Maybe I'm just optimistic this morning, but this could be the first step to a better society. One of the reasons people resist the legalization of drugs is the lack of ability to test people who are driving under the influence of drugs. If tests like these prove to be accurate, then there is one less excuse for people to oppose the legalization of drugs. Of course, there are many other reasons why people support drug prohibition, but we have to take one step at a time.
If we're going to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment, could we at least repeal it so that we don't have to live under the false pretense that it still has any meaning? I mean, how hard is it to get a damn warrant these days?
Why should some online retailer have an advantage over your local retailer because they don't have to collect the sales tax?
Because shipping costs money. For many items, the cost to ship the item is nearly equal to the sales tax that would have been collected on that item. Since these two costs usually balance out, it allows the online retailers to compete on price alone. However, if online retailers are forced to collect money for shipping AND tax, purchasing items online will immediately become more expensive than purchasing the items at a physical location.
I have done more research and it appears what you have said is correct. I would like to retract that part of my statement. Also, I think it's completely unfair that you have been modded down considering your post appears to be accurate and insightful. I guess it's just part of the slashdot groupthink. Anyway, thank you for the correction.
I would agree with most of the people who are upset with RMS over this if it weren't for the way in which the media overreacted to Jobs' passing. I know it's typical to focus on the positive aspects of a person's life after they die, but the media rose Steve Jobs to the level of a god. They focused on his revival of Apple while ignoring the fact that he had a big part in its original downward spiral. They exalted Jobs' focus on good design principles while ignoring the fact that he created a corporate culture of trying to sue all of the competition out of the market. They trumpeted the success of the iPhone and iPad while ignoring the walled gardens they created. It's not my place to say whether or not Jobs' presence in the market was a net positive or negative, but I think it's fair for the media to cover both sides of a person's life as long as it is done with tact.
Having some technology included in a telecommunications standard (like GSM/LTE/etc.) doesn't somehow give you free license to every other piece of intellectual property from every licensee.
Perhaps not. But do you honestly think it's Fair or Reasonable for Samsung to license the technologies that allow an iPhone to perform its basic functions for a relatively low price while Apple is able to block sales of Samsung's devices over the look of the plastic casing?
But the situation isn't reversed, because Apple owns technology on multiple standards (firewire, thunderbolt, etc.), you never see them insisting on cross-licensing in order for someone to implement those standards.
Apple is free to license their technologies however they please. If they choose not to require cross-license agreements, then that is their choice. And it is Samsung's choice on how they license their technologies. The question you should be asking is this: if other companies have agreed to cross-license their patents to Samsung then how would it be Fair if Apple didn't?
Here is a comment I already made on another web site about this issue:
There is something that many people seem to be missing about FRAND patents. While the terms of FRAND licensing agreements are rarely released, it is widely believed that companies that license their patents through FRAND usually require a cross-licensing agreement with the licensee. This makes sense: why should you be forced to allow other companies to license your hard-earned technologies for a relatively low price only to allow those companies to come back and sue the dick off of you? Requiring a cross-license agreement from all licensees sounds extremely Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory to me.
However, it is also widely believed that Apple wants to license the FRAND patents WITHOUT allowing other companies to cross-license Apple's patents. This belief was bolstered by the fact that the only term of Apple's settlement agreement with Nokia over FRAND patents that was released to the public was the fact that Nokia relented and allowed Apple to license their FRAND patents without a cross-licensing agreement. This made sense in that particular case because most of Apple's patents in the mobile arena are software patents related to elements of iOS. Since Nokia is moving towards WP7 and Microsoft already has a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and indemnifies all hardware manufacturers of WP7, it didn't make sense for Nokia to continue an expensive protracted legal battle with Apple over something that was quickly becoming irrelevant. However, Samsung is in a completely different position from Nokia and they aren't going to give in nearly as easily. Game on!
While Apple may have been one of the first companies that implemented multi-touch, there is nothing novel about the concept. It was made possible by the invention of capacitive touch screens (which Apple had nothing to do with - Apple was simply one of the first companies to use a capacitive touch screen) and it was widely known that one of the advantages of capacitive touch screens over resistive touch screens was that capacitive touch screens were superior for multi-touch. Therefore, Apple patented the concept of using someone else's new technology for one of it's primary intended purposes.
In this letter, Buffett explains how a CEO can make tons of money while driving a company into stagnation or even destruction. Here we are six years later and it seems like nothing has changed.
IMO the goal of our space programs isn't just to put humans into space. It also serves to dump piles of money into US science an tech development.
That's why we have the Department of Defense. And, it has the added benefit of getting to use the technology to kill people on the other side of the planet rather than just meander aimlessly through space./s
Agreed! I've been waiting decades for a technology that will open up my hardware configurations to anyone on the internet capable of hacking it. I hope it can flash the firmware too!
They have to develop, maintain, and test one of the largest JavaScript codebases in the world, and the it's-the-90's-and-I'm-high-on-cocaine-at-4am-and-it's-due-tomorrow scripting language design philosophy is not helping them.
Code to maintain
High on cocaine
Google is ready, time to take heed
Cruft up ahead
Hacks left behind
Google, release something before I lose my mind
So they are working out the logistics of building a structure for their storefront on the moon but they haven't given any thought to how they're going to continuously get fresh ingredients to make the pizza. Wait a minute, this is Domino's we're talking about - I'm sure they'll get by with the rocks and dust already on the moon.
Oops. Looks like there's a little bit of egg on the movie studios' faces!
There's no egg on any movie studios' faces. The MPAA is used as the tool to deflect hatred away from the groups it represents. If consumers directed their anger squarely at Sony, Universal, et al, then those people would likely consume fewer of their products. But since it's the MPAA we hate, we don't think anything of buying the products of the companies they represent.
In addition to that, the cables state that the US Embassy is the one who fears the image of the United States. The MPAA doesn't care because they're used to be hated - that's become their primary purpose.
Outsourcing killed manufacturing jobs while leaving engineers relatively unscathed. However, the patent bubble WILL cost engineers their jobs. I'm not trying to be condescending or start a pissing contest on the importance of manufacturing jobs versus engineering jobs, I just think it's important to make the distinction so that the issue can be planned accordingly.
Yes, the iPhone tracks the locations and strengths of cellular towers.
...and the date and time the user was near that tower ...and stores that data permanently on the phone ...in an unencrypted format ...and transfers that data to any devices used to sync the phone
I'll agree that these people are simply trying to make a simple buck at Apple's expense. However, Apple needs to learn to be more careful with people's personal data. Most countries have rules that prevent their government from tracking citizens, so Apple should know that a private company doing the same thing may not go over well.
Samsung openly admitted that it was going to change the shape of its tablet because of the iPad 2, just two weeks after it had unveiled its own work. And sure enough, in March, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 was suddenly a lot thinner and looked remarkably much more like the iPad 2.
You're absolutely right. Once one company makes a minor incremental improvement such as making a device thinner, nobody else should be able to copy the concept of making thinner devices. They should be stuck making thick, outdated devices. That's how technology progresses.
Also, you act as if making devices thinner is as simple as making a smaller case. There are a TON of technological challenges to fit all of those components into a smaller space.
but there's no question that the model you see now wouldn't look the way it does if it weren't for Apple.
Yes, that is how the market works. Competition forces companies to find ways to make more powerful devices in smaller form factors. That doesn't mean that companies should be able to get government protection to impede the progress of their competitors.
I'm not trolling here, I seriously am not. I'm a guy who likes to make $$, and if I come up with something fancy, some idiot doing the same thing who didn't have the idea until I did does it too, and sells for less than me why should I come up with ideas again?
Your idea isn't worth shit. If you implemented that idea using a unique and non-obvious technique, then you would have an invention which may be worth patenting. The problem is that software is implemented via code and code is covered by copyright law, not patents. You are right in that "some idiot" should not be able copy your code and sell it for less, but you're trying to prevent other people from investing their own time and resources to create a similar product from scratch.
Now, I will happily concede that there are many ideas that are 'well no shit' and not worthy of a patent, however, the iPhone was not a 'no shit really?' idea if you look at phones in 2006.
Yes, it was. Clearly you have never heard of the LG Prada. It contained a large capacitive touchscreen and was released before the iPhone had even been unveiled.
Then Steve Jobs and Co came by and tossed the grenade that is iPhone onto the market. Google suddenly went quiet, and 9 or so months later came out with this Android thing. It looked a lot like iPhone, you're a lying.
How did Android look like iOS? Because it had a desktop with a grid of icons? Because it had menus? You are making very serious claims without being the least bit specific.
In my opinion, Google does not spend billions of dollars patenting every little obvious feature of their software because they know that software patents will eventually be gone. However, the U.S. appears completely serious about software patents given that the current patent reform bill contains no language that would improve the software patent situation, let alone abolish them. Since our political system is owned by corporations, software patent reform won't happen until the most powerful corporations pay more in patent licensing fees than they make. In other words, we're going to continue to quibbling over who came up with an IDEA first (not an invention) while the rest of the world makes progress and slowly out-innovates us. Why compete based on merit when you can set up artificial barriers that prevent competition in the first place?
The best regulations are simple ones, as complexity breeds gaming.
Where do you think complex laws come from? When you create simple regulations with broad language, you leave plenty of loopholes for companies to exploit. Then the government needs to close those loopholes by adding more specific language to the regulations. Companies find new loopholes in the regulations and the government responds with more complexity. So our options are to have simple laws that are widely exploited or have complex laws that are narrowly exploited.
Microsoft hasn't revealed these patents publicly, but this article lists the patents involved in Microsoft's cases against Motorola and Barnes and Noble over the use of Android. IANAL, but here is a quick summary of the patents in question:
5,579,517 and 5,758,352 - Storing short and long file names in a FAT file system. The Linux FAT drivers were modified years ago to work around this patent.
6,621,746 - Algorithm for determining when to erase data from flash memory, presumably to reduce write wear. Given that this is a common problem and the patent was issued in 2003, I find it hard to believe no one did something similar before then.
6,826,762 - This patent discusses the difficulties of programming software to work on different cellular technologies. The "invention" is coding the software to an interface that is implemented for each different cellular technology. This is Software Engineering 101.
6,909,910 - Managing a contact list. If there's no prior art for this, it should be invalidated for being obvious and the person responsible for approving this patent should be repeatedly bludgeoned with a hard copy of the patent.
7,644,376 - Patented using the Observer software development pattern for a notification system. It really is that obvious.
5,664,133 - Covers context-sensitive menu options to "quickly and easily select/execute the desired computer resource". Thank Jeebus for those geniuses at Microsoft.
6,578,054 - Covers data synchronization via incremental changes. This was granted in 2003 and I find it impossible to believe that there was no software that did this before that time period.
6,370,566 - Covers scheduling meetings from a mobile device and was granted in 2002. How is this different from generating meetings on non-mobile devices which has been done well before 2002?
Well, there you have it. Most of these patents look like they can be defeated relatively easily. That's not to say it would be cheap given the high cost of lawyers and legal fees, but it can be done should someone have the balls to avoid settling out of court.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm just optimistic this morning, but this could be the first step to a better society. One of the reasons people resist the legalization of drugs is the lack of ability to test people who are driving under the influence of drugs. If tests like these prove to be accurate, then there is one less excuse for people to oppose the legalization of drugs. Of course, there are many other reasons why people support drug prohibition, but we have to take one step at a time.
If we're going to completely ignore the Fourth Amendment, could we at least repeal it so that we don't have to live under the false pretense that it still has any meaning? I mean, how hard is it to get a damn warrant these days?
Because shipping costs money. For many items, the cost to ship the item is nearly equal to the sales tax that would have been collected on that item. Since these two costs usually balance out, it allows the online retailers to compete on price alone. However, if online retailers are forced to collect money for shipping AND tax, purchasing items online will immediately become more expensive than purchasing the items at a physical location.
I have done more research and it appears what you have said is correct. I would like to retract that part of my statement. Also, I think it's completely unfair that you have been modded down considering your post appears to be accurate and insightful. I guess it's just part of the slashdot groupthink. Anyway, thank you for the correction.
I would agree with most of the people who are upset with RMS over this if it weren't for the way in which the media overreacted to Jobs' passing. I know it's typical to focus on the positive aspects of a person's life after they die, but the media rose Steve Jobs to the level of a god. They focused on his revival of Apple while ignoring the fact that he had a big part in its original downward spiral. They exalted Jobs' focus on good design principles while ignoring the fact that he created a corporate culture of trying to sue all of the competition out of the market. They trumpeted the success of the iPhone and iPad while ignoring the walled gardens they created. It's not my place to say whether or not Jobs' presence in the market was a net positive or negative, but I think it's fair for the media to cover both sides of a person's life as long as it is done with tact.
Perhaps not. But do you honestly think it's Fair or Reasonable for Samsung to license the technologies that allow an iPhone to perform its basic functions for a relatively low price while Apple is able to block sales of Samsung's devices over the look of the plastic casing?
Apple is free to license their technologies however they please. If they choose not to require cross-license agreements, then that is their choice. And it is Samsung's choice on how they license their technologies. The question you should be asking is this: if other companies have agreed to cross-license their patents to Samsung then how would it be Fair if Apple didn't?
Here is a comment I already made on another web site about this issue:
There is something that many people seem to be missing about FRAND patents. While the terms of FRAND licensing agreements are rarely released, it is widely believed that companies that license their patents through FRAND usually require a cross-licensing agreement with the licensee. This makes sense: why should you be forced to allow other companies to license your hard-earned technologies for a relatively low price only to allow those companies to come back and sue the dick off of you? Requiring a cross-license agreement from all licensees sounds extremely Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory to me.
However, it is also widely believed that Apple wants to license the FRAND patents WITHOUT allowing other companies to cross-license Apple's patents. This belief was bolstered by the fact that the only term of Apple's settlement agreement with Nokia over FRAND patents that was released to the public was the fact that Nokia relented and allowed Apple to license their FRAND patents without a cross-licensing agreement. This made sense in that particular case because most of Apple's patents in the mobile arena are software patents related to elements of iOS. Since Nokia is moving towards WP7 and Microsoft already has a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and indemnifies all hardware manufacturers of WP7, it didn't make sense for Nokia to continue an expensive protracted legal battle with Apple over something that was quickly becoming irrelevant. However, Samsung is in a completely different position from Nokia and they aren't going to give in nearly as easily. Game on!
While Apple may have been one of the first companies that implemented multi-touch, there is nothing novel about the concept. It was made possible by the invention of capacitive touch screens (which Apple had nothing to do with - Apple was simply one of the first companies to use a capacitive touch screen) and it was widely known that one of the advantages of capacitive touch screens over resistive touch screens was that capacitive touch screens were superior for multi-touch. Therefore, Apple patented the concept of using someone else's new technology for one of it's primary intended purposes.
This is exactly what Buffett was talking about in his 2005 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders. If you don't want to read the whole thing, there is an excerpt of the relevant portion here.
In this letter, Buffett explains how a CEO can make tons of money while driving a company into stagnation or even destruction. Here we are six years later and it seems like nothing has changed.
That's why we have the Department of Defense. And, it has the added benefit of getting to use the technology to kill people on the other side of the planet rather than just meander aimlessly through space. /s
Agreed! I've been waiting decades for a technology that will open up my hardware configurations to anyone on the internet capable of hacking it. I hope it can flash the firmware too!
Code to maintain
High on cocaine
Google is ready, time to take heed
Cruft up ahead
Hacks left behind
Google, release something before I lose my mind
So they are working out the logistics of building a structure for their storefront on the moon but they haven't given any thought to how they're going to continuously get fresh ingredients to make the pizza. Wait a minute, this is Domino's we're talking about - I'm sure they'll get by with the rocks and dust already on the moon.
There's no egg on any movie studios' faces. The MPAA is used as the tool to deflect hatred away from the groups it represents. If consumers directed their anger squarely at Sony, Universal, et al, then those people would likely consume fewer of their products. But since it's the MPAA we hate, we don't think anything of buying the products of the companies they represent.
In addition to that, the cables state that the US Embassy is the one who fears the image of the United States. The MPAA doesn't care because they're used to be hated - that's become their primary purpose.
Outsourcing killed manufacturing jobs while leaving engineers relatively unscathed. However, the patent bubble WILL cost engineers their jobs. I'm not trying to be condescending or start a pissing contest on the importance of manufacturing jobs versus engineering jobs, I just think it's important to make the distinction so that the issue can be planned accordingly.
I'll agree that these people are simply trying to make a simple buck at Apple's expense. However, Apple needs to learn to be more careful with people's personal data. Most countries have rules that prevent their government from tracking citizens, so Apple should know that a private company doing the same thing may not go over well.
NOTHING can fix that train wreck.
That's just great. Somewhere there's a jet going Mach 22 and no one knows where it's headed.
You're absolutely right. Once one company makes a minor incremental improvement such as making a device thinner, nobody else should be able to copy the concept of making thinner devices. They should be stuck making thick, outdated devices. That's how technology progresses.
Also, you act as if making devices thinner is as simple as making a smaller case. There are a TON of technological challenges to fit all of those components into a smaller space.
Yes, that is how the market works. Competition forces companies to find ways to make more powerful devices in smaller form factors. That doesn't mean that companies should be able to get government protection to impede the progress of their competitors.
Your idea isn't worth shit. If you implemented that idea using a unique and non-obvious technique, then you would have an invention which may be worth patenting. The problem is that software is implemented via code and code is covered by copyright law, not patents. You are right in that "some idiot" should not be able copy your code and sell it for less, but you're trying to prevent other people from investing their own time and resources to create a similar product from scratch.
Yes, it was. Clearly you have never heard of the LG Prada. It contained a large capacitive touchscreen and was released before the iPhone had even been unveiled.
How did Android look like iOS? Because it had a desktop with a grid of icons? Because it had menus? You are making very serious claims without being the least bit specific.
In my opinion, Google does not spend billions of dollars patenting every little obvious feature of their software because they know that software patents will eventually be gone. However, the U.S. appears completely serious about software patents given that the current patent reform bill contains no language that would improve the software patent situation, let alone abolish them. Since our political system is owned by corporations, software patent reform won't happen until the most powerful corporations pay more in patent licensing fees than they make. In other words, we're going to continue to quibbling over who came up with an IDEA first (not an invention) while the rest of the world makes progress and slowly out-innovates us. Why compete based on merit when you can set up artificial barriers that prevent competition in the first place?
They wouldn't be able to hear you over the sound of money lining their pockets from pro-IP lobbyists.
Which is just another reason why I am done with buying phones that I need to jailbreak just to add basic features such as custom SMS ringtones.
Where do you think complex laws come from? When you create simple regulations with broad language, you leave plenty of loopholes for companies to exploit. Then the government needs to close those loopholes by adding more specific language to the regulations. Companies find new loopholes in the regulations and the government responds with more complexity. So our options are to have simple laws that are widely exploited or have complex laws that are narrowly exploited.
Well, there you have it. Most of these patents look like they can be defeated relatively easily. That's not to say it would be cheap given the high cost of lawyers and legal fees, but it can be done should someone have the balls to avoid settling out of court.