The Empiricist - Slashdot User

Submission + - Change Your Clothes? Nah! Just Turn a Knob

Submitted by

Neil Smithline

on Wednesday April 25, 2007 @07:17AM

Neil Smithline writes: "DailyTech writes that Philips Electronics just published a 2004 patent that features fabric that can act as a display. According to the patent, Philips feels:

The idea of dynamically changing the appearance of the fabric of a garment, for example, is highly desirable and certainly attractive for designers and the fashion industry. There are a number of display devices that utilize informational and decorative manipulatives. Attempts so far include embedded LEDs, thermochromic liquid crystal, and electroluminescent materials applied to the fabrics. However, these techniques employ additional manufacturing efforts and costs.

Perhaps they'll hook it up to a television receiver. I can imagine it now that when you're told to "Stop staring!" you can respond "I wasn't staring, I was checking out the Red Sox score.""

Feed Clean Savings From Reformulated Diesel Fuels (sciencedaily.com)

From feed by sdfeed on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:12PM

An innovative methodology developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory could help speed to market reformulated diesel fuels recently patented by the Department of Energy, resulting in cleaner air and saving consumers an estimated $3.6 billion over the expected 12-year product impact period.

Submission + - Patents: The end of the (Geek) World as we know it

Submitted by greenbird on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @02:24PM

greenbird writes: It's the beginning of the end (in the US at least). This Forbes article starts with information about a company, DeepNines, who is suing McAfee over a patent that covers combining an IDS and firewall in a single device. The patent was filed on May 17, 2000 and issued on June 6, 2006. Aside from the thousands of linux boxes configured as prior art (including several by me) and the fact that it took 6 years to issue the patent, DeepNines in a January 29, 2003 press release announced a partnership with McAfee to deliver just such integrated solutions.

The Forbes article then goes on to recount the coming apocalypse in the form of investment companies gathering billions of dollars exclusively to fund patent troll companies and lawsuits from such companies one of which is using innovative investment technique's to fund DeepNines in the above lawsuit against McAfee. Is this the end of the tech industry in the United States? Will we all have to move to Europe or Antigua to develop anything new? Will the US manage to drag the Europe into this IP cesspool leaving China, Russia and India as the tech innovators of the world?

Submission + - CATO Institute says Vonage Victim of Patent Abuse

Submitted by jtavares2 on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @12:42PM

jtavares2 writes: Timothy B. Lee, a CATO Institute adjunct scholar, has written an interesting story on Vonage's recent patent woes. He slams the current U.S. patent system and the Federal Circuit's series of rulings in the 1980s which opened the barn doors to software patents. He goes on to talk about potential remedies, including some current cases pending before the Supreme Court.

Submission + - Microsoft's Coupon Dayz

Submitted by

Andy Updegrove

on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:43AM

Andy Updegrove writes: "Last week's cross-license between Microsoft and Samsung marks the third deal in which Microsoft claims a partner is buying patent infringement "protection" for Linux users. With the prolifieration of such deals, one can't help asking a few questions.Such as whether Microsoft will ever reveal its mysterious patents, so they can be evalutated? And whether, if all of the terms of each deal were known, would it really appear that Microsoft's partner really thought there was much substance to those patent claims at all? And finally, where will it all end? I don't know the answers to the first two questions, but I thought I'd take a crack at the last one. Let's start with this:
Microsoft-Kellogg's pact includes Froot Loops trademark 'protection'
Provision will protect breakfast cereal vendor and its customers form IPR liability
April 20, 2007 (BreakfastBowlToday) — Microsoft today announced that it had entered into a trademark cross license agreement with leading cereal vendor Kellogg's, granting the grocery giant the right to continue to use the name "Froot Loops" to describe its popular children's cereal."Everybody knows computer software uses loops, and any one who has ever had their Windows-based computer freeze up knows it has infinite loops," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.Ballmer stated that the Redmond giant had no choice but to threaten litigation in order to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.""

Submission + - Amazon Patents 1 + 1 = 2

Submitted by

theodp

on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @02:49AM

theodp writes: "The USPTO has issued Amazon a brand spanking new patent for Determining Page Numbers of Page Images, a process which the e-tailer explains involves 'extracting all numbers that are exactly one different than a number found on an adjacent page'."

Submission + - Microsoft responds to EU with another question

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23, 2007 @05:30PM

An anonymous reader writes: Microsoft has responded to the latest round of EU requests by asking how much the EU thinks they should charge for Windows Server Protocols. The EU has stated the Microsoft should charge based on "innovation, not patentability" and that they have "examined 160 Microsoft claims to patented technologies" concluding "only four may only deserve to claim 'a limited degree of innovation.'" The EU is also starting to discuss structural remedies as opposed to the behavioral remedies they are currently enforcing. At what point has/will the EU overstepped its bounds?

Submission + - Apple sued for use of tabs in Mac OS X 10.4

Submitted by

rizzo320

on Monday April 23, 2007 @12:14PM

rizzo320 writes: "AppleInsider is reporting that "An Illinois-based company and its Nevada partner have filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging that Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" treads on an interface patent that affects the operating system's nearly universal use of tabs." The patent in question is 5072412, which was originally issued to Xerox in 1987, but now seems to be owned or licensed to IP Innovation LLC and its parent Technology Licensing Corporation. "Category dividers triggered by Spotlight searches, as well as page tabs in the Safari web browser, bear the closest similarity to the now 20-year-old description." of the patent. IP Innovation is requesting damages in excess of $20 Million, and in addition, an injunction against future sales and distribution of Mac OS X 10.4. Software patent reform can't come soon enough!"

Submission + - Philips invents "furry" display system

Submitted by galactic_grub on Monday April 23, 2007 @11:09AM

galactic_grub writes: The latest patent round-up from New Scientist includes a furry display from Philips. It consists of a material of one colour covered with hairs of another. When flat, the hairs show their normal color. But, when stimulated with an electrostatic charge they stand on end, to reveal the one beneath. Using an array of differnet pixels, it should be possible to display full images on clothing. The article also includes adaptable aircraft wings and simpler catalytic converters.

Feed Apple's haptic mouse design axes scroll ball (engadget.com)

From feed by engfeed on Thursday April 12, 2007 @07:32PM

Filed under: Peripherals

We're sure we've seen two intriguing Apple patents in the span of 24-hours before, but following up on Cupertino's modular media center gizmo from earlier today comes a slightly modified mouse design that, above all, still doesn't sport a tried and true right-click. All weeping aside, the newfangled design seems to center around a haptic approach, which curiously does away with the scroll ball currently used on Apple's critters and replaces it with a touch-sensitive casing. Apparently, the device would be "capable of switching between operational modes based on the way a user holds or grips the enclosure," which could simplify (or complicate, depending on dexterity levels) all that panning and resizing you currently do manually. Still, there's plenty of mice out there with oodles of macro-love just waiting to be utilized, and while the pseudo-click on the Mighty Mouse may appease some, we can't say we're blown away.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

BOLD MOVES: THE FUTURE OF FORD A new documentary series. Be part of the transformation as it happens in real-time

Office Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!

Submission + - Bankruptcy Judge Teaches Credit Skills

Submitted by GREATL on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:58PM

GREATL writes: A bankruptcy judge who has tired of seeing people burdened with credit card debt in his courtroom has decided to do more than help them untangle their finances. Judge John C. Ninfo II founded Credit Abuse Resistance Education, or CARE. It sends volunteers from the bankruptcy system — including judges, trustees and private attorneys — to talk to young people around the country about developing good money skills and avoiding debt traps.

Submission + - Gimp VS Photoshop - Bloody battle of the giants

Submitted by

Rea Maor

on Thursday April 12, 2007 @12:43PM

Rea Maor writes: "Do you want to edit bitmap images on the home desktop? It's surprising, but really the choice of image editing applications comes down to just two: Gimp and Photoshop. And therein lies a dilemma.

Photoshop costs around $600 these days, and Gimp is free, so of course if cost is a factor you're going to swerve towards Gimp. But — and you knew there was a 'but' coming — it's not that simple. Photoshop has two leads over Gimp: (1) patented features, and (2) the interface that everyone is used to. Most especially, Gimp is out of the running for professional print shop editing, thanks to the patent lock on industrial features such as color correction and CMYK. Gimp can emulate these features with work-arounds, or it can get sued, and that's all there is to it.

A common misconception is that Gimp lacks many more features that Photoshop has. In fact, with the exception of features that depend on patented algorithms, Gimp is 99% on par with Photoshop in capabilities. It's just that Photoshop users try Gimp, are immediately lost in the baroque interface, and leave in terror. Having the features doesn't do you much good if you can't find them!

That's the real hanger is the user interface. Unlike other professions which happen to take place on a computer, graphics artists are almost never geeks. Geeks explore an interface, practice with it, read the manual on it, and when they discover the scripting language buried within (Gimp has scheme), they're bowled over at how cool it is. Graphics artists aren't like that. They're right-brained all the way; they're here to draw, not write programs. And when they learn one way to make the computer do what they want, that's a sacrifice of time which they can never again be asked to do. Learning a new interface is painful for anybody, but it seems to be simply unacceptable for the graphics artist.

For instance, let's say you want to draw a beard on a face. In both Photoshop and Gimp it is straight-forward enough to create a custom brush shaped like a few hair follicles. But to draw the beard on and have it come out looking like natural hair, in Photoshop you would open the brush dialog and change the shape and color dynamics, tweaking switches and knobs in each and setting them to randomize. In Gimp, however, you would create a layered brush (called an "image pipe") which is similar to how you would do an animated gif, then just tell it to use the brush layers in random order. You could manually set up the brush layers to be lighter, darker, and rotated and resized — in effect giving yourself more control over the final effect. It is possible to get the exact same effect in both programs, with even some room to argue that one result looks better than the other.

But what good is that going to do if you're used to the Photoshop interface? Nothing. In a nutshell, Photoshop is for linear thinkers, and Gimp is for lateral thinkers. Both of them can arrive at very nearly the same result, so close that it's a neck and neck race. Bottom line, for website graphics and simple editing jobs it's almost insane to spend the money to use Photoshop. And Gimp is likewise inadequate for the needs of a professional print shop.

Unless, of course, you're already a geek. Then it won't matter, because you learn new programs just for fun anyway. The only problem with that is... have you ever met a geek with good artistic skills?"

LED Forty Years Older Than Thought 305

Posted by CowboyNeal on Wednesday April 11, 2007 @02:34PM from the behind-the-iron-curtain dept.

LED lover writes "The discovery of the LED is usually credited to four US groups in 1962, but an unrecognized Russian genius got there forty years before. Oleg Losev even filed a patent on using his device for long range communications, and wrote to Einstein to ask for help with the theory — but got no reply."

Submission + - Can F/OSS projects be killed by dormant patents?

Submitted by skelly33 on Tuesday April 10, 2007 @06:54PM

skelly33 writes: I am working on putting together an open source project that has commercial applications but am concerned that some day some random company with a thick patent portfolio is going to see it and try to stamp it out with a cease and desist claiming that they own the concept. The trouble is that many clever concepts have been conceived but lay dormant in patents that are just waiting around for a lawsuit where the patent holder has no intent of ever turning it into a product. Is this a legitimate concern for someone who would much rather avoid investing deep into a project so as not to be brought down by some idiotic/costly lawsuit, or is there any degree of protection afforded through original research and not-for-profit development of an otherwise patented concept under the banner of "Open Source"?

Submission + - Vonage Receives Temporary Stay

Submitted by Jedi Holocron on Friday April 06, 2007 @06:37PM

Jedi Holocron writes: A slight reprieve...

Vonage Receives Temporary Stay In Verizon Patent Litigation, Continues to Sell Service

HOLMDEL, N.J., April 6, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ — Vonage today secured a temporary stay from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. The stay enables Vonage to continue to sign up new customers until the Appellate court can hear Vonage's request for a permanent stay. The Court's ruling allows Vonage to continue to provide phone service to existing customers.

Earlier today the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. indicated it would enter an injunction against Vonage effective April 12, 2007 in connection with certain Verizon technology on which it was found to be infringing. The Court indicated that Vonage would be barred from acquiring new customers during its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In response, Vonage filed for and received an emergency stay of the injunction from the Federal Circuit.

Slashdot Top Deals