Ah, yes, that Windows ecosystem. The horror of unlimited hardware choice and much bigger apps and games library. Unbearable.
Really, to me that sounds as something from "Get a Mac" commercials. I don't have a problem accepting people are perfectly happy with Apple's business model, but likewise, there are people happy with how MS is doing (and I would expect there are more of them even if you cut out people "forced" to use Windows).
Generalising is really short-sighted.
Oh yeah, that old "Windows has all the software" thing that holds true right up until you start talking about phone apps, at which point it magically turns into "what's the point of a million apps if they're crap, I can get everything I need."
Yes, just like the M-V-C and Factory Patterns came straight from Brad Cox and his book Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
I can guarantee you the Gang of Four will be called to testify.
But having patents on these things is just absurd, it's like having a patent on an iterative loop or conditional statement. All the patterns in the Design Patterns book are used extensively by any moderately competent object oriented developer. There must be thousands, probably millions, of commercial products that make use of these patterns but Apple isn't suing them. Imagine if the 'Gang of Four' book were prefaced by: "OK, here's some really cool and useful ways to improve your OO development, but you can't use them because Apple has patents on all of them and will sue you if you do". The existence of the book makes it implicit that the design patterns are in the public domain and free to be used by anyone in whatever way they choose, whether for commercial purposes or not.
As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't have a problem with Apple protecting their genuine IP, but going after HTC/Google because they used the Observer pattern is just ridiculous.
Finally, to people like addabox who say that it's the specific implementation that's in dispute, rather than the general 'idea', that is obviously nonsense. If that were the case it implies that Google reverse engineered OS X/iPhone OS to copy Apple's specific way of implementing the Observer pattern rather than develop their own. The idea that Google doesn't have any coders talented enough to implement the Observer pattern from scratch is simply laughable.
That's the business model Android uses, gather information about you so you can be targeted with Ads.
Enjoy.
wtf IT'S L-O-S-E NOT L-O-O-S-E!
I'm sure Apple depends heavily on the revenue generated by selling updated versions of iPhone OS.
So how's the Android 2.1 looking on older devices?
When are they going to push it out to the HTC Magic I occasionally use.
btw Ubuntu kiddy distro sucks, Gnome Sucks, Gentoo and KDE all the way.
Google brings me ads I want to see, and keeps all the crap I don't care about away from me. How is that not better? I like seeing/purchasing tech stuff. Most of the ads I come across are tech related. Works for me? If I'm going to come across ads, I'd rather they be related to me, and not ads for Disney movies, dolls etc. You don't think apple is going to do the same once they get into the mobile ad business? It's just a smart move. I don't shop for electronics at KOHLS. So when I walk into a store, what do I want to see?
FYI Android looks good on the Magic. Runs kind of slow on my G1. No telling when they'll roll it out.
All this patent lawsuit/fanboy crap is dumb. How much is all this going to cost that could be used for R&D? I'm all for stealing ideas. The iphone really could use Android's notification shade. I'm an android fan, but what do I care. Take it APPLE! It would make the iphone so much better. This fanboy protecting their company crap is stupid.
Bottom line, are these patents going to help us as consumers, or hurt us? Who cares about these companies. Apple and Google both have some awesome phones. I wish the Nexus One and Iphone would have sex with eachother and give us one super-duper ultra phone.
But maybe that's just me? I'm an android user (but I keep my hawkeye on the Iphone), but just give me an awesome phone and everyone can call it a day.
But having patents on these things is just absurd, it's like having a patent on an iterative loop or conditional statement. All the patterns in the Design Patterns book are used extensively by any moderately competent object oriented developer. There must be thousands, probably millions, of commercial products that make use of these patterns but Apple isn't suing them. Imagine if the 'Gang of Four' book were prefaced by: "OK, here's some really cool and useful ways to improve your OO development, but you can't use them because Apple has patents on all of them and will sue you if you do". The existence of the book makes it implicit that the design patterns are in the public domain and free to be used by anyone in whatever way they choose, whether for commercial purposes or not.
As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't have a problem with Apple protecting their genuine IP, but going after HTC/Google because they used the Observer pattern is just ridiculous.
Finally, to people like addabox who say that it's the specific implementation that's in dispute, rather than the general 'idea', that is obviously nonsense. If that were the case it implies that Google reverse engineered OS X/iPhone OS to copy Apple's specific way of implementing the Observer pattern rather than develop their own. The idea that Google doesn't have any coders talented enough to implement the Observer pattern from scratch is simply laughable.
Big companies don't sue just because they own a patent, big companies sue when the dollars involved are big enough. Once the decision is made they pick the most foolproof patents they can as the basis of the suit.
To me it looks like Apple is using several defensive patents offensively because Android and it's Linux base isn't particularly well patent protected. And Apple is digging at a low enough level that the Android team will be very disrupted if Apple is successful, even though the Android team isn't party to the suit. Saying it looks silly because post-patent somebody else wrote a book about the patented ideas doesn't change anything.
And remember Apple isn't guessing about any of Android's implementations. Apple can see it ALL. It's Open Source! So to argue that Google must have had good enough coders to do it differently than described in a patent is a very weak argument, one that ignores the fact that the disputed implementations are already out in full view.
Ah, Rot'nApple ... are you even vaguely aware of how your anti-intellectualism reflects Leninism. Like Glen Beck, you make a virtue of ignorance and blame the "elite" for for its socialist, leftist ideals, yet liberalism is not the problem, authoritarianism is. And blaming Al Gore as being economically biased is dumb if you don't also blame Sen. Inhofe or the oil companies as well.
You may like Dennis Miller's sarcasm and I used to like his humor very much, but after 9/11 he became afraid of free thinking and liberalism. He prefers traditional patriarchy over personal responsibility. He likes being an iconoclast over being just and being a making sound bytes over making accurate statements.
I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people, but so did Mao and so did Stalin and they kicked the "hoity toighty" to the gulag and the rice fields to keep them from calling bs on the communist system. You probably don't want to go down that road.
I know academia tends to lean left and people in ivory towers can have an aggravating disconnect from the "real world," but are they really the one's who hurt society the most? Did they invent global warming or extinct salmon runs or deforestation or Wall Street meltdowns or terrorism?!?! Just admit that business and the military tend to lean right and deal with the balance that needs to happen.
No, greed and ignorance, arrogance and anger, fear and irresponsibility did those things. Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions. Unfortunately decades ago universities and business realized that they could work together to push innovation AND create a profit and the line between the two has become more and more blurred.
So think a bit before throwing idiotic statements around. Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with.
Just be intellectually honest.
Oh man, so many things to correct. I'll just pick a few, because, as Jack Nicholson's character said in "A Few Good Men", 'I have neither the time, nor the inclination...' to enlighten you to all the errors of your way of thinking. You seem to be a lost cause. But I will try...
Location: "Stumptown, with the nation's highest concentration of brewpubs, stripclubs,..."
First, you need to move to a place that has fewer brewpubs and strip clubs and try the real world for a change.
I can tell by the selection of names Beck, Reagan, Bush that it is YOU who is the one being intellectually dishonest... And by idiotic statements do you mean like "I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people"??? Wasn't it the intellectual elite and the leftist political machine, along with the "simpatico" press with their lack of skills in objectivity because they are graduating from Ivy League 'Schools of Journalism" where they learned nothing journalistic, virtually espoused that Reagan was a cowboy 'idiot' and Bush was a 'wimp'? Open your eyes my friend and THINK!
"Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions." Academia, without a financial stake, tries to find solutions... don't just give me meaningless words that make you sound like an intellectual whose superior intelligence will save the day! Back it up, my lover of words mouthpiece, by giving some examples of this statement! Of course there WILL be a money trail to follow, either corporate, political or both!
"Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with." See that is the trouble with you intellects. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade and not make excuses under the guise of knowledge and that the world must be fair so we must all subscribe to 'Political Correctness'. Far too long has the average person been beguiled by such. Do you think you will find that truism from those in academia that just ooze 'intellectualism'? Not to mention the brainwashed, dry well of intellect, of "educated" people coming out with a journalism or teaching degree that are either toting the 'Intellectual' line by what we read in the press or indoctrinating todays students that would have made Goebbels proud!
I have only the vaguest awareness of what "Ubuntu" us, but stipulating for sake of argument that you're right and that product also infringes … who is Apple supposed to sue, exactly? Linux is a bunch of kids in basements. It's the IP equivalent of a botnet. Merely tracking them all down would be a huge investment of time and money, much less filing suit against all of them.
Red Hat 5.3B Market Cap, 748.24M Revenue
Novell 2.08B Market Cap (Heh...smaller than RH), 838M Revenue
IBM, 159.93B Market Cap, 96B Revenue
HP, 106B Market Cap, 120.39B Revenue
Ubuntu is closely associated with Canonical, LTD, a privately held company. They have about $30M in revenue and was funded by Shuttleworth (the Thawte/VeriSign guy). Certainly they are a much softer target than IBM or Red Hat.
Linux hasn't been a geek endeavor for several years even if most FSF folks hate to admit that. Look at the kernel commit logs to see who's paying for what and you can see the bulk of the commits are made by corporate coders. Not just the kernel either. Obviously RHEL and SLES are corporate maintained.
You can argue that Linux is only a portion of the revenue stream for IBM, HP and Novell but Red Hat is pretty much a pure Linux company.
Comments
Ah, yes, that Windows ecosystem. The horror of unlimited hardware choice and much bigger apps and games library. Unbearable.
Really, to me that sounds as something from "Get a Mac" commercials. I don't have a problem accepting people are perfectly happy with Apple's business model, but likewise, there are people happy with how MS is doing (and I would expect there are more of them even if you cut out people "forced" to use Windows).
Generalising is really short-sighted.
Oh yeah, that old "Windows has all the software" thing that holds true right up until you start talking about phone apps, at which point it magically turns into "what's the point of a million apps if they're crap, I can get everything I need."
Yes, just like the M-V-C and Factory Patterns came straight from Brad Cox and his book Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach.
I can guarantee you the Gang of Four will be called to testify.
But having patents on these things is just absurd, it's like having a patent on an iterative loop or conditional statement. All the patterns in the Design Patterns book are used extensively by any moderately competent object oriented developer. There must be thousands, probably millions, of commercial products that make use of these patterns but Apple isn't suing them. Imagine if the 'Gang of Four' book were prefaced by: "OK, here's some really cool and useful ways to improve your OO development, but you can't use them because Apple has patents on all of them and will sue you if you do". The existence of the book makes it implicit that the design patterns are in the public domain and free to be used by anyone in whatever way they choose, whether for commercial purposes or not.
As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't have a problem with Apple protecting their genuine IP, but going after HTC/Google because they used the Observer pattern is just ridiculous.
Finally, to people like addabox who say that it's the specific implementation that's in dispute, rather than the general 'idea', that is obviously nonsense. If that were the case it implies that Google reverse engineered OS X/iPhone OS to copy Apple's specific way of implementing the Observer pattern rather than develop their own. The idea that Google doesn't have any coders talented enough to implement the Observer pattern from scratch is simply laughable.
Why don't you buy a Nokia with Meamo???
Why buy an HTC with an advertising supported OS.
That's the business model Android uses, gather information about you so you can be targeted with Ads.
Enjoy.
wtf IT'S L-O-S-E NOT L-O-O-S-E!
I'm sure Apple depends heavily on the revenue generated by selling updated versions of iPhone OS.
So how's the Android 2.1 looking on older devices?
When are they going to push it out to the HTC Magic I occasionally use.
btw Ubuntu kiddy distro sucks, Gnome Sucks, Gentoo and KDE all the way.
Google brings me ads I want to see, and keeps all the crap I don't care about away from me. How is that not better? I like seeing/purchasing tech stuff. Most of the ads I come across are tech related. Works for me? If I'm going to come across ads, I'd rather they be related to me, and not ads for Disney movies, dolls etc. You don't think apple is going to do the same once they get into the mobile ad business? It's just a smart move. I don't shop for electronics at KOHLS. So when I walk into a store, what do I want to see?
FYI Android looks good on the Magic. Runs kind of slow on my G1. No telling when they'll roll it out.
All this patent lawsuit/fanboy crap is dumb. How much is all this going to cost that could be used for R&D? I'm all for stealing ideas. The iphone really could use Android's notification shade. I'm an android fan, but what do I care. Take it APPLE! It would make the iphone so much better. This fanboy protecting their company crap is stupid.
Bottom line, are these patents going to help us as consumers, or hurt us? Who cares about these companies. Apple and Google both have some awesome phones. I wish the Nexus One and Iphone would have sex with eachother and give us one super-duper ultra phone.
But maybe that's just me? I'm an android user (but I keep my hawkeye on the Iphone), but just give me an awesome phone and everyone can call it a day.
But having patents on these things is just absurd, it's like having a patent on an iterative loop or conditional statement. All the patterns in the Design Patterns book are used extensively by any moderately competent object oriented developer. There must be thousands, probably millions, of commercial products that make use of these patterns but Apple isn't suing them. Imagine if the 'Gang of Four' book were prefaced by: "OK, here's some really cool and useful ways to improve your OO development, but you can't use them because Apple has patents on all of them and will sue you if you do". The existence of the book makes it implicit that the design patterns are in the public domain and free to be used by anyone in whatever way they choose, whether for commercial purposes or not.
As I said in my first post on this thread, I don't have a problem with Apple protecting their genuine IP, but going after HTC/Google because they used the Observer pattern is just ridiculous.
Finally, to people like addabox who say that it's the specific implementation that's in dispute, rather than the general 'idea', that is obviously nonsense. If that were the case it implies that Google reverse engineered OS X/iPhone OS to copy Apple's specific way of implementing the Observer pattern rather than develop their own. The idea that Google doesn't have any coders talented enough to implement the Observer pattern from scratch is simply laughable.
Big companies don't sue just because they own a patent, big companies sue when the dollars involved are big enough. Once the decision is made they pick the most foolproof patents they can as the basis of the suit.
To me it looks like Apple is using several defensive patents offensively because Android and it's Linux base isn't particularly well patent protected. And Apple is digging at a low enough level that the Android team will be very disrupted if Apple is successful, even though the Android team isn't party to the suit. Saying it looks silly because post-patent somebody else wrote a book about the patented ideas doesn't change anything.
And remember Apple isn't guessing about any of Android's implementations. Apple can see it ALL. It's Open Source! So to argue that Google must have had good enough coders to do it differently than described in a patent is a very weak argument, one that ignores the fact that the disputed implementations are already out in full view.
Ah, Rot'nApple ... are you even vaguely aware of how your anti-intellectualism reflects Leninism. Like Glen Beck, you make a virtue of ignorance and blame the "elite" for for its socialist, leftist ideals, yet liberalism is not the problem, authoritarianism is. And blaming Al Gore as being economically biased is dumb if you don't also blame Sen. Inhofe or the oil companies as well.
You may like Dennis Miller's sarcasm and I used to like his humor very much, but after 9/11 he became afraid of free thinking and liberalism. He prefers traditional patriarchy over personal responsibility. He likes being an iconoclast over being just and being a making sound bytes over making accurate statements.
I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people, but so did Mao and so did Stalin and they kicked the "hoity toighty" to the gulag and the rice fields to keep them from calling bs on the communist system. You probably don't want to go down that road.
I know academia tends to lean left and people in ivory towers can have an aggravating disconnect from the "real world," but are they really the one's who hurt society the most? Did they invent global warming or extinct salmon runs or deforestation or Wall Street meltdowns or terrorism?!?! Just admit that business and the military tend to lean right and deal with the balance that needs to happen.
No, greed and ignorance, arrogance and anger, fear and irresponsibility did those things. Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions. Unfortunately decades ago universities and business realized that they could work together to push innovation AND create a profit and the line between the two has become more and more blurred.
So think a bit before throwing idiotic statements around. Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with.
Just be intellectually honest.
Oh man, so many things to correct. I'll just pick a few, because, as Jack Nicholson's character said in "A Few Good Men", 'I have neither the time, nor the inclination...' to enlighten you to all the errors of your way of thinking. You seem to be a lost cause. But I will try...
Location: "Stumptown, with the nation's highest concentration of brewpubs, stripclubs,..."
First, you need to move to a place that has fewer brewpubs and strip clubs and try the real world for a change.
I can tell by the selection of names Beck, Reagan, Bush that it is YOU who is the one being intellectually dishonest... And by idiotic statements do you mean like "I know Reagan and Bush made it cool to disparage smart people"??? Wasn't it the intellectual elite and the leftist political machine, along with the "simpatico" press with their lack of skills in objectivity because they are graduating from Ivy League 'Schools of Journalism" where they learned nothing journalistic, virtually espoused that Reagan was a cowboy 'idiot' and Bush was a 'wimp'? Open your eyes my friend and THINK!
"Academia in an imperfect way tries to study these things and ideally without a financial stake in the game tries to find solutions." Academia, without a financial stake, tries to find solutions... don't just give me meaningless words that make you sound like an intellectual whose superior intelligence will save the day! Back it up, my lover of words mouthpiece, by giving some examples of this statement! Of course there WILL be a money trail to follow, either corporate, political or both!
"Where academics show political or military bias, that should be pointed out, but not by blaming intellectualism. Try using knowledge rather than blaming those who you don't agree with." See that is the trouble with you intellects. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade and not make excuses under the guise of knowledge and that the world must be fair so we must all subscribe to 'Political Correctness'. Far too long has the average person been beguiled by such. Do you think you will find that truism from those in academia that just ooze 'intellectualism'? Not to mention the brainwashed, dry well of intellect, of "educated" people coming out with a journalism or teaching degree that are either toting the 'Intellectual' line by what we read in the press or indoctrinating todays students that would have made Goebbels proud!
WAKE UP!!!! YOU ARE DREAMING!!!
I have only the vaguest awareness of what "Ubuntu" us, but stipulating for sake of argument that you're right and that product also infringes … who is Apple supposed to sue, exactly? Linux is a bunch of kids in basements. It's the IP equivalent of a botnet. Merely tracking them all down would be a huge investment of time and money, much less filing suit against all of them.
Red Hat 5.3B Market Cap, 748.24M Revenue
Novell 2.08B Market Cap (Heh...smaller than RH), 838M Revenue
IBM, 159.93B Market Cap, 96B Revenue
HP, 106B Market Cap, 120.39B Revenue
Ubuntu is closely associated with Canonical, LTD, a privately held company. They have about $30M in revenue and was funded by Shuttleworth (the Thawte/VeriSign guy). Certainly they are a much softer target than IBM or Red Hat.
Linux hasn't been a geek endeavor for several years even if most FSF folks hate to admit that. Look at the kernel commit logs to see who's paying for what and you can see the bulk of the commits are made by corporate coders. Not just the kernel either. Obviously RHEL and SLES are corporate maintained.
You can argue that Linux is only a portion of the revenue stream for IBM, HP and Novell but Red Hat is pretty much a pure Linux company.