Overwritten.net
Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: scottws on Thursday, July 28, 2011, 12:27:26 PM
-
Not like Apple being jerks is news in and of itself. It's clear as a bell to those who aren't zombified zealots. I digress.
Have you heard that they have begun imposing restrictions on 3rd party e-readers on iOS? Basically, if the app in question (e.g. Amazon Kindle) provides the ability to link to a 3rd party store in order to purchase products, then they have to pay apple 30% of the revenue received from those transactions. The only other alternative is to remove the ability to purchase things through the apps and this is the course that all of the apps so far have chosen.
Apple has every legal right to do something like this if they want, but it seems wrong. E-book margins are nowhere close to 30% for most. It gives iBooks a huge competitive advantage as that app is now the only one that has a bookstore on iOS, but I suppose that is why Apple did it. To me, if they want iBooks to compete they need to release it on Windows and Android. If they don't do that, it will be perceived as too locked in compared to most of the other e-reader apps.
Apple better be careful with stuff like this. They are where they are today because of the significant customer mindshare they have built up. If they start eroding that it will be the end for them.
-
Yeah its a totally shitty/greedy move.
-
I have a solution that works 100% of the time: Don't buy Apple products. Wow! I'm so smart. I figured that out all by myself.
-
Troubling, but not particularly surprising coming from Apple. So far, their restrictive actions towards their consumers and software designers haven't really caught up to them. Hopefully this will change in the future.
-
apple are evil. their business practices are utterly disgusting and the cult like adoration they endure sickens me.
that said, i sell and promote their products on a daily basis... uurgh.
-
It says a lot about Apple's wares that people are willing to put up with shit like this to own them.
-
It says a lot about Apple's wares that people are willing to put up with shit like this to own them.
They don't just put up with it, they defend the practices. You should see some of the comments on news stories. Not all, but many people are saying it wasn't fair for Amazon et al. to be able to get a free ride without any benefit to Apple (because the Kindle app is free). It's insane how short-sighted people are. That's exactly like saying Microsoft should take a cut of iTunes purchases on Windows because Apple is getting a free ride.
The worst part is that tech bloggers are caught up in the whole Apple aura too. Just check this ZDNet blog post out (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/apples-recent-efforts-show-why-the-optical-disc-drive-deserves-to-die/26383). It's a commentary on how Apple's recent moves where they are removing support for optical discs are good. The author actually says "the optical drive deserves to die". As if the optical drive slot on previous Macs was somehow damaging or hurtful or otherwise bad. Yet the guy eats it up because Apple is doing it. It's like a scary cult religion, it really is.
-
Best comment I saw after a bit of browsing on the article:
Apple's reason is clear but it is not what you claim in your article. It is not because they hate optical media. They want to control how you use their products.
It's a shame people don't see this more. Being tied to any one thing isn't good. It's convenient until you want to do something slightly different. Heaven forbid you want to watch a DVD on a laptop.
But yeah, the cult/snobbery that comes with a lot of the Apple products is odd. They view things as lesser because it's not supported by Apple or you can't do it on a Apple product. For the optical drive thing, the response is probably something like, "Well, you should be well off enough to stream everything." Apparently these people only travel within the airports of major cities or buy T1 internet connections. If you say you want a little control in case you need to fix your system the response is something like, "Well, you should just pay Apple to do it or buy a new one."
-
Apple zealots are so... stupid. Check out this article (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/updatable-firmware-could-be-the-new-target-for-hackers/13943?tag=content;feature-roto). Read the comments. People are all "absolutely firmware should not be writable!" Hello you idiots, upgradable firmware is a godsend and has been around for a decade or more!
-
UNLEASH THE APPLE HATE!
-
It's not Apple hate. It's Apple-enabling zealot hate.
-
(http://ui13.gamespot.com/908/ss45hires_2.jpg)
-
I like that kind of zealot.
-
Apple has every legal right to do something like this if they want, but it seems wrong. E-book margins are nowhere close to 30% for most. It gives iBooks a huge competitive advantage as that app is now the only one that has a bookstore on iOS, but I suppose that is why Apple did it. To me, if they want iBooks to compete they need to release it on Windows and Android. If they don't do that, it will be perceived as too locked in compared to most of the other e-reader apps.
I think most plan on getting around this with some sort of html5 app, like google did with Voice for a while. The thing I wonder about is how many people who buy a lot of ebooks are going to use iBook. The advantage to the Kindle/nook/Kobo apps are they sync your books and bookmarks across all your devices, so you can get a few quick pages in on your phone when waiting for something and then going back to your actual ereader. iBooks obviously doesn't have that option, and bigtime readers, the kind who buy 20 or so books a year are the kind who are going to make the investment in a kindle for the increased readability, longer battery life, etc.
-
God, we're living in a world where a "bigtime reader" only buys 20 books a year?
-
That might just be in my mind. I'd place the average person around 0-1 though. Libraries.
-
The average person doesn't read and hasn't been to a library since they were 12.
-
Yeah, you're probably right. Although, I've actually been surprised with how much some people I know read. The sample is probably kind of tainted though, most are at least moderately well educated and don't wear Affliction. Those friends don't read shit.
-
I tend to be surprised when anyone I know reads anything, especially if it's not crap. I might be biased in the other direction, though.
-
Yet, to be fair, a few of the most intelligent people I know (well, at least on the surface), can not read for entertainment at all. Well, can't read books/fiction. They fucking devour newspapers...which is something that's gotten away from me over the last decade or so.
-
I'll admit I have a hard time reading fiction, even though I do thoroughly enjoy many works of fiction. When it comes to sitting down and reading a book it brings up some discomfort, whether it's eye strain or just me being unable to settle in a comfortable position, so I always invest the time to reading factual information while I'm sitting on a desk and save fiction for audio books.
The only fiction I was able to pull through in old fashioned book format were of the Tom Clancy variety, thanks to Pug ;)
-
What the fuck is a library?
-
lieberry?
-
What the fuck is a library?
Haha that reminded me of the SNL Thrilla Killa Clownz (http://ohhaveyouseenthis.blogspot.com/2010/04/outrageous-clown-squad.html) video. "What the fuck is a clock?!"
-
I'm still not so sold that free-reading is the pinnacle of intellectualism (whatever that means). I used to used to read a lot of fiction back in the day, but now I get my storytelling from elsewhere (video games, movies, etc). I read all day long at work. And I'm going to law school next year, so that'll be another 3 years of reading, followed by a career of reading. How many books have I read in the past year that are non-academic? Can't think of more than one or two. But I don't think that makes me less intelligent than someone who reads 30 books a year.
/random thoughts
-
Haha that reminded me of the SNL Thrilla Killa Clownz (http://ohhaveyouseenthis.blogspot.com/2010/04/outrageous-clown-squad.html) video. "What the fuck is a clock?!"
That's actually a parody of a legit video from ICP
http://youtu.be/_-agl0pOQfs
Edit: Which is apparently covered in the link of yours I didn't even bother to click until now.
-
I certainly don't think reading makes you intelligent. Some of the people I know who read the most are some of the most intellectually defunct people I've ever met. It's more about what you read versus the frequency of the act itself or overall level of consumption. There's always been this misconception, especially with kids, that the more reading they do the better, like it's somehow a vastly superior activity compared to other ways they spend their time. I'd say it has some obvious benefits when they're young and still actively learning language, and good reading will always do something for you, but I sincerely doubt that most young adult fiction or Harry Potter bullshit is any more beneficial to one's mind than a few hours of a decent game.
-
Aside from expanding vocabulary I'd say Que's spot on.
-
Same page, then!
-
More Apple=Jerks (http://gear.ign.com/articles/118/1186973p1.html)
-
Poor Samsung, can't make a living selling iPad copies!
-
Poor world. Innovation-choking IP bullshit is infecting it further.
-
Software patents are mostly bullshit. Maybe it would be okay if they applied for just a year. 10 years is way too long in the tech industry. Patents are supposed to encourage and protect innovation, but software patents are doing the opposite.
That said, I have to give some credit to Apple. The iPhone was a revolutionary device and Android is clearly trying to mimic iOS in several ways. And that is spoken from an Android fan.
-
In terms of interface I can't abide Apple's stance that anyone using a grid layout is somehow copying them, I recall using a grid long before touch devices! Remember the good ol' Nokia pre-Symbian days? List View or Grid View were the only options for the menu view. Even in SymbianOS the grid was the standard.
When it comes to the physical build of the iPhone I'll give Apple credit for taking a primary shape and trying really hard to legally own it.
The part that bugs me more than Apple is that all other manufacturers are imitating rather than innovating. Very few are trying to design a unique phone and just going for what the market deems "acceptable" i.e. looks like an iPhone. RIM seems to be the only that has set its own line, which certain others are now mimicking too.
-
It's not like the shape was something that was unique. Anyone who saw a Palm Pilot almost a decade before saw how the iPhone would eventually look and work. The only real differences are the physical shortcut buttons on the bottom became part of the touch screen, the color, and the wireless/phone connection (which was the next logical step). Hell, anyone who saw Star Trek knew how these devices would eventually look. When you're building a device where the physicality is trying to be as minimal as possible, there's only so much you can do. Screen, a small frame, and maybe a button or two. Nothing is going to change and nothing really should change.
On the whole, Apple was simply the first to say, "Yeah, we can build this on a large scale" and come up with a brilliant touch screen. That deserves credit (and they're getting that with buttloads of cash) but not exclusive rights to the general device category for all of eternity.
-
I don't think it's the general shape or touchscreen input or even tiled layout that is at issue. It's various things like how Android can interpret text data and analyze it for things like phone numbers, e-mail addresses, addresses, etc. and then have an actionable link assigned to that piece of data (like clicking an address will bring up a map pinpointing the location). Apple has a patent on that process.
-
Apple supposedly tried to patent the "slide to unlock" gesture. At first i thought they just wanted to patent the specific iPhone "slide to unlock" visual effect but apparently they meant the actual gesture of touching a screen and moving your finger in any direction to unlock a lock screen. That got shot down, thankfully, and they managed to only get the "slide to the right to unlock" officially. Then I believe they tried to get a patent on the pinch-to-zoom gesture, which Apple successfully got a limited patent (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/13/apple-awarded-limited-patent-on-pinch-to-zoom/) for (courtesy of Engadget).
Apple just seems as ridiculous as Donald Trump to me: getting a trademark on a name I can empathize with but a generic word? Get bent.
bear in mind that I may be a little biased since I'm of the persuasion that ideas are meant to be shared and innovation, with due credit to inspiration, is a step in the right direction. Which is pretty much Apple's way, they borrow ideas from everybody else and present them differently.
I kinda miss when the days Apple was the hero of individuality and non-conformity, but I guess it's true: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.
-
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
-
Or be a realist and hate the fucking players in the stupid fucking game.
-
Or not.
-
Or be a realist and hate the fucking players in the stupid fucking game.
But you are a player in the game.
-
I find it hard to blame Apple or any other company for going after software patents. They're a profit-motivated company in competition with other profit-motivated companies. If they don't go after these stupid patents, someone else will and they'll pay the price. Your hate should be directed at the patent office because they're the ones letting all this happen and the only ones who can actually stop it.
-
If it's a patent game then, yeah, I hate that game. I hate the players acting like douchebags in it too.
-
You can hate Apple and their tactics (and I do). But at the end of the day they're just doing whatever they can in their power to make money. Plain and simple. Just like every other company out there that wants to stay in business.
-
Mhmm. Bernie Madoff was doing everything in his power to make money too.
-
The large difference, of course, being that what Madoff was doing was illegal.
-
I find it hard to blame Apple or any other company for going after software patents. They're a profit-motivated company in competition with other profit-motivated companies. If they don't go after these stupid patents, someone else will and they'll pay the price. Your hate should be directed at the patent office because they're the ones letting all this happen and the only ones who can actually stop it.
Somewhere I heard someone say that the USPTO has basically said they are going to accept almost all patents submitted as long as they seem reasonable at-a-glance and let the courts sort it out later if there is an issue. Basically they were just too backlogged and underfunded to keep up with the research needed to correctly validate patents in any kind of timely manner.
My source was a comment on a news article, so take it for what it's worth.
-
The large difference, of course, being that what Madoff was doing was illegal.
What Madoff was doing is not much worse than our treasury dept is doing. It's certainly no worse than what Wall Street and the banking industry were doing with CDOs. Legal or illegal depends on how much power you have to make the rules. Right and wrong don't change.
-
I'll definitely grant you that.
-
Yeah, well, I wish it weren't so.
-
Right but Wall Street was never hiding what they were doing. CDOs weren't some big secret only a handful of people knew about. A lot of people did get taken advantage of but they were still partially at fault for not understanding what they were buying. And what the banks were doing wasn't intrinsically bad, it was the volumes they were dealing with that got out of hand. Madoff is a completely different situation because he lied to everybody.
As bad for competition as hoarding patents is, it's much more like the CDO example since it's just a result of crappy regulation that let's a legitimate process get taken advantage of to everybody's detriment.
-
You're right, but the scale of the wrongdoing (the harm) was much greater from banking/Wall Street than from Madoff. Plus I'm sure if Ponzi schemes were legal, Madoff would have been doing his business out in the open too.
I mentioned that parallel just to make a point. The topic is Apple and their attempts to own and control everything. It may be legal, but it shouldn't be. Down with software and process patents. At the very least, they should expire and become public domain within a few years (say 3).
-
I completely agree with you there. I would just prefer everybody collectively rage to the government for reform instead of raging against Apple to no end.
-
I'm happy raging on both.
-
I completely agree with you there. I would just prefer everybody collectively rage to the government for reform instead of raging against Apple to no end.
This.
Apple is only doing what they are being allowed to do. Raging against Apple is pointless. Because if they weren't in their position some other company would be.
-
This.
Apple is only doing what they are being allowed to do. Raging against Apple is pointless. Because if they weren't in their position some other company would be.
Amen.
-
So if someone can get away with being a dick, it's okay because if they're not someone else will be?
-
Of course not. But corporations will never act like people and it's ridiculous to expect them too. People working for a company will do all sorts of unethical things to advance their own career and do it guiltfree since it was done in the name of the company and not themselves. Regulate it or continue getting angry at corporations for doing what they're designed to do.
-
Corporations are run by people, who can act ethically in addition to legally--or not. It's perfectly legitimate to direct anger at people's dickish behavior, whether they act alone or in the name of some company.
-
Corporations exist to make money, and smart and successful companies do whatever they can to make money. They don't exist as a moral compass.
-
If Apple didn't apply for these stupid patents, then another company would have and Apple would end up paying the price. In that situation I don't consider Apple to be unethical, I blame the system that allowed it to get to that point.
-
Wait. So you're saying that people who make decisions for companies are free from a moral compass because they're working under some magical umbrella? They don't have to be a beacon of morality, but they could try to compete in the marketplace with better products or lower prices. What about the government then? Because a government isn't a single entity are the people working within it free from morality as well? Where does the line get drawn? Is no one accountable for their actions if they're part of a larger organization because the organization has some sort of life of it's own that exist beyond the human scale?
That's pretty crazy. I understand doing something to stay alive or even competitive, but that doesn't make actions acceptable. Both sides are fucked up and things only get worse until one side stands up for what right (or is forced for some reason). I know I'm being idealistic. People are dicks. When you give us someone anonymity they can become super dicks, especially when their rivals are also anonymous corporations. I just see no way for things to get better and it bugs the hell out of me.
-
I'm saying it's naïve to expect them to act morally just because they should. If they're put into a situation where acting immorally is tempting, there should be a law stopping them. So basically it should work like everything else. If a company pollutes in a river, you have every right to get angry at them but really it should have been illegal for them to pollute in the first place.
-
No, I mean that most companies are going to do whatever they can to make money as allowed by law. And it's not like we're advocating mass murder here. We're talking patents.
Someone's got to be the kid in the relationship and someone has to be the daddy. The kid (company) will do whatever daddy (the government) will allow him to get away with. And I'm not saying that people that work for companies are free from a moral compass. I'm saying that companies don't exist to be a moral compass. They exist for one purpose: making money. Period.
-
Haha, way to take things too far.
Apple is doing what it has to do to keep itself competitive. Everything they are doing is within the bounds setup by the current patent system. Nobody is breaking any laws or acting immoral here. Like others have mentioned, if it wasn't Apple it would've been someone else.
No I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, because I do believe many patents are a detriment to innovation, but it's not like this just happened overnight. There are plenty of patents that prevented companies from doing cool things. MS, Adobe, etc. all hold some crazy patents on what you can and can't do. Heck, LinkedIn (if I'm not mistaken) has the patent for adding friends via email, you know, the system used by pretty much every social website. Heck, there's a patent for storing user information in databases.
Going back to Apple, I'll add that there's nothing preventing other companies from doing something original or radical, in the same way that Apple did with the iPod or the iPhone (which at the time was a step in a new direction that everyone has since copied). And yes, I do think the Samsung tablet is very, very, very much inspired by the iPad, to a point that I confused it for a new smaller iPad when I first saw the commercials.
-
To go back to the banking example, Canadian banks went through the financial crisis pretty much unharmed because the kind of risky practices American banks did are illegal here. So should I blame the banks for getting us into the mess or the laws for allowing it to happen? Regardless of what your answer is or how it should work,regulation was effective and self-control wasn't.
-
There can't be a law that accounts for every possible dickish action out there (heh, the No Dick Act of 2012. Hopefully someone reads beyond the title). There shouldn't be a law for everything. I *wish* this worked. I know it doesn't.
My issue is I don't see a good reason why we shouldn't hold an organization/company/corporation at the same standard we hold people living across the street. More relevantly, should two bakeries who are competing for customers resort to suing to succeed? They sell similar products. Is that wrong?
Anyway, yeah. Way off track. I just think it's silly that Apple resorted to using the courts to attacking Samsung's tablet. So it looks like an iPad. Touchpads can only go so far in design when they are more or less just trying to be a touchscreen. I suppose they can change colors, but who wants a brightly colored device right now? The OS is different. What else does there need to be?
-
Corporations are run by people, who can act ethically in addition to legally--or not. It's perfectly legitimate to direct anger at people's dickish behavior, whether they act alone or in the name of some company.
By all means say what you want. But until you can justify your comments on one argument, everything you say here is utter horseshit.
-
???
-
There can't be a law that accounts for every possible dickish action out there (heh, the No Dick Act of 2012. Hopefully someone reads beyond the title). There shouldn't be a law for everything. I *wish* this worked. I know it doesn't.
My issue is I don't see a good reason why we shouldn't hold an organization/company/corporation at the same standard we hold people living across the street. More relevantly, should two bakeries who are competing for customers resort to suing to succeed? They sell similar products. Is that wrong?
Anyway, yeah. Way off track. I just think it's silly that Apple resorted to using the courts to attacking Samsung's tablet. So it looks like an iPad. Touchpads can only go so far in design when they are more or less just trying to be a touchscreen. I suppose they can change colors, but who wants a brightly colored device right now? The OS is different. What else does there need to be?
Well to be fair, any old person can be a patent whore in the same way as the companies. The patent system worked well enough for decades but it clearly wasn't designed with software in mind and this recent mess just seems like a critical mass of bullshit.
But more on topic, this is kind of interesting. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/apple-and-samsungs-symbiotic-relationship)
Also, this is ridiculous (Full article if anyone is curious) (http://www.economist.com/node/17309237):
(http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/10/23/wb/20101023_wbc910.gif)
-
???
He doesn't think you can argue about peoples ethics when in a different thread you basically say piracy is justified.
-
This.
Apple is only doing what they are being allowed to do. Raging against Apple is pointless. Because if they weren't in their position some other company would be.
Being a patent troll is just one reason I hate Apple. Not even really that big of one. Actually, I don't really hate Apple, per se. I don't like their business practices and hate Steve Jobs, but what I really hate are the Apple zealots. The people who enable Apple and defend them vehemently. Its like if Steve Jobs could be in two places at once, these people would have one Jobs' dick in their mouth and the other in their ass. Sucking off while getting fucked at the same time. And then liking it! *shudder*
-
He doesn't think you can argue about peoples ethics when in a different thread you basically say piracy is justified.
Oh? I don't justify it on ethical grounds to be sure. It's more of a defense mechanism against some of the aforementioned dickishness. :P I'll say this: I have yet to pirate an id game, but this Willits asshole isn't helping me stay on that path. Anyway, we kissed and made up, so it's cool.
-
My issue is I don't see a good reason why we shouldn't hold an organization/company/corporation at the same standard we hold people living across the street. More relevantly, should two bakeries who are competing for customers resort to suing to succeed? They sell similar products. Is that wrong?
No, and Samsung isn't getting sued for selling a tablet. They are being sued for selling a tablet that uses concepts patented by Apple. They could've patented the same concepts had they been first to the market, but they weren't so Apple beat them to it. Simple as that. Oh and I'm sure if the recipe for an éclair was invited today it'd get patented. :P
Anyway, yeah. Way off track. I just think it's silly that Apple resorted to using the courts to attacking Samsung's tablet. So it looks like an iPad. Touchpads can only go so far in design when they are more or less just trying to be a touchscreen. I suppose they can change colors, but who wants a brightly colored device right now? The OS is different. What else does there need to be?
If you hold a patent, you have to defend it. If you don't, you lose the patent. And who says touchpads can't be innovative? Until Apple released the iPhone pretty much all smartphones looked the same in concept. It only took one company (with zero pervious experience with phones) to change the whole landscape. Why can't these big companies come up with something new? Also, the OS is part of the problem for Samsung.
-
Government regulation becomes a requirement when you live in a society that has lost the ability to police itself. There is no legitimate moral compass remaining either in business or in society. One hand dirties the other and no one cares enough to be responsible.
-
Government regulation becomes a requirement when you have enough people to form a society. Are you arguing against the concept of laws because people should just know better?
All I'm saying is we need patent reform. I don't see why that's so contentious when basically everybody here has problems with people running around patenting everything.
-
When t comes to government regulations and lawmaking in general there has to be a limit. For example, in Connecticut, it's illegal to walk across a street on your hands. Did that really have to be a law? How much of a problem was the state having with people crossing streets on their hands that it needed to be a illegal?
Funnily enough, in Missouri it's illegal to drive with an uncaged bear (caged bears are fine). You have to wonder how many times this happened before they had to make it a law.
Patents (among other regulations) are subject to abuse as well.
-
HTC attempts serious patent play against Apple in federal court (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/htc-attempts-serious-patent-play-against-apple-in-federal-court.ars)
-
As much as that pissed me off, this made up for it (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/righthaven-rocked-owes-34000-after-fair-use-loss.ars). A glimmer of hope. Sanity prevails, occasionally.
-
As much as that pissed me off, this made up for it (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/righthaven-rocked-owes-34000-after-fair-use-loss.ars). A glimmer of hope. Sanity prevails, occasionally.
Haha yeah I read that too, it was nice to see it blow up in their face! Righthaven are really shitty in doing things that way! Profit through lawsuits?!
-
This is the first I'm hearing of this Righthaven outfit, though I did read the two articles. Does seem pretty shitty.
-
More Apple jerkiness: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/01/apple-screwing-new-iphones-out-of-simple-diy-repair.ars.
Want to keep people out of iPhones is one thing, but out of MacBooks? Assholes.
-
Ha! They are determined to validate our hatred every day, aren't they?
-
http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/
This article puts me in my place.
-
Mmm, I think I'd rather put the author in his place. He may very knowledgeable, but he does not come across as impartial. I don't have time right now to dissect it all. I read through about half of it, and I'm sure I'll get back to it later.
Just a quick salvo before I go, saying that software patents don't exist because they aren't singled out or treated any differently is like saying that green Chevys don't exist because General Motors ads don't mention that particular color of vehicle.
-
Just a quick salvo before I go, saying that software patents don't exist because they aren't singled out or treated any differently is like saying that green Chevys don't exist because General Motors ads don't mention that particular color of vehicle.
I get what you're but I think the author meant that the current system was not appropriated for software. Software patents exist but they're not a good fit for software, which should be treated differently than tangible materials.
-
The article was pretty well written. It's basically telling us to stop throwing our hands up in the air and to start looking at it seriously to fix the broken parts because it isn't wholly broken. That said, what he is getting at is sweeping patent reform. Unfortunately "reform" is a dirty word in American politics and as such it almost never occurs anymore.
So for now we'll just add it to the list of things that need reform in the U.S.:
- tort law
- the FCC
- health care
- tax law
- patent law (new!)
-
Cobra, keep reading. The second half of the article gets into the specifics that address some of your issues.
-
OK, I need to read more of it then. As I said, I only got through maybe a half of it before I had to go do stuff. Hopefully the rest will make a better impression.
Edit: The rest of the article made a better impression, but I still feel he's defending the concept of software patents too much. First of all, many processes and algorithms become obvious to a programmer after he spends a while tackling a problem. Chances are he'll happen upon a solution that has been patented, simply because it is the most efficient way to go. Look at some of the UI shit getting patented. Once upon a time, XOR cursors were patented too. That's straight boolean algebra, very useful (and obvious) for primitive computer displays without separate frame buffers. Second, the pace of advancements in technology means that even a few years of monopoly will choke independent innovation. By the time a patent expires, the game has moved well beyond it.
I think there's a problem here at the conceptual level, not just the definition one. At least he acknowledges the problems and proposes (limited) solutions. But yeah, I'm one of the angry mob he mentions. Bring out the torches and pitchforks, some tar and feathers too. Let's head to the patent office . . . :P
-
/me beats dead horse.
The world makes me sad.
-
Not critical news, but good news nontheless: remember that lawsuit profiteering organization, Righthaven? Yeah, they just got hit with largest fine yet: $119,488!
Nevada's homegrown copyright troll, Righthaven, started life with a plan to save the newspaper business through infringement lawsuits—but nearly staggering incompetence has left the company on the receiving end of fine after fine from federal judges. Today, Righthaven was hit with a new fine for $116,718 in legal fees and $2,770 in costs.
Courtesy of Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/righthaven-hit-with-largest-fine-yet-119488.ars)