Technology catch-all thread

[Y2HH]

While it's a good thing that this merger died, it remains to be seen what happens with TMobile now, since the company that owns it doesn't want to run it.

 

And herein lines the problem.

 

T-Mobile will go simply go bankrupt now. Why? Because, when the sale announcement was made public, T-Mobile stopped investing in maintaining their infrastructure in any sort of real way. They kept it running, sure, but that's about it. They also stopped clamoring to get manufacturers to make phones for them...if someone did, they didn't stop them, but they also didn't go out and actively seek new technologies/phones for their users thinking there was little to no point.

 

So basically, while the entire cellular industry marched forward for the last year, T-Mobile did nothing...and now, if they even wanted to attempt survival, would have to play catchup...which would basically deplete any cash they saved up. The upside for them is maybe, if they expend all of their resources, they can "possibly catch up"...the downside is, at best, they can catch up...and then have no money left to stay with the pack.

 

They're in trouble now.

[StrangeSox]

An example of everything wrong with software patents:

 

U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google

 

At the heart of the disputes are the kind of small but convenient features that would cause many people to complain if they were not in their smartphones. For example, the case decided Monday involves the technology that lets you tap your finger once on the touch screen to call a phone number that is written inside an e-mail or text message. It also involves the technology that allows you to schedule a calendar appointment, again with a single tap of the finger, for a date mentioned in an e-mail.

[Y2HH]

An example of everything wrong with software patents:

 

U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google

 

There are millions of such examples.

[HuskyCaucasian]

And herein lines the problem.

 

T-Mobile will go simply go bankrupt now. Why? Because, when the sale announcement was made public, T-Mobile stopped investing in maintaining their infrastructure in any sort of real way. They kept it running, sure, but that's about it. They also stopped clamoring to get manufacturers to make phones for them...if someone did, they didn't stop them, but they also didn't go out and actively seek new technologies/phones for their users thinking there was little to no point.

 

So basically, while the entire cellular industry marched forward for the last year, T-Mobile did nothing...and now, if they even wanted to attempt survival, would have to play catchup...which would basically deplete any cash they saved up. The upside for them is maybe, if they expend all of their resources, they can "possibly catch up"...the downside is, at best, they can catch up...and then have no money left to stay with the pack.

 

They're in trouble now.

Actually, it looks liek they've already started testing some changes to their network.

TmoNews noticed through HowardForums that unlocked iPhones connected to T-Mobile are picking up spots of 3G service in a few locations. What does that have to do with anything? The iPhone doesn't support AWS at all — the only band T-Mobile is known to be using for HSPA+ so far — which means that the carrier appears to be testing HSPA+ on its 1900 holdings, a prerequisite to deploying dual-carrier 84Mbps service. The site points out that most of T-Mobile's recent smartphones support 1,900MHz 3G, and this would explain why.

[StrangeSox]

There are millions of such examples.

 

 

Yup

[Y2HH]

Actually, it looks liek they've already started testing some changes to their network.

 

They can say what they want, but they weren't spending any money on an infrastructure that was going to be bought by someone else, so don't believe it for a second.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

T-Mobile to get seven-year 3G roaming deal, 128 markets of AWS spectrum from AT&T

Deutsche Telekom now is detailing the consolation prize it's getting from AT&T in the aftermath of its failed acquisition of T-Mobile — and in looking through the details, calling it a "consolation prize" really doesn't do it justice. The German telecommunications giant will be receiving a cash payment of $3 billion, which we now know will be going directly toward paying off DT's debt — it seems that T-Mobile USA itself won't see a dime of it — but the carrier will be taking delivery of licenses for some 128 market areas of AWS spectrum, including 12 of the top 20 markets. That's a pretty big deal, and will probably force AT&T to rely more heavily on its 700MHz holdings for LTE deployments in some areas.

 

Additionally, it was known that a failed merger would result in a roaming agreement between AT&T and T-Mobile, and now we know the details: T-Mobile gets a seven-year UMTS roaming deal on AT&T, which would certainly explain why some recent T-Mobile devices (the HTC Amaze 4G, for instance) have included support for HSPA on the 850 and 1900MHz bands. Deutsche Telekom says this means T-Mobile's coverage will go from 230 to 280 million subscribers — an increase of over 20 percent.

 

Though there's no sign that DT now suddenly wants to keep T-Mobile USA in its holdings over the long term, it seems like this is a totally acceptable outcome for the carrier. Realistically, it might be exactly what it needed to get it over the hump, put it on the path to growing its subscriber base again, and into an LTE agreement of some sort. We'll see.

[iamshack]

An example of everything wrong with software patents:

 

U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google

I am not sure what is wrong with this? Can you elaborate further?

[Y2HH]

I am not sure what is wrong with this? Can you elaborate further?

 

It's akin to having a patent on a round steering wheel. It's literally a patent on being able to touch a phone number in an e-mail on a touch screen device and you're phone calling that number. It's absurd.

[StrangeSox]

It's akin to having a patent on a round steering wheel. It's literally a patent on being able to touch a phone number in an e-mail on a touch screen device and you're phone calling that number. It's absurd.

 

Right. I have no problem with Apple's specific code for doing so being copyrighted, but software patents have become this gigantic mess of broad patents on the most basic of concepts. Patent trolling has cost the economy billions of dollars.

 

edit: here's the actual patent

 

There is no reason Apple should be able to hold a monopoly on the rather obvious concept of clicking a phone number to call it. That same functionality has existed in email on computers for ages. All of these patents and the patent trolling companies are seriously boxing in innovation when something like "transmitting music data over IP" is copyrighted. There's a good reason a significant portion of the software development world opposes software patents and why they're not granted in many countries.

Edited December 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

It's akin to having a patent on a round steering wheel. It's literally a patent on being able to touch a phone number in an e-mail on a touch screen device and you're phone calling that number. It's absurd.

I disagree. In reading Jobs' biography, it was little innovations that were turning points in the design of a phone. And while some of these innovations may seem unimportant now, at the time, they were critical. For instance, when the iPhone was being developed, they couldn't get by the issue of the touchscreen being activated in someone's pocket. It took them a while to come up with the "slide to unlock" feature. While that seems obvious now, why is it then that almost ALL of these innovations were created by Apple? If they are so obvious and unimportant, why is it that these innovations aren't spread across the spectrum of all the developers? Instead, we've got basically all the best touchscreen technology and features coming out of one company, and I don't blame them one bit for patenting that technology.

[Y2HH]

I disagree. In reading Jobs' biography, it was little innovations that were turning points in the design of a phone. And while some of these innovations may seem unimportant now, at the time, they were critical. For instance, when the iPhone was being developed, they couldn't get by the issue of the touchscreen being activated in someone's pocket. It took them a while to come up with the "slide to unlock" feature. While that seems obvious now, why is it then that almost ALL of these innovations were created by Apple? If they are so obvious and unimportant, why is it that these innovations aren't spread across the spectrum of all the developers? Instead, we've got basically all the best touchscreen technology and features coming out of one company, and I don't blame them one bit for patenting that technology.

 

Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them, and some of them Apple did indeed think of/create, but not all. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely.

 

To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them! One is an idea/specific method used to unlock a touch screen, the other is a basic fundamental use of the internet. There is a pretty huge difference between the two.

 

* Citation of Apple not being the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface Microsoft first conceptualized surface touch in 2001, years before Apple even began hatching the idea of the iPhone/touch/multitouch which didn't go to market until 2007. Just because they were the first to go mass market/consumer electronics does not mean they were the first to use, employ or even think of some of these ideas.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Because they weren't.

 

Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely.

 

To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them!

 

One is an idea/specific method to unlock, the other is a basic fundamental usage. There is a pretty huge difference.

 

And the problem is there's many valid patents out there that are akin to a patent on a web browser link. Amazon owns a patent on "online cart checkouts" which virtually every website where you can buy something is in violation.

[Y2HH]

And the problem is there's many valid patents out there that are akin to a patent on a web browser link. Amazon owns a patent on "online cart checkouts" which virtually every website where you can buy something is in violation.

 

I made a pretty big edit to my post, but again, we agree. Many of these patents are -- get ready for it -- patently absurd.

[iamshack]

Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely.

 

To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them!

 

One is an idea/specific method to unlock, the other is a basic fundamental usage. There is a pretty huge difference.

I disagree. You have no clue how frustrated I used to become when I was finding a number on one screen and trying to go back to my dialing screen and type in the number from memory, realizing I forgot some numbers and going back to the number, then going back to the dialing screen, etc.

 

In patent law, there is a concept where if there is really only one good way to do something, than that is not really something that is patentable. For instance, you can't patent the idea for a chair. You can patent an idea for a chair that massages your back, or a chair that rocks, or a chair that has a cooler for your beer in it, but you cannot patent a simple chair.

 

In this instance, Apple is improving about the idea of web browsing. They are allowing you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly with the functionality of the phone. I think that is a design improvement that deserves recognition under the law.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

get out.

 

 

This American Life had a good episode on patent trolls this summer. I thinks bmags posted it way back when.

 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-arch...-patents-attack

[Y2HH]

I disagree. You have no clue how frustrated I used to become when I was finding a number on one screen and trying to go back to my dialing screen and type in the number from memory, realizing I forgot some numbers and going back to the number, then going back to the dialing screen, etc.

 

In patent law, there is a concept where if there is really only one good way to do something, than that is not really something that is patentable. For instance, you can't patent the idea for a chair. You can patent an idea for a chair that massages your back, or a chair that rocks, or a chair that has a cooler for your beer in it, but you cannot patent a simple chair.

 

In this instance, Apple is improving about the idea of web browsing. They are allowing you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly with the functionality of the phone. I think that is a design improvement that deserves recognition under the law.

 

You can't disagree...it's not an opinion that clicking links that lead you elsewhere, or launch services are basic use. Web browsers have been doing that SAME thing for years. And so have phones.

[iamshack]

Bolded part: Because they weren't. Touchscreens with such features have existed for years, Apple was simply the first to go to mass market with them, and some of them Apple did indeed think of/create, but not all. Slide to unlock is one thing...touching a phone number on a touch screen to dial it is something else entirely.

 

To make a better example for you, that's like patenting the idea of a LINK in a web browser. Since Netscape did it first, no other web browsers should ever be able to do it again without paying them! One is an idea/specific method used to unlock a touch screen, the other is a basic fundamental use of the internet. There is a pretty huge difference between the two.

 

* Citation of Apple not being the first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface Microsoft first conceptualized surface touch in 2001, years before Apple even began hatching the idea of the iPhone/touch/multitouch which didn't go to market until 2007. Just because they were the first to go mass market/consumer electronics does not mean they were the first to use, employ or even think of some of these ideas.

Conceptualizing something gets you no protection under the law. This is not copyright law. This is patent law.

[Y2HH]

Conceptualizing something gets you no protection under the law. This is not copyright law. This is patent law.

 

They also patented it.

[iamshack]

You can't disagree...it's not an opinion that clicking links that lead you elsewhere, or launch services are basic use. Web browsers have been doing that SAME thing for years. And so have phones.

Maybe you should learn how the law works.

[StrangeSox]

I disagree. You have no clue how frustrated I used to become when I was finding a number on one screen and trying to go back to my dialing screen and type in the number from memory, realizing I forgot some numbers and going back to the number, then going back to the dialing screen, etc.

 

In patent law, there is a concept where if there is really only one good way to do something, than that is not really something that is patentable. For instance, you can't patent the idea for a chair. You can patent an idea for a chair that massages your back, or a chair that rocks, or a chair that has a cooler for your beer in it, but you cannot patent a simple chair.

 

In this instance, Apple is improving about the idea of web browsing. They are allowing you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly with the functionality of the phone. I think that is a design improvement that deserves recognition under the law.

 

If we want to compare your analogy here, then we need to be able to patent the concept of a massage chair without actually designing a functional massage chair or making any efforts to do so, and the patent needs to cover any implementation whatsoever of a chair that massages you, allowing you to patent-troll anyone who tries to market a massage chair. Even if the concept was already executed years or decades before you were granted your patent.

 

Apple's "invention" here is no more novel than a weblink, which allows "you to access information from the screen you are browsing directly."

[Y2HH]

Maybe you should learn how the law works.

 

Maybe you should learn that Patent law is totally f***ing broken in this country and just admit it's broken versus defending the absurd s*** you're defending.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe you should learn how the law works.

 

In the case of software patents, it's broken!

[Y2HH]

In the case of software patents, it's broken!

 

If it wasn't broken, as he seems to believe, then why are organizations and governments around the world (including our own) attempting to reform the patent system in regard to software patents? I mean, if nothings wrong, why the hell are they trying to fix it?

 

Software patents, as the law currently applies, are simply bad...due to their extreme vagueness.

 

Look at some of the lawsuits being thrown around out there...how he's defending this is just f***ing absurd.

[iamshack]

Maybe you should learn that Patent law is totally f***ing broken in this country and just admit it's broken versus defending the absurd s*** you're defending.

I'm not going to disagree that it is antiquated.