Or maybe because - unlike OpenSSL - nobody is running products like acrobat reader on their server which contains millions of usernames, passwords and the encryption keys that go with them that is vulnerable to this bug.

It isn't a matter of "every single bug in a piece of open source software", this is a hugely deployed piece of open source security software and you would expect that if the "many eyes" thing were indeed true then this is exactly the place it would be demonstrated yet what we have here is one of the most widely deployed critical security bugs ever. This isn't a condemnation of open source in any way, just of the misguided vocal advocates that pad their arguments with falsehoods rather than focussing on the real advantages of open source (like the speed at which bugs like this can be patched).

I know such claims have always been false and this is just more proof of it at the most prominent and non-theoretical level so I'm not quite sure what your point is. This alone didn't disprove the claim, it just added more proof (and at an extremely high visiblity) that the claim is false.

No it has been that open source can be verified to be secure and non-malicious, which is true only in theory, not in practice.

Well it does show that the often-used argument that open source is better because "I can review the code to make sure it is secure and not malicious" is false, not even the biggest vendors did that before using this code.

Right, I can't imagine unlocking a phone would be difficult to find.

It doesn't, I'm wondering whether the boycott was due to to Eich or the behavior of the employees who had him ousted. Like for example OKCupid's boycott was just silliness as it was directed at Eich but obviously affected both him (the prop 8 proponent) and the employees who were prop 8 opponents.

There's plenty, like this one which clearly shows continuous movement dragging a UI element. (see ~5 minute mark)

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?

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.

Yet they got the patent.

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.

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.

Fair enough.

But what about the LGBT employees there? The CEO was just one of the employees (and now he's gone) so the only people you're hurting are the other Mozilla employees, why are you so against them?

That's why I prefer the BSD license, it is about altruism and collaborating with people who may have different ideologies. They may contribute their code back, they may not or they may only contribute some code back and that is their choice rather than the "if you're not going to play by my rules then i'm not going to play with you at all" of the GPL.

Yes sorry that should've been or, not and.

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".

But the broader issue is that if that's the case then Apple's claim against Samsung is also invalid, because Samsung's implementation is different, the idea is the same but the implementation is different so how can that infringe?

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 then for the sake of argument let's say that's fine, but in that case Samsung is not infringing because Samsung's implementation of "unlock" is different to Apple's, the idea is unlock - but you cannot patent an idea - and the implementation of unlock is different in Samsung's version than Apple's so they cannot possibly be infringing.