I do find it interesting that those who have been involved some way with patents and IP, such as myself, tend to favor patents and copyrights, while those who haven't, don't.
Yet another red herring. This is not about copyrights. It is not even about patents in general. It is, specifically, about software patents. And most experts and developers oppose software patents. That is because software patents create a minefield, making it difficult for smaller companies to enter the market, while big corporations with lots of money and armies of lawyers can cross-license patents and create "patent cartels".
Quote:
And you're missing the point that innovation isn't a means to success. There are more issues involved. As you brought up Opera, I can show why whatever they're doing isn't doing them much good.
I have shown you how Opera is indeed successful, but that is besides the point. Opera is a commercial software company, and it opposes software patents. The same goes for the Mozilla Corporation.
Quote:
You mean to say that if Netscape owned its IP instead of giving it away, no one else would ever have come up with new ideas?
They would have to spend more time looking for patents than innovating and creating software. And Netscape could achieve dominance simply by patenting something and resting on its laurels.
Quote:
What do they have 2% of the market after all these years?
No. It's impossible to measure market share. But all of this is besides the point. (Although Opera is profitable, growing rapidly, announcing new records all the time, etc. Opera is doing very well indeed.)
Quote:
If you didn't decide to mention a third rate browser in the first place, we wouldn't be wasting our time on it.
A "third rate browser" which Apple keeps ripping off. Nice. Where would Safari for the iPhone be without Opera's overview mode combined with zooming and panning around?
Quote:
This has everything to do with open source. They oppose software patents for obvious reasons, though they believe in tight regulation of their own written use.
So you are saying that only open source supporters oppose software patents? I have shown this to be untrue. So again, open source is irrelevant. And the validity of the arguments against software patents does not depend on whether one is an open source supporter or not.
Quote:
Yes, yes I can. But this particular part of the discussion is about someone claiming that this is about an actual software implementation.
No, this particular part of the discussion is where you actually claim that a patent is an actual implementation! Amazing.
Quote:
What I wrote was pretty clear. It's a description of an implementation. How can a description be an ACTUAL implementation? The sodtware or device is the actual implementation.
Right. But now you are contradicting yourself. Above, you denied that "a patent in itself is not an actual implementation".
Quote:
Oh please! I haven't changed the subject
You have. The discussion about whether Opera is "successful" or not. Open source-whining. Changing from patent to implementation.
In my opinion, claim 1 ought to be invalid due to obviousness. However, it could be circumvented.
For example, instead of storing the actual updated application at a predetermined location, the predetermined location might only contain the version number of the most up-to-date version, plus a URL pointing to the actual, non-predetermined, location where the newer version can be located.
Claim 2 would be irrelevant if claim 1 were circumvented. It could also be circumvented by deleting the old version of the program rather than renaming it to identify it as a stale version. Alternatively, the stale version could keep its old name and location in memory, and the new version could take on a whole new name.
Claim 3 would be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. But it could also ve circumvented by modifying the order in which the stale and new versions are renamed.
Claim 4 would also be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. Alternatively, the stale version could be allowed to continue running until the computer is rebooted or the updated software exits and restarts on its own for other reasons.
Claims 5 to 11 would similarly be irrelevant if claim 1, 2, or 4 were successfully circumvented.
Claim 12 could easily be circumvented, again, by simply choosing not to rename the old version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 13 to 16 would be irrelevant if claim 12 were circumvented.
Claim 17 could also be circumvented by simply choosing not to rename the stale version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 18 to 26 would be irrelevant if claim 17 were circumvented.
Claims 27 to 30 look more interesting. I suspect it is mostly to do with subtleties of the language used, rather than complexity in the mechanism it actually describes, but I think I'll need more time to formulate an informed opinion of it.
This reminds me of the Amazon "one-click purchase" battle that raged for a while (solution, make it two clicks) - or the media autoplay in Flash embeds. Click to play solved that one.
The horror of both really almost made me leave the net, my God, having to click twice or more to get something done - what heinous bastards would force my beloved automation to be reduced to such levels as having to click twice - TBL should be sued for every case of carpal tunnel syndrome for having to click at all.
There's always a way around. Either Apple will cave, renegotiate, or stand firm and the other way will arise.
Before they of spend a bunch of time trying to figure out if Apple's patents are really legitimate for this use, why don't they kick Apple out of the WC3 first? Whether the patents are valid or not, Apple is clearly not abiding by rules for members.
As you're so familiar with the rules and contracts, tell us exactly what Apple is doing wrong.
Distribution, usage, etc. is already protected by copyright laws. Indeed. What parts are people arguing about?
I'm not gong to pull all of those arguments out here, as you will then complain that I'm sidetracking the discussion as you did after you brought up Opera.
Quote:
Russia is just an example. In most of Eastern Europe, Opera is very strong. You don't think that counts, do you? Of course not. Jingoism sucks. Only the U.S. matters, right?
Opera completely destroys Safari and Google in Europe in general:
I'm very skeptical of those results because as it even says on that page, in another article, that Firefox has become the most popular browser in Europe. I don't know how they gather their results, but they are contradicting not only their own, but others as well.
Quote:
There are no "general numbers". Even the statistics I'm linking to are pure speculation since it's impossible to measure market share for continents, much less the whole world.
The ones you have lined to surely ARE pure speculation.
Quote:
And that is based on what? Oh yeah, an article quoting 10% for Safari with no sources, and the source it supplies is Net Applications, the compani which is known to lie and cheat:
In my opinion, claim 1 ought to be invalid due to obviousness. However, it could be circumvented.
For example, instead of storing the actual updated application at a predetermined location, the predetermined location might only contain the version number of the most up-to-date version, plus a URL pointing to the actual, non-predetermined, location where the newer version can be located.
Claim 2 would be irrelevant if claim 1 were circumvented. It could also be circumvented by deleting the old version of the program rather than renaming it to identify it as a stale version. Alternatively, the stale version could keep its old name and location in memory, and the new version could take on a whole new name.
Claim 3 would be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. But it could also ve circumvented by modifying the order in which the stale and new versions are renamed.
Claim 4 would also be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. Alternatively, the stale version could be allowed to continue running until the computer is rebooted or the updated software exits and restarts on its own for other reasons.
Claims 5 to 11 would similarly be irrelevant if claim 1, 2, or 4 were successfully circumvented.
Claim 12 could easily be circumvented, again, by simply choosing not to rename the old version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 13 to 16 would be irrelevant if claim 12 were circumvented.
Claim 17 could also be circumvented by simply choosing not to rename the stale version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 18 to 26 would be irrelevant if claim 17 were circumvented.
Claims 27 to 30 look more interesting. I suspect it is mostly to do with subtleties of the language used, rather than complexity in the mechanism it actually describes, but I think I'll need more time to formulate an informed opinion of it.
You're building an entire argument on one shaky claim you're making that you are assuming to be true.
What is obviousness? That's been a tough one to pin down.
What if hundreds of thousands of people working in the field haven't come up with a way of doing something, and one person, or company does.
You then look at what they did, afterwards, and exclaim, "But, it's obvious!"
But is it? If no one else came up with it before, it's not so obvious.
There are a lot of instances of inventions like that.
Here is a famous one:
Many years ago, Honeywell invented the first automatic exposure electronic flash. They patented the way that worked. Years later, as other companies began to duplicate their work, they sued, and won.
Well, the other companies claimed that the circuit was obvious, but the courts properly disagreed. The other flash companies had to pay Honeywell royalties until the patent ran out.
What was this circuit? It was a current dump. using a capacitor and resistor, they dumped the extra current the flash capacitor had stored from the battery during the exposure when the built-in meter determined that the picture was properly exposed. Pretty simple, and competitors were claiming that it was obvious.
But despite electronic flashes being sold for almost a decade and a half before Honeywell came up with the invention, and other companies working on the problem, no one else had solved the problem with this "obvious" solution.
This solution was well within the purview of all electrical and electronics engineers, because they ALL knew about how this would work. But no one thought to apply their knowledge to this simple circuit.
Was it obvious? Sure, to the people who invented it, but not to anyone else.
The problem with the determination of obviousness AFTER the fact, is that it IS after the fact. How many times have people said that if they only knew then what they know now...
You're building an entire argument on one shaky claim you're making that you are assuming to be true.
What is obviousness? That's been a tough one to pin down.
No I'm not. I said, in my opinion, claim 1 was obvious. I didn't use the "O" word anywhere else in my post.
I then went on to explain, even if claim 1 really wasn't obvious, that there were alternative implementations that anybody, presumably including the other members of the W3C, could do to circumvent that claim. I described one such alternative.
That's exactly what I said, that you're making a shaky claim that claim 1 is obvious.
I said I thought it was obvious.
Then I said, even if it wasn't obvious, there were still some fairly simply alternatives that could be done to have the same effect as claim 1, but without infringing on it.
Then I said, even if it wasn't obvious, there were still some fairly simply alternatives that could be done to have the same effect as claim 1, but without infringing on it.
One purpose behind the requirement of having patents published from the very beginning, was to insure that others had the ability to study, and if possible, find another way to do essentially the same thing. That's what innovation is all about.
So, if there is a way around Apple's patent, then that would be fine. I would have nothing against that.
The fact that MS and many other companies do automatic software updating without running afoul of Apple's patent, shows that this has been done for quite a few years.
What Apple's patent does, apparently, is to cover they way Apple does this, but not the way others do it.
It's convenient that Apple is a member of this group, but that doesn't mean that their patent is required to finish this spec, just that it's convenient.
The argument, from what I can tell, is not that Apple is doing anything wrong here, but that there is just the typical arguments about which technology should be used, whether it's subject to the rules, and if not, whether is should be paid for.
Believe me, this is just one of many arguments they are having, from my experience. It's just that, as with everything involving Apple, it becomes a public spectacle.
One purpose behind the requirement of having patents published from the very beginning, was to insure that others had the ability to study, and if possible, find another way to do essentially the same thing. That's what innovation is all about.
So, if there is a way around Apple's patent, then that would be fine. I would have nothing against that.
I didn't think you would object to it. I really don't think I disagree with you on this one.
In fact, the reason I posted a link to the patent was to inject some actual facts into an argument that, especially on the part of the anti-patent crowd, was based totally on generalizations and accusations of Apple being evil.
They, apparently without ever having read the patent, were literally accusing Apple of trying to monopolize all forms of automatic software updates everywhere. That clearly isn't the case, and by linking to the patent (which actually covers a pretty narrow set of implementations), and then describing some possible non-infringing alternative implementations, I was hoping to demonstrate that fact.
In fact, the reason I posted a link to the patent was to inject some actual facts into an argument that, especially on the part of the anti-patent crowd, was based totally on generalizations and accusations of Apple being evil.
They, apparently without ever having read the patent, were literally accusing Apple of trying to monopolize all forms of automatic software updates everywhere. That clearly isn't the case, and by linking to the patent (which actually covers a pretty narrow set of implementations), and then describing some possible non-infringing alternative implementations, I was hoping to demonstrate that fact.
I agree with that.
I get a bit wonky about some areas though, because I've been involved in these things myself, so it annoys me when people think that some things are simple. The one thing I've learned over the years is that what appears to be easy is often hard, and what appears hard can be easy.
My company, of which I was a partner, and designer, had over 50 patents. Some of them were very difficult, and took more than a while to get right before submission. A lot of patent searching, both during the work, and before submission was done.
Others were very easy, but still needed the patent searches. Sometimes we thought we had a great new idea that we could develop a new circuit for, only to find it in the patent search.
As technology becomes ever more complex, and expensive to R&D, we're going to see most new developments made by bigger companies. Not because, as some think, they are unfairly keeping small companies and inventors down, but because it can take tens or hundreds of millions to originate and develop a new idea, as expressed in a product which can then be patented.
We'll still see new things coming out from small companies, and even individuals, usually from scientists who come up with something as a result of their research and form a company to exploit it. But, its just too expensive for most these days.
I can see Apple and others objecting to wanting to give their IP away if they think they've developed this themselves outside of the agreements they've signed. Many companies simply say "No", and leave it at that. At least Apple is willing to negotiate a fee. This could also be a position they are holding because they want something else from the group.
This reminds me of the Amazon "one-click purchase" battle that raged for a while (solution, make it two clicks) - or the media autoplay in Flash embeds. Click to play solved that one.
The latter is actually a good example. The "click to play" was so annoying that Microsoft actually paid Eolas big bucks to be able to play plugin content without it. So what did we achieve? Exactly nothing, except that a patent troll got lots of cash. No innovation what so ever. Rather, Microsoft had to spend loads of time and money to solve the problem.
Quote:
There's always a way around.
Not necessarily. If the patent covers something very basic, like loading plugins, you have no choice but to pay up or shut up. This efficiently shuts down innovation and progress.
I'm very skeptical of those results because as it even says on that page, in another article, that Firefox has become the most popular browser in Europe.
No, it says that Firefox 3 has become the most popular browser version. Notice how they included "3.0" in the article title?
Quote:
I don't know how they gather their results, but they are contradicting not only their own, but others as well.
No, they don't. They are not perfect, by far, but are much more reliable than companies like Net Applications.
And considering that Net Applications almost exclusively measures usage for the U.S. sites that chose to use their services (not a representative sample, in other words), StatCounter obviously has much better stats for Europe.
Quote:
The ones you have lined to surely ARE pure speculation.
Says who? And why are they more speculation than Net Applications?
As I explained, they are much more reliable than Net Applications in particular because Net Applications only represents sites in the U.S. that have chosen to use their services, while StatCounter actually has more relevant stats for Europe.
Quote:
There's no point in discussing anything with you any longer.
Indeed, there is no point in discussing hard facts.
All patents are evil. They've held rapid progress back since their inception. And for what, for the benefit of corporations? So they can milk their customers for a decade?
Patents are good. Inventors deserve compensation for their hard work.
I did present you with facts that Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times.
I did present you with facts that Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times.
Comments
I do find it interesting that those who have been involved some way with patents and IP, such as myself, tend to favor patents and copyrights, while those who haven't, don't.
Yet another red herring. This is not about copyrights. It is not even about patents in general. It is, specifically, about software patents. And most experts and developers oppose software patents. That is because software patents create a minefield, making it difficult for smaller companies to enter the market, while big corporations with lots of money and armies of lawyers can cross-license patents and create "patent cartels".
And you're missing the point that innovation isn't a means to success. There are more issues involved. As you brought up Opera, I can show why whatever they're doing isn't doing them much good.
I have shown you how Opera is indeed successful, but that is besides the point. Opera is a commercial software company, and it opposes software patents. The same goes for the Mozilla Corporation.
You mean to say that if Netscape owned its IP instead of giving it away, no one else would ever have come up with new ideas?
They would have to spend more time looking for patents than innovating and creating software. And Netscape could achieve dominance simply by patenting something and resting on its laurels.
What do they have 2% of the market after all these years?
No. It's impossible to measure market share. But all of this is besides the point. (Although Opera is profitable, growing rapidly, announcing new records all the time, etc. Opera is doing very well indeed.)
If you didn't decide to mention a third rate browser in the first place, we wouldn't be wasting our time on it.
A "third rate browser" which Apple keeps ripping off. Nice. Where would Safari for the iPhone be without Opera's overview mode combined with zooming and panning around?
This has everything to do with open source. They oppose software patents for obvious reasons, though they believe in tight regulation of their own written use.
So you are saying that only open source supporters oppose software patents? I have shown this to be untrue. So again, open source is irrelevant. And the validity of the arguments against software patents does not depend on whether one is an open source supporter or not.
Yes, yes I can. But this particular part of the discussion is about someone claiming that this is about an actual software implementation.
No, this particular part of the discussion is where you actually claim that a patent is an actual implementation! Amazing.
What I wrote was pretty clear. It's a description of an implementation. How can a description be an ACTUAL implementation? The sodtware or device is the actual implementation.
Right. But now you are contradicting yourself. Above, you denied that "a patent in itself is not an actual implementation".
Oh please! I haven't changed the subject
You have. The discussion about whether Opera is "successful" or not. Open source-whining. Changing from patent to implementation.
Patent 5764992
In my opinion, claim 1 ought to be invalid due to obviousness. However, it could be circumvented.
For example, instead of storing the actual updated application at a predetermined location, the predetermined location might only contain the version number of the most up-to-date version, plus a URL pointing to the actual, non-predetermined, location where the newer version can be located.
Claim 2 would be irrelevant if claim 1 were circumvented. It could also be circumvented by deleting the old version of the program rather than renaming it to identify it as a stale version. Alternatively, the stale version could keep its old name and location in memory, and the new version could take on a whole new name.
Claim 3 would be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. But it could also ve circumvented by modifying the order in which the stale and new versions are renamed.
Claim 4 would also be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. Alternatively, the stale version could be allowed to continue running until the computer is rebooted or the updated software exits and restarts on its own for other reasons.
Claims 5 to 11 would similarly be irrelevant if claim 1, 2, or 4 were successfully circumvented.
Claim 12 could easily be circumvented, again, by simply choosing not to rename the old version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 13 to 16 would be irrelevant if claim 12 were circumvented.
Claim 17 could also be circumvented by simply choosing not to rename the stale version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 18 to 26 would be irrelevant if claim 17 were circumvented.
Claims 27 to 30 look more interesting. I suspect it is mostly to do with subtleties of the language used, rather than complexity in the mechanism it actually describes, but I think I'll need more time to formulate an informed opinion of it.
The horror of both really almost made me leave the net, my God, having to click twice or more to get something done - what heinous bastards would force my beloved automation to be reduced to such levels as having to click twice - TBL should be sued for every case of carpal tunnel syndrome for having to click at all.
There's always a way around. Either Apple will cave, renegotiate, or stand firm and the other way will arise.
Before they of spend a bunch of time trying to figure out if Apple's patents are really legitimate for this use, why don't they kick Apple out of the WC3 first? Whether the patents are valid or not, Apple is clearly not abiding by rules for members.
As you're so familiar with the rules and contracts, tell us exactly what Apple is doing wrong.
Distribution, usage, etc. is already protected by copyright laws. Indeed. What parts are people arguing about?
I'm not gong to pull all of those arguments out here, as you will then complain that I'm sidetracking the discussion as you did after you brought up Opera.
Russia is just an example. In most of Eastern Europe, Opera is very strong. You don't think that counts, do you? Of course not. Jingoism sucks. Only the U.S. matters, right?
Opera completely destroys Safari and Google in Europe in general:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...1-20090408-bar
I'm very skeptical of those results because as it even says on that page, in another article, that Firefox has become the most popular browser in Europe. I don't know how they gather their results, but they are contradicting not only their own, but others as well.
There are no "general numbers". Even the statistics I'm linking to are pure speculation since it's impossible to measure market share for continents, much less the whole world.
The ones you have lined to surely ARE pure speculation.
And that is based on what? Oh yeah, an article quoting 10% for Safari with no sources, and the source it supplies is Net Applications, the compani which is known to lie and cheat:
http://tinyurl.com/netapplies
Not only do they lie, cheat and manipulate their own statistics, but they are U.S.-only.
There's no point in discussing anything with you any longer. when you come out of your basement and see the world, I'll talk again.
Here is a link to the allegedly infringed patent:
Patent 5764992
In my opinion, claim 1 ought to be invalid due to obviousness. However, it could be circumvented.
For example, instead of storing the actual updated application at a predetermined location, the predetermined location might only contain the version number of the most up-to-date version, plus a URL pointing to the actual, non-predetermined, location where the newer version can be located.
Claim 2 would be irrelevant if claim 1 were circumvented. It could also be circumvented by deleting the old version of the program rather than renaming it to identify it as a stale version. Alternatively, the stale version could keep its old name and location in memory, and the new version could take on a whole new name.
Claim 3 would be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. But it could also ve circumvented by modifying the order in which the stale and new versions are renamed.
Claim 4 would also be irrelevant if claim 2 were successfully circumvented. Alternatively, the stale version could be allowed to continue running until the computer is rebooted or the updated software exits and restarts on its own for other reasons.
Claims 5 to 11 would similarly be irrelevant if claim 1, 2, or 4 were successfully circumvented.
Claim 12 could easily be circumvented, again, by simply choosing not to rename the old version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 13 to 16 would be irrelevant if claim 12 were circumvented.
Claim 17 could also be circumvented by simply choosing not to rename the stale version of the software program, or by simply deleting the old version of the software program.
Claims 18 to 26 would be irrelevant if claim 17 were circumvented.
Claims 27 to 30 look more interesting. I suspect it is mostly to do with subtleties of the language used, rather than complexity in the mechanism it actually describes, but I think I'll need more time to formulate an informed opinion of it.
You're building an entire argument on one shaky claim you're making that you are assuming to be true.
What is obviousness? That's been a tough one to pin down.
What if hundreds of thousands of people working in the field haven't come up with a way of doing something, and one person, or company does.
You then look at what they did, afterwards, and exclaim, "But, it's obvious!"
But is it? If no one else came up with it before, it's not so obvious.
There are a lot of instances of inventions like that.
Here is a famous one:
Many years ago, Honeywell invented the first automatic exposure electronic flash. They patented the way that worked. Years later, as other companies began to duplicate their work, they sued, and won.
Well, the other companies claimed that the circuit was obvious, but the courts properly disagreed. The other flash companies had to pay Honeywell royalties until the patent ran out.
What was this circuit? It was a current dump. using a capacitor and resistor, they dumped the extra current the flash capacitor had stored from the battery during the exposure when the built-in meter determined that the picture was properly exposed. Pretty simple, and competitors were claiming that it was obvious.
But despite electronic flashes being sold for almost a decade and a half before Honeywell came up with the invention, and other companies working on the problem, no one else had solved the problem with this "obvious" solution.
This solution was well within the purview of all electrical and electronics engineers, because they ALL knew about how this would work. But no one thought to apply their knowledge to this simple circuit.
Was it obvious? Sure, to the people who invented it, but not to anyone else.
The problem with the determination of obviousness AFTER the fact, is that it IS after the fact. How many times have people said that if they only knew then what they know now...
You're building an entire argument on one shaky claim you're making that you are assuming to be true.
What is obviousness? That's been a tough one to pin down.
No I'm not. I said, in my opinion, claim 1 was obvious. I didn't use the "O" word anywhere else in my post.
I then went on to explain, even if claim 1 really wasn't obvious, that there were alternative implementations that anybody, presumably including the other members of the W3C, could do to circumvent that claim. I described one such alternative.
No I'm not. I said, in my opinion, claim 1 was obvious.
I then went on to explain one potential alternative implementation that would circumvent that claim.
That's exactly what I said, that you're making a shaky claim that claim 1 is obvious.
That's exactly what I said, that you're making a shaky claim that claim 1 is obvious.
I said I thought it was obvious.
Then I said, even if it wasn't obvious, there were still some fairly simply alternatives that could be done to have the same effect as claim 1, but without infringing on it.
I said I thought it was obvious.
Then I said, even if it wasn't obvious, there were still some fairly simply alternatives that could be done to have the same effect as claim 1, but without infringing on it.
One purpose behind the requirement of having patents published from the very beginning, was to insure that others had the ability to study, and if possible, find another way to do essentially the same thing. That's what innovation is all about.
So, if there is a way around Apple's patent, then that would be fine. I would have nothing against that.
The fact that MS and many other companies do automatic software updating without running afoul of Apple's patent, shows that this has been done for quite a few years.
What Apple's patent does, apparently, is to cover they way Apple does this, but not the way others do it.
It's convenient that Apple is a member of this group, but that doesn't mean that their patent is required to finish this spec, just that it's convenient.
The argument, from what I can tell, is not that Apple is doing anything wrong here, but that there is just the typical arguments about which technology should be used, whether it's subject to the rules, and if not, whether is should be paid for.
Believe me, this is just one of many arguments they are having, from my experience. It's just that, as with everything involving Apple, it becomes a public spectacle.
One purpose behind the requirement of having patents published from the very beginning, was to insure that others had the ability to study, and if possible, find another way to do essentially the same thing. That's what innovation is all about.
So, if there is a way around Apple's patent, then that would be fine. I would have nothing against that.
I didn't think you would object to it. I really don't think I disagree with you on this one.
In fact, the reason I posted a link to the patent was to inject some actual facts into an argument that, especially on the part of the anti-patent crowd, was based totally on generalizations and accusations of Apple being evil.
They, apparently without ever having read the patent, were literally accusing Apple of trying to monopolize all forms of automatic software updates everywhere. That clearly isn't the case, and by linking to the patent (which actually covers a pretty narrow set of implementations), and then describing some possible non-infringing alternative implementations, I was hoping to demonstrate that fact.
In fact, the reason I posted a link to the patent was to inject some actual facts into an argument that, especially on the part of the anti-patent crowd, was based totally on generalizations and accusations of Apple being evil.
They, apparently without ever having read the patent, were literally accusing Apple of trying to monopolize all forms of automatic software updates everywhere. That clearly isn't the case, and by linking to the patent (which actually covers a pretty narrow set of implementations), and then describing some possible non-infringing alternative implementations, I was hoping to demonstrate that fact.
I agree with that.
I get a bit wonky about some areas though, because I've been involved in these things myself, so it annoys me when people think that some things are simple. The one thing I've learned over the years is that what appears to be easy is often hard, and what appears hard can be easy.
My company, of which I was a partner, and designer, had over 50 patents. Some of them were very difficult, and took more than a while to get right before submission. A lot of patent searching, both during the work, and before submission was done.
Others were very easy, but still needed the patent searches. Sometimes we thought we had a great new idea that we could develop a new circuit for, only to find it in the patent search.
As technology becomes ever more complex, and expensive to R&D, we're going to see most new developments made by bigger companies. Not because, as some think, they are unfairly keeping small companies and inventors down, but because it can take tens or hundreds of millions to originate and develop a new idea, as expressed in a product which can then be patented.
We'll still see new things coming out from small companies, and even individuals, usually from scientists who come up with something as a result of their research and form a company to exploit it. But, its just too expensive for most these days.
I can see Apple and others objecting to wanting to give their IP away if they think they've developed this themselves outside of the agreements they've signed. Many companies simply say "No", and leave it at that. At least Apple is willing to negotiate a fee. This could also be a position they are holding because they want something else from the group.
This reminds me of the Amazon "one-click purchase" battle that raged for a while (solution, make it two clicks) - or the media autoplay in Flash embeds. Click to play solved that one.
The latter is actually a good example. The "click to play" was so annoying that Microsoft actually paid Eolas big bucks to be able to play plugin content without it. So what did we achieve? Exactly nothing, except that a patent troll got lots of cash. No innovation what so ever. Rather, Microsoft had to spend loads of time and money to solve the problem.
There's always a way around.
Not necessarily. If the patent covers something very basic, like loading plugins, you have no choice but to pay up or shut up. This efficiently shuts down innovation and progress.
I'm very skeptical of those results because as it even says on that page, in another article, that Firefox has become the most popular browser in Europe.
No, it says that Firefox 3 has become the most popular browser version. Notice how they included "3.0" in the article title?
I don't know how they gather their results, but they are contradicting not only their own, but others as well.
No, they don't. They are not perfect, by far, but are much more reliable than companies like Net Applications.
And considering that Net Applications almost exclusively measures usage for the U.S. sites that chose to use their services (not a representative sample, in other words), StatCounter obviously has much better stats for Europe.
The ones you have lined to surely ARE pure speculation.
Says who? And why are they more speculation than Net Applications?
As I explained, they are much more reliable than Net Applications in particular because Net Applications only represents sites in the U.S. that have chosen to use their services, while StatCounter actually has more relevant stats for Europe.
There's no point in discussing anything with you any longer.
Indeed, there is no point in discussing hard facts.
I shall call them...... Opera-tives.
Indeed, there is no point in discussing hard facts.
If you presented some, we could discuss them.
All patents are evil. They've held rapid progress back since their inception. And for what, for the benefit of corporations? So they can milk their customers for a decade?
Patents are good. Inventors deserve compensation for their hard work.
If you presented some, we could discuss them.
I did present you with facts that Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times.
I did present you with facts that Net Applications is almost exclusively U.S.-focused, and that they have lied and manipulated their own statistics several times.
What "facts"?
http://tinyurl.com/netapplies