Patents don't require that an invention be totally original. Improvement is fine. For prior art to work as a defense you need to show
2) That experts in the field of touchscreen UI would have seen the application of a bolt.
Now you insulted all of the experts in the field of touchscreen UI. Thinking a bit more, I fear most of them deserve the insult.
I think that's a good example. I don't think swipe to unlock is obvious.
1) No one else used swipe to unlock prior to Apple. Generally they used hitting some sort of button to unlock.
Well, I think there is prior art, dating more than a few centuries, on swipe to unlock: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitxer:Bolt_lock.jpg
False equivalency. The TSA (government) let him through without incident, it was a private business (Delta) that blocked him from boarding the plane.
And who made the rule that allowed them to do that? If some "law" is enforced by a private organization that does not mean the State has nothing to do with that.
Freedom to wear the shirt, not free from the consequences of wearing the shirt.
By that logic, even the people from North Korea are free, even to mock their beloved ruler...
Sure, that litigation holds back sales and marketplace competition... But "and by extent innovation"? How does litigation over an existing product in any way affect innovation regarding new products? Can you logically support that extension you're proposing?
That is easy. How much time do you think it takes to develop a product if you have to pass several design aspects through the opinions of IP Lawyers and iterate until it is accepted?
If the fear of litigation exists because of what happened to previous products it is natural that new products will be delayed because you have to try to design around stupid patents.
You have to love the hypocrisy. Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites. But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense. It blows my mind.
You must live in a very black and white world!
If you have:
- Activity A that is evil.
- Activity B that is a LOT more evil.
- Defending that activity B should be changed to Activity A is extremely reasonable. Where is the hypocrisy?
Of course nature will find a balance. Every dynamic system does.
No every system. Some will oscillate wildly. The other problem is that a new stable point can be hostile to human life.
The question is: will we be still in it?
Probably no.
and will it be configurable?
Yes.
and will it run Linux?
No.
Ask me before you make the changes.
So that you can tell Henry Ford that you want a faster horse?
No, those who want a faster horse get a motorbike.
The automobile was for those who wanted a faster horse carriage.
If you fire 10 people, 9 may sit on the couch eating cheetos and collecting unemployment benefits for the next 2 years[1]. But 1 will start his (or her) own business and increase economic activity.
Then he (or she) will go bankrupt because the possible costumers are unemployed and can't pay for the goods. (unless it is another cheetos brand)
That makes as much economic sense as paying people to move a mountain of rocks from one place to another, and then paying people to move them all back.
Isn't that very similar to digging gold and then paying people to protect its transport?
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
