econgeeker

7 ms·

1.
by econgeeker 15y ago
You think property rights don't exist elsewhere? The only "free lunch" is the one paid for with stolen money, e.g.: taxes. The rich are leaving and renouncing. There are a lot of countries out there, and many of them provide a more hospit
2.
by econgeeker 15y ago
The rich are moving, and there's quite an exodus going on. I'm part of it. Of course it is harder for the super-rich. The US government is not going to let you leave the country with a $5B fortune.
3.
by econgeeker 15y ago
As a mental exercise, consider the thought process behind the perspective that this is "anti-competitive". 1. Apple has taken a technology- metal milling- that has existed for at least half a century, and used it to make a nicer laptop case
4.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Well, I am suspicious about an article that talks about lathes with regard to making Macbook parts. A Lathe is a machine on which parts are spun at great speed. It is good for making things like the legs of tables, etc. http://en.wikiped
5.
Calling Google's bluff: Which patent is bogus? Why not open source their code?(brianshall.com)
65 points by econgeeker 15y ago|12 comments
6.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Good Point. For instance, New Zealand. Nice place. Great People. First class quality of life-- better than the USA. Higher taxes than the USA in many ways, but the government is so much less corrupt that the taxes are much less of a burde
7.
by econgeeker 15y ago
There are many places an american can go. Unlike the USA, most countries don't tax your worldwide income. So, for instance, you could become a citizen of any of the EU countries that don't tax worldwide income, and earn your income outsid
8.
by econgeeker 15y ago
That's the number of people who renounced. And that number is going up dramatically, and I've heard that the published figures for renouncement are way under-reported. (as in here are lawyers who have more clients who have renounced than t
9.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Gold was criminalized for use in transactions in 1933 by executive order. I think that's a fair point to mark the end of the "gold standard" and the beginning of the fiat era. It is true the US government would redeem dollars for gold for
10.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Taking twitter for example, it is rendering content in a native app when you're looking at tweets. The content is delivered in json (or whatever) standard format and rendered in native controls, namely tableViewCells. Webkit is used if y
11.
by econgeeker 15y ago
The pain of doing web development for a maze of twisty browsers, all alike and incompatible makes iOS a "superior" choice in the sense that it means less headaches. For me, it doesn't really matter which is easier or harder, but which has t
12.
by econgeeker 15y ago
All good reasons. My reasons are: -- The Apple frameworks are first class. In the past 20 years, there has never been a set of GUI frameworks that I've seen that was anywhere near as good as things are in iOS right now. (I've not looked a
13.
by econgeeker 15y ago
The only reason to not team up with Microsoft, et. al, is if google wanted to use the patents against them. If google simply wanted to be immune to claims from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs. biddi
14.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Is it really covert? In the case of the Nortel bids, the bidders were getting government approval before bidding, and it was made public after the fact who was in the groups. I'm not sure that removing anonymity from bidders is a good thin
15.
by econgeeker 15y ago
I posit that android would not be on the market in the touch-screen form it is now, if Apple hadn't made its inventions public due to the patent process. If you consider android innovative, then the patent process saved google the 7+ years
16.
by econgeeker 15y ago
The email makes it pretty clear: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says...
17.
by econgeeker 15y ago
You're confusing the Nortel and Novell bids. MSFT invited Google to join the group bidding on the Novell patents. The email I saw was an invitation to talk about joining, which Google refused, not a proposal of any specific terms. Gener
18.
by econgeeker 15y ago
It was an offer to talk, not terms, as is made clear in the email. Your point is lying dead in a ditch.
19.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Google is talking about both, and google refused to even TALK to microsoft about joining one of the groups bidding on patents that google is now complaining about. The claim that this is MSFT PR spin is based on the presumption that MSFT of
20.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Two points: 1) Apple has never sued google, to my knowledge, and there are no active lawsuits currently. I'm not aware of any suits from Microsoft either. 2) IF Apple were to sue google, it would be over Patents resulting from Apple develop
21.
by econgeeker 15y ago
You're in error. This was MSFT offering for google to talk about joining in the bidding. Google turned them down without knowing what the terms were, because the terms hadn't even been discussed. This was an offer to talk, not an offer of
22.
by econgeeker 15y ago
"Software developers, and Open Source developers in particular, have been adamantly against software patents for a very long time." This is exactly as true as the claim that all scientists support AGW theory. Reality-- most scientists don't
23.
by econgeeker 15y ago
In order to patent something, you have to reduce it to practice. That is to say, you have to actually make it work, in the real world. That Stephen Spielburg was able to do it with computer graphics has no bearing on the validity of someon
24.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Right, you can't argue the facts so just be disparaging. The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008, not "years" before Apple showed the iPhone. You're absolutely uninformed about even the basic facts or timeline, yet you're happy to make broa
25.
by econgeeker 15y ago
Neither of those are prior art. I suggest you read the foundational patents, and if you're not familiar with the terms of art, get up to speed on it, and then look into whatever you think might be "prior art" very carefully. If you do, you
26.
by econgeeker 15y ago
You illustrate the root of the problem. You are not aware of what the multi-touch patents cover, what the inventions are, and you are not aware of what patents are and so you think the movie "minority report" and non-multi-touch touch scre
27.
by econgeeker 15y ago
I was part of a team that developed a distributed realtime database. That is to say, a record could exist on a dozen servers, and these servers could be handling transactions from hundreds of thousands or millions of simultaneous users. Th
28.
by econgeeker 15y ago
I have yet to hear an anti-patent argument that wasn't just repetition of the "patents are wrong" ideology. I'm actually neutral on patents in the sense of "what would be best in an ideal world". But the bottom line is this- my work is not
29.
by econgeeker 15y ago
I'm a software developer and have been working at startups for 20 years. I am pro-patent because I've seen it successfully used to protect a startup from an evil corporation-- in this case Microsoft. I know the anti-patent people like to p
30.
by econgeeker 15y ago
The problem with this is that prior to the introduction of the iPhone, android was designed to look like and work on phones like the blackberry. It was a better feature phone OS. After the iPhone came out, Google changed courses and count

More ›