The Telegraph and a denier's site. Yes, so very convincing.

How many times does this cherry picked claim have to be posted. Warming did not stop for 15 years, for chrissakes, and you're either a liar or a moron for restating it.

Look at it this way. Now that they've found the Atari 2600 ET cartridges in a New Mexico landfill, there's plenty of room for all the Surfaces (all variants) that Microsoft can't sell.

It's amusing watching the mighty Redmond Emperor with his clothes off; a whole product line and who knows how much R&D and marketing cash dumped into it, that almost no one actually fucking wants. It's so bad that they can't even get their OEM network to build the fucking things and they have to put them under their own brand name as they try the final futile stunt of acting like they're Apple.

It's an expensive piece of hardware whose performance doesn't justify the cost and whose size makes it a terrible fucking tablet. I could buy a Nexus 7 and a tolerable decent notebook for less than a Surface 3 and have the best of both worlds.

No, the mere fact that Microsoft built the Surface tablets demonstrates they don't have the foggiest idea what tablets are used for.

If Microsoft wants any uptake on these promotions it needs to find religion and begin praying for a miracle, because the group of people you can almost guarantee are the least likely to switch to Microsoft products are Apple owners.

That would have been a much better article.

With regard to this, one helpful thing in the ruling is that the Court says that old and ubiquitous technologies don't count when judging if an abstract concept has been transformed into a patentable application of said abstract concept.

(Patent lawyers are up in arms about this, complaining that the Court has "mixed up article 101 (subject matter) with articles 102 (prior art) and 103 (obviousness)". To get more patents, they want to reduce the "abstract ideas" exception to a theoretical concept that only happens inside people's brains any patent application can pass.)

So Timothy's right (as usual), but still, at least we have the Justices acknowledging that algorithms shouldn't be patentable, and that "on a computer" doesn't make a non-patentable concept patentable. All we have to do is bridge that last gap and show them that all software is math:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Softw...

For Alice v. CLS, more analyses listed at the end of this page:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Alice...

I know the headline is correct because Gene Quinn is hopping mad. Quinn makes a living by obtaining software patents and always says he can draft around any limits imposed by the courts, but here's what he's saying today:

"an intellectually bankrupt opinion ... will render many hundreds of thousands of software patents completely useless ... On first read I donâ(TM)t see how any software patent claims written as method or systems claims can survive challenge."

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014...

I didn't want to trust my own reading, but I knew it was a big victory when I read Quinn's reaction.

The mean temperature of the Earth has been rising for three centuries due to CO2 emissions. A testable hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be valid.

Any other brain dead Koch-funded quotes you want to feed into this? Let's be blunt, you know fuck all about science.

Sorry, all you've got is me.

If anyone can help, I've been building this wiki for five years now without a break:

http://en.swpat.org/

(And I'm working on campaigns against software patents since 2003.)

Actually, now that you mention it, being AT&T exclusive pretty much is why Android is the world's most popular mobile OS and iOS is a minority operating system.

Meanwhile, is Amazon as good at this as Apple? Is it 2007, or 2014?

Yes there is. There are literally thousands of published papers in this field.

Your moral courage and intellectual rigour are an inspiration to us all.