An idea I will throw out there: I always wondered why anyone should be able to hold onto an idea (patent it) if they don't use it. I can't help but wonder if the best way to fix the patent system isn't to overhaul it -- which would be nearly impossible to do due to entrenched interests -- but instead invalidate all patents if they aren't used within a certain time period by the rights holder. In other words, use it or lose it.
No. 'Using it' would mean distributing a product that directly makes use of the patented technology.
In practice, however, this will simply force patent trolls to jump through a few more hoops and find the least expensive way to distribute the product in some form in order to defeat the intent of the law while following its letter.
I added this article that John Gruber at Daring Fireball had linked to analyzing the rock and hard place iOS developers are in with this patent claim:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546140
(Disclosure: I'm one of them and potentially in violation.)
That analysis looks wrong to me -- Adam Engst claims that the developers can't settle with Lodsys because it would "affect Apple's rights or bind Apple in any way". That's wrong. Lodsys isn't claiming anything against Apple's rights -- they are claiming the developer's "buy now" button violates their patent, and there's no reason why the developer and Lodsys can't settle this between them, without it affecting Apple's rights or binding Apple at all.
I think it's an absolute bullshit patent and I hope everyone vigorously fights it, but there's no reason why developers can't settle, if they feel they should.
I'd love to see Apple indemnify developers, too, but that would probably create as big a headache for Apple as this situation will.
I think what he is saying is that the agreement with Apple says we can't form legal agreements that include Apple's SDK and APIs, which in app purchase is apart of. This could or could not be covered under those mechanisms.
You might be right. The way Lodsys is going after us is for the button (or something) that connects to the mechanism that performs the in app purchase. Either way, as everyone else here has pointed out, it really is a sticky widget.
They have to. How many people over 30 are willing to quit their family and community for 3 months to go live, eat and breath YC? I would love to be in a YC environment. The people you'd meet and the experience would be unbelievable. But I'm 37, have two young kids and a wife, and that "start-up" needs my attention, too.
This is a small feature but could be an indicator of very big things for Apple. If the iCloud rumors are true then there could be a huge opportunity for keeping your desktop and smartphone/tablet in sync, and this would be a big advantage for Apple and MS since they control desktop environments.
For example, say I have a Pages document open and go to leave the house, the same document could automatically be available on my iPad in the exact same state I left it in without me having to do anything.
I think this was written up here on Hacker News a few weeks ago but it is relevant for this discussion and thought I'd link to it if anyone is interested. It is 24,000 five-letter domain names that are available:
http://www.kevinohashi.com/17/04/2011/other-24000-available-...
(I'm not the author but I bookmarked the site for some new projects. I didn't find anything that jumped out at me on a first pass but maybe something will for you!)
I am the author and thanks :) A lot jumped out at me but less than 10 that I pulled the trigger on. I really couldn't find a way to organize/sort them in a meaningful ranking. You're motivating me to release bigger lists with 6-7 letters though.
Why does any if this matter, bubble or not? The tech community has spent an inordinate amount of time discussing it. What I see is a lot of companies building businesses the right way -- customers first. If the funding dies down, which it will one way or the other, these companies who have put customers first and will be able to survive. As for the knock-offs and clones, well, if they go away will anyone care?
I'm in Portland, Oregon, and think this is actually the biggest problem with our start-up culture. There just aren't enough people who have been there/done that before that are investing in the next generation. There are investors around and the government has stepped in to fund some investment groups to bridge the gap, but until we have a round of winners really supporting the next round of companies I think our community will struggle.
In Chicago, where I'm located, this is our core problem too. It's all about that first round of winners. I think startup scenes really launch after the employees from the first big win sell _their_ companies.
We actually had some winners in the 90s but many of them either lost their winnings in the dot bomb or never invested in other companies. A few of those winners are guiding their second or third start-ups, too.
Definitely. The main reason they didn't reinvest was timing -- everyone was burnt out on startups even if they had won after the dot.com burst.
But now, FB or Google employees are like, wow, that was awesome, let's do it again. I think the startup scene is more mature now and that reinvestment is more likely to happen outside of SV now -- the key difference is that startups are more stable, wiser, far leaner, and more `cool' now, so it's seen as an actually "safe" bet to re-invest. I know if I ever had a win that's exactly what I would do, in fact being able to re-invest is a lot of my motivation for being a founder.
The data for Illinois is already looking up based on VC activity. The Halo Effect that Groupon will enable should be a good thing for Chicago. Look at page 15 of this report which shows an uptick for Illinois - http://bit.ly/hdL5Yz. Of course, 2 quarters doesn't make a long-term trend but it's a start so hopefully lots of good things will emerge from Chicago and the virtuous cycle will start.
