631 karma · joined February 3, 2011
yeah - we currently actually work with a heap of retailers and we do match to where you buy them - we've around 90 or so at the moment (love to get your thoughts on http://about.crowdsend.com).
publishers can do a bunch of stuff too - but we think the bigger problem rests with the community than with publishers.
basically once a product's been identified then we match it to a bunch of retailers if we can find it!
You as a user, can grab any image, from any website - and ask what is inside it and others can help you. That's what we believe is the biggest problem.
The problem isn't arriving at an image and knowing - its arriving and not knowing. Luminate (and others) require the publishers to tag - however what if you arrive at some website (like the entire of instagram as one tiny example) and want to know what's in an image - where do you go ? Google - nope. That's just similar images they don't tell you any more. Luminate won't help you either.
So that's the difference - luminate and everyone else doesn't actually help you solve a problem as you surf the web.
Love to give you a preview if you're interested - we've done all this bootstrapped. We are only in beta so there will be bugs!
we're totally bootstrapped so just trying to get the web app sorted at the moment and then we'll get that out!
Thanks for checking out our product. Been working hard on it to resolve the problem of object recognition and trying to produce something thats different to what's out there right now.
If you know anyone that want's to help or get involved - love to speak to them or if you want an invite just let me know and I'll send it right now.
Love your feedback on http://about.crowdsend.com too if you can! Open to anything.
99.9% of the world's population have never even heard of Linux outside of the tech industry. It's either Microsoft or Apple or you're a technology geek who likes other stuff. Clearly, this article was written while on the green stuff.
My favourite quote - some are saying Linux may have a great opportunity to steal a significant share of the market away from Microsoft - as it links to ReviewLinux - The Source for Linux Reviews.
Thats like linking to a Microsoft Article which says "Windows 8 set to capture 99.999% of the market and destory apple" says the Head of Communication for Microsoft at Microsoft Headquarters while speaking about Microsofts new operating system Windows 8" lol. Slap a #fail on that one.
To think humans being are capable of building something that complex, sending it that far, landing it successfully and subsequently transmitting high quality images is as mind blowing to me as I am sure our forepersons before us considered the moon landing. It is just staggering when you consider that we are looking at Mars as clear as its depicted in Total Recall (the Arnie version which doesn't suck) and many other Hollywood depictions.
The feat of technological capabilities achieved by NASA in this project just definitively illustrates to me that anything human beings want to achieve - can be achieved. I hope this project, the people involved and the continuous breakthroughs it realizes inspires more people to go and do great and amazing things. Nothings impossible - we just don't understand it all yet.
Congratulations on building an awesome company and being totally humble about it. I wish stories like yours were told more to put startups, life and what's important into perspective.
268 Miles (or slightly less according to the article) is just amazing - less C02, less environmental impact wrapped in a high performance car which - will no doubt - have some detractors as a first iteration against well establish models (comparing it to BMW and Mercedes who have been around for almost 90+ years is a big ask!)
None the less - it's ridiculously exciting at what's been achieved and what will be achieved in the next few years in this space. I give it no more than 3-4 years until these cars will be doing 400-500 miles or more.
Instead, what you have now is two companies who are trying to save a dying industry through subscription and the music industry trying to milk every single penny out of them. The dichotomy that creates is that these companies aren't sustainable long term - they are hemorrhaging cash re-the article:
Spotify’s accounts for the last year, recently filed in Luxembourg, show that it lost $57 million in 2011, despite a big increase in revenue, to $236 million ... On top of that it had more than $30 million in salaries, and more than $30 million for various other expenses. That is how you lose $57 million on $236 million in revenue.
That's just sad. The only incentive these companies have is to be ultimately purchased by the recording industry who can then dictate pricing on their own terms - and that's bad for everyone because then they are going to push prices up insanely. In fact, if these were purchased by the recording industry - it might be the worst thing to happen to music because we are all again at the mercy of the industry. They will want to maximise pricing and I believe, given their history, they will maximize anti-competitive behavior by essentially price fixing competing services out the market. By staying out the USA for 2 years, it was evident Spotify pushed (to some degree) the music studios to capitulate on their pricing - they both gave a little because the industry was desperate for cash. It's obvious to anyone that's the only reason Spotify weren't in the USA sooner - it wasn't economically feasible because the model was already proven to be a hit in Europe.
I don't, for one second, believe that the Music studio's are paying this out to the artists. They are dumping this straight into the bank - the industry in that regard is now basically running on live shows and tshirts for artists to survive. So don't be so quick to judge "giving away for free" - because thats not what they are doing. They have produced amazing services in my mind - and there should be some reward for that by the industry in recognizing and enabling them to create sustainable businesses.
It is irrelevant what a group of people can come up with 1 sec past the filing date, even on the other side of the world - the test is, given the available knowledge at the time of filing the patent and relevant to a person who is skilled in the art of the current available knowledge - would they be able to replicate the features detailed in the invention specification (essentially off my head).
In this case - it was ruled no. Despite all the prior art presented to the jury, despite all the previous evidence and so on and so on - it was considered wilfull infringement and a lot of the evidence presented showed that Samsung basically said "this feature of Apples is cool! lets copy that" ... which is pretty striking to lay-persons not skilled in law as jurors and tends to heavily weigh in their mind. And again, patent law considers - in some detail - that blends can in fact be new inventions. Patent law in the United States is very different to the rest of the world however and that has to be considered in this - the tests in Europe are much stricter and that's why many software patents aren't available there.
For context - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Euro...
Refer here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn... - "One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism."
Predominately - "that obviousness should be determined by looking at the scope and content of the prior art; the level of ordinary skill in the art; the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and objective evidence of nonobviousness. In addition, the court outlined examples of factors that show "objective evidence of nonobviousness". They are: commercial success; long-felt but unsolved needs; and failure of others."
See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_C....
Again - this article is attempting to state "oh because PDA existed, that means that everything related to a device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious". but again, thats untrue.
I still believe - in additional the complex legal arguments - the comment below was one of greatest aspects that changed the lay-persons juror mind. Per the Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny
"In those three months, Samsung was able to copy Apple's 4-year investment in the iPhone, without taking any of the risks—because they were copying the world's most successful product ... No one is trying to stop them from selling smartphones, all we're saying is: make your own. Make your own designs, make your own phones, and compete on your own innovations."
My point is - the unfortunate way that patent law currently works is - you are a doomed if you have something innovative that is patentable - not to patent it because you are most likely going to invest a huge level of resources developing it only to have someone copy it later without anything to fall back on. You might not agree with the patent system, you might hate the way it currently works (and I agree with this notion) but you are stuck with it and you aren't protecting your business from an intellectual property stand point - or providing adequate shareholder return if you don't seek to protect it.
You will do hundreds or thousands of hours developing, fixing and perfecting what could be an amazing idea - you will (maybe) get lots of fresh VC investment and take money from your parents, friends and family all who believe in you - only to push it to market and have someone copy it in a flash and reproduce it without question. What to do then ?
I'm not "whining" about the Samwers - I am bringing them into the larger context of this debate. That is - with patent protection - their outright clones would not exist. You draw a completely different imputation by comparing it to business strategy of expanding faster and cloning a product. I am not against, in any sense, taking an idea (groupon) and making it work in a different part of the world - as long as it adds something to it - a different UI and so on.
The Samwers don't add that and that's what is detestable. If your startup worked hard, built a product with a great UI that is commented upon and then a competitor clones it outright in a different market - are you suggesting you wouldn't be pissed ? Because that's exactly what the Samwers do. And sometimes it's not so easy to just "expand as soon as possible" - payments is a whole massive legal headache (in the case of stripe). Verification systems, financial approval and so on and so on per country and many others. Plus, expanding quickly involves local offices, larger teams, greater strategic planning, more investment capital which then dilutes existing people more and so on and so on. So it's not a simple matter of "expand as quickly as possible" but sometimes that's just not feasible.
The test is asking whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art. The state of the art at the time had no idea of such a simple one-click method - if it did - why wasn't it invented ? The fact it can be implemented so easily is irrelevant to fundamental idea that its innovative, non-obvious and unique. The best ideas are usually the ones no one see's and yes I am a front-end dev so I deal with more interaction components than anything.
Patents do not protect development effort - they protect novel, non-obvious and useful concept's. If they protected development effort - it would be a requirement to actually develop the idea and there is no such requirement and indeed many inventions wouldn't be possible to protect if such a requirement existed - that is, you must fully develop the invention before being granted protection. You're contention that because something is simple infers that its not patentable is incorrect in my mind.
a) the society doesn't benefit b) then you do nothing with it c) then you don't commercialise it for gain d) if you don't protect it - you get crushed by everyone else who does
and so on and so on. Indeed, Jefferson stated
"Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility"
Discouraging commericalisation of unique ideas - discourages those who are capitalist and want to move society forward. If every had no protection of their ideas - then all good ideas would be copied and the incentive to produce new ideas would be reduced as a result - or rather everyone remains secret and tries to produce entire products by themselves - again argubly reducing innovation. As I stated in my first post
"The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system)"
The argument with the cavemen is a primitive example. My response - Caveman B would most likely build it or kill Caveman A to build it. Which extrapolated to the protection of ideas in modern society may very well occur - competitor A and competitor B want to succeed more than each other and so on. If Caveman A is stronger than Caveman B - then he may very well ask for fruit to borrow his design - Caveman B gives him something of value to borrow his unique design - the other alternative.
Idea's should be able to be commercially protected. You suggest that by no one having a right to commercialise them that society would be better off - what is then the point of innovating and trying to essentially fulfil the capitalist dream of commercialising inventions to profitability if everyone is freely copying everyone else's ideas ? It results in no competitive advantages to some degree. The desire to be innovative and drive society forward is closely coupled with the profitability and commercialisation attached. That's not to say that all inventions require profitability - but most people seeking to protect their inventions are seeking to do so to ensure they maximize the potential of their idea's from a commercialisation standpoint. If anyone was free to copy anyone's truly awesome idea - that doesn't reward or provide additional incentive for people to innovate per my post below - what you get instead is the Samwer brothers who just outright cloned everything.
"These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent."
Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would come into play and it wouldn't be patentable. Yet it is - and yet despite all of Samsungs insistences and millions (no doubt) spent on prior art research - nothing has been shown prior to the date of filing that anything existed. It's no different than Amazon's One-click.
It would be interesting - if you invented something, you spent ten-of-thousands on patents, you spent huge amounts of capital in developing a product - you launch it to much positive press and then someone simply copies everything you have done. You're a small business - what do you do now ? According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage".
The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system)
The entire basis of patents was essentially trying to protect the little guy, with an idea against the onslaught of bigger companies just copying them outright and giving them no chance. You state "gone are the days of Steve Wozniak" and indeed "gone would be the days of apple" long ago - because he just wanted everyone to have everything and thats not how you run any business.
I agree that patent law needs reform - but I totally disagree that your somewhat misconstrued article that we should simply destroy patents all together. It should destroy them if they are not being actively used - but a company trying to protect its innovations in not something that I'm against. If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for some abstract concept of "a greater good". America is a capitalist society and therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry. I know my post will get down-voted but it's a reality of business and running a business - you either file for protection or you don't and get copied.
http://www.howtogeek.com/75356/how-to-turn-off-or-disable-th...
I assume the USADA is stating that all these tests we wrong ? Or that his 'doping' technique was too advanced ? Seems a pretty long stretch of the bow in my mind.
1) It cost around $10 million to get it to this point - that's OK as they have got it working but it's a significant capital spend. 2) It cost $600 USD approx for 1 helmet 3) Once it's deployed, time for another $600 USD - it's a one-use helmet (hey it does save your life)
If they can get the price point down it would be totally awesome and they probably will with time. But until it provides a greater flexion point than the good old $20 bike helmet - it's probably not going to sell to governments etc who would be a huge market for this.
Classic examples of mistakes in the past are like "How to propose?" or "What's a good engagement ring size?" and so on. All these problems were exposed with Facebook Beacon and purchasing decisions and after much revolt they shut it.
I honestly can't understand why Quora would implemented "User X viewed User Y" - I think that's taking the privacy perspective to a whole new level. Indeed, even on Facebook if they started listing things like "User A viewed your profile 55 times today" - it would essentially kill the service in it's tracks as would "User B viewed this photo 33 times" and so on. People have always used Facebook to stalk their friends - but that doesn't mean it should be detailed publicly for all the world to see.
This should be "opt-in" if not removed all together in my mind. As part of internal metric tracking - it's obvious that this occurs - but it shouldn't be public or should be entirely opt-in.