my G1 days, I was running Cyanogenmod, had overclocked the thing to the point where it was useful for multitasking, and was happily driving around running nav and playing music and making phone calls. Then I had an iPhone user ask me, "so why would you want to multitask anyway?"
Now, the answer was obvious to both of us, so it wasn't actually a serious question. What it was a state of denial: the iPhone can't do it, so therefore it simply isn't worth doing. Now I understand why Apple didn't allow multitasking in earlier revisions of the iPhone: not enough performance to keep the experience as smooth and seamless as their users expected it to be. And yeah, even overclocked that G1 got a bit jerky at times (times change though, currently I have a G2 running CM7: the thing is so fast that I usually underclock it.) That was a worthwhile tradeoff to me, but I realize that it wouldn't be for many people. So I'm not dinging Apple here, really I'm not. But there's a significant number of iPhone users who are like Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein when he looks at his own deformed shoulder and says, "What hump?"
Slashdot Mirror
Another example.... it would be like Microsoft trying to say they own the words "Windows" or "Word"....... oh... ummm.... nvm.
Yeah, and when they found out they were in danger of losing those trademarks they backed off in a hurry.
They didn't patent touch screens. They patented a multi-touch interface.
Yes, but the screen itself had to support it.
Wait, really? Got a source for that? Because requiring a government office to sustain itself, especially one with such a limited appeal but that requires expertise in just about every realm of science, technology and engineering, is beyond foolish.
Yes, the USPTO sustains itself from the maintenance fees paid by patent holders (another incredibly stupid innovation which biases the system towards the large holders who can easily afford them.)
One has to defend them from infringements upon their research or they lose them. Grow up.
This is NOT true. If you allow someone to use your patent, you may not be able to later enforce your patent against that particular person/company (estoppel), but you can still enforce it against everyone else. Estoppel is rather narrow, it only hits you if you have fraudulent intent. Having a policy of defensive-only use of patents is certainly not fraudulent.
I think the GP must be thinking about trademarks ... if you don't vigorously defend them you can lose them. People seem to regularly confuse patents, copyrights and trademarks around here ...
Apple uses patents offensively to stifle competition. Your statement is loaded by implying otherwise.
They're not Google or even (arguably) Microsoft, who'll use patents defensively.
Yes, it's surprising, in fact, how unlitigious the Evil Empire is when compared to Apple. Oh sure, Microsoft does sue, and gets sued a lot, but for a company their size they let a lot of infringement slide on by. Don't really need the money and headaches, I guess.
... incredible example of marketing prowess and the general gullibility of the buying population. Fact is, Apple is a particularly overbearing and obnoxious example of Corporate America. I won't give them a dime.
Really, when you get right down to it we've always known, for the better part of thirty years, that Microsoft is a schlock outfit run by headcases (Gates, et al.) Good at business deals, good at marketing, and not good at much of anything else. Apple, on the other hand, is still playing off the nice-guy image they laid down in the Apple ][ days. It's amazing, really
No, because he's trying to be cool by joining the "I hate Apple" crowd. Apple is changing the IT world balance and change makes people uncomfortable, usually people who don't understand it. Apple is no saint, but my experience is they are usually hated by people who don't know what they are talking about and don't have any firsthand experience with their products. I was one of them 7 years ago and my experience with Apple over the last 7 years has changed my opinion.
My first experience with Apple was about 32 years ago, and they were a completely different company. Spent the next several years cranking out applications for the Apple ][ //e series. That was then. Nowadays, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole ... not that the products are bad (they really don't suit my mentality ... I'm not big on products that are basically designed for people too stupid to use a computer) but what they do, they do well. No, it's because I don't like the company, don't like its policies, and don't like the sociopath that runs it. Not that he'll be around much longer: Jobs is looking like hell lately. Might be a good time to dump your Apple stock: once he croaks that stock is going to tank.
"When you do this, this other thing happens" can be an invention. If it's an invention, hasn't been done before, and is non-obvious, it's potentially open for patenting.
That's the thing. Apple should be allowed to patent their particular implementation, for example, how they managed to recognize those gestures. They want to patent all implementations, without having to actually invent those implementations. That's pretty much the definition of an overbroad patent. This should never have been granted.
... patenting finger gestures. Here's one for you, Mr. Jobs ... patent this!
Besides, let's face it
If companies like Nokia can hold broad patents and require Apple to pay them $10 for every iPhone in licensing fees. Apple should be allowed to do the same to Nokia. The patent system has upheld these broad patents time and time again. If you want to do something in the publics interest, the entire patent system should be reformed.
But they're not just doing to Nokia. They're doing it to everyone.
I can think of a gesture that I'd like to wave at Apple and Microsoft.
Yah. I got your gesture right here.
True, but no country does "first to invent"
Really though, does it matter what other countries are doing?
Yes because, you see, it's important that we "harmonize" our (ahem!) "intellectual property" laws with everyone else, so that when it turns out they they've screwed up we can fall into the pit right along with them. So far as I'm concerned, before Congress got involved with our patent system back in the last century, we could honestly say that our system (warts and all) did bring us to industrial pre-eminence. In other words, we had a good thing and we let those pricks hose it all up. Like they always do.
I'm not really sure where you get the impression of what I would think if this were a GOP only bill. Bipartisan usually means twice as bad.
"The only thing stupider than Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together." -- Lewis Black
That goodness we have pope like you to judge the value of other peoples time.
You're no different the people who try to dictate what should be allowed on TV, which websites should not be allowed, and what god to follow.
A matter of personal opinion is trying to dictate? Suggestion: go have a nap, let me waste in peace some time and bandwidth ... on /.
I agree. Now if you'd said, "Facebook should be made illegal" that would be different. I'd still agree with you, but that would be somewhat dictatorial.
Because this is a story about the Internet, which runs on Facebook.
That's news to me. I thought AOL was the Internet ... and a whole lot more.
It just tells me how much I find from Google linked directly to MSDN docs I need and I'm out. ;)
And that, actually, says a lot.
...$65 million is still more than most will ever see in their entire lives
Ha. Several lives.
Because they are very very scary and indicate how little money the company actually makes.
Well, sure. Where exactly does Facebook make its money? They don't charge for the service (as if anyone would pay for it, which should tell you something) Advertising? I suppose, but they're no Google ... we're not Google's customers anyway. The advertisers are.
No way will it still be around in ten years. I'd be surprised if anyone still remembers it in three years. Right now, someone, somewhere is putting the finishing touches on the code of the Next Big Thing.
Probably not here in the U.S., not with the patent system in general (and software and business-method patents in particular) suppressing anyone that farts even the slightest hint of innovation or disruptive tech. There's a reason there haven't been any more Googles lately.
What makes that the "plus side?"
Two negatives make a positive, I guess. Actually in this case, it's three negatives, so that would make it double-plus good. Or something.
Normally jealousy is unbecoming, but it looks fabulous on you.
For all you know, fff is worth more than the settlement. But he's right: it's really hard to feel very sorry for anyone involved in this mess.
How dare an organization demand payment for news product that they invest capital to generate! Oh let me guess you can get it somewhere else free. Indeed. From one of the thousands of blogs, but then again there is no standard for that. You get super slanted surface skimmed coverage in most but not all cases. In this country where a man can hardly afford to buy an IPad how can he be expected to spends pennies a day to pay for content. Next you will be will be complaining about paying taxes while demanding new roads and schools, life is so unfair. No I do not work at a newspaper
You kinda missed the point. They didn't need to use an app for this, they could have just set up their Web site with a paywall. That would have accomplished the same thing (make users pay to see content) without all the controversy.
You are publicly admitting, on a highly-trafficked public web site, that you read the New York Post?
To a lot of people, admitting you read Slashdot on a highly-trafficked public site would garner the same reaction.
This might be interesting if it weren't for the fact that the content of New York Post's online edition is worth far less than the paper it's printed on (which is zero).
So, basically you're saying they should pay their readers.
do yourself a favor and stop reading the NY Post. it is a tool of a man who is evil immoral corporate influence incarnate
Hey, come on ... he's not all bad. He exhales carbon dioxide ... which is needed by plants.
For myself and all of my younger and more tech savvy friends, we sport Android devices with custom ROMs.
What's your preferred third-party ROM? I'm a big fan of Cyanogenmod m'self.
Of course there are always those who would rather tell themselves that if Apple doesn't want them to do something then they shouldn't be wanting to do it in the first place.
Amen. I've noticed that effect on many occasions. It's not just Apple users, of course, the human mind has an almost infinite capacity to rationalize, rather than think rationally, but it's prevalent among that crowd. Back in my G1 days, I was running Cyanogenmod, had overclocked the thing to the point where it was useful for multitasking, and was happily driving around running nav and playing music and making phone calls. Then I had an iPhone user ask me, "so why would you want to multitask anyway?"
Now, the answer was obvious to both of us, so it wasn't actually a serious question. What it was a state of denial: the iPhone can't do it, so therefore it simply isn't worth doing. Now I understand why Apple didn't allow multitasking in earlier revisions of the iPhone: not enough performance to keep the experience as smooth and seamless as their users expected it to be. And yeah, even overclocked that G1 got a bit jerky at times (times change though, currently I have a G2 running CM7: the thing is so fast that I usually underclock it.) That was a worthwhile tradeoff to me, but I realize that it wouldn't be for many people. So I'm not dinging Apple here, really I'm not. But there's a significant number of iPhone users who are like Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein when he looks at his own deformed shoulder and says, "What hump?"