Linked by weildish on Sat 24th Jan 2009 22:44 UTC
Several days ago when Apple hinted at legal action against Palm, we held our breath to see just what would happen. Now Palm has stepped up to the plate boldly and hinted that they'd fight whatever legal action is thrown at them.
Thread beginning with comment 345402
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Beautiful system - they're not the first
by jabbotts on Sun 25th Jan 2009 13:46
in reply to "Beautiful system"
Member since:2007-09-06
I wouldn't hold that against Palm. They are still a young company. The use of patents by big business was well established by the time they turned up.
That's not to say that patent law is not a mess corrupted from it's original intent; only that Palm is responding to a previously established legal environment.
Now, if Palm as actively attacking other companies through patent litigation then that's something to condemn.
RE[2]: Beautiful system - they're not the first
by Adurbe on Sun 25th Jan 2009 16:10
in reply to "RE: Beautiful system - they're not the first"
Member since:2005-07-06
its not a popular view on this site, as a portion of my negative marks will profess, but I believe apple to be perfectly within their rights to try and defend what they feel they invented
Apple doubtless spent a great deal of development money and they should have the right to defend that invention
If you want to see how a economic system works without patent/ip protections of the Anglo/Saxon economies then China is a perfect example (pre joining the wto, they have since started to embrace ipr in certain sectors).
Member since:2006-02-05
I simply love the way patent system works nowdays (or not). They are filling patents *only* to defend themselves from other companies - not to protect inventions like it was intended by creators of patent system
Not that I agree with software patents (I don't) but who else would someone be protecting innovations from other then other companies?
Member since:2006-09-10
Member since:2005-08-12
Patent law, even for software (why is that any different than for mechanical systems and processes?) is required.
To think otherwise is to not understand the way things work.
Why invest time and money into something if others will copy it right away, and very possibly deprive you of the income you rightfully deserve for coming up with it in the first place? That makes no sense!
The requirement that all the details of a patent be published and easily accessible, is also important, as it gives others the ability to study them, and if possible, find out even more innovative ways of doing the same thing.
Patents don't last forever. Unlike with copyrights, there has been no movement to extend those protections past 20 years.
Perhaps software patents should last for a shorter time, say 7 years. That would better track the way progress is made in this industry.
RE[2]: Beautiful system
by christianhgross on Sun 25th Jan 2009 21:34
in reply to "RE: Beautiful system"
Member since:2005-11-15
Patents are dumb!
It used to be patents were given to truly unique ideas. Ideas that made you say, "now that is cool..."
These days you get a patent for whatever comes out of your mind.
Patents have the requirement to be unique and non-intuitive. Gee if they actually applied that about 90% of the patents would fall away.
That is why the patent system is broke! It has become a domain of lawyers, for lawyers...
Member since:2005-07-13
Patent law, even for software (why is that any different than for mechanical systems and processes?) is required.
Software is already protected by copyright law. And it doesn't represent an invention, since it is by nature built upon existing constructs. Put another way, should an author be able to patent their style of writing to ensure that other authors don't try to emulate it? Do we want to see books, televisions shows or movies covered by patents?
Patents were created to protect physical inventions, not abstract concepts or ideas. Copyright law is sufficient for protecting IP.
To think otherwise is to not understand the way things work.
Riiiiight....
Why invest time and money into something if others will copy it right away, and very possibly deprive you of the income you rightfully deserve for coming up with it in the first place? That makes no sense!
Getting back to my original example, why do authors or writers or artists bother creating original works if others can copy them at will for free? Oh, wait, they can't. Copyright law.
There are no unique concepts in software design. There is nothing in any software application that is so revolutionary or groundbreaking that it deserves some special recognition that prevents anybody else from trying something similar.
You're arguing that IBM should own privilege over word processors, or that Apple should own privilege over GUIs (because they negotiated the right to use Xerox's original work), and that nobody else should extend those concepts because of the investment those companies made. Do you really want to live in a world where companies can stake their ground and prohibit competition just by becoming the first to come up with an idea for software? Would we be better served if all home users were forced to use Mac OS 1.0 or massive monochrome DisplayWriters in business, if those were patented?
The requirement that all the details of a patent be published and easily accessible, is also important, as it gives others the ability to study them, and if possible, find out even more innovative ways of doing the same thing.
And how does that change things? You just said that companies should have the right to protect their innovations, and now you're saying that others should have the right to see detailed access of those innovations and then find a different way of implementing them.
How do you protect code in a patent?
Patents don't last forever. Unlike with copyrights, there has been no movement to extend those protections past 20 years.
Perhaps software patents should last for a shorter time, say 7 years. That would better track the way progress is made in this industry.
Perhaps software patents should last for a shorter time, say 7 years. That would better track the way progress is made in this industry.
Software patents shouldn't exist. Ideas were never intended to be patented. Concepts were never meant to be patented. The ability to patent abstract thought is the antithesis to innovation. Patents should protect physical inventions, period. Copyright law protects software to the best benefit for authors and users alike.
RE[2]: Beautiful system - software is a written work
by jabbotts on Mon 26th Jan 2009 13:28
in reply to "RE: Beautiful system"
Member since:2007-09-06
Software is a written work so copywrite would be more applicable to protect it.
It's also a complicated math formula at it's most basic level; math is not petentable (yet software is?)
It's also documented business processes and policies; these are also not patentable.. unless you call it "software"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
"The first killer app was VisiCalc. This early spreadsheet turned the Apple II from a hobbyist toy to a business computer. VisiCalc came with room for improvement, though. In addition, a new architecture and operating system, the Intel-based IBM PC and MS-DOS, also needed a spreadsheet to be taken seriously. That spreadsheet, released in early 1983, would be Lotus 1-2-3, and it would change the world. It became the PC's killer app, and the world would never be the same. On May 14, IBM quietly announced the end of the road for 1-2-3, along with Lotus Organizer and the Lotus SmartSuite office suite. Lotus 1-2-3's day is done." Impressive 30 year run.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
"There's a disconnect between how Apple CEO Tim Cook sees his company's tax strategies and how some members of the US Senate view it. That became clearer than ever today after Cook and two other Apple executives testified before Congress, explaining why they're holding most of their international income in Irish subsidiaries like Apple Operations International, which declare no tax residency anywhere in the world. AOI hasn't filed a tax return anywhere in the world for the last five years, yet it earned $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, according to a Senate report released yesterday." Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's just. Apple, Google, Microsoft, and many more - these companies might not be breaking any laws, but it's obvious to anyone that what they are doing is scummy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
The new WebKit Opera for Android has been released. "Opera 14 for Android is built on top of Chromium 26, with a total overhaul of the UI in native code, making it fit well with the latest Android design guidelines. Go get the build from Google Play or point your browser to m.opera.com, and give it a spin!"
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
The Verge pointed me to a blog post by Leap Motion - which reveals how their Kinect-like motion control works with Windows 8. "From the second you plug in your Leap Motion Controller, you'll be able to browse the web and interact with your computer just by moving your hands and fingers in the air. With Leap Motion technology and Windows, you can do everything that's possible with multi-touch inputs - without actually touching anything. This also means that existing applications in Windows 7 and 8 will respond to your natural hand and finger movements. Soon, we'll show you how Leap Motion will work with Mac OS X." Quite cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
PocketNow interviews Marc Dillon, and there's an interesting note about why Jolla is keeping the display properties under wraps: "We're leaving some of those details out because we do understand that there are a lot of really big players in the market and they tend to take certain components in the market and dominate them. We created the ability to actually be able to run Sailfish on multiple hardware displays and be able to swap components, so this is part of the demand and supply planning phase. We are committed to this industrial design which is a 4.5-inch display, an 8 megapixel camera on the back and a front-facing camera at the front, and the exact specs of the display we'll provide when we're close to delivery." Something you rarely hear anything about.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2006-01-06
I simply love the way patent system works nowdays (or not). They are filling patents *only* to defend themselves from other companies - not to protect inventions like it was intended by creators of patent system. One more argument against patenting software - or maybe even more - against patent system at all?