Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Posted Aug 25, 2012 22:07 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Aug 26, 2012 10:02 UTC (Sun) by tcourbon (subscriber, #60669)
Posted Aug 26, 2012 15:05 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
To be honest it will be mostly sad to watch, as this whole swpat farce has been so far.
Posted Aug 27, 2012 1:34 UTC (Mon) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 1:50 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 2:06 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:15 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
touchscreen interactions, including dragging documents, multi-touch, pinch-to-zoom, twist-to-rotate and that nifty little scroll bounce when you’ve reached the end of a list of items
Posted Aug 27, 2012 17:37 UTC (Mon) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652)
Posted Aug 27, 2012 21:19 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
I believe that 'pure' software patents technically are 'illegal' in the USA also. Just like in the EU they are not patentable. However the combination of 'software' and 'hardware' creates a patentable invention.
So to get around this limitation every single 'software patent' references many times to the fact that it involves running on actual hardware. Since software is nothing without hardware then this means that pretty much any software algorithm is patentable as soon as you try to actually use it.
The key thing is that you can't try to make sense of it. Patents and what is patentable and is not patentable is completely arbitrary. People try to draw lines about physical inventions or algorithms and such things, but that isn't really relevant. It's purely 'decide by committee' law that is not based on any naturally occurring concept or natural practice by human beings... therefore common sense doesn't apply.
Posted Aug 28, 2012 10:58 UTC (Tue) by HenrikH (guest, #31152)
Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:25 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
Posted Aug 28, 2012 12:49 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Aug 30, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940)
So doing the computations mentally or on paper is okay, doing it in any device is supposedly covered by the patents. Which is totally absurd, of course, but unfortunately it is how patent law is interpreted currently.
Personally, I think a general computation device that can be programmed by its user to do many different things should not be covered by such patents, as the computer is only used there as a help to do the computations faster. (And of course "general" means that you can run on it whatever you want, not a locked down & restricted system... ;) )
Posted Aug 28, 2012 7:50 UTC (Tue) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988)
> An optimist would say that it has enjoyed some of the best global advertising in recent years, and that $1 billion is a fairly low price to pay for that. After all, there can't be many potential buyers of smartphones who are not now aware that Samsung is a rival of Apple, and in many respect highly similar. Some of them might well take a look at Samsung's offerings, and might be pleasantly surprised at the lower price of many models compared to Apple.
And it looks like he's exactly right:
> Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
> Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"
Looks like Apple has blown off its own foot.
Posted Aug 28, 2012 11:02 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds