GHFigs

109 ms·

901.
by GHFigs 17y ago
One or more examples would help.
902.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Price is just another criteria used to evaluate what's "good", but it is not an independent factor. The importance of price varies along with everything else.
903.
by GHFigs 17y ago
The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. I'm unclear on how that relates, aside from being a patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are little more than refl
904.
by GHFigs 17y ago
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific cla
905.
by GHFigs 17y ago
I personally would prefer it if patents, standards bodies and a few other such institutions were reformed to encourage greater competition and prevent anti-competitive behaviour. I agree. We undoubtedly disagree on what things and in what
906.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Note you used supporting Note that I used "go out of their way to support". The active role was clearly implied, and consistent with the context. ZeroGravitas described Apple and Microsoft's choice (to use h.264) as an "anti-competitive a
907.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Forgive me for not understanding, but if I can ask for further clarification-- In your last post, you said: " Anti-competitive actions are always pragmatic if you're not going to get punished for them. " From this, I conclude that when you
908.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something The original claim was that they were "getting out of hand in assertions of ownership". An anecdote about something that is supposed to have happened privately 7 years ago (which d
909.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Apple has no patent on the general concept of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept. This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...",
910.
by GHFigs 17y ago
companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs What are you referring to specifically? Is there a specific one of the patents in the Apple/HTC case that you feel is purely cosmetic, or are you referring to something
911.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Read the news much? Are you trying to insult me for asking you to be more specific? I'm sorry if I offended you, but I did not think it was an unreasonable question. Apple's been doing this all over the place. I'm sure you would agree t
912.
by GHFigs 17y ago
You're saying it's anti-competitive for companies to act in accordance with their own interests rather than go out of their way to support their competitors?
913.
by GHFigs 17y ago
But think about it, what will happen then? You make it sound like this is a hypothetical scenario, but the codec mandate was removed from the HTML5 spec last June. The reality is that Microsoft will support h.264, Apple supports h.264,
914.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Then why do they still allow me to use Adobe's h.264 license?
915.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership. Could you be more specific?
916.
by GHFigs 17y ago
We've always been in that place. As Mark Pilgrim put it: "Most of the successful versions of HTML have been “retro-specs,” catching up to the world while simultaneously trying to nudge it in the right direction." -- http://diveintomark.o
917.
by GHFigs 17y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1192677
918.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Ignorance is a woefully inadequate form of counterintelligence.
919.
by GHFigs 17y ago
In context, that appears to be more of a concern that such tactics could be used against the US. In the "Intelligence Gaps" section, for instance: "Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or foreign ter
920.
by GHFigs 17y ago
The summary is grossly misleading. For instance, it characterizes the mention that China, et al. block or could disrupt Wikileaks as "justification" for a "plan", but it is in fact listed as background information about Wikileaks.
921.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Whoever wants to put the US on that list Who is that? The document makes no such suggestion.
922.
by GHFigs 17y ago
The actual content of the report does not support the conclusion in the headline and description. The entire extent of the supposed "plan" is the obvious suggestion, in passing, that finding people who leak sensitive information would deter
923.
by GHFigs 17y ago
enforcing patents on what amounts to commodity technologies Such as?
924.
by GHFigs 17y ago
now that the tech that made them different to begin with is commodity I was referring to the strategy, not any technology. What are you referring to, specifically?
925.
by GHFigs 17y ago
they really can only do that two ways You left out differentiation , which has always been Apple's primary way of competing. Differentiation becomes a lot harder when the competition can simply copy you.
926.
by GHFigs 17y ago
tl;dr commas good, technology bad, Enlightnment thinkers good, poor people bad
927.
by GHFigs 17y ago
I don't understand. What component? We're talking about software here. Just because an interface object behaves in a way reminiscent of a physical object does not mean it is that object. It has an entirely different mechanism. What you're
928.
by GHFigs 17y ago
But where is the innovation that would justify a patent lock-in [npi]? Read the patent. It describes the specific way the iPhone's unlock screen works, which to my knowledge (and evidently that of the USPTO) was novel at the time it was p
929.
by GHFigs 17y ago
Is there something specific about that patent that you find silly or do you find the whole notion that the specific way that an interface element works to be silly? It seems to me that if such things can't be copyrighted, or trademarked, ar
930.
by GHFigs 17y ago
"Look & Feel" suit was a copyright suit. At least in theory. It established that you can't copyright "Look & Feel", like I said. What the legal system enables and what is 'right' are two different things. You were wrongly conflati

More ›