iamshack

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) Why would anyone buy P90x2? What was wrong with P90X? Seems like people are just falling for a typical refresh scam here...there was nothing wrong with P90X to the point that spending money on a "new version" is simply silly. If all it is, is a short/faster version, just speed up and jump higher. People waste so much money in this arena of life it's absurd to me. Ohh, a new protein drink came out, its 5X more expensive than this other one,but it's better because it's brand new and and shiny blue packaging. Oh well, not my money. Have you ever done P90X? Or any workout program, for that matter?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Is it closely resembling insanity in any way? I've not done insanity, so I don't know. From what I have seen in the commercials, my guess is some of the moves are more intense as in insanity, but there is not the same focus on kicking your ass in this as there was in Plyometrics or Insanity.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) Someone sued twitter because they had a patent for "electronic messaging between celebrities and fans". And honestly, part of the problem is that these people come to the patent office when these technologies are far off into the future and they seem more novel than they do to us now. Perhaps there could be a requirement for a working prototype or something? I know Apple patented the iPad in 2004 or something and it showed a drawing of a guy holding a rectangle table device. Well what the hell does that tell us? Nothing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) I'll have you know I swear in RL, so that's just how I talk. Also, I haven't been suspended in a long time. We've already made some key points on patents and what should be valid, such as specific implementations of a generalized idea. You're just ignoring them because you're a patent troll. I made a perfectly clear example of something that's patentable -- I.E. touch method of using swipe to unlock -- and you ignored it. So I re-posted what you ignored multiple times now, which will probably just get ignored again. Patenting that specific method of unlocking a touch based device and patenting ANY method of unlocking a touch based device are galaxies of difference. I can agree with that. As for the multi-touch screen you mentioned earlier, that technology was purchased by Apple from a company called FingerWorks, along with all their patents, the entire company, and the founders were hired to work for Apple. It's not like they stole it from the dufus at Microsoft. So tell me this...since you are obviously far more knowledgeable about this industry than me...if I come up with something like "slide to unlock", how difficult would it be for someone at say, HTC, to figure that out once he saw how it worked on my device?

Ptact, is this herpes thing even possible?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) The stated purpose of patents is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [...]." Yes, there should be protections for ideas that really are innovative and novel. I do not think that there should be protections for broad software concepts. Yes, to promote the progress of science and the arts. And yes, technological innovations fall under science.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) Nobody. I repeat, NOBODY here is saying that. You won't accept it, but everyone here is saying generalized broad based patents are BAD, and they are. Here are some examples of what we all consider generalized board based and bad patents: (which you obviously like because it seems you get paid defending this kind of bulls***) * apparatus used to move from one point to another in a box (tires) * apparatus used to open/close a slab of wood (doorknobs) This is the absurdity you CONTINUE to defend, over and over. You are literally defending the fact that some jackass awarded someone a patent on a f***ing hyperlink. Look, swipe to unlock, that's a good idea -- it's a LOCK -- but it's a new never thought of method of opening a touch based device...and it should be patentable. We aren't denying that. Note that's a VERY specific use patent, not to mention very well implemented. Yes, by all means, that specific implementation of it was great, so let them patent it. It's quite different from them patenting ANY/ALL method(s) of locking/unlocking a touch based device. This is the part you don't seem to get. What we are saying is don't extend that very specific implementation to the generalized version of "method of unlocking a touch screen device", period. Which would mean that NOBODY else could lock/unlock a touchscreen device regardless of how different their implementation is. We are against patenting general IDEAS, not specific implementations of ideas. It's like patenting the idea of a key, but no specific key, regardless of the fact that hundreds of different implementations/styles/kinds of keys exist. I think I've made enough perfectly clear examples for you to understand the difference now. You're trolling at this point. I've conceded three or four times now the point about the hyperlink. Why don't you actually read my posts instead of turning into the Incredible Hulk and spazzing out? And I am not trolling. I am asking all three of you what is patentable and what is not. I'm also asking what changes would you implement to the patent system. What you are doing is getting angry and swearing like you usually do. In about two hours you will probably berate me and get suspended for a week. You keep giving these broad examples as to what isn't patentable, but you are not saying what is patentable. You also are not mentioning how discontinuing software patents will or may stifle innovation. All I am trying to do is point out that this case you and SS and BMags are making is not as clear-cut as you might like to make it seem. But since I disagree with you, as usual, you are getting angry, which is par for the course with you.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 02:35 PM) I just thought it was funny when I saw it and thought Id share it. I guess I should have expected a comment like this though. You dont need a video game to tell you how bad the Bears offense is right now. The only real issue I have with the ratings is Hester being a better WR then Bennett, but Im sure that is just because of Hesters speed. I thought it was a pretty funny indictment on their offense, honestly. What was Cutler rated as?

Did Plyocide today. Same theme as the core workout. More athletic moves, higher intensity. But less of them. A shorter workout. Seems to have less of a focus on extreme conditioning but more of a focus on using muscles more explosively.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) Go ask an engineer. 1) They like building things. 2) They'll get hired as an engineer at a big firm. or 3) make a name for themselves among investors and start their own startup. I'm sure Albert Pujols likes playing baseball, too. Should he do it for peanuts because it's fun? Again, I am willing to concede that the job and goods markets have changed, i.e., inventors/innovators get rewarded more consistently and immediately these days. However, should there be no protection for someone who invents something innovative that truly revolutionizes an industry?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Lighten up, Francis. I threw out the fanboyism thing because you were focusing so much on how awesomely awesome Apple's innovations are and how they need protection from everyone stealing from them. It's wrong (see Nokia) and it is irrelevant to discussing whether we need software patents or not. This argument isn't about Apple or Google or Microsoft or any one company in particular. There you go again. Sorry. I bring up Apple because they have been the ones making the most innovations. And I am still waiting for you to address my questions and my points. You like to steer things in your way and condescendingly attack the people you are debating against, which is why I usually just ignore you. I guess I'll go back to that philosophy again now.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) You have to play to the elements though and the Steelers would argue that you don't need a strong aerial attack. Defense and being able to run the football is still very important to winning the superbowl. The Packers had an excellent defense last season to compliment there offense and they didn't take off until they started running the football effictively late last year (obviously they've done well this season without the rush, but in a cold weather, tough game, that rush attack is huge). Heck, the Pats haven't exactly lit the playoff world on fire the past few seasons. This is the second time I have seen this reference to the Steelers as being some sort of tough running outfit. They're not. They are a passing team that kills you with their speed at the WR position. I don't agree with J4L much, but he's right on this...the NFL is a passing league and the pass sets up the run, not vice versa. You can certainly succeed with a good running game, but you had better have an outstanding defense to go along with that running game. But when you get into the red zone, or if you get behind, watch out, because your running game isn't so valuable anymore.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) Apple is one player, do not focus on them. Like I said, they are also sued for infringement and buy millions upon millions of dollars worth of patents and licenses. Everything wrong with the software patent system doesn't revolve around Apple. Why is it that you are allowed to insult me, and then when I defend myself, you tell me not to focus on the point about which you insulted me?

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) Here's a good example, the pull down refresh. That is a very intuitive move that has been copied all over. It started out in one of twitter's third party apps. IT's been adopted pretty much universally. It's been good for everyone, and that person could have patented something like "scroll refresh" that was very vague, and sued everyone in existence. He has nothing beside a defunct app, but he could get money from every company. Is that good for anyone? Was he going to make a whole business on this? It's just silly to give patents for so long in a market like this, and for things that are so vague. So what reward did he get for that innovation? What is the incentive for people to create things like that if everyone is just going to steal it from you anyways? Ultimately, the world has changed, the market for goods has changed, technology has changed, etc. People who have the skills and the imaginations to create good products are usually rewarded in the job market or in the goods market in an immediate fashion that was not reality back when much of patent law was drafted and the case law was developed. I get that. The laws and protections need to be changed or updated. However, I still feel there needs to be some protection. There will always be some small innovators that maybe design one or two great things, whether they be large or small, that are so simple or such an improvement that everyone in that industry will utilize them. Those innovators need to be protected, otherwise their numbers will dwindle, along with their imaginations.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) So this boils down to Apple fanboyism? Plenty of companies bring technology to market and hold patents. It's not like Apple isn't constantly defending itself from patent infringement lawsuits or spending tens of millions or more on licensing them. Read that patent that started this discussion. It is a basic description of a pattern-analyzing algorithm that then turns matches into hyperlinks. It did not cost them millions of dollars to invent this. They didn't have to spend a dime to bring it to market if they wanted to sit on it and prevent others from doing so. It is a concept in someone's head, not a method of actually implementing it, and it shouldn't be protected. That's what that article was about. Apple sued HTC for violating their patent on clickable phone numbers in text messages. Apple is not alone in this, of course. Yes, software code is copyrighted. Much like a book, I couldn't take the whole chunk of code and rewrite a few segments and call it my own. My contention is that these basic concepts do not deserve any protection, any more than physical concepts of inventions or technologies do. I can copyright my story, but I can't patent a literally device or a plot line. Apple should not be allowed to bar HTC from independently devising their own system and method of clickable phone numbers, instead forcing them to pay a licensing fee or simply refusing to grant them a license. This is one specific example, but it is endemic to software patents. It's not an issue of Apple fanboyism. It's an issue of Apple being far and away the best innovators in media and media devices over the last decade, and as a function of that, them having innovation after innovation which has then been wholesale copied by the rest of the market. It bothers me that they would be required to spend the money to develop products that are better, only to have them copied within months of their release. That is not a great path to innovation in my opinion. Is the wheel on the iPod a patentable invention?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) What technology ultimately succeeds isn't that simple, but more or less I'd agree with that. It is much preferable to granting monopolies on simple concepts and allowing billions of dollars of rent-seeking. I agree in regards to the rent-seeking. As for the monopoly, perhaps the time should be lessened on software patents...perhaps something like 24 months would be more reasonable now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Well, you came up with the chair analogy, which I think perfectly demonstrates the problem with software patents and how they're fundamentally different from other patents. And it started with you saying that you didn't see anything wrong with Apple's hyperlink patent, and Y2HH and I trying to explain why we feel it's fundamentally a bad thing. No one is trying to make you look foolish. I don't know if software patents need to be heavily reformed or completely eliminated; I've seen convincing arguments on the later. I have not seen very many good arguments in favor of preserving them. Apple etc. are working within the confines of the law and exploiting it to their best advantage. I also do not blame them for amassing thousands upon thousands of defensive patents. I do blame them for engaging in patent trolling. I also blame the US Patent Office and the court systems for making such a mess of this in the first place. As a concept? No. How Apple implements that concept? Sure. Ok, I admit the phone number hyperlink is not the best example for the point I am trying to make. However, it does seem odd to me that one company seems to bring all these ideas to market (which costs millions of dollars, btw, another point Y2H conveniently passed over), when other companies did not. Apple has taken devices that really did suck, and improved them. As a result, they filed patents, which, IMO, should be protected. While some are more trivial than others, the point remains that their innovations cost millions of dollars and should provide them with more protection than simply the time it takes for someone else to reverse engineer their product and bring a copycat to market. Secondly, I am unaware of their patent trolling, so I have no comment on that. Thirdly, how Apple implements the concept is equivalent to what? Their exact software coding? It seems to me that that is almost no protection at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) Yes, apple is incentivised to do that. However, that incentive adversely affects the consumer and business. Apple, google, etc would probably take the trade off of loss of their patents in exchange for no more petty lawsuits of patent infringement by some guy that said he invented the text chat bubble in 1994. edit: no slide to lock should not be. When you have a touch screen phone, there are only so many things you could sensibly do to unlock. So then you are of the opinion that the market should offer the ultimate protection? Whomever designs the best product will ultimately make the most money?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 11:31 AM) Copyright the code, possibly allow patents for specific implementations of a concept instead of making basic concepts patentable. Why should Apple be given a patent for the 'novel' invention of what is essentially a hyperlink? Why should they be allowed to extract money from anyone who wants to use this very basic concept? What good does that serve anyone aside from Apple shareholders? Patents were created in order to protect the profit incentive for inventors, not to give companies the ability to hold monopoly on concepts. I am not claiming that it does. You have taken this argument and turned it into what you are arguing and what you hope I will argue so that you can make me look foolish. What I have argued is that there has to be some sort of protection available. Without it, there will also be negative consequences, which, conveniently, you have failed to recognize. I agree that the patent office is antiquated, and seemingly has struggled to keep up with modern technology. The system needs to be overhauled so as to address many of the concerns you and Y2H have mentioned. However, they are trying to follow the case law, as well as their guidelines, and the companies are incentivized to throw every application at them that they can, because there is no downside other than the fees. I can't blame Apple or any other company for trying to create as much protection under the law as they possibly can. So let me ask you this question: Are you of the opinion that the "slide to unlock" feature is patentable?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) This unintentionally works even better as an analogy for software, as the patent office will grant patents for existing technologies and ideas that may already be covered under another broad patent. Some google searching seems to call into question whether Olds was ever granted that patent. I would be very surprised to learn that it patented the basic concept of an assembly line, and I would be curious as to how Ford got around it if that were the case. How would you suggest there is any protection for software innovations then?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) And I can build a massage chair that's a little different from your massage chair and not violate any patents, since I haven't copied your implementation but just the concept. Does Apple really deserve a 20 year hold (or however long the patent is for) on the concept of making a phone number clickable on a phone? How is this really any more novel than automatic email address recognition and linking? How does this help society and our economy as a whole to give one company such a broad monopoly? I think it's notable that a good portion of the software development community is strongly against software patents. Bulls***. It's very likely that there is some sort of technology in my massage chair that you have to pay me for in order to utilize. You guys are completely ignoring the fact that patents don't make these technologies unavailable to others, they require others to pay a fee to utilize them. There are plenty of technologies that Apple uses, for instance, that they did not invent. What they do, however, is buy the entire company, including its patents, and even go as far as taking the designers and putting them on their payroll. There are many, many inventors who patented something and then sold it to major companies.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) Reverse engineering goes back to antiquity. Do you honestly support a system where you can patent the broad concept of something, never make any attempts to actually design or market something utilizing that concept, and then sue anyone who later makes something that infringes on your patent? Who came out with the first disc brakes for cars? Should they have been allowed to hold a 20 year patent on that concept? What about the concept of using an electric starter to start a car instead of a hand-crank? Should that be patentable? If not, why should software concepts be given such broad protections? edit: better example, should Henry Ford have been able to patent the concept of an assembly line utilizing interchangeable parts for manufacturing? That is the scope that many of these software patents cover. The assembly line was patented, by Ransom Olds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) That's more or less the entire history of technological innovation, though. Is my understanding wrong that, outside of software patents, it is the actual implementation of the concept that is patented? The problem is in the way software or software innovations are created versus how more tangible inventions are created, would be my guess. I am not a software writer or anything, but my guess is I could write a code for something like this that is just slightly different than the way someone else wrote it to accomplish the same goal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) If we want to compare your analogy here, then we need to be able to patent the concept of a massage chair without actually designing a functional massage chair or making any efforts to do so, and the patent needs to cover any implementation whatsoever of a chair that massages you, allowing you to patent-troll anyone who tries to market a massage chair. Even if the concept was already executed years or decades before you were granted your patent. Apple's "invention" here is no more novel than a weblink, which allows "you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly." Do you honestly support a system where I can simply buy your invention, take it apart, figure out how it works, and then rebuild it and sell it? That's what companies were doing with some of Apple's technology.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 20, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) It's beyond antiquated. It wasn't written with software in mind, because it was enacted BEFORE anyone thought of patenting software based ideas. It has to be rewritten completely in light of the newer technologies and realities that exist. Applying an out of date method of law to a modern idea does not and cannot work...hence why the lawsuits we are seeing are as absurd as they are. I don't disagree. Am I allowed to do that? But there has to be some protection. When I see something designed that is head over heels better than any product that has come to market, and then suddenly a year later, all the products on the market are basically mimicking that product because all the other companies reverse engineered it, I think that is wrong.