Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Peyomp, Feb 3, 2007.
I think alot of people have seen this, but I hadn't.
That fucking rocks
Reminds me of Minority Report
I saw that months ago, but that brings up an interesting point. When I watched the Apple iPhone keynote, I noticed that Jobs made a big point about saying that their multi touch touchscreen technology was patented.
Does anyone know anything specific about what Apple has patented versus what should be public domain because of prior art? Obviously this kind of interface has huge potential for creative applications, but how much are we going to be hindered in the future by these patents?
As in the past, patents will hinder innovation right up until the revolution, at which point patent owners and IP lawyers will be the first ones up against the wall.
I read the patent you are talking about.. Lets just say Apple will make big bucks.
Let me see if I can find a link again.
EDIT: here we go
Touch screen x,y,z axis, pressure, multiple fingers, yep, thats what we just saw alright.
The Mac has also been using this technology (multi-touch, not the pressure sensitive) for a while, now...
Neat, but the traditional keyboard is safe for yet another generation.
On a tiny little track pad. Nothing like this.
Whats more, the multi-touch monitor was neat, but it was not the neat part. The neat part were the intuitive, invisible interfaces and what they make possible.
The screens themselves he says are 'cheap' and so they'll be available from people like apple in the next few years. He already sells them to DoD.
Where this is going is a non-traditional way of interacting with your computer. Your entire desk, or an entire wall, or all the walls around you in a cell, might be multi-touch pressure sensitive screens. Imagine the applications for that. Combine it with voice recognition, motion sensing to detect body movements, and you have total immersion. Like VR that doesn' suck.
You still get the keyboard if you want it. But you can do so much more once your entire body interacts with the interface.
A generation of $100 notebooks. But I think this stuff will be on Apple.com within a few years. Why wouldn't it be? Its out of the lab. DoD is buying these already. Sales are happening. Usually it takes, what 5 years for this kind of thing to filter from the lab to the market? But its already out of the lab.
So I think a generation is a big overestimate. This stuff will start at the top tears, and work its way down.
That is some bomb-ass GUI manipulation.
Anyway, the difference between OSX and other forms of *nix does a great job of demonstrating why patents are important -- *nix has massively diverse applications because so many people can work on it, but OSX has polish because Apple's intellectual property is protected well enough that they can afford to pay their employees to focus on making a clean, friendly application, every single day for years, until it comes out right. You can't focus like that if your bills aren't getting paid.
Because it's not what *most* people use computers for. Most people use computers for writin reports and typing emails and surfing the web. Did you see how he brought up a keyboard? Why am I going to pay for a device with that interface if 90% of the time I'm going to use it to type?
What you saw was the incredibly cool GUI for an application, *NOT* the "next user interface for the PC." That application may be extremely powerful, but it's only going to be an application. Even igorning the $100 laptop, that still wouldn't catch on as a replacement for the keyboard. It's not practical for what most people use comptuers for.
I don't. I doubt my kids will ever see that in daily use.
Not patents. You mean copyright.
The distinction between the two is very fuzzy for most people, so I'll let it slide.
There's a huge difference. In this case: Copyright encourages innovation. Patents discourage it.
Your distinction between the two concepts is overly-romanticized.
Your inability to actually comment on the difference is typical.
Obviously you're too inexperienced to have run into an idiotic blocking patent, while still relying completely on copyright for your profits.
The difference between a patent and a copyright is that a patent grants the holder the exclusive right to develop a technology (and specific applications of that technology), whereas a copyright grants the holder the exclusive right to distribute an already developed application. I don't believe that copyrights can be extended to cover technologies used to create those applications, however, and I'm assuming that this is why you prefer copyrighting to patenting.
The only problem is that it's the development of the technology itself, not the development of applications using a technology, that costs billions of dollars, and it is for that reason that I have no problem with the idea that a company should be granted exclusive rights to profit from the technology they spent years and billions to develop. Patents don't last forever, the rest of the world can wait while the innovators recoup their investment costs.
Or do you have in mind a utopia where nobody goes hungry and nobody gets cold, so they can afford to work selflessly for years on projects that have neither a direct ability to feed them and keep them warm, nor guaranteed return value that can be used to buy food and warmth?
- - -
EDIT: I do, however, agree that patents should be expired prematurely if it becomes apparent that the patent-holder has no intention of developing the technology.
I agree that the touch pad interface will not replace the keyboard. The keyboard won't be replaced until a more efficient way of entering lots of data is found, like extremely accurate voice recognition.
Even then, professionals and technical people will use a keyboard because symbolic data entry (structure, whitespace, code syntax, etc) can't be translated into voice easily. Maybe with superawesome Voice Recognition for Programmers (Patented by Microogle)...
I picture something like a touch sensitive pad in the same position as your keyboard, and a keyboard that you can slide down or flip down to use. I should go ahead and patent it to cockblock you all... and for the irony.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPG-LYoW27E
You have no actual experience with either patents or copyright. That means your conceptions of both aren't romantic... they're baseless.
A valid patent would be, "Use of a USB port on a slot machine." That one's on the books. "Use of a 3d interface for a casino application." Frivolous patents are awarded every single day. Patent attorneys start at $400 an hour, so if you are a small company and someone asserts you are violating their patents, you are out of business. Period. You can't afford a defense.
Copyright on the other hand only protects what you actually build. This is enough to allow companies to reap the rewards of their inventions, without stifling everyone else's innovation.
Like I said, you don't actually know anything about either, and its obvious from your post.
No, I haven't tried to patent anything. It's always seemed like too much of a hassle to be bothered with, and that's taking into account that I have free legal advice 24/7. Saying I know nothing of the topic is overstating your case, though, because what you just said confirms the definitions I gave.
As for your claim that frivolous patents are awarded every day, if I bothered to look at the patent office website I'm sure I would agree, but it nonetheless stands that both your and my definitions of "frivolous" are subjective. One could say that any patent that stands in their way is frivolous, and any patent that helps them make money is valid, and any such distinction would be just as solid as yours is.
If you tried to write any piece of commercial software, you would automatically infringe on dozens of patents. Doesn't matter how simple your program.
Like, for instance, your windows scheduler tool probably infringes on multiple patents. Get it?
<sniff> that was beautiful, man
Quit trying to be likeable, old man...