>>Not really. It results in disappearance of the mouse cursor, and interferes with scrolling.
I guess it depend too on what you mean by "slow" response time. The OP in not so many words said it had to be fast enough to play video games without ghosting. Most applications are not that demanding.
If it was too slow you could not use a mouse or scroll, but their could be workarounds (page up and down instead of scroll, moveable focus rather than a moveable cursor).
If Google had filed the patent, that would have been the response by about half the people here - they were just doing it to block others from exploiting it.
I think that is Microsoft's thought to a certain degree. They want to block someone from having a superior ad server because they know their customers would not accept it now, but somenone else might not be so concerned. That's not to say though, that 5 to 10 years from now this idea would not seem so distasteful to the average consumer and Microsoft would then decide to exploit the hell out of it.
It also could be to screw with Google. If Google's desktop search ever wanted to incorporate ads, then this patent would prevent them.
It just depends on how susceptible. Weren't floppy disks susceptible to being erased by magnetic interference, but people rarely took special precautions.
Slow response time would be fine for websurfing, photo albums, PIMs, etc. The display could be used for certain PDA's, smart phones, electronic books/newspapers, etc... I think it still would be cool.
>>What do readers want? These days, a little fucking truth would help.
Blogs and even Slashdot remind me of conservative talk radio. People go there to hear other people validate and reinforce thier own pre-existing opinions. And you get a few that go there just to argue.
I don't see truth in the equation, unless "truth" means "everybody here agrees with me." Slashdot is kind of a circle jerk for people with a particular world view, but somewhere else there is a circle jerk going on for a different world view. That's the problem with blogs and "internet news", people just select what they want to hear, and that is also the reason for the decline of mainstream journalism.
Look at how popular Fox News is. People are "addicted", but many really think they are getting "news". Most of thier shows are commentary, but people go to these same shows for "news".
Most of what you described can be accessed using one of those GPS navigation systems sometimes found in rental cars. Fandango.com allows you to enter a zipcode and get a list of theaters and movies. Yahoo has had local Yahoos for years, which includes maps and user reviews.
It seems like if there was really that big of demand someone would have better packaged all this already.
They tried something similar to the barcode thing - Quecat I think it was called.
>>Just how many people would use it? I am pretty big computer user and I just don't use my computer to look up restaurants that often. My number one way is to just take a chance and see if it is open and what they offer.
I guess it just depends on the person. I would actually use this more than most of the pervasive computing stuff you are talking about; it is kind of funny how you are talking about all this info being the next big thing then turnaround and say you would rather just take a chance and not use the info.
>>where there are small devices everywhere (well, everywhere important) that your own device connects to and gets any "relevant information".
That makes more sense, especially if the place of interest packages the "relevant" information. It would also cut down on the spam. Not sure it would be the "next big thing" though, since a lot of the utility seems to apply to mainly tourism.
>>Instead, why don't points of interest broadcast on an open (but secure, if possible) network? Go to a museum, a list of links pops up on your PDA.
I think this makes a lot more sense, and would probably help cut out some of the spam. A lot of this stuff would only apply to tourists anyway (not sure tourism is the "next big thing"), and the point of interest (or city tourism board) could package the content in the most useful manner instead of letting Google try to process everything and decide what was relevant.
If it is a restaurant that I've never been to, I always try to look up the menu to see what they have and how much it costs. Even if I have been there, I might want to check their hours.
I think even a simple homemade template website would be beneficial (for my purposes anyway).
>>...relevant local information without searching.
How does it decide what is relevant without search terms? I could see train schedule being relevant if you are in a train station, but more often than not you have to include search terms.
As others have said, most of this information would be pointless unless you were a tourist anyway, and I don't see tourism being the "next big thing". I think spam would also ultimately kill me much of the utility.
If you just want a list then something like Switchboard.com does that now. Will the system translate "roast beef" to all restaurants or restaurants with "deli" in thier name? How would it decipher the others whether or not they have roast beef sandwhiches?
I think it is more likely to focus on advertisers.
>>Today we have access to an unfathomable amount of information. Web 2.0 has helped us begin to organize and make sense of that information.
I guess I don't really get Web 2.0 then.
Not sure I get the "location, location, location" thing either. Yahoo has had local Yahoos for years now. How would tags work better than regular Google searches?
I think Disney makes significant amount of money re-releasing their movies. This would not be protected by trademark, only copyright.
I don't know if they still do it, but they used to only re-release a particular movie like once every 5 years or so, so you had to buy it when it came out to make sure you had it for your kid. I knew a guy that had the entire collection in VHS, and had to turn around and get it all on DVD.
There is a new generation of kids continually coming along that almost always get bought the Disney classics.
They could still make money without the copyrights, but I think they like to have total control.
>>He wasn't manipulating prices or public perception...
He was *trying* to manipulate stock price so they would be an easier take over target.
>>If he didn't do anything illegal..
It would be illegal if he had not been anonymous; he was the CEO of a competitor.
>>so what's bizarre about it?
See above. He knew his behaviour was illegal, so he did it anonymously so that it wouldn't be illegal. I just think it is pretty funny, especially since he had little chance of suceeding. It is kind of weird a CEO would do this time of stuff for such little gain - it seems like he would have better things to do.
>>I don't see how or why you would differentiate the CEO from any other stakeholder who chooses to post for his own self interest.
Since he was a CEO, and he was kind of lying to manipulate stock prices, had he not done it anonymously he would be in trouble probably, whereas a non-insider would probably not.
>>Where trademarks and copyrights collide, copyrights tend to win. This because there is a strong policy in trademark law to not prevent people from using public domain material
What if trademarks were put in place by the creator while the material was still copyrighted? Once those copyrights expire, but the Star Wars trademarks are still thriving, can anybody start making Luke Skywalker dolls to compete against the official doll? Can somebody make their own Star Wars movie using the Luke Skywalker character?
(BTW, I just noticed your Slashdot ID# or whatever it is called. I think that is the lowest I have ever seen.)
>>But you can't use that trademark to block the creation or marketing of further works derived from that public domain character.
This appears to be the opposite of what the GP said. Can anyone clear this up?
I think Peter Pan might be a special case because I think the peanut butter company and Disney might have acquired trademarks for specific instances of the character from the original copyright holder while the copyright was still in effect.
From what I understand from the wikipedia article, some hospital even still claims to hold the US copyright, so maybe that wasn't the best example.
Snow White and Cinderalla characters were not original Disney creations, and they were not trademarked by the original creator.
I guess another way to phrase this would be if the Star Wars copyright were to expire tommorrow, would the trademark still prevent you from using Luke Skywalker character in an alternate movie set in the Star Wars universe?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, it was always filmed with muppets. Never seen it?
>>Not really. It results in disappearance of the mouse cursor, and interferes with scrolling.
I guess it depend too on what you mean by "slow" response time. The OP in not so many words said it had to be fast enough to play video games without ghosting. Most applications are not that demanding.
If it was too slow you could not use a mouse or scroll, but their could be workarounds (page up and down instead of scroll, moveable focus rather than a moveable cursor).
This patent would block Google Desktop from serving up ads. I think that might be the point.
I think that is pretty interesting. I was thinking more in terms of them stopping Google from doing ads with desktop search, but this makes since too.
If Google had filed the patent, that would have been the response by about half the people here - they were just doing it to block others from exploiting it.
I think that is Microsoft's thought to a certain degree. They want to block someone from having a superior ad server because they know their customers would not accept it now, but somenone else might not be so concerned. That's not to say though, that 5 to 10 years from now this idea would not seem so distasteful to the average consumer and Microsoft would then decide to exploit the hell out of it.
It also could be to screw with Google. If Google's desktop search ever wanted to incorporate ads, then this patent would prevent them.
Maybe...
It just depends on how susceptible. Weren't floppy disks susceptible to being erased by magnetic interference, but people rarely took special precautions.
Slow response time would be fine for websurfing, photo albums, PIMs, etc. The display could be used for certain PDA's, smart phones, electronic books/newspapers, etc... I think it still would be cool.
Are there any remote controlled helicopters like this? It seems like they would be more handy for urban combat.
>>What do readers want? These days, a little fucking truth would help.
Blogs and even Slashdot remind me of conservative talk radio. People go there to hear other people validate and reinforce thier own pre-existing opinions. And you get a few that go there just to argue.
I don't see truth in the equation, unless "truth" means "everybody here agrees with me." Slashdot is kind of a circle jerk for people with a particular world view, but somewhere else there is a circle jerk going on for a different world view. That's the problem with blogs and "internet news", people just select what they want to hear, and that is also the reason for the decline of mainstream journalism.
Look at how popular Fox News is. People are "addicted", but many really think they are getting "news". Most of thier shows are commentary, but people go to these same shows for "news".
Most of what you described can be accessed using one of those GPS navigation systems sometimes found in rental cars. Fandango.com allows you to enter a zipcode and get a list of theaters and movies. Yahoo has had local Yahoos for years, which includes maps and user reviews.
It seems like if there was really that big of demand someone would have better packaged all this already.
They tried something similar to the barcode thing - Quecat I think it was called.
>>Just how many people would use it? I am pretty big computer user and I just don't use my computer to look up restaurants that often. My number one way is to just take a chance and see if it is open and what they offer.
I guess it just depends on the person. I would actually use this more than most of the pervasive computing stuff you are talking about; it is kind of funny how you are talking about all this info being the next big thing then turnaround and say you would rather just take a chance and not use the info.
>>where there are small devices everywhere (well, everywhere important) that your own device connects to and gets any "relevant information".
That makes more sense, especially if the place of interest packages the "relevant" information. It would also cut down on the spam. Not sure it would be the "next big thing" though, since a lot of the utility seems to apply to mainly tourism.
>>Instead, why don't points of interest broadcast on an open (but secure, if possible) network? Go to a museum, a list of links pops up on your PDA.
I think this makes a lot more sense, and would probably help cut out some of the spam. A lot of this stuff would only apply to tourists anyway (not sure tourism is the "next big thing"), and the point of interest (or city tourism board) could package the content in the most useful manner instead of letting Google try to process everything and decide what was relevant.
If it is a restaurant that I've never been to, I always try to look up the menu to see what they have and how much it costs. Even if I have been there, I might want to check their hours.
I think even a simple homemade template website would be beneficial (for my purposes anyway).
>>...relevant local information without searching.
How does it decide what is relevant without search terms? I could see train schedule being relevant if you are in a train station, but more often than not you have to include search terms.
As others have said, most of this information would be pointless unless you were a tourist anyway, and I don't see tourism being the "next big thing". I think spam would also ultimately kill me much of the utility.
That's a really good point. The average person spends most of thier life within a few miles of their house and within a few miles of work.
If you just want a list then something like Switchboard.com does that now. Will the system translate "roast beef" to all restaurants or restaurants with "deli" in thier name? How would it decipher the others whether or not they have roast beef sandwhiches?
I think it is more likely to focus on advertisers.
I was thinking the same thing - more directed advertising by a limited number of companies.
I do wish more smaller companies had a web presence. Half the time I want to see a menu from a particular restaruant they don't even have a webpage.
>>Today we have access to an unfathomable amount of information. Web 2.0 has helped us begin to organize and make sense of that information.
I guess I don't really get Web 2.0 then.
Not sure I get the "location, location, location" thing either. Yahoo has had local Yahoos for years now. How would tags work better than regular Google searches?
I think Disney makes significant amount of money re-releasing their movies. This would not be protected by trademark, only copyright.
I don't know if they still do it, but they used to only re-release a particular movie like once every 5 years or so, so you had to buy it when it came out to make sure you had it for your kid. I knew a guy that had the entire collection in VHS, and had to turn around and get it all on DVD.
There is a new generation of kids continually coming along that almost always get bought the Disney classics.
They could still make money without the copyrights, but I think they like to have total control.
>>He wasn't manipulating prices or public perception...
He was *trying* to manipulate stock price so they would be an easier take over target.
>>If he didn't do anything illegal..
It would be illegal if he had not been anonymous; he was the CEO of a competitor.
>>so what's bizarre about it?
See above. He knew his behaviour was illegal, so he did it anonymously so that it wouldn't be illegal. I just think it is pretty funny, especially since he had little chance of suceeding. It is kind of weird a CEO would do this time of stuff for such little gain - it seems like he would have better things to do.
>>I don't see how or why you would differentiate the CEO from any other stakeholder who chooses to post for his own self interest.
Since he was a CEO, and he was kind of lying to manipulate stock prices, had he not done it anonymously he would be in trouble probably, whereas a non-insider would probably not.
I think it is funny more than anything else.
>>Where trademarks and copyrights collide, copyrights tend to win. This because there is a strong policy in trademark law to not prevent people from using public domain material
What if trademarks were put in place by the creator while the material was still copyrighted? Once those copyrights expire, but the Star Wars trademarks are still thriving, can anybody start making Luke Skywalker dolls to compete against the official doll? Can somebody make their own Star Wars movie using the Luke Skywalker character?
(BTW, I just noticed your Slashdot ID# or whatever it is called. I think that is the lowest I have ever seen.)
>>But you can't use that trademark to block the creation or marketing of further works derived from that public domain character.
This appears to be the opposite of what the GP said. Can anyone clear this up?
I think Peter Pan might be a special case because I think the peanut butter company and Disney might have acquired trademarks for specific instances of the character from the original copyright holder while the copyright was still in effect.
From what I understand from the wikipedia article, some hospital even still claims to hold the US copyright, so maybe that wasn't the best example.
Snow White and Cinderalla characters were not original Disney creations, and they were not trademarked by the original creator.
I guess another way to phrase this would be if the Star Wars copyright were to expire tommorrow, would the trademark still prevent you from using Luke Skywalker character in an alternate movie set in the Star Wars universe?
Wouldn't trademarks prevent one doing all the creative addition/derivation that people are arguing for in shorter copyrights?
It seems like all you would have to do is set up a website and sell some mugs and t-shirts to "promote" your trademark for perpetutiety.