throwawaykf

22 ms·

121.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
And here I am again to provide a friendly reminder that before discussing any patent, you must read the claims! If you did so, in this case, you would see that this is not a "pinch-to-zoom patent", but rather a "pinch-to-zoom
122.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Another frequently repeated myth. Actually: 1) Pretty much each and every action has a fee attached [1]. 2) Each rejection has a 3 - 6 month time limit to be responded to. 3) Most applicants will fight every rejection to preserve their righ
123.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Agreed. It is an unfair match. It is, statistically, almost a tautology: The set of examiners is necessarily limited by government funding constraints, but the number of patent attorneys and agents they contend with on a daily basis is only
124.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
The pompous aspect comes (IMO) from primarily historical reasons. However, in my experience, the judgement of them being "utter crap" is simultaneously (1) mostly uninformed and (2) yet mostly correct. Let me clarify: people think
125.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
somewhat active on Ask Patents. In fact, I've submitted an answer that is pretty sure to kill at least one Google patent application, and possibly another from Uniloc. A few comments on this article: 1) This is a very unusual case; mos
126.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
> For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. Don't count on it: http://www.theverge.com/2
127.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
And almost none of the results of 'google nsa lawsuit' on google are negative about google: http://www.google.com/search?q=google+nsa+lawsuit Everything is a filter bubble.
128.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I'm glad you know enough to read the claims -- you already know more than all but a vanishing minority here. Even then, you are not strict enough in your interpretation of the claims. This patent covers nothing more than tallying the
129.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
How did you determine exactly what it is that you think this patent covers? It is a silly patent, but mostly for reasons that are opposite to what you seem to believe.
130.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
When I wrote that comment, in addition to the parent, a bunch of comments discussed the contents and possible "prior art", including specifically, the whole subthread where the actual patent is linked to on uspto.gov. Those are pe
131.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Well... all engineering is simply "implementations based on choices and decisions made by an individual or a team"... What do you think inventions should be, if not that? At least your take on it is more in tune with reality tha
132.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Right, I ran my tests shortly after reading that Skype supernodes were getting centralized, which was after the MS acquisition. I just handwaved with "couple of years" because I couldn't remember exactly when. Back then my co
133.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
In a previous discussion on HN, a HN user checked and confirmed that MS servers hit both HTTP and HTTPS links. Unfortunately I can't find that comment at the moment, so here's an Ars article that reports the same behavior: http:&
134.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
It really isn't that hard to test. Any of a million packet sniffing or network monitoring tools could be used to trivially settle this. I cannot understand why none of the alarmist articles about Skype (some even by so-called "cyp
135.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
I have no reason to make this up :-/ I comment very infrequently, but only use throwaway accounts as a personal policy based in part on HN-the-community's response to my opinions and HN-the-website's aggressive response to do
136.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Actually, I think the proprietary technology problem at Google is an entirely different beast from that at companies like Microsoft. At least there are comparable competing components, libraries and, heck, entire open source operating syste
137.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Anecdotal evidence regarding the proprietary technology trap: 1. At another large (but not XXL) "Internet" company, none of the Google SREs have made the SRE hiring bar, precisely because half their answers to "How would you
138.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
Interestingly, a senior Googler I once talked to derisively mentioned how competitors like Facebook were open sourcing projects that used to be proprietary Google technology, mostly based on work done by people FB poached from Google. I rea
139.
by throwawaykf 13y ago
How about the famed "pretentious interviewer with a superiority complex" stereotype? (Disclaimer: Non-googler, and I have never met any such interviewers at Google. A couple of them came close, though...)
140.
by throwawaykf 14y ago
No, the application of those equations to practical problems is patentable. A physics problem is not necessarily practical (2 frictionless spheres in a vacuum are rolling towards each other...), but practical mechanical problems necessarily
141.
by throwawaykf 14y ago
Your views are rooted in one of the more common misconceptions about so-called software patents: None of them are algorithm patents, because you cannot patent algorithms. What is patented is the application of certain algorithms to solve a
142.
by throwawaykf 14y ago
Fascinating! Any comments on how difficult/easy you found it to do a thorough search, and how often you found patents that you thought to be risks?
143.
by throwawaykf 14y ago
This has been posted here before, and I exchanged a couple of messages in the comments section with the author to clarify some misconceptions. If you read the claims (as everyone always should but nobody ever does), most of the patents he m
144.
Rackspace censored this comment on their blog post
5 points by throwawaykf 14y ago|2 comments