This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.
It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
When it comes to multitouch, Apple didn't invent shit! Apple was just one of the first companies to use the multitouch technology developed by a German company called Balda AG. The only thing Apple did was create software that took advantage of the one intended purpose of Balda AG's technology. If this patent is as broad as the summary makes it out to be, then Apple's patent may cover almost any use of Balda AG's multitouch technology. That would mean that all of Balda AG's customers, and possibly customers of any other type of multitouch technology, could be at risk of violating Apple's broad patent.
Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways.
If Apple had to create some new technologies in order to integrate this multitouch screen, then those specific technologies would be worthy of patents. However, the only thing Apple did was place the screen in the iPhone and write software that made use of its one intended purpose - multitouch. How can anyone argue that using a technology for its one intended purpose is worthy of a patent?
The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept
Please explain what new technology Apple invented for the iPhone. I frequently hear claims such as yours, but no one can seem to provide specific technical details of why the iPhone was not derivative. Yes, it revolutionized the smartphone market, but it was far from a technological revolution. The best technological components of the phone were the multitouch capability (we already established that technology was not invented by Apple) and its nice glass screen surface (thought to be made possible also by Balda AG's touchscreen technology).
This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
Not even close! That is unless you can provide specific details of new technology that Apple invented in the iPhone. Otherwise, the iPhone was simply an integration of other company's technologies with a nice software interface. Yes, it was extremely popular, spurred incredible interest in the smartphone market, and is worthy of all of its success, but patents are not granted based on the results of popularity contests.
What in holy hell are you talking about? Google provides a service that makes works in the public domain accessible to more people. How is this a problem? Google does not attempt to claim ownership of any of these works and anyone is free to set up their own service that does the same thing. Regarding your claim about Google making deals with publishers for old works, what do you expect? The law is on the side of the publishers and many of these works may never make it to the public domain if Disney keeps extending copyright law. This whole post makes no sense - how did it get modded insightful?
Instructions to view the subject solar flare: select browse by date range, enter 2011-06-07 00:00:00 as the beginning and 2011-06-07 12:00:00 as the end dates, select movie as the display, select resolution 1024x1024, and set nth = 1, submit and enjoy. Also, you can play with the different telescopes.
You forgot to mention recompiling the kernel with the INCLUDE_SOLAR_FLARE_FROM_JUNE_07_2011 option set to 1.
I remember a time when patents were used to protect inventions that enhanced our life. Hell, I remember a time when Apple was a company that focused on making products that were easier to use. Now they seem to be focusing on ways to prohibit you from using your device the way in which you'd like. From their perspective, this makes sense. As they expand their business to include media distribution (iTunes) and advertising (iAds), they can no longer focus solely on the experience of the end user. They need to make concessions to appease content creation companies and advertising customers. Many of these concessions will require limiting what the end user is capable of doing with their device.
But not all hope is lost. Based on the success of Apple, many other tech companies have learned just how important it is to develop interfaces that are easier and more enjoyable to use. No longer are we stuck with the attitude that users need to stop whining about quirky interfaces and just use the hacked-together interface which is "good enough". Hopefully these companies will pick up where Apple left off. Given the success of Android devices, I'd say that things aren't looking too bad.
Apple has applied for a patent on many (if not all) of their gestures (patent application number 20060026535). I can't tell from the application whether or not the patent was approved, rejected, or even reviewed yet. If this has already been approved or becomes approved in the future, this could mean that every other mobile OS would be at risk of a lawsuit from Apple if their gestures were too similar to the ones outlined in this patent. Apple would probably allow third party application developers to use these gestures for the sake of consistency on iOS devices, but cross-platform mobile apps would become a pain to develop since every platform would have its own set of gestures.
My hope is that if this were to happen, all of the other mobile OS companies would create an open standard for non-patented gestures to create a consistent experience for all devices. Apple could then choose whether or not they would like to abandon their patented gestures to adopt the open standard or become the only company using non-standardized gestures.
In 2009, Facebook told the news magazine Newsweek that it received 10 to 20 requests from police per day. Sprint received so many requests from law enforcement for mobile-phone location information that it overwhelmed its 110-person electronic surveillance team. It then set up a Web interface to give police direct access to users' location data, which was used more than 8 million times in one year, Soghoian wrote, citing a U.S. Court of Appeals judge.
So Sprint admits that they are essentially lo-jacking their customers. How do they know the registered user of the web interface is even a law enforcement officer? Do they verify the other credentials of the user such as name and precinct or do they just go by username and let "bigcopinyourmouth69" access the location information of hot actresses whenever they please?
OK, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but can anyone tell me how this could be justified? Using U.S. copyright as an example, the first law to grant copyright was enacted in 1790 and secured an artist with 14 years of protection and one 14-year extension if the artist was still alive. It is important to note that during this time, reproduction of the copyrighted work was extremely difficult. The phonograph would not be invented for another 100 years which means that copyright essentially boiled down to 28 years of exclusive performance rights. Even once the phonograph was invented, it would take a long time to produce a sufficient quantity of records and an even longer time to ship the records to other countries. Fast forward to the year 2011 and now we allow musicians to retain copyright for 120 years. This is four times the length of time that the original copyright laws allowed and this is at a time when a song can be recorded and distributed nearly instantaneously to the other side of the planet. With such better means of distribution, how can we justify periods of copyright law that extend far beyond the average lifetime of the musician who created the works?
Of course, the answer is that corporations need to be able to milk their products for as long as they possibly can and musicians want to make sure that their children never have to work a day in their lives, so they pay to have the laws extended. Every time these laws are extended, works that should enter the public domain are taken away from us and withheld for a longer period of time. These extensions will continue until we stand up and demand copyright reform that brings us closer to the original copyright laws. With such easier means of distribution, there is no reason to offer more than that.
Just a couple of days ago I was talking with a friend about how my company already does this with some of its servers.
I know that we use AC for transmission because it loses less power over long distances than DC, but is there any reason why we don't have DC converters installed in the electrical panels of homes other than the fact that many appliances currently require AC? More and more appliances seem to be using DC lately, requiring wall warts. If we could convince more manufacturers to produce DC appliances, it would assist people transition their homes to DC power. This would be great because it is safer than AC and it would be more efficient to convert it in one place rather than through the use of the many wall warts and computer power supplies we currently have.
I completely agree. It would be poetic justice if the court ruled that the term "App Store" is too generic and Apple loses their own trademark in the process of suing a competitor.
This article makes it seem as if T-Mobile needs to be bought out more than AT&T needs a 4G network. Sprint has had a 4G network for almost a year, Verizon is currently rolling out a great 4G network, and T-Mobile has deployed a great 4G network of their own. Meanwhile, AT&T is caught with their dicks in their hands. Not only have they not rolled out their own 4G network to compete with the current offerings, but they don't appear to have any plans of rolling one out anytime soon. It would probably take a year for them to evaluate the different technology available to them and then another year to roll out that technology.
How did it get this way? Well, with the success of the iPhone, AT&T didn't feel the need to worry about a 4G infrastructure. Hell, they just got their 3G network to work at acceptable levels for the increased demand placed on their network by smartphones. However, since the iPhone is no longer exclusively theirs and Android has been outpacing the iPhone anyway, they are in a pretty big bind.
They need T-Mobile's 4G network a LOT more than T-Mobile needs to be bought out. As a matter of fact, T-Mobile was in a prime position to steal many of AT&T's customers since they have competitive prices, great customer service, and most importantly, a much faster network.
It would really be something if the Department of Justice blocked this sale. AT&T would gradually lose more and more customers as their network aged and they failed to roll out their own next-gen network. And I, for one, wouldn't feel the least bit of sympathy for AT&T - that's what they get for resting on their laurels. Of course, the DoJ won't block the acquisition, but one could hope.
Homestar is pretty much the only type of content that you really need flash for. For everything else, it should be completely avoided.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of determining what I should be viewing. There may be a position opening up for you in the future as CEO of a large company in Cupertino.
Good for this guy. Better to make nothing at all than release a watered-down piece of shit just to get a PG-13 rating and make the studios happy. All that would do is ruin the reputation of the Bioshock name.
I wish other people in the movie business had the same level of integrity as this guy. I have seen too many adult-themed movies get released that are butchered because they had to go for a PG-13 rating. I wouldn't waste my time watching that tripe even if it didn't cost me any money.
As others have mentioned, this guy should really set up a PayPal account and produce the movie independently. I would gladly donate money for such a project so long as I was promised that the content of the movie would remain as graphic as necessary to properly maintain the themes of the Bioshock story.
Alright, I know it's popular to bash Flash on Slashdot and as much as I love open standards, it pains me to say that HTML5 by itself is NOT a Flash replacement. In order to get all of the features of Flash, you have to cobble together HTML5 + CSS + SVG + ECMAScript + Javascript + Canvas. To make matters worse, I have not seen a WYSIWYG tool for any of these technologies that comes even close to the development environment of Flash. Until this changes, I can't fault any developers for choosing to use Flash over HTML5 for their feature-rich content. That's why God invented ClickToFlash.
Does anyone know the names of the pills that Apple execs have been taking lately to get their balls so big and brazen? I need to knock down a few walls in my home and using a set of my own big, brass balls would be cheaper than renting a bulldozer. Thanks!
While this technology sounds great, I have a feeling this is more than five years away. Hell, I'd be happy if IBM delivered on the holographic storage they've been promising for the past 15 years.
Slashdot editors can't win. Everyone used to complain about stories that weren't considered newsworthy appearing on the front page. It looks like the editors are now a little skittish about borderline-newsworthy stores, so they are dumping them into the Idle section. Oh well, at least everyone has something to bitch about.
Android already notifies you which services an application uses before you install the app. You have the option of allowing the app to install and have access to ALL of those services or don't install the app at all. Some users may want to use an app, but they may want to deny certain services they deem are unnecessary. Google could add functionality that would allow the user to deny certain services to certain apps.
However, this may render the app completely useless. For example, what good would an alternate reality app be if it was denied access to the camera. To account for this, maybe there should be a list of required services that are absolutely required for the bare functionality of the application and then a list of non-required services that enhance the app but can be turned off by the user.
To go even a step further, rather than just offer the option to "allow" or "deny" a service, they could also have a "prompt" option. For instance, if I had a camera app, it should only be able to use the GPS when tagging the photo, not track my every movement at all times. Therefore it could prompt me every time it attempted to use the GPS. This would allow for fine-grained privacy settings and security that can be controlled by the user.
My current directory is reporting the future?! I can't believe it! My terminal just simply started spitting out all sorts of useful advice above events that haven't happened yet. I performed the pwd command to figure out which magical directory I had entered, but then my computer imploded! I didn't have a chance to copy the terminal output to my USB drive. Now I'll never be able to know what happens in the future!
Because of what's known as the gorilla arm syndrome, any user interface that requires users to lift their arms for any length of time is doomed to fail in the long run.
Good point - you can never know if someone has destroyed all copies of your personal information. You just have to take the word of the company and its leaders that they have complied with your request. Luckily for Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg is one of the most trustworthy people in the technology sector.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the few widely-publicized patents in recent memory that I think is probably justified.
It's hard to remember back to before the iPhone existed, but devices like it weren't even on the radar of any major phone manufacturer until after Steve Jobs' announcement. Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways. The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept. This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
When it comes to multitouch, Apple didn't invent shit! Apple was just one of the first companies to use the multitouch technology developed by a German company called Balda AG. The only thing Apple did was create software that took advantage of the one intended purpose of Balda AG's technology. If this patent is as broad as the summary makes it out to be, then Apple's patent may cover almost any use of Balda AG's multitouch technology. That would mean that all of Balda AG's customers, and possibly customers of any other type of multitouch technology, could be at risk of violating Apple's broad patent.
Sure, the individual technologies had existed, but real progress comes from combining those technologies in completely unexpected ways.
If Apple had to create some new technologies in order to integrate this multitouch screen, then those specific technologies would be worthy of patents. However, the only thing Apple did was place the screen in the iPhone and write software that made use of its one intended purpose - multitouch. How can anyone argue that using a technology for its one intended purpose is worthy of a patent?
The iPhone was neither obvious nor derivative, and all the devices that have come since have benefited greatly from the research and development time and funds that Apple poured into the concept
Please explain what new technology Apple invented for the iPhone. I frequently hear claims such as yours, but no one can seem to provide specific technical details of why the iPhone was not derivative. Yes, it revolutionized the smartphone market, but it was far from a technological revolution. The best technological components of the phone were the multitouch capability (we already established that technology was not invented by Apple) and its nice glass screen surface (thought to be made possible also by Balda AG's touchscreen technology).
This seems like exactly the sort of situation the patent system is meant for.
Not even close! That is unless you can provide specific details of new technology that Apple invented in the iPhone. Otherwise, the iPhone was simply an integration of other company's technologies with a nice software interface. Yes, it was extremely popular, spurred incredible interest in the smartphone market, and is worthy of all of its success, but patents are not granted based on the results of popularity contests.
What in holy hell are you talking about? Google provides a service that makes works in the public domain accessible to more people. How is this a problem? Google does not attempt to claim ownership of any of these works and anyone is free to set up their own service that does the same thing. Regarding your claim about Google making deals with publishers for old works, what do you expect? The law is on the side of the publishers and many of these works may never make it to the public domain if Disney keeps extending copyright law. This whole post makes no sense - how did it get modded insightful?
You forgot to mention recompiling the kernel with the INCLUDE_SOLAR_FLARE_FROM_JUNE_07_2011 option set to 1.
I remember a time when patents were used to protect inventions that enhanced our life. Hell, I remember a time when Apple was a company that focused on making products that were easier to use. Now they seem to be focusing on ways to prohibit you from using your device the way in which you'd like. From their perspective, this makes sense. As they expand their business to include media distribution (iTunes) and advertising (iAds), they can no longer focus solely on the experience of the end user. They need to make concessions to appease content creation companies and advertising customers. Many of these concessions will require limiting what the end user is capable of doing with their device.
But not all hope is lost. Based on the success of Apple, many other tech companies have learned just how important it is to develop interfaces that are easier and more enjoyable to use. No longer are we stuck with the attitude that users need to stop whining about quirky interfaces and just use the hacked-together interface which is "good enough". Hopefully these companies will pick up where Apple left off. Given the success of Android devices, I'd say that things aren't looking too bad.
SON OF A BITCH! That's how everyone knew that the iPad 2 would be a 10-inch touchscreen with a black plastic bevel and an aluminum back!
As long as everyone dies, that's all that matters!
Apple has applied for a patent on many (if not all) of their gestures (patent application number 20060026535). I can't tell from the application whether or not the patent was approved, rejected, or even reviewed yet. If this has already been approved or becomes approved in the future, this could mean that every other mobile OS would be at risk of a lawsuit from Apple if their gestures were too similar to the ones outlined in this patent. Apple would probably allow third party application developers to use these gestures for the sake of consistency on iOS devices, but cross-platform mobile apps would become a pain to develop since every platform would have its own set of gestures.
My hope is that if this were to happen, all of the other mobile OS companies would create an open standard for non-patented gestures to create a consistent experience for all devices. Apple could then choose whether or not they would like to abandon their patented gestures to adopt the open standard or become the only company using non-standardized gestures.
So Sprint admits that they are essentially lo-jacking their customers. How do they know the registered user of the web interface is even a law enforcement officer? Do they verify the other credentials of the user such as name and precinct or do they just go by username and let "bigcopinyourmouth69" access the location information of hot actresses whenever they please?
OK, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but can anyone tell me how this could be justified? Using U.S. copyright as an example, the first law to grant copyright was enacted in 1790 and secured an artist with 14 years of protection and one 14-year extension if the artist was still alive. It is important to note that during this time, reproduction of the copyrighted work was extremely difficult. The phonograph would not be invented for another 100 years which means that copyright essentially boiled down to 28 years of exclusive performance rights. Even once the phonograph was invented, it would take a long time to produce a sufficient quantity of records and an even longer time to ship the records to other countries. Fast forward to the year 2011 and now we allow musicians to retain copyright for 120 years. This is four times the length of time that the original copyright laws allowed and this is at a time when a song can be recorded and distributed nearly instantaneously to the other side of the planet. With such better means of distribution, how can we justify periods of copyright law that extend far beyond the average lifetime of the musician who created the works?
Of course, the answer is that corporations need to be able to milk their products for as long as they possibly can and musicians want to make sure that their children never have to work a day in their lives, so they pay to have the laws extended. Every time these laws are extended, works that should enter the public domain are taken away from us and withheld for a longer period of time. These extensions will continue until we stand up and demand copyright reform that brings us closer to the original copyright laws. With such easier means of distribution, there is no reason to offer more than that.
Just a couple of days ago I was talking with a friend about how my company already does this with some of its servers.
I know that we use AC for transmission because it loses less power over long distances than DC, but is there any reason why we don't have DC converters installed in the electrical panels of homes other than the fact that many appliances currently require AC? More and more appliances seem to be using DC lately, requiring wall warts. If we could convince more manufacturers to produce DC appliances, it would assist people transition their homes to DC power. This would be great because it is safer than AC and it would be more efficient to convert it in one place rather than through the use of the many wall warts and computer power supplies we currently have.
I completely agree. It would be poetic justice if the court ruled that the term "App Store" is too generic and Apple loses their own trademark in the process of suing a competitor.
This article makes it seem as if T-Mobile needs to be bought out more than AT&T needs a 4G network. Sprint has had a 4G network for almost a year, Verizon is currently rolling out a great 4G network, and T-Mobile has deployed a great 4G network of their own. Meanwhile, AT&T is caught with their dicks in their hands. Not only have they not rolled out their own 4G network to compete with the current offerings, but they don't appear to have any plans of rolling one out anytime soon. It would probably take a year for them to evaluate the different technology available to them and then another year to roll out that technology.
How did it get this way? Well, with the success of the iPhone, AT&T didn't feel the need to worry about a 4G infrastructure. Hell, they just got their 3G network to work at acceptable levels for the increased demand placed on their network by smartphones. However, since the iPhone is no longer exclusively theirs and Android has been outpacing the iPhone anyway, they are in a pretty big bind. They need T-Mobile's 4G network a LOT more than T-Mobile needs to be bought out. As a matter of fact, T-Mobile was in a prime position to steal many of AT&T's customers since they have competitive prices, great customer service, and most importantly, a much faster network.
It would really be something if the Department of Justice blocked this sale. AT&T would gradually lose more and more customers as their network aged and they failed to roll out their own next-gen network. And I, for one, wouldn't feel the least bit of sympathy for AT&T - that's what they get for resting on their laurels. Of course, the DoJ won't block the acquisition, but one could hope.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of determining what I should be viewing. There may be a position opening up for you in the future as CEO of a large company in Cupertino.
It works! I asked it for fast internet connections in my area and It told me to "go fish".
Good for this guy. Better to make nothing at all than release a watered-down piece of shit just to get a PG-13 rating and make the studios happy. All that would do is ruin the reputation of the Bioshock name.
I wish other people in the movie business had the same level of integrity as this guy. I have seen too many adult-themed movies get released that are butchered because they had to go for a PG-13 rating. I wouldn't waste my time watching that tripe even if it didn't cost me any money.
As others have mentioned, this guy should really set up a PayPal account and produce the movie independently. I would gladly donate money for such a project so long as I was promised that the content of the movie would remain as graphic as necessary to properly maintain the themes of the Bioshock story.
Alright, I know it's popular to bash Flash on Slashdot and as much as I love open standards, it pains me to say that HTML5 by itself is NOT a Flash replacement. In order to get all of the features of Flash, you have to cobble together HTML5 + CSS + SVG + ECMAScript + Javascript + Canvas. To make matters worse, I have not seen a WYSIWYG tool for any of these technologies that comes even close to the development environment of Flash. Until this changes, I can't fault any developers for choosing to use Flash over HTML5 for their feature-rich content. That's why God invented ClickToFlash.
Does anyone know the names of the pills that Apple execs have been taking lately to get their balls so big and brazen? I need to knock down a few walls in my home and using a set of my own big, brass balls would be cheaper than renting a bulldozer. Thanks!
While this technology sounds great, I have a feeling this is more than five years away. Hell, I'd be happy if IBM delivered on the holographic storage they've been promising for the past 15 years.
Slashdot editors can't win. Everyone used to complain about stories that weren't considered newsworthy appearing on the front page. It looks like the editors are now a little skittish about borderline-newsworthy stores, so they are dumping them into the Idle section. Oh well, at least everyone has something to bitch about.
Android already notifies you which services an application uses before you install the app. You have the option of allowing the app to install and have access to ALL of those services or don't install the app at all. Some users may want to use an app, but they may want to deny certain services they deem are unnecessary. Google could add functionality that would allow the user to deny certain services to certain apps.
However, this may render the app completely useless. For example, what good would an alternate reality app be if it was denied access to the camera. To account for this, maybe there should be a list of required services that are absolutely required for the bare functionality of the application and then a list of non-required services that enhance the app but can be turned off by the user.
To go even a step further, rather than just offer the option to "allow" or "deny" a service, they could also have a "prompt" option. For instance, if I had a camera app, it should only be able to use the GPS when tagging the photo, not track my every movement at all times. Therefore it could prompt me every time it attempted to use the GPS. This would allow for fine-grained privacy settings and security that can be controlled by the user.
They can call it the Microsoft Choad!
Instead of dupes, ./ are now reporting the future
My current directory is reporting the future?! I can't believe it! My terminal just simply started spitting out all sorts of useful advice above events that haven't happened yet. I performed the pwd command to figure out which magical directory I had entered, but then my computer imploded! I didn't have a chance to copy the terminal output to my USB drive. Now I'll never be able to know what happens in the future!
Like the Wii?
Good point - you can never know if someone has destroyed all copies of your personal information. You just have to take the word of the company and its leaders that they have complied with your request. Luckily for Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg is one of the most trustworthy people in the technology sector.