Apple granted patent on webpage scrolling behaviors, media granted patent on crazy | This is my next... So Apple got yet another patent granted today, and now there's yet another media firestorm over whether it means Cupertino will be able to sue every other phone manufacturer out of business, or at least out of the business of making multitouch devices.
And, as usual, most of the hysteria is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of what the patent claims actually say, and what behaviors they actually cover in iOS. I don't know why we keep repeating this sad cycle, but I do know that it's always, always better for us to read the claims and try to figure them out for ourselves -- and in this case, they're actually pretty narrow. Now, the key to understanding patents is to read the claims. That's step one. You need a "portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display. " And... that's it! Related Items apple patent multitouch scrolling. Patent Office Agrees To Facebook’s “Face” Trademark. So why did Facebook just trademark 'Face'? Apple starts patenting mobile app ideas.
By now most of must us have heard about the problems U.S. patent system is facing. With software and business model patents, patent trolls and lawsuits, and patented things like one-click buying online. Well, if Apple has it’s way, things are about to get much worse. The problem? Three Apple patent applications that just became public on USPTO website. In mobile travel app patent application, Apple describes things like sending travel promotions, making reservations through mobile app, guide/assistance with airport services, using mobile boarding pass, remote check-in, access to in-flight services, sending automatic arrival notifications to your spouse, travel guide services/promotions at the destination site. Apple’s Hotel app patent application talks about hotel promotions/reservations/service pre-order through app, early/remote check-ins, access to hotel and in-room services, operating room equipment, personal concierge services, check-out, post-trip promotion/questionnaires/info.
Apple uses third-party app screenshots in patent applications, world erupts in hysteria. There's been a bit of a furor in the past couple days over Apple using third-party app screenshots in several patent applications that were just made public -- the most talked-about example is a screenshot of an app called Where To?
That appears in a travel-related patent, but other apps like a Ralph Lauren app appear in a shopping-related patent as well. And, since it's Apple, there's been the usualblind panic of hysterical reactions, with some claiming that Cupertino's trying to patent third-party app ideas and pull the rug out from under its own developers. At this point, we hope you know better -- let's take a look at what's really going on. First of all, all of the patent applications in question are just that -- applications. None of them have been granted, and since all of them are still so new, it's a virtual certainty they'll be narrowed in scope as Apple's attorneys and the Patent Office continue through the patent prosecution process -- a process that typically takes years.
Droid X actually self-destructs if you try to mod it. Well, I might have recommended a Droid X for big-phone-lovin’ fandroids out there… but now that I’ve read about Motorola’s insane eFuse tampering-countermeasure system, I’m going to have to give this one a big fat DON’T BUY on principle. I won’t restate all my reasons for supporting the modding, hacking, jailbreaking, and so on of your legally-owned products here — if you’re interested in a user’s manifesto, read this — but suffice it to say that deliberately bricking a phone if the user fiddles with it does not fall under the “reasonable” category of precautions taken by manufacturers.
Really. If you want to make it difficult to hack, that’s fine. You think your software should be enough, that’s fine. If the eFuse failes to verify this information then the eFuse receives a command to “blow the fuse” or “trip the fuse”. It requires a hardware fix, apparently, only available through Motorola, of course. Will many users run into this problem? [via Android Police and TG Daily] Motorola responds to Droid X bootloader controversy, says eFuse isn't there to break the phone. There's been a lot of chatter going around the interwebs in the past 24 hours about the Droid X's exceptionally well-locked bootloader -- a situation that is going to make running custom ROMs considerably more difficult (bordering on impossible) compared to your average HTC. Specifically, the culprit is said to be a technology known as eFuse -- developed by IBM several years ago -- which allows circuits to be physically altered at the silicon level on demand. Thing is, the term "eFuse" has taken on an unrelated meaning this week, with My Droid World claiming that some chip inside the Droid X is commanded to "blow the fuse" if it's unable to verify the stock bootloader, which permanently bricks the phone.
It amounts to a really, really hard slap on the wrist for anyone trying to hack, say, Sense or stock Froyo onto it. Considering IBM's historically non-nefarious usage of the term "eFuse," we suspected something was amiss here, so we reached out to Motorola for an explanation. Comments. How eFuses Work and Why They're Not As Bad as You Think. Will all the confusion surrounding Motorola's Droid X, it seems that some are still unaware of what exactly eFuses do. According to some, the minuscule circuitry can render your Droid inoperable on a whim, an unfortunate side effect of daring to modify your Android device. Others claim a Motorola CEO will personally destroy your phone should you attempt to remove MotoBlur for stock, Eclair goodness.
But whatever the case may be, it's clear that people have it all wrong. Originally conceived by IBM in the early 2000's, eFuses were intended as a simple way to alter the function and performance of a chip in real time. In other words, the company had designed a chip that could "reroute chip logic, much the way highway traffic patterns can be altered by opening and closing new lanes," according to Bernard Meyerson, vice president and chief technologist of IBM at the time. IBM's Xenon CPU, as found in the Xbox 360.
Yup, there are eFuses in here. Trojan-ridden warning system implicated in Spanair crash. Security intelligence for a faster world Malware may have been a contributory cause of a fatal Spanair crash that killed 154 people two years ago. Spanair flight number JK 5022 crashed with 172 on board moments after taking off from Madrid's Barajas Airport on a scheduled flight to Las Palmas on 20 August 2008. Just 18 survived the crash and subsequent fire aboard the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft. The airline's central computer which registered technical problems on planes was infected by Trojans at the time of the fatal crash and this resulted in a failure to raise an alarm over multiple problems with the plane, according to Spanish daily El Pais (report here). The accident on take-off happened after pilots had abandoned an earlier take-off attempt and a day after two other reported problems on board.
A mechanic who checked the plane before take-off and an airport maintenance chief are under investigation and face possible manslaughter charges. Trojan blamed for Spanish air crash. A plane crash that killed 154 people in 2008 might have been partly connected to the infection of an important ground safety system by malware, a Spanish newspaper has claimed.
The Spanair plane took off from Madrid to fly to the Canary Islands on 20 August 2008, but failed to clear the runway. Of the 172 passengers and aircrew on board, only 18 survived. The precise cause of the crash remains contentious but was believed by investigators to relate to the MD-82 not having its flaps set to the correct position prior to takeoff. To continue reading, register here to become an Insider It's FREE to join TechWorld - A plane crash that killed 154 people in 2008 might have been partly connected to the infection of an important ground safety system by malware, a Spanish newspaper has claimed. According to the newspaper El Pais, on the day of the crash this system was not functioning due to unnamed infection by computer Trojans. Fact check: malware did not bring down a passenger jet.