The summary links to four different commentaries but not Asimov's original article. I'd rather get it from the source.

While not exactly a touchscreen, I spent many hours/days/weeks/months programming and using an HP 9845C back in the 1980s. It had a series of 8 soft-keys built into the lower edge of the display that could be controlled via software to display menu options and generate interrupts when pressed. Users of our software (and that of many others) used these soft-keys extensively to navigate information. Users also switched regularly back to the keyboard to enter queries, etc.

While I do remember some arm tiredness, the rapid dance of fingers across the soft-keys was so efficient for navigation that everyone loved the system. It might be worth reflecting on the details of this design. For example, the user could rest the hand on the display frame or the body of the computer without straying too far from the soft-keys; all of the "touchscreen" actions were at the lower edge of the display. Both of these features decreased arm strain.

FWIW, some applications on this machine used light-pens, which also required a touchscreen-like mechanic It might be worth exploring what use cases found these awkward devices to be wins. I notice that the Wikipedia article on light-pens claims Gorilla-arm led to the demise of light-pens, but without citation.

FTFY.... "Nearly half (46%) of American adults are currently paying to use a smartphone..."

You're thinking way too small....

I would think one of the primary results of this would be the instant creation of a vast array of online services where one could upload the records and see them processed in a variety of way. I also expect that regulation of such services would be a nightmare, since the line between "processing" and "practicing medicine" would be extremely narrow. Security is obviously another issue. On the other hand, in many other areas there have been mechanisms for rating online services that have been at least somewhat successful in granting authority in reasonable ways.

Yes, but Download.com still assures users that they will never bundle that "extra stuff". Their Adware & Spyware Notice says:

Also, they make it look like a download link for the real installer (which it used to be), and then the user gets this CNET crap. But they still used our name liberally in the trojan installer as if we were somehow responsible for or involved in this abomination. I've got screen shots on my Download.com fiasco page.

Also, this "apology" rings hollow because they aren't fixing the problem along with it. In particular:

1) He claims that bundling malware with Nmap was a “mistake on our part” and “we reviewed all open source files in our catalog to ensure none are being bundled.” Either that is a lie, or they are totally incompetent, because tons of open source software is still being bundled. You can read the comments below his post for many examples.

2) Even if they had removed the malware bundling from open source software, what about all of the other free (but not open source) Windows software out there? They shouldn't infect any 3rd party software with sketchy toolbars, search engine redirectors, etc.

3) At the same time that Sean sent the “apology” to users, he sent this very different note to developers. He says they are working on a new expanded version of the rogue installer and “initial feedback from developers on our new model has been very positive and we are excited to bring this to the broader community as soon as possible”. He tries to mollify developers by promising to give them a cut (“revenue share”) of the proceeds from infecting their users.

4) You no longer need to register and log in to get the small (non-trojan) “direct download” link, but the giant green download button still exposes users to malware.

5) The Download.Com Adware & Spyware Notice still says “every time you download software from Download.com, you can trust that we've tested it and found it to be adware-free.” How can they say that while they are still adding their own adware? At least they removed the statement from their trojan installer that it is “SAFE, TRUSTED, AND SPYWARE FREE”.

> What have you invented that we would have heard of?

Not to take any credit away from a lot of other fine work on this technology, but I had something to do with the Linear Tape-Open system. The sales figures suggest someone around here may have heard of it. You can look at the patent yourself and decide if you think the technology was obvious or not.

Another example--a software (or at least firmware) patent--might be more controversial. This one is an algorithm to make the Trackpoint pointing device more responsive. Again, perhaps this one would seem obvious to someone who had studied control systems, but nobody up to that point in the business of isometric joysticks had conceived of the problem in these terms and proposed a solution of this sort.

> If something can't be rendered in 'practical form', can it be an actual 'invention' ?

Legally, yes. Part of the patent disclosure requirement is that the inventor must state the best way(s) s/he can think of to reduce the invention to practice. Because of the importance of filing dates and overenthusiasm, this is sometimes (often?) done prematurely, amounting to a certain bit of wasted of time. I have also been guilty of that, unfortunately.

As someone who has done a fair bit of inventing and patenting, I find generalized disdain for patented inventions to be a little irritating. (This is apart from arguments about whether intellectual property is a proper category or whether its legal protection is a good idea). Yes, many patents may have titles that make them sound trivial, and quick reads of them may make you snigger. But in the U.S., one criterion for ruling against patentability is that "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains" (35 U.S.C. 103 (A)). I think most of my patent submissions have been initially rejected as "obvious" (one particularly entertaining case was a patent examiner's note that the shape of the recording elements in my magnetic head bore remarkable similarity to a piece of plastic someone had devised to keep a garden hose from snagging on the tire while you're washing your car). However, arguing against an "obviousness" claim is straightforward:

1. Prove that the problem has been recognized for some time;
2. Show that engineers have attempted a variety of solutions to the known problem;
3. Clearly explain how your own invention's method for solving the problem is different from existing solutions.

Of course, this doesn't do anything to prove that the invention is useful, actually does solve the problem, can be reduced to practical form, etc. It just demonstrates that the invention was not obvious at the time. It also does not mean the inventor is a genius or that nobody else on the planet could come up with the solution. It just means that it may qualify to be a patentable invention.

My own favorite case of proving non-obviousness to myself was having a renowned engineer in the field look at my proposal and tell me that he was quite sure it could not possibly work, though he could not exactly explain why. A couple of weeks later we met in the hall with him telling me that he had been intrigued enough to run simulations while I was building a prototype. We both came to the conclusion that it indeed could and did work.

Lots of crazy stuff gets patented all the time, but the process of describing and justifying an invention as such is...not completely obvious.

As a former IBM researcher, some projects are not aimed very directly at product or bottom-line value. Increasing the stature of the corporation in the public eye and gaining acclaim within the scholarly world of the scientific community are also valued very highly. Of course, most projects have some product connection, but there are a limited number of well thought out "grand challenge" projects that need not.

Not really advocating either way, but the alternative Republican-favored approach is to give tax rebates for the economic behavior you want (e.g. health cost savings accounts, buying energy efficient cars, etc.). Both are forms of government influence over economic behavior.

Back in the not-too-distant past when I worked on tape R&D at IBM, we were entertained by these non-stories. At the time, IBM made more money off of tape than the whole disk industry made all together.

As to the geek-factor, it's worth noting that the slower product cycle for tape development (driven largely by interoperability being maintained for a long time) means that a tape developer can have a lot more fun than a disk developer. When we were inventing the LTO technologies, there was huge freedom to create something new and interesting compared with the difficulty of making even modest changes to the disk product line.

We just today released Nmap 5.30BETA1, which contains the version detection signature described in this post for detecting the Energizer trojan. It also includes a detection and exploitation script for a major Mac OS X vulnerability which Nmap developer Patrik Karlsson found last month and Apple finally patched this morning. There are about 100 other changes as well, including 37 new NSE scripts. You can download it free here.

Pardon the Nmap promotion, but it seemed on-topic for the story.