I have a wireless printer that came without AirPrint support (bought it before AirPrint was released). One firmware update later, and it now is compatible. And it's no expensive high-end printer either. Matter of fact, I don't like it very much, but it sure works with AirPrint.
Anyway, what really peeves me is that you need any driver to connect to a printer.
I don't see why, in this day and age, with computing power to cheap and ubiquitous, a router can't update itself, or at least have the functionality to allow a user to update it without involving another computer (except to send a command to tell it to update itself).
An iPad is not a general purpose computing device. It was not designed as one, and is not expected to be one. It was designed as a device on which one mostly consumes content, stays in touch, write short emails and so on. It's like comparing an F1 car and a off-roader, and complaining that an F1 car is artificially restricted because they didn't give it good ground clearance.
To make an iPad do what it does well, Apple made choices. And from the looks of things, many other companies making tablets are making similar choices.
People need to stop thinking of computers as PCs. The first computers were PCs, and most people could not afford more than one of them, and so each computer had to do everything. Now computers are cheap. The computer in my pocket (my iPhone) has more RAM, more computing power and more disc space than my first computer (a Duron 1.2 GHz which had a 40GB harddrive). I have a laptop and a tablet as well as a Tivo box (which is really another specialised computer). Oh, and I have a work issue Blackberry. So if there is anything one of my computers doesn't do (that I need it to do), then I either have some really out there use cases, or the CIA ought to be looking at what I am trying to do (that is not an invitation).
Basically, an iPad is a specialised computer, and yes, computers can be specialised. A computer is not a (general purpose) PC!
How about people not leaving it too late to see the doctor?
Having idle capacity is expensive. One way to cut down on costs is to have a waiting list. Then you can ensure all those doctors who are paid a fortune are always occupied. It's a trade off, like with most things in life.
And the doctors aren't incompetent. They know if a condition will get more serious and will bump you up the list if they determine that your need is more critical.
Do you really want government picking winners and losers in the "market". Are you sure you want a patronage system and the corrupt system that entails.
Competition is good. But we need to reward those who put in effort without any guarantee of a good return on their investment of time. Giving them a monopoly on their invention is surely the simplest way of rewarding them without relating a patronage system.
If you are arguing that the length of the monopoly is excessive, then I might agree with you.
In Zimbabwe, we have the "Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act". You would be hard pressed to find a more ironically name piece of legislation.
Although, come to think of it, it makes sense if it's government wanting to access your information and wanting to protect its own privacy!
The US recognises political asylum. Where are you getting your misinformation.
The US does not believe that political asylum is governed by international law. Big difference.
Think about it. Would you really like political asylum to be subject to international law. That would mean that when a {rogue state} dissident runs to the US, the {rogue state} could "sue" to force the US to give him up. However, that also means that no country is forced to guarantee safe passage of said asylum seeker, and in this case the UK is not forced to grant him passage through the UK. So he can live in the Ecuadorian embassy for a while and be Ecuador's problem.
It shouldn't be a problem. I am sure he won't "surprise sex" anyone in the embassy, otherwise things could become really horrible really quickly for him.
I am a consultant at a big 4 firm, and my hourly rate (before any discounts) is more than $550, and I am nowhere near senior manager let alone partner. His time is worth a lot. He is not being paid millions to do this, but that rate would be par for the course, if not a little cheap.
The system of patents has a very specific purpose to promote innovation. A design patent is not promoting this goal.
You are talking about one very specific system of patents. Design patents have next to nothing in common with utility patents, besides the common "patent" term in their name.
Design is not just about how things look, therefore trademarks cannot protect against everything that design patents are trying to protect against.
Mercedes cannot trademark the shape of its car, for example. If they want protection against competitors copying that and calling it something else, they need the design patents.
It takes a lot of effort and money to develop something like a phone, and the patent system should protect such endeavours, otherwise companies will not be encouraged to put effort into improving their products and thus improving consumers' experience with those products.
I used to think this was just an insult to apple buyers. Then the iPhone 4s came out. I'll never forget the first words that came out of my apple buying friend's mouth after seeing the design. "How will anyone be able to tell I have the new one?"
I like how people spin the fact that Apple doesn't change the design of its iPhone for 2 years as somehow showing that Apple fanatics care about showing that they have the latest and greatest. Apple evolves their designs slowly. Most times, you cannot tell, at a casual glance, that someone is using the latest, unless they have recently come up with a brand new design.
So your anecdote reveals more about your friend than it does about the Apple buying public.
Apple introduced the F700 as evidence of Samsung copying them. Samsung, if it thought it had evidence proving otherwise, had a deadline to introduce the evidence, and they didn't. They knew the rules. How hard could it have been for them. They developed the F700, they had the evidence that they designed it prior to the iPhone. They were solely responsible for the production of this evidence in the time that had been set to do so. it's not like they needed to create the evidence. Just take it from where it was, and bring it during discovery.
You fail at logic. A patent monopoly is warranted _precisely_ because it is easy to copy. if it wasn't easy to copy, there would be no need for patents because the difficulty in copying would be protection enough.
And why should design not be patentable? Because you don't like it or because there is something peculiar to design that makes it ineligible for protection whilst invention doesn't. It also takes effort to create a unique design, and what is wrong with asking Samsung to do its own design and not ride on Apple's coattails?
Sony did not have a product that looks anything like an iPhone. Jony Ive has never hidden the fact that he was inspired by Braun for example. And neither did Steve Jobs hide his admiration for the company that Sony once was. But inspiration and copying are two different things. Inspiration is what you get when you ask, what would a smartphone look like if it had been designed by the Sony of the 80's. Copying is, make a phone that is indistinguishable from an iPhone at first glance.
Apple was influenced by Sony (in the 80s'), Braun, Leica etc. They admit it. But they didn't make a single Sony look-a-like, or a Leica look-a-like or a Braun look-a-like.
And Sony was not a market leader in any way, shape or form when it came to smartphones.
The LG Prada used a capacitative touchscreen before Apple and they didn't use the slide to unlock. So it wasn't obvious to them, and unless you want to suggest that LG didn't have people skilled in the field, one could argue that it wasn't obvious to some skilled in the field. QED.
You are still using the "invent" word. Design patents are not about inventions! Yes, Apple is protecting its's style, specifically the design of the iPad. Like Coca Cola protects the design of the contour bottle.
trivial/trivl/ Adjective: Of little value or importance. (of a person) Concerned only with trifling or unimportant things.
You cannot argue that slide to unlock is both trivial (therefore not important), and also very important because it is intuitive.
If slide to unlock is very trivial, then why is it that no one used it on phone prior to the iPhone? The iPhone wasn't the first phone with a capacitative touchscreen, so it is not a question of the the iPhone being the first phone where the hardware made it possible.
Some things look obvious in retrospect, especially after being exposed to them for a very long time. The use of electricity to send and receive communications would probably be very obvious to many people today (it was obvious enough that the invention of the telephone is actually disputed).
We are talking about _design_ patents! Not regular patents. They are completely different things. Therefore the original poster was not writing about invention at all. You are conflating the two different types of patent, and you use of the word "invent' is therefore wholly inappropriate in the context. Apple patented the _design_ of their iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a wireless printer that came without AirPrint support (bought it before AirPrint was released). One firmware update later, and it now is compatible. And it's no expensive high-end printer either. Matter of fact, I don't like it very much, but it sure works with AirPrint.
Anyway, what really peeves me is that you need any driver to connect to a printer.
I don't see why, in this day and age, with computing power to cheap and ubiquitous, a router can't update itself, or at least have the functionality to allow a user to update it without involving another computer (except to send a command to tell it to update itself).
MPs don't generally have any state secrets to keep. Just saying.
An iPad is not a general purpose computing device. It was not designed as one, and is not expected to be one. It was designed as a device on which one mostly consumes content, stays in touch, write short emails and so on. It's like comparing an F1 car and a off-roader, and complaining that an F1 car is artificially restricted because they didn't give it good ground clearance.
To make an iPad do what it does well, Apple made choices. And from the looks of things, many other companies making tablets are making similar choices.
People need to stop thinking of computers as PCs. The first computers were PCs, and most people could not afford more than one of them, and so each computer had to do everything. Now computers are cheap. The computer in my pocket (my iPhone) has more RAM, more computing power and more disc space than my first computer (a Duron 1.2 GHz which had a 40GB harddrive). I have a laptop and a tablet as well as a Tivo box (which is really another specialised computer). Oh, and I have a work issue Blackberry. So if there is anything one of my computers doesn't do (that I need it to do), then I either have some really out there use cases, or the CIA ought to be looking at what I am trying to do (that is not an invitation).
Basically, an iPad is a specialised computer, and yes, computers can be specialised. A computer is not a (general purpose) PC!
How about people not leaving it too late to see the doctor?
Having idle capacity is expensive. One way to cut down on costs is to have a waiting list. Then you can ensure all those doctors who are paid a fortune are always occupied. It's a trade off, like with most things in life.
And the doctors aren't incompetent. They know if a condition will get more serious and will bump you up the list if they determine that your need is more critical.
And how do we decide what is worthy of R&D?
Do you really want government picking winners and losers in the "market". Are you sure you want a patronage system and the corrupt system that entails.
Competition is good. But we need to reward those who put in effort without any guarantee of a good return on their investment of time. Giving them a monopoly on their invention is surely the simplest way of rewarding them without relating a patronage system.
If you are arguing that the length of the monopoly is excessive, then I might agree with you.
You are almost more right than you think
In Zimbabwe, we have the "Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act". You would be hard pressed to find a more ironically name piece of legislation.
Although, come to think of it, it makes sense if it's government wanting to access your information and wanting to protect its own privacy!
So besides "legal monopolies", what would you rather have?
Payment can take many forms. Allowing someone priority access to your stock pre-IPOD is worth something. Therefore it is payment.
The US recognises political asylum. Where are you getting your misinformation.
The US does not believe that political asylum is governed by international law. Big difference.
Think about it. Would you really like political asylum to be subject to international law. That would mean that when a {rogue state} dissident runs to the US, the {rogue state} could "sue" to force the US to give him up. However, that also means that no country is forced to guarantee safe passage of said asylum seeker, and in this case the UK is not forced to grant him passage through the UK. So he can live in the Ecuadorian embassy for a while and be Ecuador's problem.
It shouldn't be a problem. I am sure he won't "surprise sex" anyone in the embassy, otherwise things could become really horrible really quickly for him.
She should squeeze both parties' balls even harder.
They might like that!
I am a consultant at a big 4 firm, and my hourly rate (before any discounts) is more than $550, and I am nowhere near senior manager let alone partner. His time is worth a lot. He is not being paid millions to do this, but that rate would be par for the course, if not a little cheap.
The system of patents has a very specific purpose to promote innovation. A design patent is not promoting this goal.
You are talking about one very specific system of patents. Design patents have next to nothing in common with utility patents, besides the common "patent" term in their name.
Design is not just about how things look, therefore trademarks cannot protect against everything that design patents are trying to protect against.
Mercedes cannot trademark the shape of its car, for example. If they want protection against competitors copying that and calling it something else, they need the design patents.
It takes a lot of effort and money to develop something like a phone, and the patent system should protect such endeavours, otherwise companies will not be encouraged to put effort into improving their products and thus improving consumers' experience with those products.
Why do you think a design patent is a bad idea? Why should effort into creating a design be less worthy than work into creating a new invention?
The logo itself is a status symbol.
I used to think this was just an insult to apple buyers. Then the iPhone 4s came out. I'll never forget the first words that came out of my apple buying friend's mouth after seeing the design. "How will anyone be able to tell I have the new one?"
I like how people spin the fact that Apple doesn't change the design of its iPhone for 2 years as somehow showing that Apple fanatics care about showing that they have the latest and greatest. Apple evolves their designs slowly. Most times, you cannot tell, at a casual glance, that someone is using the latest, unless they have recently come up with a brand new design.
So your anecdote reveals more about your friend than it does about the Apple buying public.
You think? So you are guessing?
What is /. coming to?
Sigh!
Apple introduced the F700 as evidence of Samsung copying them. Samsung, if it thought it had evidence proving otherwise, had a deadline to introduce the evidence, and they didn't. They knew the rules. How hard could it have been for them. They developed the F700, they had the evidence that they designed it prior to the iPhone. They were solely responsible for the production of this evidence in the time that had been set to do so. it's not like they needed to create the evidence. Just take it from where it was, and bring it during discovery.
You fail at logic. A patent monopoly is warranted _precisely_ because it is easy to copy. if it wasn't easy to copy, there would be no need for patents because the difficulty in copying would be protection enough.
It's not style. It's design.
And why should design not be patentable? Because you don't like it or because there is something peculiar to design that makes it ineligible for protection whilst invention doesn't. It also takes effort to create a unique design, and what is wrong with asking Samsung to do its own design and not ride on Apple's coattails?
Sony did not have a product that looks anything like an iPhone. Jony Ive has never hidden the fact that he was inspired by Braun for example. And neither did Steve Jobs hide his admiration for the company that Sony once was. But inspiration and copying are two different things. Inspiration is what you get when you ask, what would a smartphone look like if it had been designed by the Sony of the 80's. Copying is, make a phone that is indistinguishable from an iPhone at first glance.
Apple was influenced by Sony (in the 80s'), Braun, Leica etc. They admit it. But they didn't make a single Sony look-a-like, or a Leica look-a-like or a Braun look-a-like.
And Sony was not a market leader in any way, shape or form when it came to smartphones.
The LG Prada used a capacitative touchscreen before Apple and they didn't use the slide to unlock. So it wasn't obvious to them, and unless you want to suggest that LG didn't have people skilled in the field, one could argue that it wasn't obvious to some skilled in the field. QED.
You are still using the "invent" word. Design patents are not about inventions! Yes, Apple is protecting its's style, specifically the design of the iPad. Like Coca Cola protects the design of the contour bottle.
trivial/trivl/
Adjective:
Of little value or importance.
(of a person) Concerned only with trifling or unimportant things.
You cannot argue that slide to unlock is both trivial (therefore not important), and also very important because it is intuitive.
If slide to unlock is very trivial, then why is it that no one used it on phone prior to the iPhone? The iPhone wasn't the first phone with a capacitative touchscreen, so it is not a question of the the iPhone being the first phone where the hardware made it possible.
Some things look obvious in retrospect, especially after being exposed to them for a very long time. The use of electricity to send and receive communications would probably be very obvious to many people today (it was obvious enough that the invention of the telephone is actually disputed).
We are talking about _design_ patents! Not regular patents. They are completely different things. Therefore the original poster was not writing about invention at all. You are conflating the two different types of patent, and you use of the word "invent' is therefore wholly inappropriate in the context. Apple patented the _design_ of their iPad.
The GP did not mention once the word "invent". You are "projecting" your own biases onto someone else, creating a strawman to pull down.
And the second sentence in your post is not actually an argument. Just thought to let you know.