It used to be that Linux was dependable for cool stuff, but the BSDs are just dependable, that's my first impression.
lack of novelty still disqualifies an invention from a patent
It does not, that is the point of the "$PATENT with a computer" meme.
Lack of novelty is a meaningless phrase that means something warm and fuzzy to the public but has no true power to stop obvious inventions from being patented.
In the last 10 years, online freedom has been reduced dramatically through the efforts of hardware and software companies like Google and Apple, who take the community's work and turn it into products: free-as-in-beer (with ads) but not free-as-in-freedom. The smartphones, chromebooks, Windows laptops we buy today are built on open software roots but explicitly prevent us from having root access and controlling our privacy. And when the hackers toil to make root available on personal hardware, those companies shortly bring out an update explicitly designed to destroy that access.
Which is sad, because I like a lot of their articles.
I don't really like their articles very much, but I'm lazy and I click on TFA's links simply because it's what slashdot serves for dinner.
You can use a machine learning face recognition system to identify "face geometry" features trivially, simply by using the output of the system with a postprocessing layer. The combined system is a system which collects "face geometry". As such, the black box nature of Shutterfly's system doesn't preclude the claimed illegal behaviour. Frankly, the only evidence that Shutterfly and Facebook don't break the law is their word, which suggests the lawsuit is entirely reasonable so that we may get to the bottom of this.
An irrevocable patent pledge is intended to be precisely that; it's a legal document that is written to carry weight regardless of changes of ownership or management. Whether it will stand in court when tested remains to be seen, but that problem applies also to free content and open source licenses and other legal tools for sharing of information and ideas.
Such a patent pledge document is pure theatre, and should not be confused with open source licenses. The former relies on *the* issuing company behaving in a certain way, whereas the latter relies on *some* licensees behaving in a certain way.
Taking as a given that people change, their motivations, circumstances, relationships change over time, you can and should expect that both KA and open source licensees will change their minds and act contrary to the legal documents they agreed to initially. When that happens, the difference is stark: in the case of the patent pledge, everyone who built their products using said patent becomes an infringer, and the potential for damage and misuse is huge and worldwide (eg SCO). In the case of the open source license, those who misuse the code according to the license are merely stealing code that doesn't belong to them, and this has no effect on the other open source recipients, it's on a case by case basis.
In other words, a patent pledge breaks if one entity changes its mind, whereas an open source license doesn't break if one entity changes its mind. And expecting one entity to change their mind is a very low bar.
What KA should be doing is creating a document, similar to the BSD license, which automatically licenses their patents to anyone for free and forever. That will not happen, because the true motivation of buying dubious patents is to build a war chest that can be used to threaten others, and there would be absolutely no point in paying for a patent if it had no threat value.
When a guy kills a random person just to point out that the police can't be everywhere at the same time, he's not offering a valuable insight into society to change it, he's just a murderer being cheeky.
This guy went around literally condemning people to death because he was a greedy fuck, he doesn't deserve any sympathy and your argument is bogus.
A rational person who truly wanted to help people when he has a monopoly on fully developed drugs worth $1 a pill, bought from a company who already jacked up the price 10fold just one year earlier out of greed, doesn't jack the price up 700 times to make a point about the state of the industry. A rational person who wants to help sells the pills for $1 a pop, so as to maximize the good they do to individual suffering people.
It never ceases to amaze me how American students are so much dumber than their European counterparts, even though they have so much better facilities and supposedly world class teachers. Sigh.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire