Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Thank the ghods. (Score 1) 156

The jury ignored prior art only for patents where they found no infringement. It there is no patent infringement, the 'prior art' argument is moot.

This is not correct as Hogan admitted post trial to the many erroneous legal theories that he led the jury into. Judge Koh ruled that no matter how many errors the jury engaged in during jury deliberations federal law disallowed any consideration of these errors to overturn the jury verdict or order a new trial.

Comment: Re:No matter what the outcome actually is.... (Score 1) 1184

Plenty of phones with rounded corners were found to not be infringing. Can the talking points.

Apple lost on the D'889 patent which is the one on the iPad design. So Samsung's rectangle with rounded corners were also not infringing. No one one either side here seems to understand that.

Comment: Impact of an Apple Victory (Score 5, Insightful) 1184

Actually the only real loss for Apple was the most talked about design patent. The D'889 iPad Design patent infringement alleged against Samsung's tablets was rejected by the Jury. This was the rectangle with rounded corners patent. So this is the one bright spot in this travesty.

The other design patents D'087 affected just a few phones, and D''677 effect most of the phones. But since they didn't effect all of the devices these patents probably won't have much of a long term impact (other than costing Samsung a lot).

The D'305 patents is a user interface patent on a grid of rounded square icons on a black background (can you believe they actually got a patent on that - sounds like most GUI interfaces the last 20 years). This impacted most of the phones but not all again so it shows this will probably not have a long term impact beyond the jury verdict itself.

The killer is the '381 "rubber band" patent and the '915 multi-touch/pinch-to-zoom patent. These are just patents on basic ideas. These are ideas, not inventions. All that is required to implement them is just the idea. A programmer could go and implement these features never having seen them before. These basic ideas are pretty much going to follow from using your fingers as the user interface so removing these features will make a pretty crappy user experience.

But the experts the idiotic news organizations interview say this big Apple win will lead to a lot of new innovation because competitors will have to jump through hoops to get around these patents. I know, we'll have a tongue interface. Double lick to zoom anyone!!

Comment: Software patents are patenting ideas (Score 1) 434

by voiceofworldcontrol (#38449190) Attached to: Apple Patents Using Apps During Calls
One basic problem I have with software patents is that they are just patenting ideas, which was disallowed when I was growing up - it had to be an actual invention. On almost all of these patents you could read the abstract (never looking at the details in the patent) and a decent programmer could go away and implement this - never having seen the actual product (in the rare cases there is one) or patent details. So what is the patent system protecting? You don't needs billions in R&D to develop ideas - they just come into your head and they shouldn't be protected by a new government controlled monopoly on ideas. And any device as complex as a smart phone has hundreds of thousands of ideas Apple and other manufacturers have appropriated for free.

Comment: Re:Technology knows no right from wrong (Score 2) 167

by voiceofworldcontrol (#35004332) Attached to: Tens of Thousands Protest In Cairo, Twitter Blocked
Secularists are losing ground in all Islamic countries. While they may be sincere they will be rapidly replaced by Islamists if Mubarak is forced from power. Islam is antithetically opposed to secularism. Look at what happened in Iran when people thought that a large secular movement could succeed. So whether it is done by the Muslim Brotherhood or not it will ultimately result in their gaining power.

Comment: Re:A really nasty trick (Score 3, Insightful) 765

by voiceofworldcontrol (#34843440) Attached to: Google To Drop Support For H.264 In Chrome

This serves two strategic purposes for Google. First, it advances a codec that's de facto controlled by Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable international standards bodies. ("Open source" != "open standard".) And second, it will slow the transition to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which codec to use for HTML5 video, which benefits Google by hurting Apple (since Apple doesn't want to support Flash), but also sucks for users.

"Isn't Google really standing up for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"

You say "patent licensing" as if it was just signing a legal agreement. Their license requires significant royalties to be paid and which we must all pay. We all pay a MPEG LA tax when we buy any of the devices or software that has to decode H.264.

While those that despise Adobe Flash are desperate to see it replaced all I know is I've never had to pay a penny to use the Flash plugin.

I have no problem with the standard being controlled by Google since they are making it available gratis. Apple / Microsoft and the big players could have paid off the smaller vendors in the patent pool and made H.264 available for free as well, but they want their share of the tax and are pushing this very expensive "Open Standard" to shut out smaller competitors.

I imagine Google will eventually be sued over the codec but I think this would takes years to resolve and possibly this would be a way to break the MPEG LA tax.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll invite himself over for dinner. - Calvin Keegan