Apple loses patent-infringement trial over Cover Flow, Time Machine

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 130
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Umm guys that's 0.05, not 0.5. In Biology/Molecular Biology anyways it just means your results are statistically "significant". Which essentially means that if you have any data where p > 0.05 your data is shite and worthless, go back and do another several hundred hours of experiments until you get a "result". BTW this is what I remember anyways from my Honours year (4th year of Bachelors Degree) thesis. Oh, the painful memories...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro;


    Really, probably? How did you determine P > 0.5?



    How about the student's thesis?



    Gelernter could even have applied for a patent and given the technology away if a patent was actually awarded. If a patent wasn't awarded, his application would still be published by the US PTO and become included in prior art.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram;


    He should 'give the technology away' because he is an academic?



    And, I have no idea what a 'student's thesis' or p > 0.5 have to do with anything. You completely lost me there.



    Add: Something is not 'probable' only if (or because) p > 0.5.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro;


    I was just quoting from his own interview.





    Ah, but you wrote "probably", which means something very different than probable.



  • Reply 102 of 130
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,986member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Um guys that's 0.05, not 0.5. In Biology/Molecular Biology anyways it just means your results are statistically "significant". Which essentially means that if you have any data where p > 0.05 your data is shite and worthless, go back and do another several hundred hours of experiments until you get a "result". BTW this is what I remember anyways from my Honours year (4th year of Bachelors Degree) thesis. Oh, the painful memories...



    And who said what you remember is correct?



    We weren't talking about confidence intervals.
  • Reply 103 of 130
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    And who said what you remember is correct?



    We weren't talking about confidence intervals.



    I remembered correct. But I see you're just talking about something happening more than 50% of the time. Which is quite an abstract way to say you disagree with anantksundaram's post.
  • Reply 104 of 130
    As was said apple bought cover flow via catfish. This was also a big ui thing discussed in the 80s.



    I too know a lot of college professors and there are a lot of a.holes there, and idiots too.



    I also wonder how much input the prof. had and how much the Phd student, by my experience a lot of time the weight is on the latter side... Get the one with the best idea and have him do a phd with you.



    Plus all that disingenuous righteous anger by the prof. sounds very, very fishy. If his patents did hold any weight how come he contained his anger for so long since '99, did he have word maybe that apple would implement them more extensively system wide and thus he'd make more $$$?



    Pay the patent troll, and move on, as others said.
  • Reply 105 of 130
    himokohimoko Posts: 32member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    If it's true then Apple must pay up. How much is such a technology worth? The story didn't say anything about damages being awarded or the disposition of the future usage of the technology. What's up?





    We Know NOW " VILLAIN of VILLAINS OF WALL STREET (ROTHCHILEDE) " and Their Proteges, Lackays and Bagmen, YOU NAME IT!!!!!!!!, HAVE STARTED to " MANIPULATE " Apple's Stock AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    Apple's Stock Holders SHOULD be " VIGILANT "!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    AppleInsider, These Days, You HAVED MISSED SO MANY SIGNIFICANT TOPICS on Apple.





    ARE YOU WORKING for WHO???????????????????????
  • Reply 106 of 130
    himokohimoko Posts: 32member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by HIMOKO View Post


    We Know NOW " VILLAIN of VILLAINS OF WALL STREET (ROTHCHILEDE) " and Their Proteges, Lackays and Bagmen, YOU NAME IT!!!!!!!!, HAVE STARTED to " MANIPULATE " Apple's Stock AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    Apple's Stock Holders SHOULD be " VIGILANT "!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    AppleInsider, These Days, You HAVED MISSED SO MANY SIGNIFICANT TOPICS on Apple.





    ARE YOU WORKING for WHO???????????????????????







    " Story of HERE in U.S. "?????????????????



    YOU, AMERICAN ( Especially Ordinary Stock Investors ), SHOULD SAY,



    " ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    GET ROTHCHILDE OUT OF LAND OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ".



    Apple's Stock Drastically DOWN more Than 10 $ Last Week!



    WHY???????????



    Was There Any " BAD NEWS " for Apple???????????????????



    NO, ON The CONTRARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    THE NUMBER of Pre-Order of Newly i-Phone 4 Launched Countries As Follows:





    South Korea ( Home Land of Samsung and LG ) 300.000



    Taiwan ( HomeLande of HTC ) 200.000



    Main Land China 200.000



    Thai Land 100.000



    Philippin 100.000



    Malaysia 100.000





    ONLY Pre-Oder HIT A MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    And THESE ANOTHER COUNTRIES FOLLOWED The SUIT So " ENTHUSIASTICALLY WELCOMED "!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    South Africa, Russia, Israel, Brasil, Argentine, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, Hungary, Romania, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey etc. etc.





    So, WHAT'S The PROBLEM of Apple????????????????????



    The REAL PROBLEM is " Cain " of 21st Century!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    STOP THOSE " High Frequency Traders " of ONES of Rothchilde's Lackay SUCH AS " Getco " to MANIPULATE Apple's Stock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





    REALLY FED UP, We Apple's Stock Holders SHOULD SPEAK OUT LOUD, Posing THE QUESTION, " Present U.S. Stock Market is Really DISTORTED by VILLAINS of WALL STREET "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Reply 107 of 130
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by knwbuddy View Post


    You can win using a petard. Or you can use a petard that cannot help you win - an unwinable petard.



    Or something like that.



    LOL, a stretch but well done for trying. If you simply swap 'petard' for 'bomb' (which it is kind of) try the same logic. I was just pulling the leg of the writer who was being a little pompous in his use of English and slipped up.
  • Reply 108 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Being a professor implies one thing. Persistence to finish the doctorate. That's it.



    nope. That is just the beginning.



    Once hired by a university, the individual must then work his tail off to prove he is a recognized member of the community. Which means bringing in big research $$$, writing a ton of papers to respected journals, getting published over and over. The first 2-3 years of a new professors life makes the doctorale defense a fond memory. Getting tenured is a tough battle.



    Those individuals who don't want to do that sort of thing soon find themselves jobless.
  • Reply 109 of 130
    davendaven Posts: 637member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    I also wonder how much input the prof. had and how much the Phd student, by my experience a lot of time the weight is on the latter side... Get the one with the best idea and have him do a phd with you.



    My experience in graduate school was the latter. I developed an optimization routine that was 25% faster than anything out there at the time as minor part of my thesis. The concept and math caused a glaze in my professor's eyes but that didn't stop him publishing it as his own!!! He also taught numerical optimization which I took and corrected him many times during his lectures. Note to graduate students - do not correct your major professors, it really pisses them off.
  • Reply 110 of 130
    coolcatcoolcat Posts: 156member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    Frankly, I think apple could drop CoverFlow completely and no one would notice.



    Speak for yourself!
  • Reply 111 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by knwbuddy View Post


    Help me out. Doesn't that mean that something is "more probable than not"?



    Why isn't that "probable"?



    Sure, happy to.



    'Probable' can just as likely mean 'likely' (non-zero probability) as it can 'more likely than not' (probability greater than half).
  • Reply 112 of 130
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    How do you win a petard? Just curious.



    The same way you win a queupie doll. It's a thing. A nasty little thing you can hurt yourself with if you are careless.
  • Reply 113 of 130
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tmarks11 View Post


    nope. That is just the beginning.



    Once hired by a university, the individual must then work his tail off to prove he is a recognized member of the community. Which means bringing in big research $$$, writing a ton of papers to respected journals, getting published over and over. The first 2-3 years of a new professors life makes the doctorale defense a fond memory. Getting tenured is a tough battle.



    Those individuals who don't want to do that sort of thing soon find themselves jobless.



    You have no idea of the reality do you. (statement, not question) Writing papers doesn't require intelligence, it requires persistence, and a few students. And sometimes a willingness to cheapen your research by splitting one paper into two or three submitted to several journals simultaneously. Those tactics which are all too successfully chasing tenure are anything but driven by intelligence. No that isn't the only way, there are plenty of solid researchers that do things the right way, but the micro thread you are joining into is about whether professors are automagically "smart" -- just because they are professors. And the answer to that is resoundingly NO.



    Tenure is all too often more a social thing that an achievement thing. If you do well at parties with the Dean and Provost, you can be quite mediocre and get tenure. You just need to have published enough and have a couple other senior faculty plead your case. It works the other way too, if you actively suck at the parties and meetings, but roughly challenge senior faculty dogma you can find yourself asked to leave even when the research is solid.



    For the majority of the tenured faculty, neither of the above situations apply. They work hard and honestly. Your late to the fray points also don't say anything about the inherent intelligence of a professor as tundraboy tried to assert back on page 1. That's the context of the exchange and bringing up a side-point doesn't do anything to affect the original question/response at all.
  • Reply 114 of 130
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    Gelernter could even have applied for a patent and given the technology away if a patent was actually awarded. If a patent wasn't awarded, his application would still be published by the US PTO and become included in prior art.



    His name is on three of the patents listed.
  • Reply 115 of 130
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveN View Post


    He also taught numerical optimization which I took and corrected him many times during his lectures. Note to graduate students - do not correct your major professors, it really pisses them off.



    Or instead, do it in his office, where he is not called out in public...
  • Reply 116 of 130
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    You have no idea of the reality do you. (statement, not question) Writing papers doesn't require intelligence, it requires persistence, and a few students. And sometimes a willingness to cheapen your research by splitting one paper into two or three submitted to several journals simultaneously. Those tactics which are all too successfully chasing tenure are anything but driven by intelligence. No that isn't the only way, there are plenty of solid researchers that do things the right way, but the micro thread you are joining into is about whether professors are automagically "smart" -- just because they are professors. And the answer to that is resoundingly NO.



    Tenure is all too often more a social thing that an achievement thing. If you do well at parties with the Dean and Provost, you can be quite mediocre and get tenure. You just need to have published enough and have a couple other senior faculty plead your case. It works the other way too, if you actively suck at the parties and meetings, but roughly challenge senior faculty dogma you can find yourself asked to leave even when the research is solid.



    For the majority of the tenured faculty, neither of the above situations apply. They work hard and honestly. Your late to the fray points also don't say anything about the inherent intelligence of a professor as tundraboy tried to assert back on page 1. That's the context of the exchange and bringing up a side-point doesn't do anything to affect the original question/response at all.



    I am willing to bet that you are in the humanities or social sciences or are at a 2nd tier school, as what you describe has very little bearing on the tenure process in the sciences, or at a top tier school. Having done the tenure grind in the sciences, the simple fact is that, without multiple publications and at least one R01 grant, you can start looking for a new job. No amount of kiss ass at departmental parties, favorable teacher ratings or committee work will change that simple fact.



    If you have enough grant money, you can still be an ass and they will give you tenure. It is all about the money in the sciences.
  • Reply 117 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post


    and nobody even bothers to consider that maybe someone else came up with the same idea independently.



    That point is completely irrelevant under patent law. And I'm grateful. We had a great idea, and someone else made noise about us stealing their idea. After rummaging through the prior art, we discovered the same idea had appeared in another patent, and an expired patent at that. One troll butted right off the bridge.



    You only get to patent an idea once, and if someone else in a different field comes up with it again 18 years later, too bad.
  • Reply 118 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post


    Or instead, do it in his office, where he is not called out in public...



    Correct. I recall a similar incident during Tensor Calculus/Vector Analysis when the prof couldn't explain his manifold derivations and how he came to his "obvious" conclusion.



    Of course, I expected more seeing as it was a class of 20 and it was full of Mechanical Engineers, Physicists and more who have already graduated in their respective fields and expected a little more than that for our money.



    I was spoiled with several M.E. professors who weren't just academics and they taught us 3 ways to solve a problem.



    This professor was demoted from the School of Electrical Engineering, to the School of Pure and Applied Mathematics, for his lack of Research and it became clear he didn't like the knock [he spent more than one occasion taking shots at his former peers--all of whom were actually laughing behind his back] by professing his superior mathematical skills to his former colleagues and I just couldn't help myself by taking him up on this prowess and expecting him to put on a demonstration.



    He couldn't deliver the goods and he didn't like the humiliation.



    Even professors need to keep their skills current, especially those pesky derivation and algebra skills.
  • Reply 119 of 130
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Well, my only experience is during my undergraduate years and my honours thesis at Molecular Bio labs. Wet lab Biology is pretty much about experiment, experiment, experiment and hope your data is "meaningful" ie. publishable. My Honours year was under a non-teaching Professor that had published in the big ones - Science, Nature, PNAS, and also in other second-tier(?) journals.



    Anything to do with Math and Physics at university level scares the hell out of me. That's why I went with Biology, kinda a pre-Med thing was my idea at the time.



    The summer project thingy I did was part of a paper (second-tier(?)) that was published, the head of the lab put my name on it... In Molecular Bio it's standard practice for papers to list the primary investigators first, then research assistants, then the lab head at the end of the list of names. Or something like that IIRC.



    In my summer project and my honours year I didn't know anyone that got shafted majorly by not having their name on papers. There were politics and other weird sh1t going on like any academic or corporate setting, but these were quite reputable labs that I was at.



    I could do the literature review, connect the dots, and so on, at least... During the late 90's Molecular Biology was about how different proteins, genes and cellular bits and pieces end up doing something in an organism. I was always partial to an IT view of things, so DNA was basically like signalling packets with stop and start bits, and proteins are like function() {} executing, and the organism the OS running. I liked developmental biology, which is kinda the "bootup sequence" of a living thing... Imagine you had a blob of metal and glass and depending how you "booted up" the "hardware and software" you could end up with an iPad, iPhone, Mac or PC or BallmerPhone.



    The academic environment wasn't too bad, for medical/biology stuff it's all about results both at the basic research and clinical level. You can have big theory but everything is mostly evidence and statistics. The biggest risk is people just fabricating numbers. I'm sure all sorts of shenanigans do go on, but my main issue was I didn't like the wet lab experimentation. All the theory is cool, and bioinformatics is very interesting (but sadly at the time not big in Australia by any stretch of the imagination)... However staring at slides under a microscope and "cooking" (squirt this here, add enzyme there, bake for 30 minutes, let sit, cool down, put enzymes back in fridge, stain cells, wait, repeat, etc.) was all boring as watching paint dry.



    Bailed after I completed my honours year and got into web stuff, never really looked back since.
  • Reply 120 of 130
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Even as final-year undergrads we did go to seminars and talks at the university and research institutions, as well as lectures of course, in the preceding years.



    I wouldn't publicly call out a lecturer or researcher, that would just be rude. However we might have asked questions at the end of the session that would reveal if they knew what they were talking about.



    It is true that a PhD is about persistence, and after that more persistence and a good dose of politics.



    For Biology another big issue that I faced, and this was even before big pharma would have been involved in the research and patenting, was, firstly, the animal experimentation (eg. mice), secondly, f*king majorly with nature when we know so little and the environment is going to pot, and thirdly, not being sure of the validity of somebody's hard-earned donation of $100 to research going to pay for 2ml of specialty enzymes manufactured by a huge biomedical company.



    My world view is slightly different now, but like I said, mainly I just didn't like the monotonous, repetitive lab work that could be done by highly-trained monkeys or at least robots.
Sign In or Register to comment.