I think he's got a good point- as far as the discoloration is a 'manufacturing defect' I'm also not on board yet. If it could be shown that apple's laptops exhibited disproportionately higher discoloration when compared with other light-colored laptops, then maybe it would be a different story. I presume there was a reason why textured beige was chosen as the typical computer casing as opposed to flat white- it simply hides cosmetic marring associated with typical use. Moreover, it's not limited to laptops:
white collar vs. blue collar (sebum strikes again!)
white cars vs black cars
etc...
I work in neuroscience, and Fromherz has been doing this for a long time:
A neuron-silicon junction: a Retzius cell of the leech on an insulated-gate field-effect transistor.
Science. 1991 May 31;252(5010):1290-3. pdf
All the same, it is an interesting field, but don't let this post lead you to believe that he (and others) haven't already been doing this for 15 years.
Re:Jealousy is a terrible thing. In the meantime..
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Jealousy is painful, and it can cause people to lash out foolishly. In general, however, we can easily recognize such sad behavior, as the frailty of one's argument can be easily measured by the abusiveness of the language employed.
Louderback makes numerous irrelevant assertions in his rant, but one that particularly bothers me is the contention that 'really creative computer users' are the ones doing all kinds of case modifications. I think a lot of these mods are really novel, but aside from 'overclocking' type mods, are largely unrelated to anything to with it being a computer, and in general, are designed to potray an illusion of futuristic utility. Do you judge the quality of your doctor by the number of different blinking LEDs he or she has afixed to his or her instruments, or do you concern yourself more with the work done with those instruments? In point, the work employing computers in research groups around the world, usually does not hinge upon blue neon lights or hamster tubes being included, and much of this work is indeed very creative. For me, computers are tools, and often necessary evil ones that can make some ridiculously simple needs seem impossible. Anything that lets me work more and jiggle cables/restart/reinstall/etc. less is a better tool.
I read through their patents, and it was all too familiar since I had to wade through legalese for 2 biophysics patents I have.
I don't know what any of their other ppt presentations or tea leaves claim, but the patents are based on the ability to:
Record audio/video to solid state device (RAM, optical disk, tape (yikes!), etc.)
Transmit said media over telecommunications devices, especially using compression.
Receive media over telecommunications services.
This technology is especially designed for vhs duplication using a single tape deck, and intermediately storing the information on solid state devices.
read them if you like:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=4,963,995 .PN.&OS=PN/4,963,995&RS=PN/4,963,995
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,995,705 .PN.&OS=PN/5,995,705&RS=PN/5,995,705
Ok, so that covers, hmmm, most things in my office and home- which generally, means that the patent is probably excessively broad (IANAL), but that's typically how they're written- so you could sue anyone anywhere. Since it seems so broad, I imagine that there is a good chance of finding some 'prior art' (somebody who did it before and made the information public, public knowledge=not patentable), such as technology to transmit pictures from scientific and military satelites, which both seem like they fit the above points. Furthermore, the technology seems like an obvious combination of existing technologies, in which case apple may be able to really fight them.
Some might say that big companies profit off the technology of little ones like burst, but I honestly despise non-existent technology being patented, as it removes a lot of the motivation for another company to independently develop it, market it, bring to the consumers, just so someone else can say that he or she told the USPTO about it 16 years ago and scoop up 1 hundred million or so, but I guess IP portfolio companies just wait for a company to succeed and then flip through their holdings to see what they can sue them for. Big tech companies are different, as they almost all infringe on each others patents but have a more unspoken standoff relationship of not suing whenever possible, so as to prevent eternal litigation. Small companies are problematic in this, as they might have no marketed technology, yet own patents, so they rarely infringe and are not part of the 'mutual destruction' standoff. Something about a suit driven company turns my stomach.
An idea does not equal a technology, and I wish the USPTO were more stringent in the applications (only recently was a functional example of a 'Warp Drive' required for that applicant). I know that the USPTO accepts ideas alone, and need not be at all functional, but at some point this is a real obstacle for innovation. Fraunhoffer's MP3 technology was viable and not just an idea for compressing audio (and making cymbals sound crappy). Both of my patents are for developed and published techniques. If I have the idea for non-hallucinogenic chewing gum that lets you travel through time, but someone else actually makes it, my hat's off to that dude.
sandstorm? I mean, this could refer to any sandy area filled with bad guys- Iraq, Iran, Sudan, L.A.... If it were something like "Enduring Freedom Sandstorm", or "Try and stop us Sandstorm", or "Liberty Firestorm Sandstorm" then it would be easy for American to recognize that the State Department is, as always, protecting the good people. Or that we should drop the keyboards and brush up on our semaphore.
"Nestle Patents Coffee Beer"
Applying for a patent is not the same as patenting- trust me. Remember all that crap lying around that is completely unremarkable, yet has "pat. pend." embossed on the side?
However it is typically true that, patent application+$40k in lawyer fees=patent=PROFIT!
Due to sloppy language in the article and slashdot post, people are blowing this way out of proportion. It is not a tax in any sense, it is a fee for third parties to obtain the non-open source dock connector electrical information. I think it is fantastic that Apple is doing this, because if you are happy with your reverse engineering (just like Sigma lenses and flashes have been made to fit Canon and Nikon without their assistance) then you don't pay and wing it, if not it is available (unlike with canon or nikon). The propogated idea that Apple wants to charge third parties simply because they use the ipod, is ridiculous, and elicits the knee jerk "Dah, monopolee tax be bad", but with any thought at all it's obvious that this position is not only untenable, but not even suggested in the article. Unfortunately the original slashdot abstract is even more misleading and inaccurate than the original article. Wake up!
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's got a good point- as far as the discoloration is a 'manufacturing defect' I'm also not on board yet. If it could be shown that apple's laptops exhibited disproportionately higher discoloration when compared with other light-colored laptops, then maybe it would be a different story. I presume there was a reason why textured beige was chosen as the typical computer casing as opposed to flat white- it simply hides cosmetic marring associated with typical use. Moreover, it's not limited to laptops:
white collar vs. blue collar (sebum strikes again!)
white cars vs black cars
etc...
I work in neuroscience, and Fromherz has been doing this for a long time:
A neuron-silicon junction: a Retzius cell of the leech on an insulated-gate field-effect transistor.
Science. 1991 May 31;252(5010):1290-3.
pdf
All the same, it is an interesting field, but don't let this post lead you to believe that he (and others) haven't already been doing this for 15 years.
Jealousy is painful, and it can cause people to lash out foolishly. In general, however, we can easily recognize such sad behavior, as the frailty of one's argument can be easily measured by the abusiveness of the language employed.
Louderback makes numerous irrelevant assertions in his rant, but one that particularly bothers me is the contention that 'really creative computer users' are the ones doing all kinds of case modifications. I think a lot of these mods are really novel, but aside from 'overclocking' type mods, are largely unrelated to anything to with it being a computer, and in general, are designed to potray an illusion of futuristic utility.
Do you judge the quality of your doctor by the number of different blinking LEDs he or she has afixed to his or her instruments, or do you concern yourself more with the work done with those instruments? In point, the work employing computers in research groups around the world, usually does not hinge upon blue neon lights or hamster tubes being included, and much of this work is indeed very creative.
For me, computers are tools, and often necessary evil ones that can make some ridiculously simple needs seem impossible. Anything that lets me work more and jiggle cables/restart/reinstall/etc. less is a better tool.
Record audio/video to solid state device (RAM, optical disk, tape (yikes!), etc.) Transmit said media over telecommunications devices, especially using compression. Receive media over telecommunications services. This technology is especially designed for vhs duplication using a single tape deck, and intermediately storing the information on solid state devices.
read them if you like:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5,995,705 .PN.&OS=PN/5,995,705&RS=PN/5,995,705
Ok, so that covers, hmmm, most things in my office and home- which generally, means that the patent is probably excessively broad (IANAL), but that's typically how they're written- so you could sue anyone anywhere. Since it seems so broad, I imagine that there is a good chance of finding some 'prior art' (somebody who did it before and made the information public, public knowledge=not patentable), such as technology to transmit pictures from scientific and military satelites, which both seem like they fit the above points. Furthermore, the technology seems like an obvious combination of existing technologies, in which case apple may be able to really fight them.
Some might say that big companies profit off the technology of little ones like burst, but I honestly despise non-existent technology being patented, as it removes a lot of the motivation for another company to independently develop it, market it, bring to the consumers, just so someone else can say that he or she told the USPTO about it 16 years ago and scoop up 1 hundred million or so, but I guess IP portfolio companies just wait for a company to succeed and then flip through their holdings to see what they can sue them for. Big tech companies are different, as they almost all infringe on each others patents but have a more unspoken standoff relationship of not suing whenever possible, so as to prevent eternal litigation. Small companies are problematic in this, as they might have no marketed technology, yet own patents, so they rarely infringe and are not part of the 'mutual destruction' standoff. Something about a suit driven company turns my stomach.
An idea does not equal a technology, and I wish the USPTO were more stringent in the applications (only recently was a functional example of a 'Warp Drive' required for that applicant). I know that the USPTO accepts ideas alone, and need not be at all functional, but at some point this is a real obstacle for innovation. Fraunhoffer's MP3 technology was viable and not just an idea for compressing audio (and making cymbals sound crappy). Both of my patents are for developed and published techniques. If I have the idea for non-hallucinogenic chewing gum that lets you travel through time, but someone else actually makes it, my hat's off to that dude.
sandstorm? I mean, this could refer to any sandy area filled with bad guys- Iraq, Iran, Sudan, L.A. ... If it were something like "Enduring Freedom Sandstorm", or "Try and stop us Sandstorm", or "Liberty Firestorm Sandstorm" then it would be easy for American to recognize that the State Department is, as always, protecting the good people. Or that we should drop the keyboards and brush up on our semaphore.
"Nestle Patents Coffee Beer"
Applying for a patent is not the same as patenting- trust me. Remember all that crap lying around that is completely unremarkable, yet has "pat. pend." embossed on the side?
However it is typically true that, patent application+$40k in lawyer fees=patent=PROFIT!
Due to sloppy language in the article and slashdot post, people are blowing this way out of proportion. It is not a tax in any sense, it is a fee for third parties to obtain the non-open source dock connector electrical information. I think it is fantastic that Apple is doing this, because if you are happy with your reverse engineering (just like Sigma lenses and flashes have been made to fit Canon and Nikon without their assistance) then you don't pay and wing it, if not it is available (unlike with canon or nikon). The propogated idea that Apple wants to charge third parties simply because they use the ipod, is ridiculous, and elicits the knee jerk "Dah, monopolee tax be bad", but with any thought at all it's obvious that this position is not only untenable, but not even suggested in the article. Unfortunately the original slashdot abstract is even more misleading and inaccurate than the original article. Wake up!