It has the potential to be a really great tool, but there's a little too much social in this social network. The boundaries aren't clear and simple, and just about every transaction *REALLY WANTS* to share your information with other people.
I can't count how many times I've received notifications from people who were intending to send a private message to someone else. Whenever I do a quiz or something, I have to go out of my way not to "share with my friends" or "invite my friends to beat my score." I just want to have some fun and *CHOOSE* to have friends to participate, rather than having to do an extra step just to avoid sending out information about my activities.
At this point, I'm up to here with zombies and vampires. I log in to do the occasional fun quiz, or send a message to a friend who does more FB than email; otherwise, I stay away from FB.
I *loved* that movie. Thank you for reminding me of it. Jeeze... going way back in the memory banks. Dark Star? I was a sophomore in high school when I saw that (not first run) at the UC Theater in Berkeley...
There are a few places and times where capitalism and socialism brush lips, ever so gently. In my heart, I feel that Portland, right at the moment, might be one of them. I am trying to savor it while it lasts, until too many greedy people come to suckle at its teat, and by doing so, destroy that which they sought.
One of my favorite examples of socialism--small scale--I have ever seen was in the structure of rice patties in Bali. The actions of the people at the top of the hill--water diversion, fertilization, etc--affect everyone downstream, so they have the greatest physical power. As such, they have a water council, and the people at the top have the least number of votes. The people at the bottom, with the least physical power, have the greatest number of votes, so they balance out the physical power with greater political power.
Cooperative competition. Everyone wins a bit, making for a better world than the winner-take-all scenario so many here in the states fantasize about.
Sigh. There. I've gone and done it. Off to sleep with me.
Well, the funniest was one poster who indicated that the only scenario that fit my description was listening to a bum sing on the street. Free (to the listener) public and private performances are not always by bums, nor are they always dependent on the listeners deciding to pony up. Shit; I've seen U2, Devo, Green Day, and probably hundreds of bands you've never heard of without paying a dime. Sometimes they are part of craft fares, sometimes promotional tours, sometimes the music is at a bar where you can come for free, but they assume you'll buy some food or drink.
Here in my home town of Portland, the city sponsors a huge number of events in the summer, that continue to ensure it is a friendly, family- and culturally-oriented town. The people who work those shows, and those who organize them, are probably not getting rich, but the cost is covered by all of us (taxes) so that even someone with only bus fare or an old bicycle can get across town and hear some great music while basking in the summer sun. The other thing the city gets out of it is they get to push their agenda. Public transit. Bike-friendly development. Child safety and health. Things that, in the long run, save the city money while making it more livable. It's a pretty cool way of doing things.
It's not that "free" doesn't work, it's that "free" isn't always free. You are right that someone is footing the bill. In the case of music, either the artist is giving their time, or the facility/event owner is paying, or the attendees are paying indirectly via taxes, items they purchase at the event, or items they are likely to purchase (i.e. CDs) because they were there.
The truth is, if we all contribute what we can to society--work, arts, caring for others, etc...--then there should be more than enough of everything for all of us to be able to get what we need. Money is just a way to assign value to what we bring to the table, so that we are able to determine what we can fairly take away; but not all transactions need to be so perfectly synchronous. Sometimes, giving what you can and taking what you will while keeping in mind the needs of others actually works.
OK, I'm going to end this before I devolve into my standard socialist agenda.
It could have something to do with the fact that MMSD is aiming to produce hard, dry pellets instead of ethanol. For example, this week I cracked four eggs. Two of the eggs turned into breakfast (sunny side up with two strips of bacon) while the other two eggs turned into a chocolate cake.
The cake and breakfast dishes were just intermediary states. Eventually, all four eggs turned into, erm, something else...
Nice post. Totally agree. The only thing that perplexes me is that all respondents to my post seem to think that I was being serious. One would think that the line, "until blah blah happens, I'm going to spend all my time complaining on Slashdot" would clue them in to the fact that I was satirizing the common complaint about any forward movements in the music industry.
Flat-rate subscription services - not good enough; DRM too restrictive. iTunes/FairPlay - not good enough; DRM doesn't handle every single possible option that a customer might come up against, and music still too expensive. iTunes DRM-Free - not good enough, still too expensive, quality too low, no option for Ogg Vorbis...
And the list goes on. Truthfull, I think this event is pretty cool and I may post some of my own songs. For free. We'll see.
Gee, even the fact that I complained about having to play for electricity went over some people's heads!
I still need to own a computer, have Internet access, and pay for the electricity to hear it. Until the music is truly free, I am still going to spend all my time complaining on Slashdot.
Marketing to women--especially female professionals with discretionary income--is very different from marketing to little girls. I'm sure you're joking, but the fact is that many male-dominated industries have just such an oversimplified, stereotypical view of marketing to women.
Smaller and lighter, while retaining the great majority of functionality is indeed important. Other things like design may make some difference, but to suggest that "marketing to women" == "OMG! Ponies" is silly at best, but probably somewhat sexist.
Thanks for the feedback. I know there are indeed a good handful of women on this site, but it seems to me that/., and the computer industry at large, is very male-heavy. Marketing to women has doubled the size of the auto industry, the tobacco industry and more. And gee... let's not forget how popular the iPod mini was and the Nano is.
Apple got a Gap board member to help with retail design and strategy. Apple got a Google board member to have a strong ally in networks and data distribution.
Apple is not looking in to selling cosmetics, I can guarantee that. What Ms. Jung brings to the table is a huge amount of experience in marketing to women. Women who, per the first note, are going to be earning more, spending more, and who are an expanding market for techno-doo-dads which have been traditionally marketed to men.
Oxygen network vs. Macbook Air? I don't know if that's what's going on here, but I think it's likely to think that Apple will be pushing their products--naming, ad campaigns and more, possibly even specific designs--in ways that will be more and more appealing to women. Making a laptop that's 3 lbs instead of 5 is not something that should be ignored by anyone who has ever noted the difference between the average man's hand/wrist strength and that of the average woman.
Sony has done something similar, but half-a$$ed, with their "Bravia - A TV both Men and Women can Love" campaign. I think Apple will go down this road, and they will do it right.
If it were just a one-trick pony--i.e. only sold as a multi-lingual keyboard--the shifting from language to language could be done with a special function key on the keyboard. Some people might find that to be worthwhile. I wouldn't spend $1500 on it, but I'm sure someone would.
I wish one day Ars and Slashdot make such a news about some big bully which had kicked you in the face a thousand times, just to see the comments. Then two days later tell it was actually about Mother Theresa, who has a history of trying to do good deeds.
There. Fixed it for you.
Jokes aside, it would be funny if there were an editorial change after the comments thus far to say that this was a Microsoft filing, not an Apple filing. Just the reverse of what you suggested, but probably equally funny. That having been said, though, it's no mystery that the comments might be different. Apple's not a saintly company by any stretch, but in general, it could be said that their products and practices show a bit more class than those coming out of Redmond.
Now *that* sounds like a good example of prior art related to what appears to be the core unique concept on the Apple patent application. Significantly closer than the Lebedev keyboards, if I understand correctly. MOD PARENT UP!
Although, as of about 10 years ago, IBM was pulling in over a billion dollars a year solely in patent license fees. They could have stopped selling hardware, software and services and still pulled in a billion dollars a year.
I'll bet that number's gone up significantly since then.
It seemed to me as well that the "It's called PRIOR ART" comment was intended to imply the contradiction. You are correct that it's not black and white; I'd be interested to see that poster come back and explain if they meant it differently.
And you are also correct that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and ineffectual when trying to persuade. It's a pity that the GP--who had an otherwise good comment--fell into that trap. Kudos to you for responding to that in a wholly appropriate manner.
Correct. A loose definition of prior art would include anything in the public sphere of knowledge which has anything to do with the invention being considered for a patent. As such, things like a mouse's scroll wheel and track balls would be considered when evaluating the scroll ball on the Apple mighty mouse.
My father invented a simple, cheap, solid-state radiation detector that can be embedded in devices that is being purchased and licensed by major technology organizations (GE, Siemens, Lawrence labs). Prior art includes all technology associated with the detection of radiation. However, with all the geiger counters and such, nobody had recognized the possibility of, as it were, inserting tab A into slot B and using it as a radiation detector. He did, and he patented it, including several variations. Just because there is prior art doesn't mean something can't be patented.
When my father was going through the first round of the patent process, he learned that there is a delicate balance between broad protection and specificity that goes on with every application. If you define your product to broadly (i.e. it's a radiation detector, period), then your request will be rejected because everyone and their brother has invented a radiation detector. If you define it too specifically (think of a cooking recipe), though, people can learn from your patent and easily copy your work while carefully avoiding enough of the details to avoid a lawsuit. If your patent says that what makes your detector unique is the inclusion of four micrograms of adamantium, well then, all a competitor needs to do is add five grams, and they've got a different product.
Neither extreme is a good one. One is denied because it claims too much, and one is overly specific and doesn't protect enough. The key is to find a comfortable middle ground, and then patent variations to ensure that competitors won't do the same.
I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on. That's very different from the other keyboard, which, as I understand it, is designed to be an all-one-profile or all-another-profile configuration (i.e. go into your Preferences pane and select Russian, and they keyboard will change). Long before Lebedev, there were custom stickers you could put on your keyboards i.e. to type dvorak instead of qwerty. OLED is cool, but if you're looking for prior art, in this implementation, OLED is just expensive stickers. I'd rather spend my $1500 on having the two or three keyboards I might actually need, along with a couple of spare terabyte drives with the left over money.
Here's an idea that has lots of prior art, but may be patentable. I present it here, in hopes that nobody has invented it. The parameters are:
It's a computer keyboard.
It's wireless.
For the sake of this thread, it's got dynamic displays on the keys.
It does not accept batteries, but only has a capacitor for holding charge.
Under each key, instead of a spring, there is a small flywheel device and ratchet mechanism which allows the keys to return to their original positions after being pressed.
The flywheels are composed of magnetic material and as they spin, they pass through carbon nanotube coils, generating power stored in the capacitor.
Additional power could be pulled from heat and electricity from the typist's fingers/hands.
And there you have it, the world's first self-winding, er, self-powered wireless keyboard.
There's lots of prior art for different elements of this invention, but unless someone has put them all together the way I have, and patented it, well, if I can build it, I could probably patent it, and rightly so. But one weakness is the specificity of the fly
Don't forget, it's not just the concept that's patented, but the implementation. Sometimes companies will patent a dozen similar technologies to avoid someone finding a way to easily copy the one version they actually want to sell. I recall reading (in a book about IP called "Rembrandts in the Attic") that when Gillette came up with the "Sensor" razor, they patented several methods that they thought competitors might be able to simulate their new product.
Maybe there's something unique and non-obvious about their method of implementing the "dynamic keyboard" idea. Maybe there isn't, and they are just doing what big, ugly businesses do. Maybe they're really trying to purchase or license the Lebedev technology, and this is a bargaining technique.
But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy; it could be done in an entirely different way. Should the inventor of the rotary engine been denied a patent because there were other gas-burning engines on the market?
Maybe a modified version of this would work. Maybe after X years (5
I'll bet that any label which started doing that would get a huge amount of new talent coming in, so a law change might not even be necessary: they may benefit significantly.
If bands could do what they wanted with their content after a few years--change labels and re-publish, donate to charity, etc--there would be a sea change in the music industry.
Slashdot Mirror
It has the potential to be a really great tool, but there's a little too much social in this social network. The boundaries aren't clear and simple, and just about every transaction *REALLY WANTS* to share your information with other people.
I can't count how many times I've received notifications from people who were intending to send a private message to someone else. Whenever I do a quiz or something, I have to go out of my way not to "share with my friends" or "invite my friends to beat my score." I just want to have some fun and *CHOOSE* to have friends to participate, rather than having to do an extra step just to avoid sending out information about my activities.
At this point, I'm up to here with zombies and vampires. I log in to do the occasional fun quiz, or send a message to a friend who does more FB than email; otherwise, I stay away from FB.
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
One of my favorite examples of socialism--small scale--I have ever seen was in the structure of rice patties in Bali. The actions of the people at the top of the hill--water diversion, fertilization, etc--affect everyone downstream, so they have the greatest physical power. As such, they have a water council, and the people at the top have the least number of votes. The people at the bottom, with the least physical power, have the greatest number of votes, so they balance out the physical power with greater political power.
Cooperative competition. Everyone wins a bit, making for a better world than the winner-take-all scenario so many here in the states fantasize about.
Sigh. There. I've gone and done it. Off to sleep with me.
Here in my home town of Portland, the city sponsors a huge number of events in the summer, that continue to ensure it is a friendly, family- and culturally-oriented town. The people who work those shows, and those who organize them, are probably not getting rich, but the cost is covered by all of us (taxes) so that even someone with only bus fare or an old bicycle can get across town and hear some great music while basking in the summer sun. The other thing the city gets out of it is they get to push their agenda. Public transit. Bike-friendly development. Child safety and health. Things that, in the long run, save the city money while making it more livable. It's a pretty cool way of doing things.
It's not that "free" doesn't work, it's that "free" isn't always free. You are right that someone is footing the bill. In the case of music, either the artist is giving their time, or the facility/event owner is paying, or the attendees are paying indirectly via taxes, items they purchase at the event, or items they are likely to purchase (i.e. CDs) because they were there.
The truth is, if we all contribute what we can to society--work, arts, caring for others, etc...--then there should be more than enough of everything for all of us to be able to get what we need. Money is just a way to assign value to what we bring to the table, so that we are able to determine what we can fairly take away; but not all transactions need to be so perfectly synchronous. Sometimes, giving what you can and taking what you will while keeping in mind the needs of others actually works.
OK, I'm going to end this before I devolve into my standard socialist agenda.
The cake and breakfast dishes were just intermediary states. Eventually, all four eggs turned into, erm, something else...
Flat-rate subscription services - not good enough; DRM too restrictive. iTunes/FairPlay - not good enough; DRM doesn't handle every single possible option that a customer might come up against, and music still too expensive. iTunes DRM-Free - not good enough, still too expensive, quality too low, no option for Ogg Vorbis...
And the list goes on. Truthfull, I think this event is pretty cool and I may post some of my own songs. For free. We'll see.
Gee, even the fact that I complained about having to play for electricity went over some people's heads!
OK, I'll quit while I'm ahead. Or not...
Smaller and lighter, while retaining the great majority of functionality is indeed important. Other things like design may make some difference, but to suggest that "marketing to women" == "OMG! Ponies" is silly at best, but probably somewhat sexist.
Heck, I think they still have the same "princess" phone they got when touch-tone was introduced in the late 70s.
Note: Women are getting more education, and filling more elite/management positions than men.
Note: The CEO of Avon cosmetics joined Apple's board.
Apple got a Gap board member to help with retail design and strategy. Apple got a Google board member to have a strong ally in networks and data distribution.
Apple is not looking in to selling cosmetics, I can guarantee that. What Ms. Jung brings to the table is a huge amount of experience in marketing to women. Women who, per the first note, are going to be earning more, spending more, and who are an expanding market for techno-doo-dads which have been traditionally marketed to men.
Oxygen network vs. Macbook Air? I don't know if that's what's going on here, but I think it's likely to think that Apple will be pushing their products--naming, ad campaigns and more, possibly even specific designs--in ways that will be more and more appealing to women. Making a laptop that's 3 lbs instead of 5 is not something that should be ignored by anyone who has ever noted the difference between the average man's hand/wrist strength and that of the average woman.
Sony has done something similar, but half-a$$ed, with their "Bravia - A TV both Men and Women can Love" campaign. I think Apple will go down this road, and they will do it right.
There. Fixed it for you.
Jokes aside, it would be funny if there were an editorial change after the comments thus far to say that this was a Microsoft filing, not an Apple filing. Just the reverse of what you suggested, but probably equally funny. That having been said, though, it's no mystery that the comments might be different. Apple's not a saintly company by any stretch, but in general, it could be said that their products and practices show a bit more class than those coming out of Redmond.
I'll bet that number's gone up significantly since then.
And you are also correct that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and ineffectual when trying to persuade. It's a pity that the GP--who had an otherwise good comment--fell into that trap. Kudos to you for responding to that in a wholly appropriate manner.
My father invented a simple, cheap, solid-state radiation detector that can be embedded in devices that is being purchased and licensed by major technology organizations (GE, Siemens, Lawrence labs). Prior art includes all technology associated with the detection of radiation. However, with all the geiger counters and such, nobody had recognized the possibility of, as it were, inserting tab A into slot B and using it as a radiation detector. He did, and he patented it, including several variations. Just because there is prior art doesn't mean something can't be patented.
When my father was going through the first round of the patent process, he learned that there is a delicate balance between broad protection and specificity that goes on with every application. If you define your product to broadly (i.e. it's a radiation detector, period), then your request will be rejected because everyone and their brother has invented a radiation detector. If you define it too specifically (think of a cooking recipe), though, people can learn from your patent and easily copy your work while carefully avoiding enough of the details to avoid a lawsuit. If your patent says that what makes your detector unique is the inclusion of four micrograms of adamantium, well then, all a competitor needs to do is add five grams, and they've got a different product.
Neither extreme is a good one. One is denied because it claims too much, and one is overly specific and doesn't protect enough. The key is to find a comfortable middle ground, and then patent variations to ensure that competitors won't do the same.
I haven't read the whole patent on the Apple keyboard, but it seems to me that there is at least one significant difference between the Lebedev device and the Apple concept, and that is that the keyboard would change dynamically, in real time, i.e. to present contextual controls based on what you are working on. That's very different from the other keyboard, which, as I understand it, is designed to be an all-one-profile or all-another-profile configuration (i.e. go into your Preferences pane and select Russian, and they keyboard will change). Long before Lebedev, there were custom stickers you could put on your keyboards i.e. to type dvorak instead of qwerty. OLED is cool, but if you're looking for prior art, in this implementation, OLED is just expensive stickers. I'd rather spend my $1500 on having the two or three keyboards I might actually need, along with a couple of spare terabyte drives with the left over money.
Here's an idea that has lots of prior art, but may be patentable. I present it here, in hopes that nobody has invented it. The parameters are:
There's lots of prior art for different elements of this invention, but unless someone has put them all together the way I have, and patented it, well, if I can build it, I could probably patent it, and rightly so. But one weakness is the specificity of the fly
Maybe there's something unique and non-obvious about their method of implementing the "dynamic keyboard" idea. Maybe there isn't, and they are just doing what big, ugly businesses do. Maybe they're really trying to purchase or license the Lebedev technology, and this is a bargaining technique.
But to think that a patent can't be valid and innovative just because someone has a similar product is a fallacy; it could be done in an entirely different way. Should the inventor of the rotary engine been denied a patent because there were other gas-burning engines on the market?
If bands could do what they wanted with their content after a few years--change labels and re-publish, donate to charity, etc--there would be a sea change in the music industry.