skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I thought suing can only happen after arbitration but there's no mention of a lawsuit...) but even on that site there is absolutely zero indication of PTW receiving anything despite "winning". This story just doesn't add up.

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for lawsuits - it replaces a court trial. Its particularly used frequently in contract disputes. (Sometimes taking a case to arbitration as opposed to court is dictated in the initial contract).
Dark matter scaffolding of universe detected for the first time
That site design gave me an aneurysm.
> specific manufacture with their name on the box.

Nice little constraint there - Samsung has made the most phones by far.

> raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates.

Profit really isn't everything and is only important so long as you have a monopoly - afterwards it's all about volume baby! Apple has lost their monopoly on mobile.

> iOS still dominates.

Nope - Android has more activations, downloads and usage than iOS.

I own a Galaxy Nexus.
To eliminate further attack vectors, uninstall both the browser and the OS ; ).

I just want to point out that's there's a big difference between having an interpreter on your machine like python, ruby, or java, and having a browser plugin that executes remote code by default.

There's nothing wrong with the former, there's everything wrong with the latter.
You can interpret it however you like, but your interpretation is not backed by logic or evidence. Does the uncertainty principle imply that position and momentum don't exist at the same time?
I cited sources. If you care, read them. I'll do your reading for you on one example point:

http://patrifriedman.com/aboutme/politics.html#Morality

"People outside libertarianism sometimes identify Objectivism and libertarianism as being almost the same, but my experimental, polycentric, consequentalist approach to libertarianism is pretty much the opposite of Objectivism. I do think Ayn Rand's glorification of self interest and people realizing their potential is awesome, and I understand how teenagers get swept up by her ideas. That's fine, as long as they grow out of them later :)."

That section continues with some summary points on flaws in objectivist thought.

The burden of the critic is to familiarize themselves with the material and persons they are making critical claims of.
> In essence, I (and many others) would posit that [p1] if you can't measure it, then you can never know it exists. So, [p2] the smallest length any object can have is the Planck length.

p2 doesn't follow from p1.
> This isn't the case with patents

You're confusing "utility" patents with "design" patents. You have obligation to defend the design patents because you'll need this to apply for trade dress protection.
>"Apple was neither the first to create a multi-touch user interface (the first consumer multitouch device I know of was the Lemur, but I'm sure that was predated) nor the first to put it in a handheld PDA-ish device or a phone (LG beat the iPhone to market with the Prada--which, incidentally, also used very few physical buttons in favor of software buttons)."

The LG Prada was single touch and it did not have a touch UI. Just a gimmick screen that would let you launch functions. IT wasn't even a smart phone, it was a feature phone.

>The entire argument in favor of Apple's patents is bullshit,

Its only "bullshit" that the facts of reality don't fit your claims.

>and nirvana has a history of bad-faith fanboyism on the topic.

I do have a history of citing facts that deflate ideological balloons in response to people like you who lie about history and call me names.

It really is a shame that you choose not to be honest. I mean, that guy was asking a legitimate question, and you lied to him!
For firefox I use quickjava which puts a disable button in the bar. I can't remember the last time I actually enabled it. I do use Java quite frequently but rarely in the browser.
Likely an important talk, however I think it is googled-down too much compared to the original talk at the 28C3 [1]. ( Android as model of a free OS is just a tribute to the organizers methinks.) In the 28C3 talk Cory developed the argument against DRM ( and locked down computers) more carefully.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
Has nothing to do with Apple's money. The carrier's money, sure. And things like trust, battery life, etc. But that's everywhere.
I'm going through that negotiation with my fiancee right now, I don't have cable she does. The only thing is, she really really likes watching tennis, and sports in general is seems to be the thing still holding her to a cable subscription.
I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.
Steve Jobs – Think Different
Death probability is the lowest for 10 years old kids: 0.01% in that year.
You can setup it on Chrome just check to ask where chrome should save a file:

chrome://chrome/settings/search#Download

Glad you liked :D
"For example, if HBO won't let me watch a special on the web for a fair price I don't care if I miss it."

Completely agree. I get annoyed when people argue for piracy because they don't have a legal way of getting something (because of say regional restriction) or the legal way is more annoying (i.e. DRM). There is a sense of entitlement to all entertainment despite the fact that there are incredible amounts of alternatives available.
I think the obviousness argument is getting a little confused in most comments about this case.

I am arguing that the technology itself was obvious. This is also what the OP is arguing. Several examples of prior art for patented technologies such as pinch to zoom, rounded corner rectangles, etc. have been presented in other articles here and elsewhere.

What is not obvious was the sum of each tiny part that Apple put into the design of the iPhone was commercially viable in such a spectacular way.

My understanding (though admittedly, I have not been following this case as much as some others) is that Apple is asserting several individual patents in the one lawsuit against Samsung. I argue that for the most part, each of these patents are "obvious". Sure, when putting all of them together into a single product, Apple made a successful device. However, weren't they just asserting several individual patents? I'm not sure they have a patent on "all of their working patents together in one device".

In addition, it is often the case that several groundbreaking inventions/ideas in science are not just spontaneously invented. Rather, they are the cumulative (and perhaps inevitable) result of small steps in other areas. For example, the invention of Calculus by both Newton and Leibniz, or the theory of evolution by Darwin and Wallace.

Yes, there are ideas which are truly revolutionary, but I'd argue that the iPhone was more the inevitable (I use the term very loosely) outcome of several small steps in related areas of technology.

EDIT:
This is why I am so against the patenting of human genes. Sure, some companies have put billions of dollars into researching specific genes. But why should they get a monopoly on that gene, whereas every scientist who put work into sequencing DNA, cracking the genetic code, understanding hereditary, evolution, scientific thinking in general, and anybody before, gets nothing from it?

It feels a little like they are doing an economic version of a Steven Bradbury[0], because they raced to patent the "inevitable/obvious" solution first.

Apple refuses to admit that they got where they are (i.e. iPhone/iPad/iPod by "standing on the shoulders of giants" [1]

[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=steven%20brad...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...
Report: iPad mini Gets its Own October Event, iPhone to Debut Alone in September
How's this going to work for corporate installs? As much as I love the idea of big companies being forced forward, I have the nagging feeling that Microsoft will include a get-out-of-jail-free card for them.

(Speaking as a medium-sized corporation user stuck on Snow Leopard. :] )
Can OP post a summary of the talk? The slides aren't very helpful...
No. Nokia and Motorola did. If you are going to pontificate, get your facts right.
> I expect a little more thoughtfulness on a top comment in HN.

Why?
If nothing else, the following plaque sums the humbling nature of someone who accurately captured the gravitas of the moment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg

Today, some of the flags planted on the moon still stand upright. However, 40 years of intense UV radiation have bleached them all white. The plaque remains.
Your response is non-responsive. None of these features were stolen in the original Mac UI from 1984 from windows because Windows did not exist in 1984. My point was people were claiming someone "stole" from something that came out later.

Also, most of the things you list appeared originally on the Mac, or the windows "equivalents" really aren't and haven't caught up to the mac.

The only thing that the Mac did take from windows-- that's on your list anyway-- is Alt-Tab.
but chances for future growth

I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done".

I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.
You're delusional - sorry.

"I can't count the number of times on this site I've gotten personal attacks, such as yours, responded by not calling them names (as I have not called you names in response) and merely illuminated what they were doing in the hopes that they could see their errors (I named your logical fallacies above, for instance) only to have it escalate."

That says everything about you, nothing about me or this website. Look through the rest of the comments on this thread, notice how you're the only one getting into arguments while others are simply discussing and disagreeing with each other.

Notice how you're the only person I've written negatively about yet you're not the only person arguing for Apple - maybe, just maybe, what I wrote is about you, not about my hatred of Apple. Oh, and while my hatred of everything Apple fits your narrative beautifully, I'm actually a proud owner of two iPods (currently), an iPad and a macbook. Nowhere in this thread have I even come out in support of either side, all I did was debate a point in the discussion and pointed out that your attitude wasn't one that could win anyone over.

As it happens you're wrong in this topic, but the way you argue you wouldn't get many people to change their minds if you were right. And the fact that your comments in the past have led to stalking and threats... Clearly I'm not alone in my opinion.

Incidentally, you're now the second person I've ever criticised on HN, rather than just disagreed with. The first was a neo-nazi who proudly displayed swasticas on his website. I'm not an asshole, I don't call people out on their attitude because I disagree with them, I reserve it for people I consider need telling. It's fine if you disagree with my judgement of you, but don't be under any illusion that it isn't a judgement and is just my wanting to win the argument.
You are correct - the Prada II was capacitive and multi-touch, not the first one. Mea culpa.

It doesn't really change much, though, as "make a [Surface|Lemur|Diamondpoint] handheld" is about as obvious a conceit as one can want.
Show HN: Tripl - Social Discovery of Where Friends Travel
FWIW, this is a much more accurate title.
At least in Sweden, most debit cards now require Verified By Visa/MasterCard SecureCode for online purchases, which means the theif would need either my bank RSA fob or a password.
It's an interesting article, but the title is a bit misleading. The article is mostly about how plants react to various sensory stimuli.
>A poster previously in the thread has said that touch screens did not exist before Apple used them;

This is a flat out lie.

>said that touch must only be fingers.

This is also a lie.

>Minority Report - 2004 (design ideas, not working implementation)

Completely different method, used cameras to sense hand positions in air, not physical screens.

And even if minority report showed a PDA with a touch UI in it, it would be completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Yes, but that's for the recording/release/marketing/tours side. Royalties continue to be paid long after the production costs are covered. I imagine they should go 100% to the artist, but wouldn't be surprised if they don't.
> Schizophrenics are by definition unaware that their delusional beliefs are delusional

delusions are not necessary for a schizophrenia diagnosis

also, during periods of convalescence, on hallucinations: "they may learn to ignore them, or treat them as benign accompaniments of everyday living" --http://www.schizophrenia.com/family/delusions.html
Your third sentence proves the first in the general sense. Prior to the iPhone no such Apple-style multi-touch interface existed.

My claim was merely that Apple invented the first Touch UI of that style.

Not all touch UIs.
"Well, if it was so obvious, why is Apple continually breaking new ground?"

Herds.

More specifically group thinking and risk aversion. I can't say I really admire Steve Jobs but what I completely believe was that Steve's willingness to say "my way or the highway" on very very risky decisions and directions is the entire source of Apples "innovation."

This trial, and the documentation around the web about prior art, brought that into absolutely stark relief. I claim that any competent design and engineering group that was asked to make a 'smartphone' with the requirements Steve laid out for it, would have come up with something very much like the iPhone. However, there was no CEO in the world except Steve who had the balls to invest the company into those requirements.

Look at Tesla (the car company) and Elon Musk. GM could have made the car that Tesla built on the assembly line they used to build the EV1 but they didn't have the balls to commit to it. If you watch the Bloomberg video [1] it is absolutely clear that one of two things was going to happen, either Tesla was going to ship a car, or Elon was going to go broke. And in being so committed to his own vision of what needed to be done, he dragged a bunch of naysayers along.

Palm had proven people would buy a PDA with 'apps' and carry it around. RIM had proven that people would pay to have a phone they could send and receive email from. None of the 'big' players (Sony, Ericsson, Nokia, RIM, Palm) was ready to commit to making a phone where "phoneness" was a peer of "PDAness." So there were tenative steps pushed out there that were evolutionary on the existing products. A blackberry with some Palm features, Sony's phone with the touch screen, all that stuff you see that existed prior to the iPhone.

And one of the things you get when you are tentative, is timidity. A general sense that this can't possibly work, or that the chance of it working is really low. And people trying to protect their careers or their reputations won't say "We do it this way or else." They are not fearless. And for good reason, they've got kids that will go to college, spouses who expect steady employment, a 401k, a retirement plan. It is a really really hard conversation to have with your boss to say "I want to spend $100M on developing a product that you have to take my word for it will be awesome." The answer is, almost always, "Why the f*ck should I do that?"

But Steve (and through him Apple) did just that. Just like Musk put into production a $100,000 all electric sports car.

And when Apple proved that it wasn't a stupid idea to make a portable computer that made phone calls, the rest of the world was now free to act without fear that the idea was stupid, after all Apple made it work right? And sticking as close to the Apple 'formula' as possible was the safe bet.

That is why I don't think Apple will do it again, I don't think Tim Cook is able to make that kind of leap. Elon can, but he's already running two other companies.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73460184-elon-musk-profiled-b...
Video capture cards can already do this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815100...) or just pay $8/mo to Netflix and stream it. The only reason for ripping Netflix streams is to view them on Linux since their DRM barely works on Linux through Wine which is not always ideal. If they got that DRM thing working on Linux, I am not sure there is a legit reason to rip content from Netflix, the monthly fee is very reasonable.
Reset your goals. If you never win and never give up, you're probably working on the wrong problem.
You misunderstood what I was claiming. I was rebutting the claim that Apple just assembled the iPhone from off the shelf pieces.

Some restaurants do have iOS devices in them.

For you to claim that Apple didn't invent a touch UI, you would need to show that someone prior to Apple shipped iOS on one some device.

That's not the way Apple works. Apple doesn't license someone else's operating system.

Apple created iOS.
I suspect the economics of gyms might be such that if it was pay-per-use they'd either have to charge insane rates or go under. It's not so much that consumers like monthly fees as that the gyms like them because they're easy to forget about.
This completely misses the point of Two-factor authentication, though.

Two-factor authentication is all about increasing security by combining two separate factors: something you know (password), and something you have (phone). From what I can tell, you're just switching from relying on one factor (password) to relying on the other factor (phone). It's just a different one-factor authentication paradigm.

Unfortunately, this leaves several gaps. For example, what happens when I lose my phone, or someone takes it from me? Can that other person log in immediately?

I can potentially understand an argument that this is more secure than solely password-based solutions (although I don't think it would be for me, where I use complex random passwords), but I certainly wouldn't consider it an alternative to two-factor authentication.
> The LG Prada was single touch and it did not have a touch UI. Just a gimmick screen that would let you launch functions. IT wasn't even a smart phone, it was a feature phone.

On this you are correct. I was thinking of the Prada II, which was multitouch. My apologies. That does not necessarily make Apple's use of multitouch the novel concept you assert, however--to me, Surface, Lemur, etc. make shrinking it down to PDA size (whether or not a phone radio is in the device or not) an obvious progression.

The rest of your post is more of the curiously self-absorbed nattering we've been seeing throughout this thread, however. "Ideological balloons" is funny--I own three iOS devices and two Android ones, I have no ideological allegiance either way. I do, however, have a rather strong aversion to using the court system instead of competing and I find it ridiculous that something like the iOS "bounce" at the end of a list is a patentable effect. I am not impressed by Samsung's attempts to copy iOS, either; I find them to be lacking in creativity, but I do not find a lack of creativity to be grounds for rent-seeking and legal action.

I also have a strong aversion to your style of posting, however--your brand of obnoxiousness is something I came to HN to get away from--so I will not be replying to you again. I am sure you will enjoy the last word.
Apple is well known for being able to get what its wants from suppliers, but I'm sure Lenovo sells enough laptops that if it cared enough to make screens a big issue with suppliers and a selling point for customers, it could get good screens too. When IBM wanted good screens, it created a new company (IDTech, since sold to Sony) as a joint venture.
Totally sympathize with that difficulty. If you have access to Safari Books Online, they have a really good chapter that also goes through the Backbone wiring-up process in their MongoDB book (which has a chapter about Backbone).
But, ah, nirvana... where did I call anyone biased? Can you find a single instance?

You're typing angry words at a phantom argument you created. I don't know who's face you glued on that straw man, but I'm bored watching you burn it down. Besides, you can take as pro or as anti-Apple a stance as you want. Personally, I think that's missing the point of this entire exercise.

Do you really think that people are upset about Samsung and Apple? They're upset about software patents and how ludicrously easy they are to get and yet how absurdly difficult they are to render invalid. The jury here says they decided (under the advice and guidance of a patent holder) to stop debating the prior art issue.

This is what we have a problem with.

For what it's worth, I think Samsung did attempt to copy Apple with its first round of phones and they did a damn poor job of it. Cheap knock offs looked like cheap knock offs, and I think they were made willfully. However, I think many of Apple's patents are invalid because they do not constitute real, protectable innovation.

If this were Samsung vs. HTC I'd be hoping for exactly the same outcome: a demonstration of the facile nature of software patents in the US. They do nothing to protect innovators; they only serve to artificially limit competition. For the sake of the industry and the economy I live and work in, they need to be radically reformed.
Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks.

Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.
(American) I experienced something like this the first time in my life yesterday when buying Skype credit. After entering my info at Skype, I was redirected to a "Verified by Visa"[0] page that made me type in my bank credentials.

I wish this sort of thing was universal.

[0]: https://usa.visa.com/personal/security/vbv/index.jsp
I wonder since a while what makes Light Table definitely better than emacs?

edit: better or different.
Go back far enough and someone's father started it - what's your point?

I didn't actively buy Nokia or Motorola for this very reason.

Google acquired Motorola to defend against Apple and Microsoft. They are doing so admirably.
> Apple's restrictions have little to do with controlling device owners

I would think you were making a joke if not for the earnest tone of your post. But, come on, that is a ridiculous statement to make.

We had free as in freedom, free as in beer, and then Steve Jobs came up with free as in "freedom from porn". You appear to buy into that doublespeak redefinition of freedom without irony.

The Soviet Union made a similar to give people freedom -- from class distinction, religious persecution, etc., and it used the same logic. (And was just as true.)

Apple's restrictions are all about controlling device owners to make Apple more money. (Otherwise they would be "suggestions".)

You may not install apps that don't pay Apple 30% of their revenues. You may not install apps that compete with Apple's favored apps. You may not even keep functionality you've already bought from Apple's store and been using, if Apple realizes after the fact that it conflicts with their lucrative hardware licensing deals (Airfoil Speakers).

I'm not saying there aren't user-experience benefits to be had from a locked-down experience; there are, and Apple obviously knows it.

I'm saying freedom doesn't what you think it means, and I don't think even Frank Luntz could make it mean that.
Whether something is obvious or not is irrelevant to this discussion.... the fact of the matter is, Apple created iOS, they didn't license it. The point I made was that Apple created that component, it didn't exist before. It was not off the shelf (as others were broadly claiming.)

Further, "obvious" is silly since nobody did it before them, and it is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument.