skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I entirely disagree. "keep it to yourself"

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.
Minority Report had the concept, but with two hands. Something new would be the notifications stolen from android. But in any case, it's a patent and companies are required to protect their innovation!
Is it good for the industry in the short term? I'd say No. Is it the best thing that could have happened to the tech industry in the long term? Yes, I think so.

Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone.

From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves.

Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
I think that might be because people who are used to writing typical object-oriented code somehow assume that an instantiation is required before you can do /anything/.

There is nothing wrong with a static call under a lot of conditions (not stateful, no override requirements etc).

The same people also tend not to complain about C paradoxically.
Tim Cook's first year after Jobs' resignation
Is your argument that because Apple is now successful, that their walled garden approach is now flawed?

I don't follow the line of reasoning there.
> government-sponsored healthcare system ... always seemed to me that such programs are fundamentally unsustainable.

What is it about them that seems unsustainable to you? Are you an economist or an accountant? Do you have a citation to back up this point of view?

Here's a recent one against it: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&#...
Samsung also makes a hell of a lot more than phones. 1 in 30 people in Korea mig be employed by Samsung, but they're not all making phones, and they're not all going to be affected by this decision. Even if Samsung was forced to abandon mobile phones altogether, it's big enough to weather it out.
Unlikely that there's a difference. It wasn't Apple (or Steve Jobs Himself[tm]) that invented the capacitive touch screen and made it available in large quantities (ie. mainstream compatible).

There were prototypes at many (probably all) mobile vendors exploring the capabilities unlocked by that technology.
Apple "merely" was boldest - but then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered.

Things might lag half a year or so due to this, but someone, somewhere would have kicked off the "touch revolution" in about the same time without Apple. Maybe even RIM or Nokia.

Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, in about the same time (new market to enter, knowing the old style mobile HCI and touch, having prototypes for both) - and they seemed to prefer the old style for now.

In a world without iPhone they probably would have waited for one of the big guys to introduce touch, and then followed quickly.
Google wasn't as confident about pushing an unproven HCI onto users as Apple was.
Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming that Apple is a threat to innovation.

The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry in the long term.

I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and Android at least started as clones.
My comment in another HN Thread:

Is it good for the industry in the short term? I'd say No. Is it the best thing that could have happened to the tech industry in the long term? Yes, I think so.
Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone.
From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves.
Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
Yes, but other people working on the GPL project, including more major contributors didn't have a problem with the porting and availability on iOS.

I guess all it takes is a misguided picking of licence in the beginning and a zealot that contributed somewhat (even marginally) to ruin it for all the other contributors who could care less about 100% enforcement. Maybe that explains why BSD and MIT style licences rule the roost when it comes to new projects on GitHub...
Researchers Create Distortion-free Lens for Perfect Image
Are you serious? The Samwer brothers don't do anything different from thousands of US startups and big companies that try to imitate new ideas that have success in the market. How many venture capitalists in the US finance exactly that kind of ventures?

The only difference is that they evidently found a good formula to do it with repeated successes by focusing on early localization on European (and especially German) market, and so became famous.

By the way, I'm in favor of patents in general, but with very stringent non-obviousness requirements. IIRC the USPTO changed its attitude not so many years ago here, going from a "reject as much as possible" one to a "accept as much as possible" one.
Why hasn't this happened in the four years since it was published?
In the case of one-click, it's first important to note that in addition to prior art, a patent must also pass the obviousness test. One-click does not. You may not be a developer, I don't know, but I know any developer here could implement one-click in a day.

Patents are not intended to be a lottery rewarding insight. Patents protect development effort. One-click fails that test.

But in terms of prior art, Jeff Bezos and Tim O'Reilly backed BountyQuest in 2001 as a forum for researching prior art for patents. They couldn't monetize it, so it shut down in 2003 - but not before O'Reilly received what he calls a "killer piece of prior art" on the one-click patent, which he has on his bookshelf in case "Amazon loses its senses and sues someone". [http://openp2p.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2003/bountyquest_10...]

The point here is not that your example is wrong. Where you go wrong is assuming that a patent granted on software is anything like a useful mechanism to support innovation.
I think it was wrong for Samsung to blatantly copy the iPhone. But it's also wrong for apple to refuse to license certain design patents, when they are clearly superior.

I think a lot of the gestures and interactions that Apple has patents over are so fundamental to touch screen device interaction, that not having them is crippling. It's like if Apple patented the mouse or the keyboard and monopolized the market.

The slavish cloning of Apple devices and software and subsequent commoditization of the non-Apple market pushed RIM and windows phones into unrecoverable positions. Windows and Rim played by the rules and lost, google and samsung cheated and won. Not fair. I think these patent battles are pretty much a side-show and won't significantly affect android market share. We'll see though.

Now on a more macro scale, is this a net win for the industry and consumers? The mobile market has consolidated into two camps very similar to how the computer market consolidated. Apple with it's full vertical integration and limited devices aimed squarely at high-end consumers. And Google taking the place of Microsoft with an OS that supports a large range of high-end to low-end hardware produced by outside manufacturers and much more open software ecosystem.

I would argue that this kind of consolidation was inevitable, because it would be too much work for software developers to target a truly diversified mobile device market, each with their own proprietary APIs and quirks.

It's too bad that OS developers never created a standard for universal API's for common tasks. Instead we got an endless onslaught of abstraction platforms like Java, the web and flash. When what we really need is OS-level support/standards for portable code. It doesn't really make sense that a game I write in C for one OS needs to be endlessly fucked about with to get it to run on another OS.
What about that part where Apple basically looked at the pull-down notifications in Android and just copied it in iOS 5? Oh wait, OUR soldiers are freedom fighters, but THEIRS are despicable terrararists, right?
I would argue that this is fair use.

In any case, I'll invoke the maxim "imitation is the highest form of flattery" as an argument. Why do so many people new to game development make (and are encouraged to make) Pacman clones, Snake clones, Tetris clones, Asteroids clones (one is still on the front page with no shouts of "copyright infringement!!!"), etc.? Because they're fun, respected games that are easy to clone with modern tools. This game is no different apart from not having as many people thinking it's a good game.

This platform mechanic is over a decade old (and mechanics can't be copyrighted anyway), the platforms themselves are probably too simple to qualify under copyright. (The alien sprite you might have a better argument for, but that's very easy to change and if I were the author I'd do that not to play it safe but because the standard alien doesn't look very good.) The only thing I would suggest the author really bother changing is adding the word "clone" or "recreated in HTML5" to the title of the project even though that information is already in the description.
It's funny to have to state this on a site where a common mantra is that "execution matters":

If US entrepreneurs suck at serving a global market (and they do - failing even with covering Canada and Mexico for years, their direct neighbors), someone else is bound to fill the niche.

Instead of whining about the Samwers, how about expanding as soon as possible?
Either there's money to be had abroad (then go and get it) or there's not (then why aren't Samwers bankrupt by now, at least thrice?).
Regarding 3D Water Drawing Algorithms
Because the entire premise is wrong

> It’s socially awkward to refuse to add someone to your friends list—but removing someone from your friends list is practically a declaration of war.

It really isn't that bad as he makes it out to be. End of discussion.
Ask HN: Is a completed course on codeacademy enough to get  a programming job?
Hi,
I am currently doing the Javascript course on codeacademy. I am about 40% of the way through the course and I am moving fast. I really enjoy the challenges and feel I am learning a lot. I have also signed up to the codeschool objective C course.

However, I was wondering if having completed the Javascript course really means anything to a potential employer? Would a potential employer hire me on the back of completing a codeacademy course? Of course it would help with other tech jobs and with my own projects, but would it get me a job as a programmer?Any feedback you could give me on this would be greatly appreciated.
Multi touch and Pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jefferson Han¹ on a TED conference before the release of the iPhone.

¹: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han
Specific to NumPy. Boolean indexing.

http://www.scipy.org/Cookbook/Indexing#head-86055279f6592d36...
Life expectancy != quality of life. Yes, a markedly low LE will mean something, but apart from that, it's nothing to hang your hat on.
When Apple copied from Xerox PARC, was the UI part of an already successful, profitable mass-market product? No, they stole a research idea and ran with it (though it's just as likely to have been patented). But when Apple has a successful product that everyone is buying, and Samsung makes a product that looks and acts like it, I think they were definitely trying to cause confusion and take market share. If you fly to Europe with a fake Rolex and get caught (they do have customs officers trained to look for and detect fakes), they don't just confiscate the fake or turn you away, you get prosecuted. Morally, I'm not sure why that should apply to luxury goods and not anything with a distinctive look and feel.
> Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law.

Are we talking about patentable innovations, or something else? A lot of patentable innovations do not make anything, a lot things which are not patentable make boat load of bucks. Your comment seem to have clouded this distinction.

It seems to me that you are questioning the basis of government granted monopoly. But this grant is not on the basis of money generation, but on innovation and benefits to the society by disclosure.

Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. If he kept it to himself, it may definitely help him to unknown riches. And possibly the secret could die with him. But if he shared his secret sauce, then all of us in the society will benefit a lot. Patents are a means to that end. What do you think?
DAE = Does Anybody Else. I had to look it up, too. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dae
The automobile UI standardized far, far earlier than it was regulated. In 1905 there was a regular Cambrian explosion of steering devices - that disappeared when the Model T succeeded wildly.

I suppose Ford should have patented the car UI and still be earning money on it today from every car sold - after all, the Model T was clearly innovation, and innovation should be rewarded with long-term rent.

(I can't believe people can actually think that way.)
No it was just easy enough to dismiss it as a harmless eccentricity of a niche player. Now that they're in the driver's seat in many ways it takes on much more sinister overtones. If Apple succeeds in driving Android out of the market they will be the sole arbiter of what's allowed on the devices that mediate most users' interactions with the net.

I have no problem with curated app stores or app DRM, by the way. I just think that there has to be a way to side load apps that don't meet the censor's approval for whatever reason.
Windows 8 productivity: Who moved my cheese? Oh, there it is.
http://khamphukhoa.com.vn
This seems to mostly be the case in software industry where everything moves really fast so nothing seems patent worthy. There's a whole world out there where innovation moves a lot slower and patent protection is crucial.
Glossy icons worth $1B judgement? Nope.
PHP BDD is now "nice"
btw i'm not a php fan, but some times i have to use it.
Also, there seems to be some kind of CSS bug hiding the "Like' button?
I don't see it as sucking up, more as showing that you have taken the time to understand what they are attempting to achieve, and that you are giving thought out feedback:

"I can see you are trying to appeal to teenagers, but the copy comes across as very young."

If I just said, your copy is childish, the recipient would likely think "doesn't he realise I'm trying to appeal to teens? God did he even read the site?"

Without context it's harder to get people to understand and act on your concerns, as most peoples first response is to already be on the defensive and try to find reasons not to implement your feedback.
uppppppppppppppppppp
The glossy effect, and all the other UI niceties took thousands of hours of research to perfect. You think they just mocked up the design in a single alpha release and shipped it as is? No, good UI takes tons of work, not just development but user testing and dozens of feedback cycles. Hard to develop and get right (so that it feels so effortless) yet so easy to copy. How do we protect that?
It would still be useful to know the constant amount that the framework would add to any request. If it's 50ms, cool. If you do a hello, world and it comes out to hundreds of milliseconds, that's a lot less cool.
It's funny how we assume (well, at least I did) how contributer has to be a developer.
Direct link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU#t=2m50
I find the choice of words somewhat patronizing, as well. Yes, Apple, I know stealing isn't right. I also know to look both ways before crossing the street, and I eat my vegetables, too.

To reduce something as complex as this case to simply "stealing" is absurd and shows the level of disconnect at that company right now.
I wouldn't hire someone that complete a course on codeacademy, and doesn't have anything to show me, if he has open source projects and i like what i see, i would hire him.
Indeed, the problem I find is that people come away with two positives, and unless they are actively trying to look for your advice it can be missed.

I think you just have to contextualise the feedback to show you understand the issue then explain where you see the problem. Then if asked give your advice on what you would do to fix the issue. Leading with your chosen solution is another common mistake. There may be good reasons they didn't do that to start with, and the problem you were addressing becomes lost.
I think that is at the core of this issue: Apple feels Samsung copied the iPhone experience, without any effort or even vision on Samsung's side on how to create this experience. Blind copying so to say. So Apple wants to sue them on look and feel, but they can't; what I remember from the Microsoft-Apple litigation about look and feel is that it turned out that look and feel is almost impossible to patent and defend. That is my explanation on why Apple is now suing over their obvious patents, because they cannot sue over look and feel.
I think you are missing his point. His point is not that patents should not exist, it is that patents are not protection of ideas. They are protection for inventions, as in, the actual (used to be physical) functional embodiments of an idea.

If you allow someone to patent cotton gins just because they thought that they sounded swell and wrote the idea down, you've seriously hindered any kind of market at all. Your idea is worthless without an embodiment, and no one else can make anything until your patent expires.

If you allow someone to patent all cotton gins based on their single implementation one, you again have poisoned future implementations -- perhaps better and more efficient ones with completely different physical forms -- just because they belong to the idea class of "cotton separating machines".

The point is a very important one: ideas are not property. We can go a little further and say all IP is not property either. You cannot be deprived of it (short of a lead pipe), but you can be deprived of your granted right to profit from it, for a little while at least. That's the motivation you speak of, and that's the only reason patents exist at all, at least in the US.
> Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart.

What?

No, we weren't.

I had a Cingular 8125 (HTC Wizard) a year and a half before the iPhone was introduced and it was perfectly fine. Apple just added shiny icons and took away the keyboard and stylus. BFD.
Seth's Blog: Questions we ask before we trust your new idea
Thanks for the feedback, so you think adding code to github or building a websites is essential?
This is fantastic news; we've just recently been porting Wyv and Keep to mono, and studying SuperGiant's upgrades will definitely help!
"The name of the game and images are © copyrights by the respective creators and Lima Sky"

This reminds me of the fair use copyright clause people put on YouTube videos. Just because you acknowledge something is copyrighted doesn't mean you can infringe it.

It's cool that you were able to build it but ripping off the artwork (if you did create that from scratch it's very good because I couldn't tell the difference), the name, and open sourcing it is not good. The developer is still selling this and making money from it and you've just produced a free web version.
But Apple make more profit. Thats how they decided to compete, not for market share.
tap to zoom, seriously?
wow! congratulations on the excellent work!! I never knew that one could recreate the whole game with htmk5 and css.
>Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea

You can't patent an implementation
What Happens When You Do a Web Search?