Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Aug 2011 21:38 UTC
The Google-Microsoft patent war of words is continuing. Yesterday, Google (rightfully so, in my book) accused Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle partaking in an organised patent attack against Android, instead of competing on merit, claiming that they bought up Novell's and Nortel's patents solely to attack Android and its device makers. Microsoft struck back, claiming Google was offered to join in on the bids for the Novell patents, but rejected the offer. Google has now responded to this accusation - and to make matters even more confusing, Microsoft responded back. A public shouting match between two powerful parties? Count me in!
Thread beginning with comment 483806
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Cheering for Google feels like...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Aug 2011 09:18
in reply to "RE[6]: Cheering for Google feels like..."
Member since:2005-06-29
As an additional example, I want to use the case of Android notification system which Apple blatantly copied in iOS. In such a case, how will you prove the copyright violation?
You can't, and you shouldn't be able to. That's the whole point.
OTOH, had Google patented its notification system, Apple would be liable for infringement
Which would be idiotic. I'm happy Apple copied Android's notifications, because it is a good design. It makes iOS a better operating system, and thus, benefits consumers the world over. That's the point!
RE[8]: Cheering for Google feels like...
by deppbv78 on Fri 5th Aug 2011 10:08
in reply to "RE[7]: Cheering for Google feels like..."
Member since:2008-06-29
Then the question would be, why should any company or person invest millions of $$$ on R&D to innovate something so that others can just copy them?
Everybody will wait for other to innovate so that they can copy. Thereby resulting in a condition where nobody innovates due to the fear of copy.
People are not altruists. It hurts when somebody steals something of yours. It is common human behavior and there is nothing wrong in it.
Patent provides an incentive for innovation and creates another channel for sharing without fear of stealing. Hence, it is needed.
However, there should be restrictions on patents such as max. 5yrs-life, no patent selling/buying, etc which I've already stated in my other post. Such restrictions would surely help in eliminating patent trolls.
RE[7]: Cheering for Google feels like...
by przemo_li on Fri 5th Aug 2011 09:26
in reply to "RE[6]: Cheering for Google feels like..."
Member since:2010-06-01
If you can prove that this new code (in different language) is "just" copy of your code, than you won it in court. Its similar to copyright protecting your work even if someone will translate it to different language!
On the other hand, I do not understand, your "execution" portion.
There is idea, there is code. No "execution procedure".
RE[7]: Cheering for Google feels like...
by molnarcs on Fri 5th Aug 2011 12:37
in reply to "RE[6]: Cheering for Google feels like..."
Member since:2005-09-10
Code in itself is not the implementation approach. I can write the code for an algorithm (approach) in such a way that my code is different from the original source. I'm not improving the approach in anyways whatsoever. In such cases, I'll not be in violation of copyright. But, shouldn't I be in violation of the approach (even if it is not patented)?
My general approach to people who are ignorant to the vast literature about why ideas/software patents are a bad idea is to inform them. The specific "code" are the numerous comments I have posted on OsNews and elsewhere. So here's an idea - why don't I patent my "approach" to how to deal with ignorant people. Why shouldn't my "approach" be protected by law? Why won't the government grant monopolies over my ideas?
Almost forgot - here's one of the most recent, and perhaps the best article that would answer almost all your questions? Are you going to read it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/patent-reform-congress_n_9...
RE[8]: Cheering for Google feels like...
by vitae on Fri 5th Aug 2011 19:16
in reply to "RE[7]: Cheering for Google feels like..."
Member since:2006-02-20
Another reminder why we need to fire everybody in Congress and start from scratch.
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:
2008-06-29
Code in itself is not the implementation approach. I can write the code for an algorithm (approach) in such a way that my code is different from the original source. I'm not improving the approach in anyways whatsoever. In such cases, I'll not be in violation of copyright. But, shouldn't I be in violation of the approach (even if it is not patented)?
Can you please explain how copyright protection works when I use a different programming language?
For Ex: Say a developer at X wrote a program for a unique feature for their phone. The code is copyrighted but the feature is not protected. The code for the same is available for others. I'm from company Y, I take this source code and then rewrite the same in a different programming language.
Is company Y in violation of copyright from a legal standpoint? Y does not care for technical or moral or ethical standpoint.
As an additional example, I want to use the case of Android notification system which Apple blatantly copied in iOS. In such a case, how will you prove the copyright violation? OTOH, had Google patented its notification system, Apple would be liable for infringement.