nirvana

29 ms·

301.
by nirvana 14y ago
I don't know any programmer who could implement one click in a day. You think that it is just "checking out with a single button press", but that's not what the patent covers. This is the fundamental problem with the anti-patent position.
302.
by nirvana 14y ago
>Apple won a claim against Samsung for mimicking "bounce back" behavior False. Patents don't cover features. Patents cover inventions. Apple won against samsung for copying apple's solution for how to implement a feature. Not for ha
303.
by nirvana 14y ago
You should try reading that patent sometime before you claim it isn't reasonable. It is profoundly dishonest to characterize patents using a trivial phrase like "one-click" and then pretend like that also means that the patent is itself tri
304.
by nirvana 14y ago
Yeah! There's nothing new in the iPhone, that Bell didn't demonstrate over a century ago! The reality is, you guys are ideologically driven- you want to get google off the hook for stealing Apples inventions, so you pretend like the patents
305.
by nirvana 14y ago
The idea that you need Apple's permission to install software on your mobile computer is false. You can install whatever software you want, via multiple methods. Out of the box you can install apps built using web technologies downloaded
306.
by nirvana 14y ago
I wish you were kidding. In the 1990s I worked on software that had the same "look and feel" of the "delicious library". We had shelves and we put things on them, books, CDs, etc, in our software. This was for a seattle software company-
307.
by nirvana 14y ago
You misunderstand the nature of patents. Patents cover inventions, which are non-obvious methods to solve problems. This is not giving apple the exclusive right to "pinch to zoom" or "slide to unlock" but the methods for implementing thos
308.
by nirvana 14y ago
It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the "right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work, and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this ideologicall
309.
by nirvana 14y ago
There is a big misunderstanding of patents. Patents don't cover ideas, but inventions. "Pinch to zoom" is a feature, and the idea of doing that is not patentable by Apple or Jeff Han. It is the implementation that is patentable, and A
310.
by nirvana 14y ago
There's a great deal of examples of this in economics, and this is not just a theoretical problem-- it causes bad electoral outcomes. For instance, the idea that "government spending stimulates the economy" is a naive concept. It sounds go
311.
by nirvana 14y ago
None of Apple's patents are on ideas. It is the people who want to excuse violating the patents who claim the patents are on ideas or behaviors. Of course, if you'd actually read the patents in question you'd know this.
312.
by nirvana 14y ago
That wasn't an objective statement, that was more a characterization of the way americans see the rest of the world. Imagine how north koreans have misconceptions about America. America is equally awash in propaganda and many americans hav
313.
by nirvana 14y ago
You haven't read the patent and what you said here is quite wrong. You can't patent and idea, or even a behavior. So the question is, why are you guys lying about the patent system to get google off the hook for violating patents? Notice th
314.
by nirvana 14y ago
Patents are not about information nor ideas. The design patents are equivilent to trademarks. Utility patents are about novel original inventions, not ideas. You can't patent an idea. If you've ever gone thru the process of patenting an i
315.
by nirvana 14y ago
You've been sold the idea that they patented "bounce back". I suggest if you go and read the actual patent itself, you'll see that it is something quite different. Further, consider the case where there was no patent system. Apple invents
316.
by nirvana 14y ago
You just said "a fantastic start towards a new paradigm" about something that happened 3.5 years into a 4 year presidential term, with an election coming up. I don't think a new generation is running things. That kennedy camelot spin was u
317.
by nirvana 14y ago
The patent system has people like Apple revealing the inner workings of their inventions so that other people like samsung can stand on the shoulders of giants for the small price of a royalty. It works great. You are saying you'd like to
318.
by nirvana 14y ago
Do you think that it is ok to copy GPL code and violate the terms of the GPL license? If not, then why do you think that it is ok to enforce the GPL, but not to enforce other terms whereby people reveal their work for it to be extended? Th
319.
by nirvana 14y ago
>Bias like this only helps fuel a flame war. Then >They did, check out the Galaxy S3, still a better gadget than your iPhone. Any day. Hilarious! But of course, you're perfectly objective, so there's nothing funny here.
320.
by nirvana 14y ago
You're presuming your conclusion and you've provided no evidence of it. The calls for patent "reform" came at the same time google decided they wanted to get away with violating apple's patents (and now google has sued Apple to try and do s
321.
by nirvana 14y ago
Your comment is hilarious, so please don't take this personally. It is hilarious that you would say his comment has "too much bias in favor of Apple" and then follow it with a claim of an ideological position as fact. Your actual statement
322.
by nirvana 14y ago
You cannot speak positively (or even neutrally) about Apple on Hacker News, without being downvoted. On this subject, it is simply not possible to have discussion. Hacker News has is overrun with android fans who will tell you that 2001: A
323.
by nirvana 14y ago
Yep, I have a samsung flip phone from 1996 that makes calls just like the iPhone!
324.
by nirvana 14y ago
> reform the patent system. It is very curious that the cries to reform the patent system have risen simultaneous with Google's need to copy Apple in android, and was started by Google's lawyer. >There seems to be a misconception th
325.
by nirvana 14y ago
You make good points, and it is worth noting that, unlike Samsung, microsoft has a license from Apple to use Apple's technology. (they have a cross licensing agreement) That agreement prohibits copying. As a result, Microsoft made a touch
326.
by nirvana 14y ago
Trademark is one set of laws, but you can only trademark names and images. You can't trademark designs. For that there are Design Patents. Design Patents are very different from Utility Patents. Design Patents are effectively a trademark
327.
by nirvana 14y ago
> Macintosh was a blatant and wholesale ripoff of every fundamental idea that Xerox Park came up with I think it is really tragic that so many people will repeat this obvious and blatant lie, in public no less. Is your ideology that m
328.
by nirvana 14y ago
This is simply not true. This is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc rationalization that works with people who see that almost all the smartphones out there have copied the iphone and so they believe that they must have existed contempraneously w
329.
by nirvana 14y ago
The LG Prada was nothing like the iPhone, and using it, simply because it had a form of "touch" interface, to try and defend your point is simply false. None of the key iPhone technologies were present on the LG Prada. It was single touch,
330.
by nirvana 14y ago
Attempting to correct misinformation, for instance, here on Hacker News, is essentially impossible and pointless. This screw story, like many others ("MBP Retina is unrepairable", etc.) play into an ideology[1]. And no facts, no matter how

More ›