Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Connectivity (Score 1) 276

by Sebby (#49665133) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What's the Future of Desktop Applications?
I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but one of the major advantages of "native" apps (be it desktop or mobile) is that, unlike a browser, doesn't necessarily require an active network connection, which (at least in North America) has been rather sub-standard considering what other countries get.

While it's true that browsers now have local data stores for data that might reduce the need for an active connection to a server, native apps usually are better able to handle a greater amount of data than browsers allow, or are simply faster or have more performance features that browsers won't/can't have..

Then there's the whole set of features that a native app can have (mostly mobile, thinking accelerometers here, etc.) that usually take years for browsers to get...

Comment: Re:And then, go after the USPTO (Score 1) 104

by Sebby (#49562167) Attached to: Vizio, Destroyer of Patent Trolls
My point (which I clearly stated originally): Why the hell should companies, including tax payers (costs of running courts & all) have to pay for the USPTO's fuckups?

If a patent is declared "invalid", then why was it a "patent" to begin with!? And why do companies have to pay, out of their own pocket, to "fix" these invalid patents?? (Please, do provide *detailded* reasons why the companies should be burdened with the costs of cleaning up the USPTO's messes).

Either the USPTO didn't do their job right (incompetence gets you fired in the real world, but not if you're a bureaucrat apparently), or they're purposely gaming the system (I smell collusion). It's clear that, because they can't get in trouble (that BS immunity stuff & all), they can just rubber-stamp everything and let someone else do their work (read: clean up their mess).

Comment: Re:And then, go after the USPTO (Score 1) 104

by Sebby (#49560777) Attached to: Vizio, Destroyer of Patent Trolls
  • See my earlier embedded post
  • Also this.
  • A "patent" previously granted that turns out to be invalid due to prior art? Bad faith/incompetence (both the examiner, and its supervisor for keeping incompetent personel on the job at tax payers' expense)
  • Monkeys... er, 'examiners' at the USPTO rubber-stamping "patents" to meet quotas (which only got 'fixed' very recently, in terms of speed of tech)? Again bad faith/incompetence/ill will
  • Monke....'examiners' not understanding and/or not questioning validity of obfuscated "patent" description and still approving said "patents".... say it with me: bad faith/incompetence
  • USPTO knowing there's a problem with patent trolls but not doing anything about it (including but not limited to the above listed).... bad faith, especially considering this causes the opposite of their mandate to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...' (how the hell can anyone innovate when they're getting sued by patent trolls?)

And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)

Comment: And then, go after the USPTO (Score 3, Interesting) 104

by Sebby (#49551695) Attached to: Vizio, Destroyer of Patent Trolls
After they win that, they can go after the USPTO for creating this mess they've had to spend money to clean up.

Sure, some will say 'that's how the system works', but I don't see why companies should have to pay to clean up a government agency's screwups.

Also, it might make the USPTO think twice (read: actually do their job) before approving bogus "patents".

Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!

Working...