binspace

I just hope for all of our sakes that this is the final nail in the coffin of industry self-regulation. It does not work when it is against your interests to be safe; after all, we love to take risks.

I also hope that America begins to realize that large corporations rarely have the interests of the population in mind. There needs to be checks and balances here.

Wow, who cares?!?

Maybe that's an indicator that bad patents are being granted?

Steak is an extension of rspec and sortof inspired by Cucumber. I do remember Obie Fernandez had a blog post about a dsl that looks very similar a few years ago, however I cannot find it.

Maybe I'm going senile.

+1 I really like rspec because it reads nice and has a nice object model, however, I'm not really compelled to use Cucumber because it seems like a there is overhead involved and I havn't had the case where the project manager needed to read the specs with the developers.

Webrat and/or Capybara. Other than that, it is pretty much rspec on top of integration tests.

Well, duh, Steak is an extension of rspec. Very nice. :-)

I'm happy with Rspec. It accomplishes the same thing with slightly different wording. Actually, I can have Steak in rspec.

  class Spec::ExampleGroup
    class << self
      alias_method :context, :feature
      alias_method :example, :scenario
    end
  end

I remember how annoying opening multiple web pages were before tabs. I don't want to be constrained.

Being able to open tabs is better than not. If the hardware/network does not support that very well, that is an issue with the hardware/network.

Apple should come up with a gesture to switch between tabs.

IMO, one of the big achievements of Fingerworks keyboard was it's vast array of gestures. Apple drastically watered down the gesture support in it's various products. Perhaps to make it simple for grandma?

They are open just like Microsoft :-)

Also, the lawyers have promised to basically sue open source developers who do not pay royalties.

The problem with H.264 is there is a conflict of interest involved. Microsoft and Apple have lots of money riding on the adoption of H.264. If it is the standard, they directly profit.

In the medium to long term, end-user quality is negatively affected by adopting close standards.

Steve Jobs is trumpeting open standards for the web yet supporting closed standards, hence the hypocrisy.

What isn't a Ponzi Scheme?

-- Sorry I edited my question, and then reverted it back.

Well I was thinking they could evolve a bit. Maybe with their analytics?

Hmm, not quite a Haiku... Maybe,

Theres Dev sharecropping? The platform must progress now. Innovate or die!

> Of course, they can take all the hate from developers because the mindless Apple legions will still love them.

So true.

> What about drug discovery?

I can see how patents could help there. Are there any studies that favor patents?

> Tell that to the HTML5 video codec people.

Yes I will. HTML5 (and thus HTML5 video codecs) are still very young in the grand scheme of things. It's pretty innovative stuff and it's evidence that patents slow down innovation via collaboration.

You can work around the system until it becomes irrelevant.

For example, patents are not prevalent in software. There is hardly an innovation crisis in software.

Hardware design is also becoming more like software design. Same with business processes.

I've found plenty of research that concludes that patents hinder innovation.

I have been able to find any studies that conclude that patents help innovation. Can somebody provide links if there are any?

I only see the number of patents mentioned as "evidence" of innovation.

Good point, however bit.ly has a good customer base for a very simple product. Besides, I imagine that Twitter will have an api for their shortener + analytics, so bit.ly can still integrate.

Also, bit.ly can make a play to service multiple social networks.

Simply put, they must innovate or die.

Meanwhile, they don't allow the gardeners to weed the garden because the gardeners are not dressed in their sunday best.

Good thing Android sales are on track to surpass the iPhone.

http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10005344/android-unit-sa...

+1 for openness.

Actually, it kindof tarnishes my image of Apple.

Leave it to the suits to create artificial barriers.

I really hope the open market (Android) wins this. I'm not looking forward to Steve Job's (similar to Bill Gates') vision of the marketplace.

Apple's approval process makes the apps worse because they circumvent the iteration cycle. Companies cannot change their product to their customers' wishes without approval from Apple.

Besides, there are other solutions to the quantity/quality problem. For example, user feedback seems to work very well, and it scales!!!

> The market was apparently not a viable one, and both parties have profited enormously in spite of not being a part of it.

That's good for them. Unfortunately nobody else can enter that market, even if they independently come up with the technology, because there are patents on the multi-touch technology.

> Using somebody else's technology is not innovating, it's copying.

So using a software library or hardware component as a tool to create innovative technology is not innovating? Technology is a tool that is built upon previously developed technology. Being restricted in this way is a hinderance, not a boon.

An example of the potential benefits is in open source software. Open source software has dramatically increased the innovation in the software field.

> It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies": Fingerworks was a very small company and somehow, in spite of your claims, they were able to innovate.

True they were able to innovate. Kudos. I disagree that they needed patents to innovate, as you have previously stated. It's not like their keyboards came with a clone technology button. Cloning takes effort and time and expertise. It is not the characteristic of a market leader, like Apple.

Think about it this way, why does any technology (specifically software) company get acquired by a larger company? Is it the technology or the expertise of the staff that is most important? Usually it's the staff, otherwise, why would it be so important for the staff to stay onboard with the acquiring company?

> And Fingerworks wouldn't have had any leverage against them except their potential value as employees.

Not true. If they wern't bought out by Apple, they would have been a licensor of the technology. They probably would have had a healthy business supplying Apple with iphone/ipad multi-touch technology and making keyboards.

However, that deal was significant for Apple because they get significant leverage because they had a shot at a monopoly over the multi-touch technology. Fortunately, this did not happen, but unfortunately there is a bunch of patent litigation waste.

> It also has nothing to do with "smaller companies"

It has everything to do with smaller companies. Who can afford the large patent warchests? Larger companies. I suppose patent trolls can count as a smaller company, though.

> When products do not differentiate (i.e. when they clone each other), innovation stagnates.

The same can be said about a monopoly. There is no differentiation because there is only one party.

However, that is all moot because electronics and software is hardly in danger of being stagnant. These areas are innovating ever more rapidly (and NOT because of patents).

> Why differentiate when you can just do what your competitors do, but cheaper?

Steve Jobs has a good answer for you, and it is not patents.

> Why innovate when you can just tack on some blue LEDs and silver trim to differentiate?

Because that is not differentiation. People see right through that.

> Software is also covered by copyright, which you seem to have ignored entirely, even though it serves effectively the same function of preventing creations from being ripped off.

First of all a Patent != a Copyright. Patents are far more broad. They prevent people from independently coming up with an innovative technology, especially if a previous patent is overly broad.

Copyrights do not. Copyrights prohibit outright copying, which I am against.

I wanted to keep the scope of this discussion on patents because the patent system is obviously very flawed. I also question the utility of patents in the first place. I do agree with copyrights, though.

> Why would they if any invention they create is immediately available to their competitors? Doesn't that reward the strategy of simply waiting for others to invent and cloning them?

No because nobody invented the magic cloning button yet.

> when the established players can simply rip those ideas off?

What's wrong with using other people's ideas? Isn't that why humanity is so advanced?

> Doesn't it eliminate one of the main reasons that a big company would ever acquire a smaller company?

No, because like I said before, bigger companies acquire for talent and licensing. There are a number of reasons why bigger companies are less innovative. Lack of ownership among employees is one of them.

> Doesn't that in turn drastically reduce the value of invention?

No, it increases it.