more than enough to prove that the USPTO needs to learn to say "hell no."
There is no incentive for them to say no. They have quotas to fill, you know.
I'm getting so tired from all the discussions around patents, because they always focus on what is wrong, and how the system should be changed, but almost never on HOW TO ACCOMPLISH said change. Come on people, we have heard all the arguments, let's take it a step further now.
The Amazon Kindle was there before Apple's iPad, and started the whole tablet craze. It is not the other way around, like the article seems to suggest!
Yes, in fact I would love to use it, but OpenAFS is badly broken from a user-friendliness perspective. IMO, it is a major PITA to install and maintain.
Well, I'd rather have that all websites are written in plain HTML, instead of this proprietary, ill-supported software, that integrates badly with my browser and steals my focus all the time.
But for the time being, I'm glad that they have support for Linux now.
I find the Sherman Act more interesting, especially section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony..."
Selling patents is inherently wrong, because it gives one company a monopoly over the IP that is being sold, while from the perspective of society, nothing is gained by the transaction.
In fact, it can be said that IP law and competition law are inherently in conflict in this sense.
I am just wondering why nobody seems to notice or acknowledge this conflict.
It is not difficult to program linked lists in javascript. Recursion is also possible, and in fact quite natural to use. Objects are passed by reference by default, so no problem there either.
Strong typing.
This becomes an issue only when the system you're building becomes large and complex. In a CS101 class, this will not be the case. So I think it is reasonable to leave type-checking for a more advanced course.
Taking pictures of people in public places is legal many times over, it's not even worth discussing.
Yes, but wait until the fashion industry starts lobbying for new copyright laws, like the music industry has done. Then it will be legal only to take pictures of naked people:)
The whole point of user-interfaces is that they should be similar on all devices. For example, how annoying would it be if some company had "patented" the design of the generic "play" button on music players. Every player would have a different play button. It is definitely something that would hinder users, and would be a hindrance for the industry as well.
I read so many stories about what is wrong with the patent system. And yet, nobody seems to come up with good ideas about reforming the patent system. Yes, people mention that the duration of patents should be at most X years and obvious software patents should not be allowed. But how to get these ideas generally accepted and implemented as laws is where the problem lies.
We have heard all the arguments against the patent system. So please, let's shift the focus of the discussion.
The problem is not to create this type of software, as there are many capable open-source programmers. The real problem is how to get this type of software into acceptance with a big (non-nerd) audience. In general, people don't care much about privacy and freedom of information. They care more about communicating with their friends, and they are all on Facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
more than enough to prove that the USPTO needs to learn to say "hell no."
There is no incentive for them to say no. They have quotas to fill, you know.
I'm getting so tired from all the discussions around patents, because they always focus on what is wrong, and how the system should be changed, but almost never on HOW TO ACCOMPLISH said change. Come on people, we have heard all the arguments, let's take it a step further now.
The Amazon Kindle was there before Apple's iPad, and started the whole tablet craze. It is not the other way around, like the article seems to suggest!
Yes, in fact I would love to use it, but OpenAFS is badly broken from a user-friendliness perspective. IMO, it is a major PITA to install and maintain.
Or perhaps I used the wrong manuals?
Wake me up when I can use my phone as a mouse...
But its low-end hardware, ...
Hey, what'd you expect from Google? All their server-farms basically consist of cheap commodity hardware.
would you rather have nothing but Gnash?
Well, I'd rather have that all websites are written in plain HTML, instead of this proprietary, ill-supported software, that integrates badly with my browser and steals my focus all the time.
But for the time being, I'm glad that they have support for Linux now.
Yes, please please pleeeease! Send me an invite!
My email is: mark.zuckerberg AT facebook.com
I find the Sherman Act more interesting, especially section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony..."
Selling patents is inherently wrong, because it gives one company a monopoly over the IP that is being sold, while from the perspective of society, nothing is gained by the transaction.
In fact, it can be said that IP law and competition law are inherently in conflict in this sense.
I am just wondering why nobody seems to notice or acknowledge this conflict.
Linked lists. Recursion. Calling by reference.
It is not difficult to program linked lists in javascript. Recursion is also possible, and in fact quite natural to use. Objects are passed by reference by default, so no problem there either.
Strong typing.
This becomes an issue only when the system you're building becomes large and complex. In a CS101 class, this will not be the case. So I think it is reasonable to leave type-checking for a more advanced course.
I thought most popular javascript implementations do have a JIT compiler inside.
'Nobody has succeeded in building a social network that can offer those kinds of privacy protections yet.'
Yes, but do people in general care enough for it to actually matter?
May I suggest to use tin-foil to reflect the light?
Reflected sunlight might be an effective demonstration tool.
You have a point, but just wait until you actually need to get support from somebody at Google.
Taking pictures of people in public places is legal many times over, it's not even worth discussing.
Yes, but wait until the fashion industry starts lobbying for new copyright laws, like the music industry has done. Then it will be legal only to take pictures of naked people :)
Are you serious? With the lobbying power that Google has this is most likely going to be one big charade.
America used to be the land of the free, but right now I guess we all better move to Europe!
I would like to be a gecko on the wall to see the look on the Sony Music legal team's faces
And I'd like to see the look on Steve Jobs' face :) Goodbye Itunes concept
Plus, can't google just buy a couple of development teams to just produce the 50 most downloaded apps. Goodbye app store :)
Next step: implementing gecko or webkit in javascript, so that developers have the same experience everywhere.
In fact, now that I'm thinking of it, that would not be such a bad idea.
The whole point of user-interfaces is that they should be similar on all devices. For example, how annoying would it be if some company had "patented" the design of the generic "play" button on music players. Every player would have a different play button. It is definitely something that would hinder users, and would be a hindrance for the industry as well.
I read so many stories about what is wrong with the patent system. And yet, nobody seems to come up with good ideas about reforming the patent system. Yes, people mention that the duration of patents should be at most X years and obvious software patents should not be allowed. But how to get these ideas generally accepted and implemented as laws is where the problem lies.
We have heard all the arguments against the patent system. So please, let's shift the focus of the discussion.
Yes I don't understand it either.
Using an analogue, you'd need to send only one scalar value to represent the complete contents of the download. And you'd need zero bandwidth.
Sounds like a much better solution to me too.
Yes, the idiotic part is they have only one payment method: by personal data.
That's quite absurd for such a large company (irrespective of the fact that Google is doing it too).
The problem is not to create this type of software, as there are many capable open-source programmers. The real problem is how to get this type of software into acceptance with a big (non-nerd) audience. In general, people don't care much about privacy and freedom of information. They care more about communicating with their friends, and they are all on Facebook.
The bigger question is... why aren't we still not all developing for a common denominator, like HTML+javascript?
The way things are organized now means that we'll end up in a nasty monopolistic situation.