What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
74 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39I'm going to patent getting a patent on ***** that shouldn't be patented.
That ought to take care of it. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29I patented bad grammar last week. I'm a millionaire off of Digg alone!
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I've already patented the patent process, you'll just wind up owing me the proceeds.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Only the Chinese can save us now, they ignore patents and copyrights of all kinds.
- DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Is it just me or has this whole patent, every little thing you can think of, thing getting way out of hand?
- bbrosemer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18All the patent will allow them is a way to achieve resolution independence if another compan finds another way to achieve resolution independence then they can patent their way. The term resolution indepenence or just resolution independence in general is not what they are patening. Once again to be repative the are patening how they achieve resolution indepenence...
- koregaonpark, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24I hope not.
- MBX1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18if they get it, does that mean only apple can do resolution independent os'es?
- diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15this is why Linux people are scared to death of software patents
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Actually Microsoft gets bullied by it quite a bit too. Ever notice how you have to click on an activex control to "activate" it? You can thank a patent for that.
- drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The problem is, if Apple don't patent everything they come up with, someone else will patent it and sue them. See for example the Creative iPod interface suit, despite the fact that Creative devices basically evolved to match the iPod interface almost exactly from the useless crap they started with(EDIT: I realise this might sound like a fanboy comment, but as an owner of an early NOMAD I can attest their original interface sucked), they still held a patent that allowed them to extort money out of Apple. The patent system sucks, but it exists so Apple have to play it to be defensive. I can't think of an example right now where Apple actually used their patent in an offensive way, so they're not as evil as some.
- Benzido, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@pumacub
MS promised resolution independence in Vista, but it's now on the list of things that were too hard to deliver. - nullview, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For the most part these are now defensive patents. An arrow in the quiver just in case a rival shows intention to sue you; you have the implied threat of a counter suit that would in turn make business very difficult for them.
Kind of like during the cold war, with mutually assured destruction. No one wanted to pull the trigger first cuz everyone knew the other guy had enough ammo to blow you away before he pulled his last breath.
Cheers, and happy holidays! - 1021, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Are you serious? Ever heard of reverse engineering?
Trade secrets may work for secret recipies to Coke and KFC but they will never cut it in the computer world. - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Correction: this is why Microsoft or other huge companies think they can bully the little guys
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The problem is, if Apple don't patent everything they come up with, someone else will patent it and sue them."
Agreed. With our legal system the way it is, companies have to patent everything they can think of as a means of self-defense. If Company A sues Company B over Patent X, Company B countersues Company A over Patent Y. Companies A & B recognize pointless standoff and retreat to their respective corners.
Software patents that deal with general concepts need to be eliminated entirely.
And since someone brought up the Creative interface patent, I'm wondering why Creative hasn't dropped their patent bomb on Microsoft's Zune. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Until M$ and Apple both sue Linux developers for using x and y, and then we're doubly *****...
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The thing is, this is nothing revolutionary or new. Procedural graphics have been used plenty of times before this. Maybe it hasn't been done in the GUI of an OS, but does that mean it should be patented? In the article they make it sound very technical and impressive, but it is really just saying, "we use values that tell us how to draw things". This is abuse of patents, but I am sure they will get it, because the people handing out patents have no idea how software even works.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I got the rights to the thought process, so call me Zenu.
"All the patent will allow them is a way to achieve resolution independence if another compan finds another way to achieve resolution independence then they can patent their way. The term resolution indepenence or just resolution independence in general is not what they are patening. Once again to be repative the are patening how they achieve resolution indepenence."
So your the one that actually read the article, good on you. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Indeed, without conscious action by Congress or the Supreme Court,
the most fundamental rule of software publishing--if you write a
program, you own it--will change. The new rule will be that you might
own what you write--if it is so revolutionary that it owes nothing to
any previous work. No author in areas other than software is held to
such an unrealistically high standard."
from that link above - ewhac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's called NeWS (Networked Windowing System, pronounced "Nee-wiz"), built on top of Display Postscript, developed and introduced by Sun in the late 1980's. It never took off because it was an even bigger pig than Xwindows.
I doubt there's anything novel here, and certainly nothing patentable. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The patent isn't on resolution independence, it's on a particular way to achieve it.
-jcr - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> The problem is, if Apple don't patent everything they come up with, someone
> else will patent it and sue them.
Exactly. I don't understand why everyone points their fingers at Apple. Fercrissake, Apple is the dumbest company in the world when it comes to patenting their ideas. They've been royally screwed twice in their history for failing to do it. Once with their desktop GUI (which MS took without compensation) and again with the iPod UI (given that Creative beat them to the patenting office with it). Just because they've learned their lesson and now realize that a healthy dose of CYA is the only way to go, don't put the blame for this kind of thing at their feet. It's just the environment they exist in which allows lazy competitors to repeatedly take advantage of their work. - chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The idea today with software patents and corporations is to be the first to patent the widget, even if the patent is absurd. If a competitor gets the patent first, then you have to pay court fees or license the idea.
For example, Amazon got the patent on 1-click, and now Apple has to pay Amazon to use the idea of 1-click purchases on iTunes. This BS is why Microsoft patented the triple-click (rumor?) and Apple is patenting their method of resolution-independent UI.
The entire situation is retarded. - rcran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Patents in the computer world are very non productive.
- ipearx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Does this mean every flash based interface already in existence will owe Apple money?
http://bla.st/mac/ - pandaro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think there should be separate patents for software - I love open source and think its importance is generally underrated, but I also respect the innovation that comes from the traditional methods of software development. I think a six month patent for software ideas would be ideal - that way the companies could still find inspiration to compete in the short term, and independent developers won't have to worry about getting sued for implementing a scroll bar.
I often wonder where Apple would be today if *BSD wasn't sitting there waiting for their grubby paws to take and build upon. I know I wouldn't have a pile of Apple hardware, that's for sure. - MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This comment section is pretty dang laughable. People are screaming about junk patents and WGF and whatever, not realizing that this patent only covers a (approval-pending) unique method of achieving resolution independence.
It's pretty obvious that only 5% of you even bothered reading the article. How sad. - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I'm sorry but I have a patent on thinking this patent every little thing you can think of thing has gotten out of hand, you owe me $37,992,483.16 for patent infringement.
- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4actually, even though the Vista UI is not res-independant because the technology was being developed at the same time as the OS, it's 100% possible to create native res-independant apps in Vista today.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So if trade secrets are so bad in software, and so easy to reverse engineer as you say, why don't companies distribute their source code? Even after all their patents are up, they still dont give it out freely. Trade secrets are very important in software. If someone copies your binary code, that is a copyright infringement and illegal regardless of patents. Trade secrets are better for software because they don't expire. But if someone else figures out the same techniques on his own, good for him.
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/issues.article - MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Patents don't "protect the little guy,""
It sure the hell does if the little guy has a valid patent that some mega-corporation decided to infringe upon. Need I remind you how many times Microsoft (among many other large tech companies) have had to pay out big time for doing exactly that? - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Procedural graphics is NOT new. It may be new in an OS GUI, but that doesn't mean they should be able to patent it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats the beauty of it, it lets you have your interface any size you want...
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem with the patent is that it is not net, just recast as new. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Picking between multiple resolutions of bitmaps and interpolating the results has been called "MIP mapping" for longer than some of you have been alive. Procedural rendering of graphics elements is also very old. Combining the two has been done in the form of scenegraphs -- even 2D scenegraphs for user interfaces for decades. I personally wrote an OpenGL-based UI that rendered everything in (0,1) coordinates which was completely resolution independent. I didn't claim to have invented anything. I was simply using OpenGL.
If part of the patent is new, then only the new parts should be in the claims section. Including existing technologies just makes it more likely that some innocent schmuck will get sues for doing something that's standard practice. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"but that doesn't mean they should be able to patent it."
Yeah, but blame the Patent office, not Apple. If Apple didn't patent this because they think it shouldn't be patentable, they'll get sued by those that think it's patentable... - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hopefully, what Apple is trying to patent are some specific techniques that they have developed for resolution independent user interfaces.
While everyone else seems to be patenting everything under the sun (pre-existing or not), Apple needs to follow suit or risk losing the ability to make use of their own key technologies. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If Apple can get this patent, it means some other company could get it if Apple didn't apply for it.
This means, if Apple doesn't get it and it is patentable, they could get sued by the company that would get the patent.
The patent system is flawed, but Apple can't simply opt-out for the sake of it, because they would get continually sued by others for patents they didn't get. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But it is NOT a new methodology. Using procedural graphics is NOT new. The biggest reason to use procedures to draw something has always been resolution independence. The only thing possibly different about this use is WHERE it is used. So if you can get a patent to use procedural graphics in an OS GUI, is there a seperate patent to use it in a game, or spreadsheet app? NO. If there is ANYTHING at all patentable it is the use of procedural graphics in itself. But that has plenty of prior art and is a basic concept in computer graphics.
- bbrosemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you killinger for saying what i wanted to say however much longer.
- MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Killinger, they're patenting a unique combination of procedural graphics and resolution independence and whatever the rest of that technical mumbo-jumbo they're using. If someone already patented and/or invented this method, the patent will be denied. It isn't covering procedural graphics or resolution independence as a whole, just a particular methodology.
You have a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what a patent is and what it usually covers. Hit up Wikipedia. - sonicspike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Patents don't "protect the little guy," a patent is only worth as much as you can pay to defend it in a court of law. Thus, many business plans ignore them (at least during the short term.)
- terafnord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really hope this isn't going to force me to have a huge dock and icons and cute bubbly window borders taking up half my screen space- so that no matter how high I set the resolution, it's like working in 640x480 mode...
I want higher resolution so that things get smaller so I can fit more of them on the screen. - MagnetoWasRight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Prior art anyone?"
Read the article. It uses a completely different method. The patent is for that method of resolution independence. Prior art? Assuming that GNOME has its method patented, which it or the entity that created it likely does, it would not really have any bearing on Apple's patent or vice-versa.
This really isn't all that difficult to understand. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, and just look how much good it did them...
http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-6069612.html - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OK, thanks magneto you have proven you have no idea what this patent is about. Thanks
- tarball, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Prior Art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS
A windowing system developed by Sun Microsystems which used Postscript to draw the GUI - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Patenting general crap is the new get rich quick scheme.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No because its not vectors, read the article
- Ademan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2activex is the spawn of satan anyways...
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is