Full text: Apple Legal's letter to Lodsys - <AUTHOR> http://www.macworld.com/article/160031/2011/05/apple_legal_lodsys_letter_text.html

<comment><USER3> A few thoughts:

1\. Nothing in the letter commits Apple to defend the developers or to hold them harmless. Legally, Apple does not have to do this. One can only hope that its self-interest in protecting its app-store ecosystem will be enough to cause it to do what is right. For now, Apple is saying only that it will fully defend its "license rights." One can read more into this than is stated but that is all that is stated (of course, Apple's throwing its weight behind developers even at this level is no small thing).

2\. The letter does not quote the license agreement in any way. Normally, if there is something definitive in such a document, it is put front and center in a letter of this type. This could mean that the license language is not as definitive as the tone of this letter might suggest. Only time, and a detailed review of the license language itself, will tell on this point.

3\. It is plain that Apple wants to do the right thing for its developers. Yet the situation is trickier than that. As of now, Apple has no legal obligation to defend or hold them harmless, and that step is an order of magnitude greater than that of saying it will merely defend its license rights - <USER2> hence the hedging in the letter.

If the goal of the patent system is to promote innovation, then this case is Exhibit A for how it is failing. Thousands of patents are gathered up in a portfolio held by an IV affiliate and licensed in bulk ("monetized") to big players such as Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc., who in turn believe that they have clear rights to build systems around them. But the patents are "monetized" again to lesser players with shadowy relations to the original IV group, who in their turn try to "monetize" them further by attempting to double-dip with the original licensees based on limitations in the original licensing language. At each step, threats of lawsuits abound and nowhere can one find even one example of a patent developed by a company for its own innovative uses. Instead, we have the equivalent of shadowy trafficking in intangibles that are now being used, not to encourage innovation, but to attack the very developers who are _trying_ to innovate. Positively Kafkaesque.

<comment><USER4> From the letter:

 _Apple intends to share this letter and the information set out herein with its App Makers and is fully prepared to defend Apple's license rights._

The letter explicitly states they think their rights include being able to let developers use the technology.

 _Because Lodsys's threats are based on the purchase or use of Apple products and services licensed under the Agreement, and because those Apple products and services, under the reading articulated in your letters, entirely or substantially embody each of Lodsys's patents, Lodsys's threatened claims are barred by the doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale._

At this point, isn't Apple saying there is nothing to hold developers blamess for?

 _Apple intends to share this letter and the information set out herein with its App Makers and is fully prepared to defend Apple's license rights._

This seems pretty clear (if not within full legalese) that Apple will go after Lodsys if they don't retract the letters.

Bigger question for me (as a legal noob): What is Apple's recourse? Is it to sue Lodsys for breach of contract? Would a cease and desist request be part of that?

<comment><USER3> Apple likely can sue Lodsys for declaratory relief if Lodsys persists in its claims against developers. This would be an action by Apple against Lodsys seeking a court judgment that its license covers the challenged activities and a related declaration that no infringement exists by reason of such activities. Developers clearly benefit from any such action by Apple but this is a little different from committing to hold the developers themselves harmless from any legal action. A "hold harmless" would mean that Apple commits to defend any developer who is sued and, further, agrees to pay any damages suffered should that developer be found to infringe. Since Apple has not yet committed to do this (indeed, I believe its contract terms say that it will not do this), in theory, the developers might still be sued and have to defend their individual cases even if Apple does bring a declaratory relief lawsuit against Lodsys. Of course, a court in any such action might act to consolidate the various lawsuits and stay those brought against the developers pending resolution of Apple's primary suit. My point is not that developers are not helped by Apple's stance, as they plainly are. It is only to state that Apple has not yet committed to cover them against all harm here, regardless of what Lodsys might do. Apple might choose to take this further step as events develop but the letter as worded is more guarded than that. I think Apple is waiting to see if the _in terrorem_ effect of its letter will solve this before considering further options.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for clarifying! You are a great asset to the community here.

<comment><USER5> Yes that was great.

You might want to consider hitting the return key a few more times with posts of that length though. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patent and the Apple App Makers are > protected by that license._

That's a _very_ good thing to hear. And extremely definitive. I'd imagine devs are breathing a lot easier now.

<comment><USER7> It's actually a little scary for non-ios devs; isn't Apple recognizing that the patent is valid?

<comment><USER8> That the patent exists and was legally acquired is not up for debate.

<comment><USER7> I should have asked: Does Apple's license make it harder for someone else to challenge the patent?

I assumed it would, but if I'm reading MedImmune v. Genentech correctly then it doesn't even make it harder for _Apple_ to challenge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The letter itself doesn't do much for the legal defense of app developers vs Lodsys, it is only Apple's opinion and Apple wasn't the one being threatened, but it does show that Apple plans on throwing its weight around to defend the app makers. And that is all we really need, becuase I sincerly doubt Lodsys really wants a full on legal battle with one of the most cash rich companies in the world.

<comment><USER10> It's a cease and desist letter. It implies that if Lodsys continues trying to enforce patents Apple has licensed, Apple will sue them.

<comment><USER11> What I find interesting about this is that there is nothing in the Apple letter that Lodsys would not have anticipated while deciding whether to make claims against the developers. Do they have a response ready? Or were they, in fact, simply trolling, and are suprised that Apple got involved?

What had me annoyed now has me interested.

<comment><USER12> They probably just figured it was worth a shot to get some money, ethics be damned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I imagine Apple's lawyers always begin letters with "Dear Mr. Small"

<comment><USER14> Just imagine the abuse Mr. Small had to endure as a kid...

No surprise he became a patent troll...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _"Lodsys's threatened claims are barred by the doctrines of patent > exhaustion and first sale. As the Supreme Court has made clear, "[t]he > authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts > the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking > patent law to control postsale use of the article."_

I find it interesting to see Apple invoke the First Sale Doctrine given the restrictions which it places upon its hardware (e.g. iPhone).

<comment><USER16> First sale applies to copyright, not patent licensing. With copyrighted material, you can "transfer" it to a third-party. A patent license typically spells out explicitly whether the patented material may be used for "distribution" to third-parties.

This matter will come down to whether or not Apple's existing license extends to third-party developers, based on the language in the patent license agreements.

<comment><USER15> Apple's letter [as presented] explicitly argues first sale doctrine.

<comment><USER16> I missed that in my first read, but I [mistakenly] thought that first sale only applied to consumers, not business licensing agreements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I heard Marco Arment at a 5by5 Show also saying it's easier to pay 0.5% instead of going into a long and expensive trial.

I believe it's not necessarily a troll patent issue that Marco was talking about, this is what trolls are meant to do, anyway; I think it's an issue with the law itself and its enforcement.

Could you believe this some 40 years ago: "I'm going to pay this parasite tax just because I cannot be protected by anybody"? Try "associate with" instead of "protected by"!

</comment><comment><USER17> "[t]he authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article." Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008).

In plain English: because Apple bought the patent from Lodsys, Lodsys cannot ask for any benefit that might be related to the patent. Period.

<comment><USER18> Apple licensed the patent. Their claim is that the license covers the relevant downstream use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Bravo Apple, bravo.

</comment><comment><USER20> If Microsoft pays a patent holder for the licence to use a patent for microtransaction purchases within the windows operating system, and someone writes a windows app that utilizes the method, under this argument is it the same as long as Microsoft controls the transaction (ie we payed once, and it applies to our app makers)?

<comment><USER21> That depends entirely on the terms of the license.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > The amount of skill that you have in a certain area is proportional to the > amount of work that you put into it. There is no such thing as a 'creative' > or 'technical' type. The reason I was bad at art starting out is the same > reason we are bad at anything starting out. One day, I sat down and put in > hours of serious work, refusing to stop until I liked the results. And, > gradually, I got better at art.

I tell my son there is no such thing as talent, just understanding. This keeps the As coming in, dude is awesome

</comment><comment><USER23> i can't believe they actually pay lodsys already. what a joke.

<comment><USER24> They didn't, they licensed the patents from Intellectual Ventures years ago. Lodsys acquired the patents after the fact.

<comment><USER25> Intellectual Ventures is _also_ a patent troll. It's just higher profile and has people involved that had some level of existing respectability at some point in the past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Its good to see Apple make stand for its App store developers, but where's the iFlameThrower? This looks a bit too nice a response for the petty shakedown run lodsys tried to pull off. Oh well... I guess _Apple_ does not have to speak loudly to be heard.

<comment><USER27> The tone of this letter, combined with grellas' comments above, give me the troubling feeling that Apple is not certain they would win. Only two arguments are made, one based on terms we're not privy to and as grellas pointed out you'd expect them to quote if it's solid, and one based a doctrine that the Apple license is extended to the app developers by virtue of the app developers using the licensed product, but there's enough ambiguity in the law in terms of what software "contains" (for lack of a better word) other software that I don't think I would have a hard time arguing that the app instances are still legally separate instances of the patented capability. I could argue either side pretty forcefully if I wanted to.

IANAL but by lawyer standards this strikes me as very, very tepid. If I were an app developer, I would at least feel a bit better that Apple has acknowledged the problem and has taken some position on my side... but I wouldn't feel _much_ better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> And there goes Apple using the word App/Apps generically again. Not exactly helping their case against Amazon.

<comment><USER29> I just re-read it paying attention to how they use the word "App," and I don't think their use is generic. Every time they use the word, they are referencing either developers who make applications for their devices, the applications for their devices, or their store.

<comment><USER28> I'm not too sure, this is the line that really stood out to me:

> and delivery of applications (or "Apps")

Basically making a direct relationship between the word application and apps. Either way, I think the whole App Store argument is ridiculous.

<comment><USER29> That was the only line that gave me pause, but that's actually where they _define_ what "Apps" means: applications for their devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> patent wars instead of standards...why

</comment><comment><USER31> If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say some of this looks awfully convenient, and maybe even well timed, for Apple.

"See, the 30% we charge you isn't so bad after all, is it?"

<comment><USER32> I sincerely don't think that it's a stunt by Apple, and to claim that it is would require a fairly myopic view of the state of software patents today.

That said, the "conspiracy theory" falls apart because this is ultimately self-serving by Apple; in-app purchases translate to money for them, and if developers are too scared to include content purchasing options in their apps (since in-app is the only permitted method, natch), it means a direct hit to Apple's bottom line. It isn't altruistic towards developers, so it's silly to see it as a justification of Apple's 30% cut.

<comment><USER31> Apple Exec: People are pissed about the 30% in-app thing, what should we do?

Other Apple Exec: Add value to it.

Apple Exec: How do we do that?

Other Apple Exec: Show people that if they didn't use our methods and lose their 30%, they'll get sued for licensing fees for an in-app purchasing patent and probably lose it anyways.

Apple Exec: "Hey Lodsys, we're already paying you money, but could you do us a favor real quick..."

I'm not claiming this is what happened, because I sincerely don't think it is what went down. I'm just illustrating a theoretical and likely fictional path.

<comment><USER32> But...the problem is that developers are getting sued for the thing they were pissed about before, so now they're just double-pissed. It's not like they're getting sued for using some alternative that saves them 30% on purchases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> So basically, Apple fully supports software patents so long as it benefits them. When another company wants money for a BS patent, it's a travesty. You gotta love the way business works.

<comment><USER34> Apple has a long history of supporting patents. In fact in a keynote that Jobs gave a few years back one of his lines was something like, "And we've patented this up and down" which was followed by loud cheers. Apple is a very strong believer of HW and SW patents.

<comment><USER35> He said that when announcing the iPhone because Apple failed to properly patent the iPod when it was first released, and subsequently got tied up in a lot of litigation and licensing fees when other companies started trolling them. If anything, Apple hates the patent system, but is forced to play the game.

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure if this is historically accurate. See:

<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070117/191446.shtml>

A lot of people believe Apple used its patents, for example, to block Android from getting certain features. There's also speculation that MS spent a lot of time dealing with legal issues before WP7 -- which is why WP7 has different design decisions in so many places Apple has patents -- and one reason it was so late after WM6.1.

It's speculation, but it sounds like Apple may have used its patents as a way to stop competition on other carriers. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but it's legal.

And note that having patents doesn't protect you against trolls. Trolls don't care as they usually don't have product. Patents are only defensive against other actual product companies.

<comment><USER35> I haven't read anything about Apple proactively blocking other companies, but it's believable that post-iPhone Apple is less shy about pushing the competition around a little. I know they did protect their multitouch gesture patents, which is why Android couldn't have pinch to zoom for a while.

Regarding the accuracy of my comment, see [http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.htm...](http://www.macworld.com/article/46460/2005/08/ipodpatent.html) for a quick summary of how Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees. Apple ended up settling for $100 million. This is an actual product company.

The article that you linked to, while interesting, is purely opinion. Its argument hinges on the assumption that exclusivity with AT&T was a bad business deal for Apple, which I would strongly disagree with. I didn't like the lock-in as a consumer, but the deal was excellent for Apple because it gave them control over the carrier in a way other phone manufacturers had only dreamed of until that point.

<comment><USER34> This article seems to say that MS patented this BEFORE Apple did:

"Last month the United States Patent and Trademark office denied Apple a patent for some user interface elements of the popular iPod MP3 player, citing a patent submitted by Microsoft developer John Platt five months BEFORE Apple's claim."

Whereas you say _Microsoft patented a key aspect of the iPod's navigation UI 5 months after Apple released the iPod and then demanded licensing fees_. Obviously MS couldn't patent something used in a product months after release (and if they did it would be overthrown in court).

<comment><USER35> Yes, that was my point. Microsoft patented aspects of the iPod BEFORE Apple did, but AFTER the introduction of the iPod. Should it have been allowed? Probably not. I can't find any articles about the settlement, so Apple may have managed to appeal and get it overthrown eventually. I don't remember. Regardless, the reason patenting the crap out of the iPhone was a big deal was that Apple was basically showing it had learned from past mistakes.

via [http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-beats- Ap...](http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-beats-Apple-to- punch-on-key-iPod-patent-1180497.php)

> A similar method outlined in a Microsoft researcher's patent application, > filed after the iPod was introduced but before Apple sought its own patent.

<comment><USER34> I think the media didn't understand this based on that article. See: [http://girtby.net/archives/2005/08/17/microsoft-patents- ipod...](http://girtby.net/archives/2005/08/17/microsoft-patents-ipod-or- something-else-entirely/)

Apple couldn't file for a patent after it released the iPod. You have to do it before public disclosure. And of course MS couldn't have gotten the patent if Apple had released the iPod.

To bring in the Groklaw quote mentioned:

"The rejected Apple application is not exactly a critical one. It also doesn't appear that the Microsoft patent covers the subject matter of the Apple application, rather it was used as an example to deny the Apple application because it isn't an original idea.

Platt's application covers a way to automatically generate playlists from songs similar to one or more song manually chosen by the user. As an example of usage, Platt described a portable music player that uses a menu hierarchy for navigation. The menus aren't really the invention though.

The Apple application, on the other hand, is all about hierarchical menus. Yes, seriously, that's what they were trying to patent, the idea of using a tree of menus to operate a portable music player. Can you believe it? (I knew you could.) I'd chalk this rejection up to an example of the USPTO doing some good.

The rejected Apple application is 10/282,861 - Graphical user interface and methods of use thereof in a multimedia player

The Platt application is 10/158,674 - Auto playlist generation with multiple seed songs"

This makes a LOT more sense. The Apple patent was rejected because it wasn't an invention. And the MS patent went through because it was actually patenting something that wasn't in the iPod.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Computer says no - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/16646044?story_id=16646044

<comment><USER2> I like how old mainframe apps are always blamed in these articles. These apps written ages ago are in my view quite incredible. How many of us have written software that will be used 30 years from now?

Every time I hear about great rewrites of mainframe application (Air control fiasco of a few years ago) I just am amazed at what the original programmers managed to build which is still in use.

Rewriting that stuff means rewriting all the business logic embedded in those applications. I expect that most of the time, new apps must follow the exact flow the old apps had or else the employees using it won't like it. I've seen this first hand, were talking about buttons being placed exactly the same way.

Even if these banks modernized, the business processes would stay the same.

<comment><USER3>
      How many of us have written software
      that will be used 30 years from now?

We may not always know that.

<comment><USER4> god i hope some of the crap i wrote when I was just starting dies in a pit of flames. To see it live for 30 years would be a nightmare spanning generations.

<comment><USER5> You were one of the Windows ME developers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is it me or doesn't this make any sense?

 _But what really sets Metro Bank apart is its state-of-the-art IT system._

Then at the end:

 _With such grand designs, isn't Vernon Hill, one of the bank's founders, tempted to build an IT system of his own? "I hate programmers," replies this dyed-in-the-wool entrepreneur. "They only cause trouble."_

Didn't they already build a state of the art IT system?

<comment><USER7> Maybe they outsourced the building of it?

<comment><USER8> They did. Pretty much all of it.

<comment><USER9> To whom? Accidenture?

<comment><USER10> How in the world do companies like that stay in business being so incompetent? At some point, don't a series of epic disasters at least _begin_ to tarnish a reputation?

<comment><USER11> You could say the same about most government contractors. I suspect that there are a lot of kickbacks involved, because none of the projects I was ever involved in at government contracting firms ever went well -- ALL of them had a lot more people than necessary, and underutilized the best talent they had.

The one thing that they had in common with the commercial companies I worked for is that instead of jettisoning the least competent so that the rest of us could do our jobs, they promoted those folks and put them in charge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> " . . . isn't Vernon Hill, one of the bank's founders, tempted to build an IT system of his own? I hate programmers, replies this dyed-in-the-wool entrepreneur. They only cause trouble."

Spoken like someone who's been there on a few projects.

<comment><USER13> A banker accusing programmers of causing trouble??

<comment><USER2> well to be fair, the programmers were part of the latest wave of problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bonus: <http://www.economist.com/comment/604403#comment-604403>

One of the best explanations between community banks and the "big" banks.

I worked for a company that is now part of Fiserv.

</comment><comment><USER14> Loved the reference to <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZAoMv_QnAU>

<comment><USER15> Haha. The title is exactly why I checked out the link. It was indeed about British banks. Here's the 6s version of the reference...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOdjCb4LwQY>

Good stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Completely agreed - as a former software developer for banks, they really don't like working on their own stuff - they typically buy it off the shelf, and don't ever think to do a hardware overhaul.

But then again, while working in the industry, there seems to also be a HUGE disconnect between banks' perception of technology and the part it actually plays. Chase seems to be getting into a good position as a result of closing that gap (pictures of checks deposited to your acct via phone).

</comment><comment><USER17> The banks website seems to be at <https://www.metrobankonline.co.uk/> .. but Chrome says the SSL certificate is signed by an unknown authority, who claims to be VeriSign.

<comment><USER18> The server is misconfigured: it's missing intermediate certificates in its chain. Chrome 6.x should be able to work around this on all platforms at the cost of making the site slower.

Additionally, the server is open to prefix attacks.

For a bank, that's a pretty miserable state of affairs.

<comment><USER19> _Chrome 6.x should be able to work around this on all platforms at the cost of making the site slower._

This sounds, uh, weird. Got a link to more information? I'd like to see the rationale for having the browser subvert misconfigured servers; this would seem to undermine the already precarious SSL state we're in.

<comment><USER18> Chrome 6 uses NSS on all platforms and NSS will download missing intermediate certificates via HTTP, if the URL is given in an AIA extension.

This is pretty much standard browser behaviour I'm afraid. One of the many unfortunate realities of the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Relavent Little Britain sketch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZAoMv_QnAU&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZAoMv_QnAU&feature=related)

</comment><comment><USER21> _Without appropriate design, yesterday's success is tomorrow's straightjacket, since today's great applications are tomorrow's legacy systems._

Bill Buxton in Sketching User Experiences, page 209

</comment><comment><USER22> "Philip OCarroll wrote: Jul 23rd 2010 12:21 GMT

I hate bankers - they only cause trouble.

e.g. financial catastrophe, global depression"

</comment><comment><USER23> Most banks in the U.S. outsource their IT to Fiserv or FIS these days.

</comment><comment><USER24> This really creeps me out you know. Money has a first person ontology. Paper, metal, gold or bits are money because we believe its money. But if the _reported numbers for the bank's exposure were regularly billions of dollars adrift of reality_ then now can I believe that what I have is not going to disappear in a glitch or is created because of a glitch.

Disclaimer:I am not an economist nor do I earn anything right now. So if this is an uneducated or miss educated comment please fill free to give references.

<comment><USER7> It's really no surprise. If a bank is processing data all the time in various, non-connected systems then the only way to know the actual state is to stop accepting input and to let all processes synchronize to the point where you can total things up. Anything else is going to almost certainly miss a bunch of stuff that is in the midst of being updated on one system, but not yet available on another, or counted double.

<comment><USER25> Classic example: the entire clearing system is eventually consistent.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)>

<comment><USER9> Also see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_linked_settlement></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Bad Day for Patent Reform. A Bad Day for Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://www.rackspace.com/blog/a-sad-day-for-patent-reform-a-bad-day-for-innovation/ <comment><USER2> "As recently as last night, we had high hopes that a meaningful reform effort would move forward this week."

What appears to have _possibly_ happened here, by virtue of the fact that they appeared to have such high hopes, is that they let up on the battle and effort banking on what they were told by those they were in contact with. Who may have been mislead themselves.

I've seen this pattern before and in fact I've used it against adversaries (not in the patent area obviously). And it was used against me (which I'm guessing is where I learned it in the first place.)

You allow the other side to think they are going to win and so they end up easing up just a bit on the effort because in their mind they think they have pretty much either won the battle or have come real close to winning. (Isn't this also done in sports?)

I learned this lesson early on in business (out of college) when I lodged a complaint against the electric company for pulling the power to some machinery. The electric company immediately told me I was right! And that they would, in so many words, compensate me for the lost profits and the like (not that exactly but close enough it was a long time ago).

As time dragged on they still mildly assured me that they were going to do something. After perhaps 6 months past and I drew a line in the sand (all this dating is from memory btw.) At that point they finally just told me they weren't going to do anything and "well to bad sorry".

But by that point I had lost my initial anger and steam and just decided to forget about it.

Had they told me from day one (or week one) that they didn't agree I would have approached the situation much differently and mounted a different strategy. I didn't have a strategy because, well, I didn't think I needed one.

<comment><AUTHOR> No one gave up. There was a "pencils down" compromise agreement between most parties as of yesterday. It was hard getting there, but it had support from almost everyone.

The pulled bill was the result of two different forces coming into play: Pro- IP monetization companies applying pressure and coalition splitting among the Democratic caucus.

The IP Monetization folks (Trolls, Universities, Bio, PHrMA, old line industry, and folks like Qualcomm) have been pushing really hard to weaken the legislation. There were substantial efforts to come to reasonable compromises, but those groups were never really happy.

What ultimately killed it, though, is that there were some important special interest groups (notably the trial lawyers) who opposed any kind of reform. If the bill would have been brought to the floor, it would have split the Democratic coalition and made a bunch of big-money donors mad.

When the opposition from the IP Monetization group mixed with the destabilizing political effect, the Senate Democratic leadership decided to kill it.

<comment><USER3> > Trolls, Universities, Bio, PHrMA, old line industry, and folks like > Qualcomm)

That encompasses like 90% of the broader tech/engineering/R&D sector. If so much of the sector opposes reform, then reform won't be possible without getting more of these folks to switch sides. I think sensible reform is possible without prejudicing the interests of most of those folks. Its a matter of conveying that to them.

<comment><AUTHOR> The anti-reform group is basically people who make a living licensing patents. Everyone else (Google, Cisco, Amazon... pretty much anyone doing anything over the internet, anyone using computers or networks, all three auto makers, the app developers, anyone in phones) mostly was pro reform.

What made the coalition for reform though, was the non tech industry. Retail, the Chamber of Commerce, banks, grocers, restauranteurs, hoteliers, gaming, insurance, venture capital... Basically everyone else. The pro-reform group was called the big tent for a reason.

This was about a smallish number of companies wanting to extract profits from other companies, and using the brokenness of the patent system to do so.

No one would have objected of there was a sense that the allegations were fair or well-founded. The problem is that courts would _by statute_ try to uphold claims that were ridiculous.

Patent suits are the spam of the court system - spam you have to pay to delete.

<comment><USER3> The Partnership for American Innovation, which is basically an anti-reform group, includes Apple, Microsoft, IBM, DuPont, Pfizer, GE, and Ford. These are old-line American engineering companies, and make a living selling products, not licensing patents. They're synonymous with innovation (and STEM job creation) to your average Congresscritter. Reform is going to be difficult without getting more of these sorts of companies on the other side. The computer/internet folks have a very legitimate platform, but the coalition is too thin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Almost all troll activity I've noticed has been around software patents or business method patents, and generally involves patents that should not have been issued in the first place.

I'd rather see reform that either eliminates software patents, or provides the patent offices the resources to come up with a way to examine software patent applications sufficiently to stop issuing bad software patents.

<comment><USER5> As far as I can tell nearly all software patents are bad software patents. If you can infringe a patent by accident having never heard of the patent holder or their so-called invention, that should be pretty strong evidence that the patent is excessively abstract or claiming something obvious. But that's the entire patent troll business model. There are zero people going through their inscrutable patent applications to find inventions to use and then infringing them on purpose. If you got rid of all the bad software patents there would be hardly anything left. Because hardly anybody infringes on purpose so nobody even bothers to apply for software patents that no one would infringe by accident.

I think it's the nature of the field. Patenting a specific way to do something in software is completely useless because there are always many different reasonable ways to achieve the same result. The only software patents that have value are the ones that are unreasonably broad because anything narrower can be easily avoided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is hardly surprising though. The current democratic leadership is full of double-talkers and the republicans are completely owned by special interests.

The only way to get something done would be to throw more money at lobbyists than content and pharma. But that is not likely as in Pharma's case the current system is what keeps them in business. Gov't pays for research, pharma picks it up, hides the flaws, markets it to the public then heavily markets against themselves when their patents expire. No sonny, this is regulatory capture at its finest and if you care about software/technology patent reform you have to figure out how to reframe the debate so protected and well funded industries are no longer effected.

<comment><USER7> you must live in some wierd fantasy world, but sorry the dems are totally owned by special interests. some of the old guard republicans are also similar.

follow the money, the dems reek of special interest.

<comment><USER8> Both parties are almost completely owned by special interests at this point (in many cases by the same special interests!), though there are a few "exceptions that prove the rule" on either side of the aisle.

It makes me laugh when someone with ideological allegiance to one side or the other points out how corrupt the "other guys" are and either disingenuously doesn't mention or just plain stupidly doesn't notice the same problem for those on their "side".

This is a big part of the reason I support MayOne ([https://mayone.us](https://mayone.us)). The odds are stacked against them, but meaningful and broad campaign finance reform is the only thing that is going to fix the now incredibly broken US government and give non-corporations any meaningful voice in future legislation, and I have yet to see any better plan on how to make it happen.</comment></comment></comment>


Intel proposes new SAPM memory type to protect against Spectre-like attacks - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-proposes-new-sapm-memory-type-to-protect-against-spectre-like-attacks/ <comment><USER2> SAPM = Speculative-Access Protected Memory. Basically, a memory range can be selected to be instruction serialized.

I have this weird feeling I have seen this idea on another architecture before.

<comment> ga-vu Which one?</comment></comment>


My Top Ten Desired Traits in a Software Development Job - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Jon_Blankenship/status/1269716700682993666 <comment><USER2> Threadreader link: [https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1269716700682993666.html?...](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1269716700682993666.html?refreshed=yes)

Interesting tweets - I could see myself agreeing with a lot of those points a few years ago, before I decided to go into management instead. More recently, I seem to find a "thrill" of sorts in navigating any external bureaucracy and filtering it down to concrete technical requirements for my team.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Interesting to hear of your transformation. Everyone has their own unique set of things that makes them tick.

The world needs people like you to complement people like me. :-)</comment></comment>


New Senate Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Nationwide - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/the-byte/senate-legalize-marijuana-nationwide <comment><USER2> It's fake news to make any specific claims about a bill that is a placeholder with _no actual contents yet_ (as of February 10).

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/420...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/420/text?q=%7B"search"%3A%5B"420"%5D%7D&r=7&s=1)

In any case, removing cannabis from the Federal revenue code would _not_ make cannabis "legal nationwide"; state laws against cannabis, where applicable, remain in effect.</comment>


Ask HN: Rewriting parts of website in react, thoughts and best practices? - ciaran-ifelse We have a fairly complex dashboard written with PHP, HTML and JQuery but we are considering rewriting parts that are slow/needs updated with react.
I was wondering if anyone has past experience and what is the best way to go about this?
Is react the best way to go? <comment><AUTHOR> React can be a way forward. But it won't automatically improve the perf. First take a look at your middware if you have decision making power on that. The slowness can be mitigated using microservices and graphQL. Without this enhancement, widget to widget, PHP/jQuery is hard to beat.

There are many ways to write react. Take a solid boilerplate like react- boilerplate. Then bolt a good dashboard template on it. Get rid of crazy stuff (redux etc) Use Material. Write simple Functional components using hooks and tie everything together.

When you are rewriting, let go some stuff that you don't need.

Source: we are in the middle of what you want to do.

<comment> ciaran-ifelse Are you rewriting same functionality but in a brand new project or are you adding react components to an old project?

<comment><AUTHOR> Adding a new subsystem (30%) and bringing 90% of old in to react. Just plain convert did not justify the investment as our existing system is already written for perf. The only issue is the UI feels dated. It is Tomcat based.</comment></comment></comment>


Submit your startup. Get Featured. Get Feedback.  - <AUTHOR>

I started StartUpLift.com to feature promising startups and solicit insightful feedback from users. I would like to ask the HN community to submit startups/websites/apps. There is no cost for this submission. However, in the spirit of keeping feedback ecosystem alive, we do ask that you provide feedback to at least one of the other startups featured on our site before submitting yours.
Example: Hipmunk: http://startuplift.com/hipmunk-better-flight-search/
Submit yours: http://startuplift.com/submit-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> I was thinking of doing something like this. I'm glad to see the idea being nicely implemented. If I may, I'd offer a few suggestions which would make this fit more exactly with the vision I had. Let me know if you need any help.

1\. The homepage looks great, but I'd add two things: comments, and voting.

2\. I was thinking of having the top of the page devoted to a "top voted for the week" startup. This gives that startup added exposure, along with increasing audience interest in your site.

3\. Make it easy to receive the top voted startup each week by email. This increases reach and audience of your site, and I'd certainly sign up my email for that.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I will definitely look into implementing the suggestions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> clickable: <http://startuplift.com/>

</comment><comment><USER4> Are you planning to create a web service which enables the featured startups to cross-reference each other?

Like there's Startup A and Startup B. Some user visits A's website and then there's a widget or another page which lists A's sibling startups, so a user may choose to visit B's website. The list would be populated dynamically from your webservice and startup founders may choose which other startups would be included in their P2P Cross-Reference list.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had not thought about that but I don't see why that would not be a very useful feature/add on. Adoption might be an issue though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Make sure you read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review> especially [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review)

</comment><comment><USER6> Another site something like this: launchly.com.

I am not affiliated with it, but it seems like a good idea.

<comment><USER7> $40 to submit the site without any prior participation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://startuplift.com/how-it-works/>

</comment><comment><USER9> Nice, how often is it updated?

<comment><AUTHOR> Depending on the volume of submissions we receive, it is updated throughout the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> <http://www.thebusinessposter.com></comment>


Pay what you want Node/Backbone.js video bundle - <AUTHOR> http://coderwall.com/futureal

<comment><USER2> The payment not being clearly over HTTPS sets off alarm bells. We've trained people for years to not type CC details unless you see the padlock. Whenever I wanted a fancy in-page checkout form, I made the decision to serve the whole site over HTTPS, just for clarity.

The bundle itself looks very appealing.

Also, someone needs to practice spelling "recipes". There are two instances of the same typo on the page. Combined with the HTTPS issue mentioned earlier, this looks scarily like a scammers page.

"Tasty bonus recipies" "recipies with backbone"

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd really like to buy this, but submitting my CC number w/o HTTPS is a no-no.

<comment><AUTHOR> The payment is done via ajax over https - should probably make that more clear on the site</comment></comment>


What Microsoft's revival can teach other tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/07/25/what-microsofts-revival-can-teach-other-tech-companies <comment><USER2> I learned that you can change your public image to suit your current needs in whatever way you want and people will soon forget the past.

Soon, Microsoft will have always been a big supporter of open source in the minds of most people.

<comment><USER3> It works the other way too. Many people still believe in Google's abandoned motto; but that motto has been dead for quite some time.

<comment><USER2> Yes, there's basically no integrity. Only the appearance of it. A company isn't this way or that way they just do whatever is most promising in that moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry, but this so called Microsoft revival under Nadella is pure marketing, not in the least bit technical. Under Ballmer (and Gates before him), Microsoft were a super ambitious company that tried to be the best at everything it did, and they made an effort to recruit the best programmers. Under Nadella, Microsoft completely lacks any ambition, and almost all of their best programmers have left for Google, Facebook or Amazon. They are now officially the new IBM. Not in the least bit exciting or something to emulate.

<comment><USER5> To my knowledge Microsoft pays well - maybe not like Facebook, but on the other hand employees have a life and can focus on family, whichbin return reflects the Nadella version of Microsoft.

I recommend reading "Hit refresh" from Nadella. Fascinating book that teaches a lot about being humble and grateful.

<comment><USER4> I don't doubt that Nadella is humble, and so is Microsoft under him. But my point is they're not in the least bit ambitious technically. They are not trying to make any product that's the best in the world. The old Microsoft, and the current Google/Facebook/Amazon all have that ambition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Odd that this is gaining tracking at the same time that they are under fire for banning GitHub accounts.

</comment><comment><USER7> Tl;dr 1\. Don't f __* over your customers and partners. 2. Don't build what _you_ want and expect that everyone will use.

I had read "Hit Refresh" a while ago and Nadella does talk a lot about empathy. It felt a bit woozy at that time but my experience as a PM is really beginning to show me the importance of listening to your customers.

</comment><comment><USER8> Something which Azure has taught me is that people will eat shit from Microsoft by the spoonful and pay them for it.

<comment><USER9> Don't say this on Reddit you'll be met with that azure is the best cloud out of the three major ones.

<comment><USER10> Bunch of amateurs.

<comment><USER11> You, sir, are very arrogant.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NASA's Dawn Probe Sends Photos of Dwarf Planet Ceres to Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5911223/NASAs-Dawn-probe-send-stunning-new-image-surface-Ceres.html <comment><USER2> [image showing landslides along Occator Crater's rim was obtained by NASA's Dawn spacecraft]

Anyone else think a celestial body that has landslides deserves to be called a planet?</comment>


Snatch: A simple and fast download accelerator, in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/derniercri/snatch <comment><USER2> My biggest pet peeve with projects is when the feature list is actually a mix of features and things that are "upcoming"/"to be supported." This feature list isn't really a feature list either: it's just "simple" and "fast" (but fast is just 'written in a new exciting programming language'). Interruption and resuming is the first actual feature, but that's "soon."

Feature lists should be feature lists. On open source projects especially, I've seen "soon" take weeks or months. Move features that aren't features into a "upcoming" or "planned" block or make an issue, but don't list it as a feature when it isn't implemented.

<comment><USER3> I think you're being overly-critical for alpha software.

If they want to mix the feature list with the roadmap or keep them separate, it doesn't really matter. I assume the incomplete feature list is precisely the reason for the alpha label.

I may be reading too much in between the lines, but your comment sounds like "I don't want to hear about software until it is finished. If it's not ready for prime time, keep it on your hard drive."

<comment><USER4> Im sorry but I find the parent very correct here. The headline is hype based. The README shows no signs of benchmarks or comparisons to define its acclaimed speed. Also mentioning an upcoming feature in the headline is not something people would prefer. Its still okay as its open source and people can do what they want. But to be taken seriously, it needs to be as realistic and true as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you are serious, you can alternately use aria2 [https://aria2.github.io/](https://aria2.github.io/). Aria2 has been around for a long time and is quite robust and feature complete. It makes a compelling replacement for curl and wget.

<comment><USER6> Another accelerator is Axel [0]. While aria2 supports all kinds of protocols, Axel supports Axel HTTP, HTTPS, FTP and FTPS. Both are excellent and I've used aria2 for a very long time.

[0] [https://wilmer.gaa.st/main.php/axel.html](https://wilmer.gaa.st/main.php/axel.html)

<comment><USER7> I love axel. Whenever I have issues with video streaming due to the website having per client connection throttling, I extract the media src from the page and do axel -n 32 <url> and saturate my downlink (200mbit+).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Downloading from several mirrors at once makes sense, but using "download accelerators" to cheat on TCP congestion control is just wrong. Some mirrors will even ban you for making more than 4 connections at once.

<comment><USER9> Hi, actually, this was an idea that we shared a few days ago, and I am agree with this. As I mentioned earlier in a next comment, _Snatch_ is a side project that has been created for a presentation of Rust. Thank you for this comment - we will work on this idea soon :-)

<comment><USER10> Have you considered adding support for download-accelerating strategies like [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842517](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842517)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Fast: written in a new exciting programing language ;

IMO change this description, it's rather strange...

<comment><USER12> Because Rust!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wow, does download accelerators still exist? I remember using them back in the days on my 56k modem. I guess it still makes sense though if your home internet is faster than what the server allows per connection. Usually you don't need it anyway because today most things are already fast enough.

<comment><USER9> Hi, I am Antonin, a maintainer of _Snatch_ at DernierCri. Actually, _Snatch_ is a (cool, for me) side project that I began with a collegue, for a presentation of Rust. After this presentation, we decide to continue this project _just for fun_. We know that we have to improve a lot _Snatch_ , we just wanted here to share it ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Prozilla[1] is still one of the best and tiniest download managers I've ever seen. Blazingly fast. Squeezes as much speed as allowed by your ISP if throttled.

[1] [https://github.com/totosugito/prozilla-2.0.4](https://github.com/totosugito/prozilla-2.0.4)

<comment><USER2> Do you have a link to the original source repository/project page?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can use prettier progress bar symbols, in terminals which support Unicode.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters#Blo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters#Block_Elements)</comment>


I surrender. Lisp really is better than C++. - <AUTHOR> http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/2007/08/22/i-surrender-lisp-really-is-better-than-c/ <comment><USER2>
     >+++++++++++[<++++++>-]<.>+++++++++++++++++[<+++>-]<.-.>++++++++++++[<</comment><comment>->-
     ]<.>+++++++[<+++++>-]<.>++++++[<---->-]<..</comment><comment>-----.+++++++++++++++++++++++++
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.>+++++[<++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment>---
     </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--.++++++++++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+.---
     </comment><comment>--.+++..>+++++++++++++++++++[<---->-]<.>+++++++++++[<++++++>-]<.+++.>++++
     +[<+++>-]<..>+++++[<--->-]<.+++++++++++++.>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     +++++[<-->-]<.>++++++++++++[<+++++++>-]<.>++++[<--->-]<.</comment><comment>-.+++++++++++++.>
     +++++++++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<.>+++++++++++[<++++++>-]<.>++++[<++++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment>
     -----.>++++[<++>-]<.+++++.>++++[<-->-]<.>+++++[<+++>-]<.>++++++[<--->-]<.>++++[
     <++>-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[<-->-]<.

<comment><USER3> __

    >++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+.>+++++[<</comment></comment><comment>>-]<----.>++++++++[<++++++++>
        -]<++++++.>++++c++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<-----.>++++++++[<++++++++>-]<+++++
        ++.>++[<++++>-]<.>++[<--->-]<.>++[<++>-]<+.>++[<--->-]<-.>++++++++[<-
        </comment><comment>->-]<</comment><comment>-.>+++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+++.>++[<-->-]<-.>+++++++
        +[<</comment><comment>--->-]<</comment><comment>-.>++++++++[<++++++++>-]<+++++.>++[<++++>-]<.>+
        ++[<--->-]<--.+++.-.>++++++++[<</comment><comment>-->-]<----.>+++++[<++++++>-]<+++
        +.>++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>++++[<---->-]<-.>++[<++++>-]<.>++[<++>-]<+.>
        ++[<---->-]<.>+++[<+++++>-]<.>++++[<---->-]<--.>++[<++++>-]<.>+++++++
        +[<</comment><comment>--->-]<---.>++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+.>++[<++>-]<+.>++++++++[
        <</comment><comment>--->-]<</comment><comment>.>++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+++++.>+++[<++++>-]<.>++
        +++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<</comment><comment>--.>++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<++++++.>+++[<-
        -->-]<.>++++[<++++>-]<+++.----.>+++++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<---.>++++++++
        [<++++++++++>-]<.++.---.>++[<---->-]<.>+++[<+++>-]<++.>++++[<---->-]<
        -.>+++[<++++>-]<.>++++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<-----.>++++++++[<+++++++++>-
        ]<++.>+++[<+++>-]<++.--.+.>+++++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<---.>++++++++[<+++
        +++++>-]<++++++.>+++[<+++>-]<.+++.>+++++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<-.>+++++++
        +[<+++++++++>-]<+++.--.>++[<--->-]<.>++[<++++>-]<.>++[<++++>-]<.>++++
        ++++[<</comment><comment>-->-]<-----.>++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<.

<comment><USER2>
     >+++++++++++++++++++++++[<+++>-]<.>+++++++++++++++++[<+++>-]<.>+++++++[<--->-]<
     .++.+++++++..</comment></comment><comment>-.>+++[<+++>-]<.>+++[<++>-]<.>++++++++++++[<</comment><comment>->-]<.++++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++.+++++++.>
     +++[<-->-]<.>+++[<-->-]<.++.>+++++++++++[<----->-]<.>+++++++[<-->-]<.>+++++++++
     ++++++++[<++>-]<.>++++++++[<++++++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment>-----.>++++[<++>-]<.+++++.>+
     +++[<-->-]<.>+++++[<+++>-]<.>++++++[<--->-]<.>++++[<++>-]<.>+++++++++++++++++[<
     ---->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++[<++++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---
     </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++.>+++[<++>-]<.>+++++[<--->-]<.++++
     +++++++++.--.++.</comment><comment></comment><comment>-.>+++++[<+++>-]<.>+++++[<--->-]<.+++++++++++++.>++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[<-->-]<.>+++++++++++++[<+++++>-]<.+++++
     ++++++++.>+++++[<-->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++[<---->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
     ++++++++++++++++[<++>-]<.+++.</comment><comment>-.>+++[<++>-]<.</comment><comment>-----.++++.>++++[<-->-]
     <.>+++++++++++++++++++++++[<--->-]<.>+++++++++++++[<+++++>-]<.+++++++++++++++++
     .</comment><comment></comment><comment>-.>+++++++++++++++++++++++[<--->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++++++[<+++>
     -]<.+++++++++++++++++.</comment><comment></comment><comment>-----.>+++[<+++>-]<.>+++++++++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]
     <.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     ++++++.>+++[<-->-]<.>++++[<--->-]<.+++++++++++..</comment><comment>-.+++++++++++++.>++++++++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++[<-->-]<.>++++++++++++[<+++++++>-]<.>++++[<---
     >-]<.</comment><comment>-.+++++++++++++.>+++++++++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<.>+++++++++++[<++++>-]<.++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.>+++++[<---->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++++
     ++++++++[<-->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++[<++++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-
     </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----.>++++[<--->-]<.>+++++++++++[<+++>-]<.+
     ++++++++++++.>+++++[<-->-]<.>++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<.>++++++++++++[<+++++++>-]<.>+++
     +[<--->-]<.---.>+++++++++++++++++++++++[<--->-]<.>+++++++++++++++++++[<++++>-]<
     .</comment><comment>-----.+++++++++++++.</comment><comment>-.>+++++++[<++>-]<.>+++++[<---->-]<.>+++[<++>-
     ]<.--.>+++++++++++++++++++++++[<--->-]<.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.>+++++[<++>-]<.</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----
     </comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>.>+++++++++++++++++[<++++
     >-]<.+.----.+++.>+++++++++++++++++[<---->-]<.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.>+++++[<-->-]<.++++.+++.----.
     </comment><comment>-.>+++++++++++++++++[<---->-]<.

<comment><USER3> __

    >+++++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+++.>+++++[<++++++>-]<.+++.>++++[<---->-]<.>
        ++++++++[<</comment></comment><comment>-->-]<-----.>++++++++[<++++++++>-]<++++.---.>++++[<++
        ++>-]<+++.>+++++++++[<</comment><comment>--->-]<---.>+++[<++++>-]<+..>+++[<---->-]
        <-.>++++++[<++++++>-]<.>+++[<+++>-]<++.>++[<+++>-]<.>+++[<++++>-]<+.>
        ++++[<----->-]<--.>+++++[<+++++>-]<.>++++++++[<</comment><comment>-->-]<-----.>+++
        ++++++[<+++++++++>-]<+++.>+++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<----.>+++++[<+++++++>-]<.>
        ++++++[<</comment><comment>-->-]<.>++++++[<</comment><comment>>-]<.>++++[<----->-]<---.

</comment><comment><USER4> _"Up until now, everything that I'd seen done in Lisp could easily be done in C++ too. The only real difference was a little more verbosity. But the unit- testing framework that was developed in that chapter..."_

Interesting that a unit testing framework was the final straw. It's horrible not being able to use closures.

<comment><USER5> It's usually lack of garbage collection that gets to me the fastest. Closures are a close second, but those you can easily fake in nearly any language. In Java, anonymous classes usually do the job. In C with GNU extensions, you can use nested functions as callbacks, with the caveat that they'll only be available within the dynamic scope of the caller.

<comment><USER6> Lack of garbage collection built into the language, you mean? I'm not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.

<comment><USER5> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think he missed the biggest differentiator between C++ and Lisp - it's fun to program in Lisp!

</comment><comment><USER8> Almost anything is better than C++!

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen PG, you started a movement.

<comment><USER9> Well, not everyone is convinced: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "X is better than Y" is meaningless. Better for what under what specific conditions, and how so?

</comment><comment><USER11> Oh god, here we go ...</comment>


"Content Watch" Security app not letting me access Gmail - <AUTHOR> ideas? <comment><USER2> If you're using proxy or Tor</comment>


F.lux: adjusts display color temp by time of day - <AUTHOR> https://justgetflux.com/

<comment><USER2> Obligatory plug for an open-source alternative, Redshift:

[http://jonls.dk/redshift/](http://jonls.dk/redshift/)

<comment><USER3> I use it on my Linux boxes and it works great. There is a command line client, and a separate optional gui for control.

Android folks should check out Twilight [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.urbandroid.lux) \- note that it works by putting a colour filtered overlay on top of the existing display content. Google does block some actions while this happens - eg accepting terms/permissions for installation of an app. Consequently you have to disable twilight when doing things like app installation/updates. (flux and redshift tweak the gamma tables directly - something that isn't available on Android.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been using this for about a year now. It does seem to have a noticeable impact on my comfort given the time I spend staring at screens.

The transition points at sunrise and sunset are very disruptive, however. Even knowing it is coming, it will break your thought process.

<comment><USER5> Did you try adjusting your transition time? You can switch from Fast to Slow which will gradually adjust over 60 minutes. See if that works better for you.

<comment><USER4> I'll have to check, because for me its an immediate shift. It even causes system slowdown for a few seconds as it transitions.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good developer, bad partner ¿What to do? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, first sorry for my bad english, i'm a good developer i know and use a ton of languages to get done a job, I've read a lot about software contructing, developing, etc. I created myself alone very big projects, mobile apps, etc. 'm not the only developer who knows how to do all this but now i have a partner that gives me about 200 dollars borrowed(as a credit when the work I pay that money back)a week for my work, take 80% of the money from my work, so we have a year working at only pleasing customers with credits because his company has income that has nothing to do with software development, I need the money right now for my healt and family but just give me 200 dollars with which I can not mantain my family, IN A YEAR ONLY HAS INVESTED ABOUT 15,000 dollars and say's it's much, yesterday i just finished with society and he tells me I'm wrong and crazy, I can make money alone and do not need him, ¿who is evil the partner or me? I need someone outside this situation encourages me<p>EDIT: All the projects I've done this year and has not charged to client each is more than 150% of what the partner have invested in one is 1000% <comment><USER2> sounds like a bad situation so find a better one. Your probably not going to reason with this person.</comment>


How do Scala and F# compare when it comes to application development features? - <AUTHOR> http://www.developer.com/features/article.php/3890906/Scala-vs-F-Round-2-Application-Programming-Features.htm

<comment><USER3> These types of comparisons seem to be better for checkbox style decision- making. It's something I can put onto a spreadsheet for a manager whose decision-making process will be "Scala has 5 check marks, F# has 6. F# it is!"

</comment><comment><USER4> Good read! I've been meaning to give F# a try were it not for the other projects I've been juggling in my spare time. Have any HN developers taken it out for a spin?

<comment><USER5> I've only used F#; have looked at Scala a bit but haven't used it. I find F# feels fairly natural and pleasant if you know C# and like ML-like languages. I've mostly treated it as a nicer C# rather than a true functional language, though; features like sequence expressions (generate an anonymous IEnumerable with yields without having to declare and define a function etc.) and object expressions (generate an instance of an anonymous class that inherits from some interface) let you write imperative code in a more "value-oriented" fashion and with less ceremony. Algebraic data types and pattern-matching are also nice to have, of course. My impression is that Scala is much more conceptually interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Meh. I'm not impressed with either this article or the preceding one.

I've been programming almost exclusively in F# over the last year - <USER2> they've been smallish projects. The weird thing about F# is that the code keeps collapsing from huge constructs down to really small pieces.

A couple of nits from both of this guy's articles. F# supports multiple inheritance through interfaces, which ain't C++ but it's good enough for government work. F#'s pattern-matching is freaking way far above the simple case he showed there: active patterns, assignment on test, structural- matching, etc. You can do some super cool stuff with F#'s pattern-matching. Hopefully he knew this and it was just an oversight.

Also he seems to indicate that MS is going to use F# as an entrance into large-scale scientific-type computing. This may be true, but it is badly misleading. By teaching developers to work with immutable data and functional composition, it opens up the entire PC stack to all sorts of improvements over your average VB code. I expect to see some really neat stuff come out along these lines.</comment>


Windows 10 feature will fix Google Chrome's biggest problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.windowslatest.com/2020/06/18/google-chrome-will-finally-use-less-memory-on-windows-10/ <comment><USER2> This article is repetitive and doesn't include many details. Searching around the first several hits on windows 10 segment heap also don't have much detail on why it's an improvement over the existing.

It looks like segment heap has been available for several years in windows for UWP applications and the big update this year is that it's now available to win32 applications. According to a white paper from IBM in 2016 it sounds like Microsoft Edge used this before so may have lost it with the recent migration to using chromium.

(PDF) [https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Yason- Wi...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Yason- Windows-10-Segment-Heap-Internals-wp.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Huh, I'd thought that Chromium used tcmalloc instead of system malloc, but turns out it only does that by default on Linux: [https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/base/+/master...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/base/+/master/allocator/)

Does anyone know why? I could understand tcmalloc everywhere, or system malloc everywhere, but tcmalloc on just Linux seems odd. It's not like the Windows and OS X mallocs have any better reputation of efficiency than glibc malloc.

</comment><comment><USER4> > [..] which means individual performance could be lower or higher than 27%, > but this change will definitely reduce memory usage to some extent [..]

So that doesn't necessarily mean that memory usage will fall by 27%... I don't see how is it a fix then. Going from 8 GB of memory to 6 GB doesn't sound like a fix to me.

Is there a browser that doesn't take so much memory? I tried Firefox and Edge but they have the same memory consumption as Chrome. In fact Firefox's usage was a bit higher.</comment>


LendUp (YC W12) Scores $150M for a Credit Card That Won't Screw You Over - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/22/the-loan-dolphin/#.4sfbucn:pYGg <comment><USER2> I've been using LendUp regularly just in an attempt to help rebuild my credit (I've never actually needed the loan). I think their service is fantastic and I really hope they remain independent and true to their mission as they grow.

<comment><USER3> This is a horrible way to build credit. You are literally throwing money in the trash. Go get a secured credit card.

<comment><USER4> Diversity of types of loan is worth it (card, installment debt). If you're borrowing $1000 at 7% for a year it's on par with the fees for a secured credit card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know if they cater to the recent immigrant? The USA credit score system is totally broken for people who have come recently to the country.

<comment><USER6> It's not easy without credit score, but there are definitely options. For example if you're in the Bay Area you can get a credit card from Tech CU: [https://www.techcu.com/Personal/Global_Members/CreditStart_C...](https://www.techcu.com/Personal/Global_Members/CreditStart_Credit_Card/)

Also, if you've got an Amex card in your home country it might be possible to use it to get another card in the US: [https://www.americanexpress.com/global- card-transfers/united...](https://www.americanexpress.com/global-card- transfers/united-states.html)

In addition, you can also apply for a secured credit card (e.g., from Capital One) which will help you to get a credit score.

<comment><AUTHOR> This above... To add to what he/she said, to maximize your scores, you need at least 3 credit cards reporting. For a newbie, you should be able to generate a score within six months. BOA, Capital One and CUs are are good place to start. Also if someone can add you as an authorized user on their cards also helps a lot. Stay way from predatory lenders like First Premier and Credit One. Once you get it, always pay your balance before statement cuts and let only 1%-9% of the balance report to the bureaus. Do this and in six months you will be qualified for unsecured cards...

<comment> david-given Leaving aside the fact that as a non-USian this all sounds completely insane...

> Once you get it, always pay your balance before statement cuts and let only > 1%-9% of the balance report to the bureaus.

...what does this mean?

<comment><USER7> The latter means that the credit reporting agencies "evaluate" how you're doing at specific times, so instead of paying off your card when it is due, you can notice when they evaluate and pay it off _right before they check_. If you do, try and pay off enough to have it below 10%, but above 1%, since that'll give you the best evaluation (i.e. the highest credit score).

For anyone else, pretty much anyone with income can more or less fix their credit in 6-9 months if you just work at it. It's a game, you can game it, and get a good credit score.

(If you scoff at the notion of credit scores being "a game", realize that _it 's the whole point_. People who "care" enough about their credit score to learn the game and play it are—by definition—good credit risks. So doing well "at the game" is _exactly_ what credit providers want you to do.)

<comment><USER5> > People who "care" enough about their credit score to learn the game and play > it are—by definition—good credit risks

Either that or they are fraudsters.

<comment><USER8> The credit score is not intended to find fraudsters. It's intended to find people with poor credit skills, but good intentions.

For fraud they have other tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't understand why Orloff is so excited about giving customers the ability to easily lock and unlock their credit card. As a customer, that's really not very valuable to me. I'd rarely use the feature, and it likely wouldn't save me any money, since I'm only liable for up to $50 of fraudulent charges (and haven't paid anything at all each time my number has been stolen in the past).

<comment><USER10> Many people (that I know / have known) frequently misplace their wallet and then their cards are in this limbo state where it's unclear if they are stolen and have to be replaced (expensive for the co., inconvenient for the customer) or just not found.

Seems like a useful feature to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Banking software is outdated and lacks features, because there is tons of red tape involved. It also took the banks decades and probably hundreds of thousands of man hours to get the software to a level of acceptable security that most likely won't be present in a startup with a handful of employees.

As we've seen with Bitcoin, the next new shiny piece of software isn't necessarily better or more secure.

I just checked out: [https://www.lendup.com/](https://www.lendup.com/)

Here was a sample loan: $250, 30 days. With the base interest (which I assume is without any lender checks) it is $43.30 with a 202% APR.

It replaces a credit score with another system that essentially does the same thing, which is to evaluate your risk to the lender.

It's clever, and might save some time (which has never really been a problem for me when I needed a loan and was poor), but is absolutely not any different than a payday loan place.

In fact, here is a random payday loan site I googled: [https://www.flashpayday.com](https://www.flashpayday.com)

The APR is in the same range, they just use a different mechanism to determine your credit worthiness, which really makes no difference to the person borrowing the money.

"Sasha says perhaps it'll license its technology to other banks like it planned to pre-pivot."

You just got done telling me that banks are evil, so you are going to take your fantastic new technology to continue to enable this behavior? I don't think banks are inherently evil, but this logic just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

"Sasha says he'd walk by it each day whispering under his breath, "you're going out of business.""

Really? It seems you are doing the same thing. Payday loans actually help the poor. The APR is huge (like on your site), because of the risk involved. There is really no way around this without the lender losing a large percentage of money invested.

It's either this, or not getting a loan at all...and when I was in a bad financial time in my life, it saved me until my next paycheck.

</comment><comment><USER12> Have any consumer advocacy-type people compared LendUp's APRs and terms with that of traditional payday loan companies? 203% to 755% APR for a first-time borrower sounds comparable to what many others already offer. How much of a better deal are you getting?

I would like to see payday/title loans and other debt traps legislated off the market completely, and at those APRs, I don't see how this is substantially different.

<comment><USER13> It looks like it's comparable for a first-time borrower, as you say, and then gets better as you build a history of repayment with them.

I haven't used payday loan services myself, but from what I've read, I have an easy time believing that incumbents in that market don't use their own borrower repayment information very effectively.

<comment><USER12> Often, people who fall into a debt trap start with just one reasonably small loan, a few hundred dollars for a few weeks.

So if your first-time borrowers still pay 200-700% APR, then I don't see how offering lower rates to people who have demonstrated their ability to repay addresses the problem of people who are actually unable to repay falling into this trap to begin with.

<comment><USER13> Okay, can we agree that lendup helps people who repay, and doesn't help people who don't? Relative to existing payday loan services.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I agree. The moral issue is allowing people to take out loans that they are unlikely to be able to repay, based on their personal finance history. I don't (yet) see how LendUp does a better job of that for first-time borrowers than any other payday loan company.

Perhaps this is addressed by limiting the first-time loan amount to something small (like $250), and scraping the borrower's online banking statements as part of the approval process in order to predict (based on the account history) whether they are likely to be able to repay within a month. I don't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is f#$%ing ironic:

[https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/lendup_...](https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/lendup_mobile_photo.jpg)

At only 392.38% APR, we "won't screw you over" in any other way.

<comment><USER15> Am I the only person that thinks representing a loan only designed to be held for a week or two at an annual rate is about as useful as the weatherman giving the forecast in degrees kelvin?

It's a payday loan. You pay it back plus $10-50.

And this is supposed to be "predatory"? Jeez. I'd have been screwed a few times without these evil "loan sharks".

<comment><USER16> There's an argument that could be made that capitalism is based on the idea that those who understand compound interest are allowed to exploit those who don't.

So no, you're not the only person who thinks that. And there are plenty of people who want you to keep thinking that. Especially people with bright new financial services apparently aimed at making the wealth gap even worse than it is already.

Robbery by math.

<comment><USER15> You and I have tremendously different definitions of robbery. Every legitimate payday loan outfit I've looked at is pretty much above board with what they charge and how they work.

Borrow X, repay X + Y on Z date, usually no more than a month in the future.

So sure, if you feel fully informed consent is exploitative in any way.

<comment><USER16> And the entire population aced math in their well funded school system with small class numbers and well paid capable teachers, so no worries.

I suspect we don't have different definitions of robbery so much, as of when it's appropriate to take advantage of people's ignorance and when it isn't. You'll understand better when somebody has taken advantage of yours.

<comment><USER15> How does this increasingly contrived person who has a job and paychecks/DDs into a bank account (all three of which are prerequisites for most payday loans) not understand _first grade_ math?

<comment><USER17> I'm a perfect use case for this service, so I guess I'll tell you my story. My credit score is pretty low. Low enough that I apply for high interest cards with my bank and get rejected.

I have a high income and an equally high number of expenses. Each month I have about 300-600$ in "discretionary" income. I also have a partner with a very low income and a son. My partner is trying to get on her feet right now and there is a high degree in variability with her income and needs. She has recurring medical bills and there are constant one time medical expenditures when you have a child. Not to mention birthdays, once in a lifetime kind of events where your child gets to participate, there are family and friends that are worse off financially and need help from time to time.

I don't like, respect, or particularly want to use my banking services. I don't trust them but having a checking account is a requirement. Every time I have 500$ it makes me sick to my stomach to imagine handing it over to them, given the fees and backhanded tactics they use. I don't trust them. I imagine I might get a secured credit card sometime, but handing over the 500$ and waiting two weeks to a month for my own money back, again, just makes me kind of sick.

This service would help me in an emergency, and help me build credit (if not to the same extent as a secured credit card)

<comment><USER16> I totally sympathise, the US health system is just a disaster.

YMMV but - I had a US bank account (I was a foreign student, low income) for 10 years. Didn't cost me a cent. Made money on interest, and had a perfect credit rating when I graduated. Found a small community bank that was free provided you kept a minimum balance of $1000. Savings and Loan are an equally valid alternative (not even sure what the difference is got the same service from both - except the S&L would cash foreign checks for free).

Thing is, people think banks are evil for charging 14.5% APR for an unsecured personal loan. But they think these guys are great for charging a minimum of 29% APR - but as far as I could see more like 200%+ for an unsecured personal loan???

Holy math fail batman!

Don't bank with citizens or bank of america, and do your due diligence like you would any other purchase. There are plenty of good banks out there who would be happy to do business with you. Go in, ask to speak to the bank manager, explain your circumstances, ask questions _you already know the answer to_ to calibrate, and treat it like any other business arrangement.

You're right a secured credit card is also better than these guys, they'll only charge you 27%APR or so. Still not as good as a bank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great company! Wouldn't the same concept apply to those that cannot afford car repairs for example? You provide credit to those that need to fix their cars, however, the problem is that the auto-shop is incentivized now to upsell a bunch of fixes you may not actually need. Any thoughts?

<comment><USER19> A lot of car dealerships nowadays will finance repairs or maintenance.

I don't know about how available the same kind of credit facility is to independent mechanics (dealerships tend to be pretty cozy with banks/financiers for obvious reasons), but that would probably be a good place to start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Anyone from LendUp on here? I want to talk to you.

</comment><comment><USER21> great article. sounds like sasha and lendup are in business for all the right reasons. hopefully their story inspires more like them.</comment>


Python implementation of statistical Dependency parsing using SVM by @rj_here - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rohit-jain/parzer/tree/master/code <comment><USER2> Duplicate of: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11056509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11056509)

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there a link available to the data that has been used?

<comment><USER4> The readme file has links to the data: [https://github.com/rohit- jain/parzer/blob/master/readme.md](https://github.com/rohit- jain/parzer/blob/master/readme.md) and instructions on how to use it.</comment></comment>


The Tardigrade: Practically Invisible, Indestructible 'Water Bears' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/science/the-tardigrade-water-bear.html <comment><USER2> The PBS show "The cat in the Hat"[1] has an episode on these small beasts (episode 202[2]).

      [1] http://pbskids.org/catinthehat/video/
      [2] http://www.pbs.org/parents/catinthehat/about_prog_epi_desc_201_210.html

</comment><comment><USER3> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9196868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9196868).

</comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone know if its full genome has been sequenced?

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how many of these things have got to Mars ahead of us.</comment>