hn_decay

7 ms·

1.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Not at all. Microsoft and Apple simply want to make sure that Google has nothing to counter their patent attacks with. They don't want Google to have them. Now Google sharing them with its two biggest antagonist...even footing a part of t
2.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a
3.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Came out and said what? This is just providing more detail to exactly what Google said before. Discount whatever second hand noise you've read elsewhere: Google has been very consistent thus far (they derode patents when they made their $90
4.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Would you mind pointing out where Google made that argument? Because Google didn't make that argument, no matter how terribly M G Sielger may misinterpret it. "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CP
5.
by hn_decay 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. You made this claim yesterday as well. It is so ridiculous that I find it hard to
6.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I don't think that Gruber was making a case for software patents. But he was. He is arguing that only a small handful of patents -- those used to attack Apple and/or app store developers -- are the problem with the patent system. That is
7.
by hn_decay 15y ago
He recently posted a link to a story about Amazon removing the various buy bits from their app, which the snarky commentary "That wasn't hard, was it?" A few hours later he completely changed position to one where he was mildly critical of
8.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>Any patent can be made to look obvious by quoting half a sentence Apple themselves distilled their own patent into the specific infringement. Their reading was identical to mine. >the HMS Zealotry You are in the wrong place. Every
9.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Perhaps, but it is entirely pertinent. Many of these pro-patent positions, I suspect, are entirely rooted in the feeling of belonging to a certain community. See Gruber's bizarrely hypocritical piece which mirrors that public sentiment. I b
10.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>Maybe go look at the actual patent lawsuits against HTC, Samsung et al., they aren't hard to find. You say so much while saying so little. Apple's assault on HTC is a perfect demonstration of the failure of the patent system. Dozens of
11.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>The point he's making is that showing a rendered clip of some UI is not prior art, as far as patents go While the discussion was targeted more at the actual value of software patents (i.e. what specifically Apple 'invented' with their
12.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Are you always such a boring fanboy? THAT is the Apple multitouch patent that the industry holds as fearsome. No one gives a shit about the Fingertouch patents.
13.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>But Android OS doesn't resemble an iPaq, it resembles iOS. Both have significant similarity to a year 2000 iPaq. Full screen mobile device using a touchscreen against an icon grid, onscreen keyboard, etc. The iPaq was a "PDA", however,
14.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"Apple didn't patent anything first, they bought the inventor and paid him." http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...
15.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>Literally, I am tired offending the trolls. You spend a good 90% of each of your posts saying nothing of value but instead offending me and pandering to the crowd, desperately trying to drag yourself to some higher ground where your co
16.
by hn_decay 15y ago
The RIM thing was a giant lie. Remarkable that anyone ever thought it was true, much less would be referencing it now. The random message board commentator, seeking aggrandizement among their fellow fanboys, quickly disappeared and erased t
17.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"The Microsoft Surface came out in 2008" Surface was unveiled in 2007, with the final hardware design being completed two years prior. The project itself started based upon, humorously, Minority Report. "Well, where I come from, that means
18.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>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 screens are "prior art". I know exactly
19.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Your argument is ludicrous. My position on software patents mirrors the general complaint about software patents -- overwhelmingly they provide a monopoly on trivial, obvious, or inevitable "inventions". Your position on multitouch alone is
20.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"They actually force competition-- and they give a leg up to all of your competitors by quickly bringing them up to speed on the state of the art." Are you seriously arguing that competition uses software patent applications to get up to sp
21.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Perhaps this is an unfair caricature, but it has been my observation that the vast majority of "pro-software patent" supporters are misguided fans of either Microsoft or Apple. They seldom have anything to do with software development, and
22.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Indeed. And once Google stocks up on thousands of purchased patents (humorously they just bought a bunch of database patents from IBM, which I have no doubt they're going to start leveraging against Oracle), you will be fully supporting it
23.
by hn_decay 15y ago
This is an incredible claim. Do you realize that Apple and Microsoft are being sued constantly as well?
24.
by hn_decay 15y ago
For me the most important part of the story is this How so? Why would there be any expectation that sales would spike in the proximity of the app being a featured freebie? Does the grocery store sell more chocolate milk before or after a
25.
by hn_decay 15y ago
And thus has the editability of HN posts been exploited. The GP post originally contained a claim that Android is "garbage", would persist on "feature phones", among other nonse belonging in Engadget comments.
26.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Froyo is the OS version that made Android competitive. Gingerbread is the gravy that made is excellent. I've had 4 Android devices, all the ways back to cupcake on the G1. In the early years I absolutely saw the issues that the GP observed,
27.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I can't discount your experiences. There is no doubt that Android in its earlier years was kind of an ugly baby. The OS suffered fundamental faults, lag on user interactivity being a primary one. Is that true with current devices? Absolutel
28.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Firefox was once the "I'm ahead of you" browser of choice for people who need to be propped up by their choices (of software or hardware). Eventually it got popular enough that some subsection of those people had to move on, generally to Ch
29.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I am in complete agreement. And quite honestly it grows tiring actually refuting the various anti-Firefox rants with actual fact -- it is a bit of a hobbyhorse of some people while they cheer on whatever team they're waving the flag of. It
30.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I originally clicked reply to a similar message to say much the same thing as what you've said, however the original announcement that he was replying to gave no specifics, save one- http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html "T

More ›