Hardly. Does the Ipod use a USB port to play music or charge? It does! Does it use a standard USB connector? It does not! Hence an instant, enormous aftermarket for a proprietary piece of cabling that won't work with anybody else's anything and that gains no particular benefit from the difference. Over decades -- printer cables, modem cables, mouse cable -- if it was Apple only Apple's version would fit on an Apple piece of hardware.
Yes, Apple has used propriety connectors but it was always for a purpose not for the sake of being different. Often the reason was simplicity or elegance, always gaining a strong benefit for the users from the difference.
iPod dock connectors: far from just being a USB port it is a lot of things. Originally, it was a combination Firewire/USB/audio/charging port. Later, video out was added. Firewire was dropped. A standard USB connector would never have done what was intended for the dock connector. Could they have moved to a standard USB connector later on, perhaps, but then they would have broken compatibility with previous iPods.
Mouse cables: There was no standard mouse connector before the Mac, so it came with something propriety. It was later replaced with the ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) , which allowed keyboards and mice to be daisy chained and allowed a Mac to be powered up from the keyboard. After that they moved to USB and then Bluetooth. At no point was there a propriety connector for the sake of it.
Printer cables: I can't say I know the whole history of Apple's printer connectors but on the Mac it started with RS-422 and they've since used the networking system, SCSI, USB, Firewire and wireless.
Modem cables: Started of with RS-422 as well, from memory. At one point there was a very propriety, strange connection, whose name I forgot. Apple were attempting all sorts of weird shit with it. Didn't last long.
Monitor cables (which really should have been on your list): Apple has a long history of propriety monitor cables. The aim has always been simplicity, combining multiple cables into a single one. Usually audio, keyboard/mouse connections were included. Thunderbolt really is the latest in a long line of these and the first one that wasn't propriety. Perhaps it will last longer than the previous ones.
There's plenty of things to criticise Apple about but this really isn't one of them. Just part of Apple not being happy with the status quo and trying something different to improve technology.
Everything but the last part? No, the patent application would have no impact on you. You have to do everything in a claim to infringe it. Can you can more but not less and infringe.
Up instead of down? Yes, patent claim 1 doesn't detail what the gesture is.
Claim 1.....
recognize a page-flipping gesture directed along an outer edge of the second touch display region; and
display, responsive to advancement of the page-flipping gesture, a virtual page flip in which pages quickly flip from the second touch display region to the first touch display region. Either this means finishing the flip which would be another duh, or a quick flip of many pages, which might be something.
That's what it is. There are two page-flipping gestures in the claim. The second one is the quick-flip, which, as you admit, "might be something".
Always on Slashdot there's these raging discussions about patents without understanding the details. For a claim to be novel, only one element of it needs to be novel. What this patent is describing is the fast flip idea. iBooks does not do this.
As well, this bit "which might be something" seems like a good, novel idea which would enhance iBooks.
Disclaimer: however, I am against software patents. But we need to understand them.
You're off the mark on why Apple has prevented Flash from being available on the iOS devices. They have never mentioned screen size as a reason. If it was about making a profit on the App Store they wouldn't be strongly pushing HTML5 and web apps. There is already DRM'ed media being sold on the iOS devices that Apple get no cut of. See the Kindle App. Free and you buy the content from a web site. Why should we not take the company line as an honest appraisal of the problems with Flash on these devices and go looking for other motives?
You misunderstood what the parent was talking about. Exploring a menu is very different to quickly using a keyboard sequence to issue a command.
When it comes to exploring a menu using the keyboard, a slight difference in the number of keystrokes is irrelevant. You're spending a lot more time looking over what is available than you spend pressing any keys.
But why is anyone typing Alt-F-S when they could just be typing Ctrl-S (or Command-S)?
(And for the record, for me there needs to be another keystroke on the Mac to actually open the menu. This can be a space or a down arrow that I have found.)
However, the guy who wrote the article is totally and completely batshiat crazy; he assumes that using the system to produce results closest to those that one desires automatically means one doesn't desire a lack of the system. I disagree. If a lack of copyright is what you desire for your creations that already exists now within the current system. You simply put them into the public domain. The fact that this isn't what people want to do means that they do, as the author suggests, want to retain some control over their creation and so use the GLP or Creative Commons or some similar system.
I don't know how it is in the US but here in Australia (and other countries) the discs would most certainly be unmerchantable, at least to some degree. It does not matter what Sony wants but what uses the average consumer would expect the disc to be fit for. In this case, it would be expected that the disc could be used to watch the movie on any DVD player. I don't know what level of failure would be allowed (i.e. how many models it could not be played on) but it could easily be shown that the discs are unplayable by deliberate design, making them defective and unmerchantable.
That's not how dependent claims work. Assume claim 1 is invalid. Claim 2 is based upon claim 1 but it clearly contains something novel and inventive. The fact that claim 1 is invalid does not change the novel and inventive aspects of claim 2. All patent claims are built upon something, that's what the background is describing.
Claim 2 is only based upon claim 1 as a shorthand. It could be rewritten to include the text of claim 1. Claim 2 would still contain the novel and inventive aspects and so would still be a valid claim.
Claim 2 covers triply-linked lists, but claim 1 is for a linked list with two sets of pointers. It reads directly on a standard doubly-linked list. The fact that with a doubly-linked list the sequences are forwards and backwards is irrelevant as the patent only talks about two different sequences. So, claim 1 is absolutely invalid. There is very likely prior art that invalidates claim 2 as well, the triply-linked list claim. Claims 3 and 4 are just restatements of claim 1, so the entire patent is very unlikely to be able to stand up to any challenge.
Unfortunately, I can't tell from the USPTO site when Creative's application was published. Probably 12 months after application. So, Creative put in the application in Jan 2001, Apple releases the iPod in October 2001 and then in Jan 2002 the Creative patent application is published and becomes public information.
I don't know what this means in this case. I think that if Apple had filed a patent at the same time as the iPod was released, Apple would have a right to use to technology because they had clearly invented it independantly, but Creative would still own the patent.
It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.
Good point. I'd take a listen, but it'd cost me $7 so I'll never know.
Very true. A 30 second preview on iTunes would definitely not be enough for this purpose. If this is the way of the future there will have to be samples or known quality of content. In this case, there's the first series of podcasts which remain available and free so you can get an idea of what to expect.
Disclaimer: I've enjoyed the free podcasts so I am considering paying the $7 for the first month, though it does seem a bit expensive.
I suppose I just won't listen to the show then. Not that I've ever heard of it before anyway. Needless to say though, if Mr Gervais thinks he's going to get all his listeners to pony up $7 a month, I think he's going to have to come up witha much, much better act.
If you've never listened to it how do you know it needs to be a "much, much better act"?
Nice for some more confirmation that Australia and New Zealand are at the arse end of the world. We get to wait until "early 2006". Clearly that's not going to be January or they'd just release it in December, so I'm betting we're going to have to wait at least four months after the US as usual.
I believe it's correctly attributed to Spotlight, as every now and again, even when the machine is sitting plugged in and resting on my kitchen counter, I can hear it whirl it's harddisk as if it's indexing.
That's not how Spotlight works. When you first installed Tiger it needed to go through all the existing files and index them, but that process is surely done by now.
All it does now is respond to new files being created or files being changed. It doesn't need to scan for these as it is told directly by the operating system when the changes take place.
The constant disk access must be some other process.
From my perspective it's worse that that. The Windows choice of the left-most modifier key is significantly worse than the Mac's choice of the modifier next to the space bar.
On Windows I regularly hit the wrong X, C or V key when trying to cut/copy/paste. I never do this on the Mac.
My guess is that because the Mac's modifier key is much closer to the keys in question the muscle memory is more accurate than for the Windows scheme.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
"And vice-versa"? So, once you have a monopoly for A you can create a monopoly for B, which you can then send back in time to create your monopoly for A in the first place?
Regardless of whether you think the entire concept is obvious or not, claim 1 is clearly obvious. Putting all taskbar buttons for Word documents together in the taskbar is incredibly obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly. Does the Ipod use a USB port to play music or charge? It does! Does it use a standard USB connector? It does not! Hence an instant, enormous aftermarket for a proprietary piece of cabling that won't work with anybody else's anything and that gains no particular benefit from the difference. Over decades -- printer cables, modem cables, mouse cable -- if it was Apple only Apple's version would fit on an Apple piece of hardware.
Yes, Apple has used propriety connectors but it was always for a purpose not for the sake of being different. Often the reason was simplicity or elegance, always gaining a strong benefit for the users from the difference.
iPod dock connectors: far from just being a USB port it is a lot of things. Originally, it was a combination Firewire/USB/audio/charging port. Later, video out was added. Firewire was dropped. A standard USB connector would never have done what was intended for the dock connector. Could they have moved to a standard USB connector later on, perhaps, but then they would have broken compatibility with previous iPods.
Mouse cables: There was no standard mouse connector before the Mac, so it came with something propriety. It was later replaced with the ADB (Apple Desktop Bus) , which allowed keyboards and mice to be daisy chained and allowed a Mac to be powered up from the keyboard. After that they moved to USB and then Bluetooth. At no point was there a propriety connector for the sake of it.
Printer cables: I can't say I know the whole history of Apple's printer connectors but on the Mac it started with RS-422 and they've since used the networking system, SCSI, USB, Firewire and wireless.
Modem cables: Started of with RS-422 as well, from memory. At one point there was a very propriety, strange connection, whose name I forgot. Apple were attempting all sorts of weird shit with it. Didn't last long.
Monitor cables (which really should have been on your list): Apple has a long history of propriety monitor cables. The aim has always been simplicity, combining multiple cables into a single one. Usually audio, keyboard/mouse connections were included. Thunderbolt really is the latest in a long line of these and the first one that wasn't propriety. Perhaps it will last longer than the previous ones.
There's plenty of things to criticise Apple about but this really isn't one of them. Just part of Apple not being happy with the status quo and trying something different to improve technology.
Everything but the last part? No, the patent application would have no impact on you. You have to do everything in a claim to infringe it. Can you can more but not less and infringe.
Up instead of down? Yes, patent claim 1 doesn't detail what the gesture is.
Always on Slashdot there's these raging discussions about patents without understanding the details. For a claim to be novel, only one element of it needs to be novel. What this patent is describing is the fast flip idea. iBooks does not do this.
As well, this bit "which might be something" seems like a good, novel idea which would enhance iBooks.
Disclaimer: however, I am against software patents. But we need to understand them.
You're off the mark on why Apple has prevented Flash from being available on the iOS devices.
They have never mentioned screen size as a reason.
If it was about making a profit on the App Store they wouldn't be strongly pushing HTML5 and web apps.
There is already DRM'ed media being sold on the iOS devices that Apple get no cut of. See the Kindle App. Free and you buy the content from a web site.
Why should we not take the company line as an honest appraisal of the problems with Flash on these devices and go looking for other motives?
You misunderstood what the parent was talking about. Exploring a menu is very different to quickly using a keyboard sequence to issue a command.
When it comes to exploring a menu using the keyboard, a slight difference in the number of keystrokes is irrelevant. You're spending a lot more time looking over what is available than you spend pressing any keys.
But why is anyone typing Alt-F-S when they could just be typing Ctrl-S (or Command-S)?
(And for the record, for me there needs to be another keystroke on the Mac to actually open the menu. This can be a space or a down arrow that I have found.)
Who were only ripping off Schadenfreude Interactive, http://www.schadenfreudeinteractive.com/accordion.html
I don't know how it is in the US but here in Australia (and other countries) the discs would most certainly be unmerchantable, at least to some degree. It does not matter what Sony wants but what uses the average consumer would expect the disc to be fit for. In this case, it would be expected that the disc could be used to watch the movie on any DVD player. I don't know what level of failure would be allowed (i.e. how many models it could not be played on) but it could easily be shown that the discs are unplayable by deliberate design, making them defective and unmerchantable.
That's not how dependent claims work. Assume claim 1 is invalid. Claim 2 is based upon claim 1 but it clearly contains something novel and inventive. The fact that claim 1 is invalid does not change the novel and inventive aspects of claim 2. All patent claims are built upon something, that's what the background is describing.
Claim 2 is only based upon claim 1 as a shorthand. It could be rewritten to include the text of claim 1. Claim 2 would still contain the novel and inventive aspects and so would still be a valid claim.
Claim 2 covers triply-linked lists, but claim 1 is for a linked list with two sets of pointers. It reads directly on a standard doubly-linked list. The fact that with a doubly-linked list the sequences are forwards and backwards is irrelevant as the patent only talks about two different sequences. So, claim 1 is absolutely invalid. There is very likely prior art that invalidates claim 2 as well, the triply-linked list claim. Claims 3 and 4 are just restatements of claim 1, so the entire patent is very unlikely to be able to stand up to any challenge.
Unfortunately, I can't tell from the USPTO site when Creative's application was published. Probably 12 months after application. So, Creative put in the application in Jan 2001, Apple releases the iPod in October 2001 and then in Jan 2002 the Creative patent application is published and becomes public information. I don't know what this means in this case. I think that if Apple had filed a patent at the same time as the iPod was released, Apple would have a right to use to technology because they had clearly invented it independantly, but Creative would still own the patent. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.
Good point. I'd take a listen, but it'd cost me $7 so I'll never know.
Very true. A 30 second preview on iTunes would definitely not be enough for this purpose. If this is the way of the future there will have to be samples or known quality of content. In this case, there's the first series of podcasts which remain available and free so you can get an idea of what to expect.
Disclaimer: I've enjoyed the free podcasts so I am considering paying the $7 for the first month, though it does seem a bit expensive.
I suppose I just won't listen to the show then. Not that I've ever heard of it before anyway. Needless to say though, if Mr Gervais thinks he's going to get all his listeners to pony up $7 a month, I think he's going to have to come up witha much, much better act.
If you've never listened to it how do you know it needs to be a "much, much better act"?
Nice for some more confirmation that Australia and New Zealand are at the arse end of the world. We get to wait until "early 2006". Clearly that's not going to be January or they'd just release it in December, so I'm betting we're going to have to wait at least four months after the US as usual.
All it does now is respond to new files being created or files being changed. It doesn't need to scan for these as it is told directly by the operating system when the changes take place.
The constant disk access must be some other process.
From my perspective it's worse that that. The Windows choice of the left-most modifier key is significantly worse than the Mac's choice of the modifier next to the space bar.
On Windows I regularly hit the wrong X, C or V key when trying to cut/copy/paste. I never do this on the Mac.
My guess is that because the Mac's modifier key is much closer to the keys in question the muscle memory is more accurate than for the Windows scheme.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
"And vice-versa"? So, once you have a monopoly for A you can create a monopoly for B, which you can then send back in time to create your monopoly for A in the first place?
Regardless of whether you think the entire concept is obvious or not, claim 1 is clearly obvious. Putting all taskbar buttons for Word documents together in the taskbar is incredibly obvious.