But how the hell did he get a patent so fast?
He didn't. This is a patent application that was just published. Subby can't even blame the article - the headline notes that it's pending, and the article continuously refers to it as a patent filing.
Reminds me of a story how I read on how one girl "solved" her bullying problem, they'd raised the issue several times with the school to no effect. Dad finally has enough, teaches her to fight. She grabs the head of the lead bully and slams it on her knee, broken nose, blood everywhere. School threatens to expel her, her dad threatens to sue the shit out of them for everything she's been through. Like the good cowards they are, the school backs down and manages to convinces the bully's parents not to press charges either. She's now forever known as that crazy kid, but nobody's messing with her anymore. It's sad but school is mostly a lawless territory where violence is often the last and only means to defend yourself.
This time, however, the demo concluded with a demonstration of a real-time iPad app that supports a kind of meta-game - much in the manner of Microsoft's Xbox SmartGlass.
Here players were presented with a wireframe map of futuristic Chicago, drawn in a similar style to the one that used in the press conference demo. The map can be scrolled and zoomed, with pop-up boxes and icons providing real-time information about the game in progress.
"As we said, everything is connected - and we've extended that to mobile devices," said the Ubisoft demonstrator. "We have Chicago in the palm of your hand. Everything that you've seen in the game will be accessible, so different shops - pharmacies, gun shops - will also be available here. You can see everything."
So, the "with many eyes all bugs are shallow" notion fails. There were not enough eyes on the OpenSSL library, which is why nobody discovered the bug.
I think that's a lie, the truth is everybody thought there were so many eyes on the code they all glazed over and nobody really looked. After all, if this was my company and the line was "Well everybody who works here has access to the source repository so I'm sure that someone would find it..." there'd be plenty alarm bells going off in my head. For sure, bumping into buggy code is often the way you find out about bugs but for security critical code it's review, more review, audits, all that really boring red tape that counts to stop it getting through in the first place. If the rumors are true, the NSA caught on pretty quick which is because they have lots of smart people getting paid well to look for exactly these kinds of issues. This is not magic. But it's the kind of boring shit you usually have to pay people to get done.
Except for corporate sponsored positions - which also typically have their own agendas - the work that gets done is the work people feel like doing. If what you need is 50% development, 50% review but 90% of what the people involved are interested in is the development of their own pet features well you don't have any authority to boss people around. You can ask the reviewers to be a bottleneck which will quickly turn sour, you can ask them to rubber stamp it faster or you can add people who really shouldn't be reviewers but you can't hire more qualified reviewers. Waiting a few years for someone to stumble into it just isn't a good process, no matter how much people pretend this proves how OSS "works".
Right, I can't imagine unlocking a phone would be difficult to find.
Exactly, now you've got it. Once you've got a combination of prior art references that teach or suggest each and every element in the claims, you've got a solid argument that the patent is obvious and therefore invalid.
For example, consider an server which acquires a passphrase from the client for authentication purposes. If your implementation language is C, you can receive that passphrase into a char array on the stack, use it, and zero it out immediately. Poof, gone in microseconds. But let's say you used some language which dynamically allocates memory for all strings and garbage-collects them when they go out of scope. (...)
That would be true if high level languages only offered the default implementation but usually they have a special implementation like SecureString in
This bug would have been utterly trivial to detect when introduced had the OpenSSL developers bothered testing with a normal malloc (not even a security focused malloc, just one that frees memory every now and again). Instead, it lay dormant for years until I went looking for a way to disable their Heartbleed accelerating custom allocator.
it's a very good read.
At the start of the war holding slaves was not unconstitutional, each state made their own laws and there was slavery on the Union side as well. The United States simply did not want 30% of their population and 70% of their exports seceding away, it would totally cripple their economy. The Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 - long after the war started - was just directed at the slaves in states in rebellion, those under Union control still remained in slavery. In short, it was a wartime measure to cripple an armed rebellion and recruit soldiers to their own side. I'm sure the Lincoln movie is not the most accurate historic source but there was huge doubt if the proclamation had any force once the war was over or if they'd all be returned to slavery.
There was huge resistance to passing the 13th amendment even with the southern states broken away, it was rejected as late as 1864 and only passed with the smallest possible 2/3rds margin (119-56) through the House in 1865 before the South rejoined. And that was only after years of negros serving in the Union army and dying for the north, at the start of the war... no. The abolitionists might have been on the rise but in 1860 support for slavery was alive and well all over the United States. They might have climbed to the moral high ground during the war, but initially it was a simple case of the government fighting down a rebellion like any other.
Then prove it. To show that something is obvious at the time the video was made, having admitted that the video doesn't show continuous movement, all you need is another reference from the same era that does.
There's plenty, like this one which clearly shows continuous movement dragging a UI element. (see ~5 minute mark)
See? Very simple process... Now, you just combine that video and this one and argue that together they teach or suggest each and every element of the patent claim, and therefore, the claim is invalid as obvious.
Mind you, you still need to find a third reference for the unlocking, but that can't be that hard either, right?
Now, all along, I've been saying one thing: this is new in view of the video
If you take the video in isolation, yes. But who the hell is doing that? Nobody is arguing that this video alone - irrespective of anything else - is sufficient to disprove Apple's claim. Why would you even point out non-continuous movement?
Maybe you missed most of the other threads here, but yes, many people are saying that this video is enough to disprove Apple's claim. That's why I pointed out non-continuous movement. And as to why you would do that, it's the relevant test under 35 USC 102.
Meanwhile you've been saying "Apple's claim and this video aren't identical, i see 3 frames and can't see any correlation between that and animation of continuous movement", well no shit, nobody ever said they were and nobody is attempting to take this video in isolation to prove or disprove anything. Non-continous movement when dragging a UI element is a side-effect of the technology available at the time the video was made, it is obvious so it is irrelevant.
Then prove it. To show that something is obvious at the time the video was made, having admitted that the video doesn't show continuous movement, all you need is another reference from the same era that does. That is the test for obviousness under 35 USC 103: if a combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element in the patent claim, then it's per se obvious.
But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.
Yet they got the patent.
No one has found the other references yet. Why, I don't know. Probably because they're too busy arguing that this is so mind-numbingly obvious that they don't need to fulfill the requirements of due process.
If you're on NSA's radar you've got bigger problems than TrueCrypt's trustworthiness or lack thereof.
In case you've been sleeping under a rock for the last year, the target of the NSA is everyone. Not that they put you on the same level as the Chinese military of course, but nobody's under their radar and if they can grab your data or metadata easily they will because you could be a terrorist or at least the friend of a friend of a friend of a terrorist. It's not that the average joe would stand a chance if they threw everything in their arsenal at us, but those "zero day exploits, side channel attacks, social engineering, and TEMPEST techniques" don't come free and using them highly increases the chances of exposing them. The question is more like "Does NSA grab all the TrueCrypt containers used as backup on Dropbox/GDrive/whatever and rifle through everyone's data?" than "If the NSA really wants the contents of my laptop, would this really stop them?"
We have a Boolean AND. One input is yes. The other input is no. What's the output?
Why are you making the assumption that the other input is no? I would think the addition of "unlock" on a slider control is pretty obvious, in fact given that almost every real-world representation of such a control does exactly that it is extremely obvious.
Because I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that wasn't clear. The "yes" is "does it pass the test"? Let me try again:
Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.
We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.
Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel.
Stopping there - if you add something to the claim that's not in the prior art, then it's novel, and therefore passes the test under 35 USC 102 and therefore has novelty: "Yes, it passes the first test." That's your first yes.
Continuing, we then ask what the value of the other input to the Boolean AND is: does the claim include something not taught or suggested by any prior art reference? If so, then it's not obvious and passes the test under 35 USC 103
But here, I was assuming you would say "no, it is obvious". That's the no.
Now, what happens when you have a Boolean AND and the inputs are "Yes" and "No"? What's the output?
>But the thing you have continually ignored is that even if you prove it to be novel and non-obvious it is still just an idea and you cannot patent an idea, you can only patent the implementation of an idea. That's the whole point of a patent, to protect a particular implementation, arguing over whether an idea is novel and non-obvious is pointless because it's just an idea.
That's an entirely different question and statute - 35 USC 101, specifically. And in reality, it's a 4-way Boolean AND - you have to pass 101, 102, 103, and 112. If any of those result in a "no", you fail to get the patent. Clear? That's how AND gates work. Now, all along, I've been saying one thing: this is new in view of the video - one input to the gate is "yes". Clear now? For some reason, you've been turning that into "you're saying this is revolutionary and Steve Jobs should get the Nobel prize and be made Emperor of all tech and that's crazy and the patent system is broken and you're stupid and I like turtles!" No. It's simply "new", full stop. Whether it passes any of the other required tests and therefore is a valid patent is an entirely different question - three different questions, in fact.
OMG. How many times do I have to repeat this? "New" and "non-obvious" are different and distinct requirements.
Yes sorry that should've been or, not and.
I am not arguing that it is "non-obvious". I'm arguing something very, very, very simple: the patent claims X. The prior art video does not show X.
This is what I'm trying to determine, so you can take existing art, add one thing to it then it's patentable? Doesn't that sound a little silly to you? Like I said from the start I'm not saying you're wrong by the legal definition, I'm saying the patent system is royally screwed up if all you need to do is tack something on the end of something existing and it's a patentable "invention".
Yes, that would be incredibly idiotic if it were true. IT'S NOT TRUE.
Once more: there are two separate and independent tests (there are really more, but you're already way too confused): (i) novelty, AND (ii) nonobviousness.
We clear? It's a Boolean AND. You have to pass both to get a patent.
Continuing: if you take existing art and add one thing to it, then it's novel. Now, does that automatically mean it's patentable?
You tell me: We have a Boolean AND. One input is yes. The other input is no. What's the output?
If you think it's yes, then we have to have a whole 'nother discussion before we talk about whether the patent system is screwed up.
Whether they're innovative is a separate question, and nothing about that is implied by admitting that, yes, the video shows three frames of movement, while the patent claims "continuous" movement.
For what definition of "continuous"? If you move the slider on the iPhone slowly you can see that it is not continuous, so that's out the window. And simply adding frames is obvious, that's how animation works.
The other element is "unlock", now if you're going to argue that part is new and non-obvious...
OMG. How many times do I have to repeat this? "New" and "non-obvious" are different and distinct requirements. I am not arguing that it is "non-obvious". I'm arguing something very, very, very simple: the patent claims X. The prior art video does not show X. Therefore, with regard to the prior art video, the patent is claiming something new. As I said in the post you're replying to:
Something can be new, but obvious - and similarly, something can be different, but not innovative. As I've said and as you admit, both of the features we're discussing are not shown in the prior art reference - they are different, period, full stop. Whether they're innovative is a separate question, and nothing about that is implied by admitting that, yes, the video shows three frames of movement, while the patent claims "continuous" movement.
I'm trying to be respectful, but it's really getting frustrating when it seems like you ignore everything I actually say, and instead pretend I'm claiming the patent is "non-obvious" or "innovative" or "revolutionary" or wtf else you want to claim I'm saying.
Again, from my initial post:
To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device. But that's just one of the requirements for validity - 35 USC 102...
Another requirement is non-obviousness - 35 USC 103. Under this requirement, you can show that a patent claim is obvious by showing that a combination of prior art references together teach each and every element in the claim and that they could be reasonably combined. So, if the Claim is A+B+C+D and one reference shows A+B and another shows C+D and they could be combined, that shows that the Claim is obvious.
So, for example, if you can find other references that show a hand-held device, continuous movement of an image, and unlocking a device, those combined with this may be enough to show that the Claim is obvious. That should be pretty easy to find.
In short, here's the legal test for novelty; this video doesn't invalidate the claim under that test.
Here's the legal test for obviousness; this video could be combined with another prior art reference to invalidate the claim under that test.
Clear now?
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.
