Supreme Court rules on software patent case Alice Corp v. CLS Bank [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf <comment><USER2> One of the horrid things about law is how it can be dissembled by those whose job is to practice it. This drives people crazy. They know something is _real_. Yet, especially if they are caught in its hooks, they watch how law can be applied such that results are absurdly divorced from the reality they know. Our advocacy process has many fine elements and yet this is one of its tragic by-products: having the best and the brightest in the field become instruments in trying to obtain cynically-motivated decisions that further some narrow (usually economic) interest at the expense of truth and justice.

That has been happening for a long time now in the patent field as armies of very bright lawyers have found clever ways to concoct patents out of what really should be unpatentable ideas through the art of clever drafting.

Well, this decision gives top-down guidance to judges to cut through such dissimulation in the area of patents and to look at the reality by asking, in effect, "is this _really_ inventive or is it simply a product of the draftsman's craft parading as being somehow inventive." That is the right question to ask in such cases and it should go a long way towards reining in some of the more absurd abuses of recent times.

The case in nonetheless only an incremental step building on solid precedent (as well-assessed by rayiner) and not a radical shift by the Court.

Many had hoped, for example, that this case could be used as a means of delivering a death-blow to _all_ software patents on the grounds that they could all be labeled nothing more than basic mathematical algorithms that happen to apply to a computer. Yet, in its decision, the Court not only did not address this sort of argument but it also carefully emphasized the idea that it was to "tread carefully" in how it might choose to exclude even fundamental "building blocks of human ingenuity" (i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas) from patent eligibility "lest this exclusionary principle . . . swallow up all of patent law." To me, this signifies that the cautious approach signaled in _Bilski_ \- that is, that of gradually cutting back on the excesses spawned in the past two decades in the area of patent-eligible subject matter - will continue. So don't hold your breath awaiting any court-driven abolition of software patents generally. That will have to await a legislative solution, if it is to come about at all.

<comment><USER3> Well, actually, it does help a lot. In particular, they said ""claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention""

Historically, federal circuit precedent said exactly the opposite - that when a generic computer was programmed for a specific purpose, it was now a special purpose machine and patentable.

"For computer implemented processes, the "machine" is often disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently "particular" when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software."

This decision should, if the federal circuit actually follows it, knock out a large set of software patents.

<comment><USER4> _> Well, actually, it does help a lot. In particular, they said ""claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention""

Historically, federal circuit precedent said exactly the opposite - that when a generic computer was programmed for a specific purpose, it was now a special purpose machine and patentable._

1) Your argument does not refute the GP's statement. A "specific purpose" is not necessarily an "abstract idea", depending on how the claims are structured. A claim saying "presenting ads in such a way that it is unobtrusive on a computer" is an abstract idea[1]. A claim that specifies how a computer can, say, examine visual or DOM elements on a page to determine where to place ads such as not to be obtrusive, is much more concrete.

2) A generic computer running a program _is_ a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so, and as such, it is performing potentially novel functionality. Otherwise, in my mind, you might as well argue "a kitchen knife could not be a murder weapon because it's a _kitchen_ knife."

 _> This decision should, if the federal circuit actually follows it, knock out a large set of software patents._

I've looked only at a few particular areas, but all the "old idea, only on a computer / on the Internet" patents I've seen so far (like [1]) the one should have expired by now. However this is purely anecdotal, of course.

1\. Such a claim (I only paraphrased it a bit) exists, and was referenced in one of Lemley's papers. On mobile so can't find it right away.

<comment><USER3> "2)a generic computer running a program is a special purpose machine: it's now doing things it could not do before it was programmed to do so"

This is of course false. It always could do them, it just wasn't told to. To view it otherwise is nuts.

Otherwise, I could argue that when you think about things, you are activating new pathways in your brain, forming neural connections that didn't exist, and otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before.

<comment><USER4> _> It always could do them, it just wasn't told to._

"A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so."

How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine?

 _> otherwise changing and programming the state of your brain to know and do things it could not before._

Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing.

<comment><USER3> ""A board, spring and wires could always trap a mouse, they just weren't configured to do so."

How is programming a computer different from assembling existing components in a new arrangement to make a new machine?"

You are not "assembling existing components in a new arrangement with a computer". Also, if I gave you a board, a spring, and wires, you could not trap a mouse with them.

You actually have to physically change them to accomplish anything. The spring won't stick to the board by itself, etc.

You are also taking things that were previously limited in some way (a board is not elastic, etc), and assembling them into a new thing that is not so limited.

When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in _any way, shape, or form_.

It was never limited. By programming it, you are doing exactly what it was built to do: Be programmable.

You are simply picking a subset of the things it could already do, and saying "do this subset". The computer, no matter how hard you program it, will never trap a mouse. It is the building of the computer that was the hard part. You, on the other hand, are always operating entirely within the existing limits of the computer.

"Not a neuroscientist, and this risks derailing the thread, but isn't that exactly how brains and learning work? This has also been observed at the macro level, e.g. that study where London cabbies' brains were found to have enlarged portions that dealt with spatial processing. "

Yes, this is exactly how they work. That's my point. By your argument, you can replace "computer implemented" with brain implemented, and end up with the same patentable result. Given that, i'm arguing there is nothing special, at all, about computers, or implementing things using them, any more than thinking about things or learning to play guitar. Enlarging the center for spatial processing in cabbies is something _the brain was meant to do_. The cabbies did not create it out of whole cloth. They did nothing but exercise their normal skill in spatial reasoning, and their brain did all the actual work.

Programming a brain does not make them do new things they could not do. It simply tells them what task to perform.

IE There are a set of tasks they can both perform. That set of tasks is fixed at creation, both of brains, and computers. You cannot make lasers shoot of your eyes no matter how hard you try.

Much like a brain implemented invention, a computer one is just picking a certain task the _computer already could do_.

<comment><USER4> _> When you program a computer, you are not changing the computer in any way, shape, or form. It was never limited._

But that is untrue, on two levels! Firstly, at the physical level: by programming the computer you are _physically_ changing it. You are changing the electronic charges on a multitude of molecules arranged at very specific locations in a very specific manner. This, in turn, when activated by other specifically applied charges, controls changes to yet other charges on other molecules at other very specific locations as these charges are evaluated by the laws of physics and the arrangements of various conducting materials connecting these molecules.

Secondly, at the functional level: these patterns of charges can be evaluated, by humans or other machines, to represent useful information, and hence the exact same circuit with different patterns of charges can be used as a word processor, a gaming machine, a media player, a database...

Consider the converse: without any such charges lighting up any of its circuits, the computer can do literally nothing. It is wholly limited.

I completely agree that the computer's _potential_ utility is never limited -- except maybe by our imaginations. However, that could be said for a hunk of metal or a slab of wood too.

 _> By programming it, you are doing exactly what it was built to do: Be programmable._

By fashioning steel into various shapes, I'm doing exactly what steel was created to do: be malleable when very hot but very rigid at room temperatures. Yet every new shape given to steel, from rods to blades to ball bearings to I-beams to frying pans, has enabled a new use.

By combining various atoms of elements in different configurations, I'm doing exactly what they were meant to do: bond with each other. Yet every new combination could result in a brand new compound.

What something _could_ do has no bearing on what is inventive. Inanimate things do precisely nothing until we invent a use for them. All technological development is the creative use of things doing what they are meant to do, arranged to achieve things that we want them to do.

 _> Enlarging the center for spatial processing in cabbies is something the brain was meant to do. ... They did nothing but exercise their normal skill in spatial reasoning, and their brain did all the actual work._

True, but their brains have become physically different from ours, optimized for spatial reasoning. You could in fact say that, with the right programming, they became special-purpose brains.

<comment><USER5> Hold on. You can't just say: Computers are implemented physically, so grounding a patent in a computer-based implementation makes it a physically- grounded patent.

If you want something physically-grounded you'd have to say: I want to implement this idea on that specific computer with these specific physical manifestations. And even if you got that patent, it would be effectively worthless. Changing what we view as trivial details of the implementation (e.g. swapping a Pentium for a Pentium Pro) would totally change the physical manifestations at the level of electrons and molecules. In other words, that would completely avoid any claims in the patent that are described at the physical level.

And the minute you retreat to considering claims at the functional level (i.e. what our collections of electrons and molecules mean) you're no longer talking about doing something physical to achieve a useful result: you're talking about combining abstract ideas with a wide range of possible physical implementations to achieve a useful result, which is something entirely different.

<comment><USER4> This is true for most physical inventions. Machines, for instance, may be claimed as a particular configuration of physical components, but the invention is not restricted to any precise composition materials used in those components _unless the claims require it_. Indeed, claims often don't even mention the materials being used.

For instance, you can use any comparable material or fluid to provide the necessary mechanical support or hydraulic force. Replacing, say, steel (or oil) with any other alloy (or incompressible fluid) with comparable properties will not allow you to sidestep the essence of the invention. This is analogous to switching one processor to another: it makes no difference because they are equivalent. As such, pretty much all patents (except maybe those on compounds) are abstract to some degree: they all claim a useful application with a wide range of possible physical implementations.

This is covered by the Doctrine of Equivalents, which specifically exists to prevent non-infringement through trivial workarounds. The counterbalance to this is that in examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation to find as much prior art as possible. For instance, examiners are free to use equivalent elements in the prior art to read on those in the claims.

<comment><USER6> You're trying to simultaneously claim that the machine is what makes it patentable as a result of its physical operation and that the machine is an abstraction completely divorced from its physical operation. Those two things don't go together.

<comment><USER4> No, let me do a diff on your statement to highlight my meaning (diff'd words in italics) I'm claiming that:

1) ... the machine is what makes it patentable as a result of its physical operation and

2) The _patent on that the machine_ is an abstraction _largely (to the extent it concerns irrelevant specifics)_ divorced from its physical operation.

You see the difference now? Those two arguments reconcile because they address different things. To see what I mean, do a search on google patents for, say, "hydraulic modulator", and count how many have claims that specify the precise materials they use. Without such details, these claims are about as abstract as software claims.

<comment><USER6> The difference is that in the software case the patent claims are _completely_ divorced from the computer's physical operation. You could be using a gravity- based computer built out of planets and stars and it would infringe all the same. Because the computer isn't required to _do_ something, it is only required to _calculate_ something.

Let's try this another way. You understand that it is possible to build a computer out of anything. Let's build a computer out of nothing. We want to perform a calculation without building anything whatsoever, so all we are going do is observe nature. There are any number of ways to represent a calculation. If there are three pigeons and five more arrive then you have only to observe the resulting number of pigeons to learn the sum of three and five, etc. Nature is going to do lots of calculations we don't care about the answers to, so we ignore those and only pay attention to the ones necessary according to the algorithm to be executed.

By doing this you can execute any algorithm. Doing strictly nothing but observing natural phenomena. There is no machine. Because the result you are trying to obtain is not a thing, it is a _representation of information_. And information can be encoded into anything and the representation is defined by the context. By changing the context -- an entirely intellectual undertaking -- you determine what information is represented by the physical state. What the machine (or the birds or the stars) do is comprehensively irrelevant, as long as things are happening you can use them to represent the execution of computer software.

<comment><USER4> _> The difference is that in the software case the patent claims are completely divorced from the computer's physical operation._

I'd like you to show me a granted software patent that cannot be implemented on any computer. If you can find one, I'll show you one that should be chucked in with perpetual motion machines.

 _> You understand that it is possible to build a computer out of anything. Let's build a computer out of nothing. We want to perform a calculation without building anything whatsoever, so all we are going do is observe nature._

It's amazing that each of these three consecutive statements are inter- contradictory. ("build a computer out of anything" != "build a computer out of nothing"; "nothing" != "observing nature"; "build a computer out of anything" != "without building anything whatsoever".) I have no idea how to proceed.

<comment><USER6> > It's amazing that each of these three consecutive statements are inter- > contradictory. ("build a computer out of anything" != "build a computer out > of nothing"; "nothing" != "observing nature"; "build a computer out of > anything" != "without building anything whatsoever".) I have no idea how to > proceed.

Oh sorry, let me clarify. I'm taking it as a given that you accept a computer can be built out of anything, i.e. that you can have electrical computers, mechanical computers, biological computers, etc. and they're all computationally equivalent and can execute all the same algorithms. The whole Church-Turing thing. My point was that you don't even have to _build_ anything. So you can completely ignore the "build a computer out of anything" statement if you think it's contradicting anything.

And observing is not building. It seems exceedingly obvious that you can't patent squirrels gathering nuts, or leaves growing on trees, or raindrops falling from the sky, etc. But you can map desired calculations onto the occurrence of things in nature in much the same way as you map them onto electrical signals in a PC, wait until they enter the state required by a given algorithm, observe the result, and thereby execute any algorithm you can execute on a computer. The machine is a completely abstract concept. Trying to patent an algorithm because you can execute it on a computer is exactly the same thing as trying to patent a formula because you can compute it with a calculator. The calculator doesn't become a new type of machine based on which buttons you press.

> > I'd like you to show me a granted software patent that cannot be > implemented on any computer. If you can find one, I'll show you one that > should be chucked in with perpetual motion machines.

Obviously a patent on a solution to the halting problem is fraudulent, but you have the issue reversed. It isn't that you can't use a machine to execute an algorithm, it's that you can execute an algorithm without a machine. The machine isn't a necessary component, it's just a convenient and efficient way to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a very good opinion, tightly argued based on the precedent. And frankly, unsurprising given the relevant precedent (Diehr, Benson, Mayo).

The opinion has three parts:

1) The Court identifies the abstract idea contained in the patent as the general concept of intermediated settlement. (Slip. Op. at 9) The key takeaway here is the discussion about whether an "abstract idea" has to be on the level of a "law of nature" in order to be excluded. The Court says that an abstract idea need not reduce to some fundamental truth that has always existed. It is sufficient for it to be a "fundamental economic practice" or "longstanding commercial practice," like the concept of "risk hedging" in Bilski. (Slip. Op. at 10)

2) The Court looks to see if the patent adds anything more to the abstract idea, and concludes that all it does is describe how to implement the idea in a general computer, in the generic and conventional way. (Slip. Op. at 12, 15) The Court analogizes to Mayo, in which it decided that the claimed method amounted to no more than instructing doctors as to how to use a well-known process for measuring metabolite levels to diagnose their patients. (Slip. Op. at 11) The Court states that the claimed method simply describes how to instruct a computer to perform the abstract idea of intermediating settlement. The Court makes a point of noting that the computer implementation described here is "wholly generic" and that "[i]n short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions." (Slip. Op. at 13, 15)

3) The Court concludes that the "system" claims are no different in substance from the method claims: "But what petitioner characterizes as specific hardware—a 'data processing system' with a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit,' for example, see App. 954, 958, 1257—is purely functional and generic. Nearly every computer will include a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit' capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims." (Slip. Op. at 16)

<comment><USER4> Haven't finished reading it, but...

 _> The Court says that an abstract idea need not reduce to some fundamental truth that has always existed. It is sufficient for it to be a "fundamental economic practice" or "longstanding commercial practice," like the concept of "risk hedging" in Bilski. (Slip. Op. at 10)_

If your quote is accurate, and they applied the same logic as Bilski, this sounds like they're conflating _patent eligibility_ (101) and _patentability_ (102, 103 etc.) again. To understand the difference between "patent-eligible" and "patentable", if you invent a car colored red [1], it's _patent-eligible_ because a car is an articles of manufacture i.e. it satisfies 101. But it's not _patentable_ because red cars have been around forever, i.e. it fails 102.

For those of you following along at home, 101, 102 and 103, etc. are bars that patent claims must clear to be valid. 101 is "patent eligibility", i.e. it excludes things like laws of nature and "abstract" ideas. 102 is novelty, i.e. it excludes things found in the prior art. 103 is non-obviousness, i.e. it excludes things that are _obvious_ (note: not "trivial") combinations of existing prior art. These are long-standing principles for judging patents, each providing a distinct criteria for judging and invalidating a patent, and this arrangement has a long, well-known and mostly consistent history behind it.

Now essentially, the SC is saying "prior art" can sometimes make something an "abstract idea". You don't have to be a patent lawyer to see that this does not really make sense.

This patent is obviously invalid, but we already have the tool for invalidating it, and that's section 102: a "longstanding commercial practice" or "fundamental economic practice" clearly falls under the umbrella of prior art -- things we already knew.

By mixing 102 analysis with 101 analysis, they're just "muddying the water" even more. I'm guessing this is going to make the PTO's and Federal Circuit's job even harder and more inconsistent.

1\. Whether a "car" is an abstract concept is not relevant to the analogy.

<comment><USER7> Your point is, at a purely statutory level, fairly compelling. And it's essentially the point the plaintiffs made in this case: the "abstract principle" exception to subject matter eligibility should be construed narrowly, given the broad wording of 101 and the fact that it's a judicially- created exception.

But, invalidating this patent on 101 grounds versus 103 grounds is not the same. Subject matter eligibility is something that can be ruled on in a motion to dismiss, In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008), while obviousness will generally need to wait after claim construction. It should be possible to knock out patents that claim a fundamental practice in any field as early as possible.

You can make other distinctions between "a fundamental practice" and "prior art," too. In the field of cooking, do we have to point out prior art for making a roux, or do we just accept that someone, perhaps many someones independently, did it sometime long ago, but it's so established now that it might as well be a fundamental law of the field?

Over time, the Supreme Court has been beefing up 101 as a bar to patent eligibility. Is the interpretation in CLS v. Alice the one that's most faithful to the text of the statute? Probably not. But interpretation in the name of controlling the flow of litigation in lower federal courts is one of the key roles of the Supreme Court.

<comment><USER8> I have a tangentially related question: has there been any thought given to raising patent validity standards around teachability? A big constitutional point of a patent is to teach someone "skilled in the art" how to replicated the subject matter of the patent. That's typically intepreted as "can you pay an expert witness to claim the patent teaches them to construct the claimed infringement," which is, of course, always true. But to me, this seems like fertile ground for the defense, and ought to be a negative test: can the defense find an expert witness to say that the patent is too vague, unspecific, or abstract to teach them to construct the claimed infringement.

Is this approach ever tried in these cases? It seems to me that the more convoluted and abstract the patent (which seems to be the point of many of these patents explicitly written to try and reach as broad as possible), the more juries will tend to identify with the expert saying "I can't make heads or tails of this thing" and invalidate bad patents as simply failing to adequately teach the construction of the infringement claim.

<comment><USER7> This would be a challenge to the validity of a patent on Section 112 grounds. However, there would not be an expert witness involved, as it's a question of law to be determined by a judge. See: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1212705333151944...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12127053331519441965&q=947+F.2d+488&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39) (Section B, starting on page 495). This does get used in practice, successfully.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is fantastic news. Those patents were ridiculous.

Part of my day job is figuring out how to go about automating or "electronifying" processes relating to financial trading and risk management. In other words, I look at things that people currently do manually (or decide in their heads) and I figure out how it can be codified into language or an algorithm that a developer can turn into code.

Patents like this (and plenty of similar patents that have been granted[1]) effectively try to claim ownership over the concept of automating what is usually (but not always) a pre-existing business process, using a computer. That's not invention. It's problem-solving. And it's not like the person filing the patent is even solving the problem - they're just patenting the _concept_ of a solution to that problem.

In effect, they're trying to patent my work output. It's like someone filed a patent ten years ago on "Methods and apparatus relating to the matching of people seeking temporary accomodation and householders who are willing to rent out their spare rooms", without ever actually having built implemented it, then popped up when Airbnb came along, saying "Hey, we have a patent on that! Pay up!"

Good fucking riddance.

[1] For examples, see [http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/goldman-sachs- co/](http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/goldman-sachs-co/)

<comment><USER10> Yeah, it's absurd. Somehow, patent applicants have been able to have their cake and eat it - they've been able to get away without having to describe how to actually solve the problem because it's obvious to someone skilled in the art, but yet still get a patent for it because at the same time it's supposedly not obvious to those skilled in the art.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Today I mourn the end of Groklaw, where I would have gone to get the very finest in public discourse and debate about the ruling.

<comment><USER12> Yep. Damn shame. :(

<comment><USER13> I didn't know they went down. Terrible.

<comment><USER14> With the Snowden releases PJ realized she couldn't protect the anonymity of her sources, so she shut down to keep them safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the key sentence is this.

"claims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"

In other words, start with an idea that's not patentable because it's abstract. Merely specifying its implementation on a computer doesn't make the original idea more concrete or more patentable. Therefore the claim on the idea is invalid, therefore other claims based on that one are too. So what's left?

If the _application to a computer_ is itself both novel enough and concrete enough, then that might still be considered patentable. Is that possible? Isn't the application to a generic computer still basically an abstract idea? Must it be an application to a _specific_ type of computer to qualify? I think questions of this sort are going to be the new battleground. The war continues, but the front has moved in what seems to be a good direction.

Disclaimers: (1) IANAL, (2) I have a bunch of patents both granted and pending through my employer, so this decision might actually hurt me financially.

<comment><USER16> > In other words, start with an idea that's not patentable because it's > abstract. Merely specifying its implementation on a computer doesn't make > the original idea more concrete or more patentable. Therefore the claim on > the idea is invalid, therefore other claims based on that one are too. So > what's left?

Computer implementations that are not "generic". A _specific_ computer implementation of an abstract idea might be patentable. But a _generic_ one (i.e., one that amounts to _< abstract idea>_ \+ "on a computer") is not.

> If the application to a computer is itself both novel enough and concrete > enough, then that might still be considered patentable. Is that possible?

Exactly, though, really, the nature of general purpose digital computers is such that, if its not calling for novel hardware, that is probably indistinguishable from a generic computer implementation of a more concrete version of the abstract idea, which concrete version would probably itself be patentable independent of the computer implementation.

<comment><USER7> Take, for example, IBM's patents on alias analysis. You can't patent the abstract concept of alias analysis, even if you describe how to do it in very generic terms on a computer. However, you can probably patent Steensgard's specific, near-linear-time algorithm for doing so: [http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/pingali/CS380C/2007fa/papers/...](http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/pingali/CS380C/2007fa/papers/steensgard.pdf).

<comment><USER17> Why wouldn't Steensgaard's algorithm be an abstract idea?

There is a difference, since unlike hedging (Bilski) and clearing house (Alice Corp) it is a _novel_ abstract idea. But it is still an abstract idea, and logically, should not be patentable.

Stålmarck's algorithm is a similar case. Can't argue it is not novel, but 100% abstract. Parabix is another.

<comment><USER7> I tend to think of these things as an engineer, rather than a mathematician. A mathematician will say that all algorithms are abstract ideas. I tend to think that "alias analysis" is the abstract idea, while Steensgaard's algorithm is a specific, concrete way of implementing the idea with desirable properties and trade-offs.

<comment><USER18> Then, are mergesort and quicksort both patentable as specific, concrete ways of implementing the idea of sorting with desirable properties and trade-offs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From p. 15 of the decision:

"The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See ibid. ('There is no specific or limiting recitation of... improved computer technology...'); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28–30. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U. S., at 177–178. Instead, the claims at issue amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer."

I don't see this decision as being too far removed from previous decisions. Regardless, this is a step in the right direction, and is a(nother) blow against the patentability of abstract ideas, and a blow against the patent trolls.

Separately, no decision on ABC vs. Aereo issued today. Aereo lives to see another day, then. Good.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the section throwing out the BS 'computer system assembly' bit may have the largest impact. I've read a number of patents that use that as their only real mechanism to be granted (see page 16 section C).

<comment><USER21> Yes, but it's about 2 decades too late. All the "...on a computer" patents that cover the big things -- selling books, taking a picture on a white background, measuring distances -- have been done and extracted their costs from the industry and consumers.

<comment><USER20> I think there is value in this ruling beyond 'what is a computer'. For example I founded a startup a number of years ago to do traffic monitoring with an FMCW radar based sensor. In the process of researching patents in the area I found a bunch of patents that were in effect 'radar applied to traffic monitoring'. IANAL but my interpretation of a large number of them was that they were granted based heavily on block diagrams that 'looked novel' but where really just a matter of taking the block diagram of any old off the shelf DSP SoC and dumping it in the patent (in uglier form of course). It is the same as how ridiculous patents are written for software, 'A system comprising of an analog to digital conversion module, a filtering module, a mixing module, a processing modules....blah, blah, blah'. Depending on the interpretation of this ruling (which I don't know enough to comment on), it could impact a lot of patents, both in and out of the software space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Favorite quote:

"This Court has long warned against interpreting 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftman's art."

</comment><comment><USER22> "Held: Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, they are not patent eligible"

<comment><USER23> (Decided unanimously.)

<comment><USER24> a concurrent not dissenting opinion was filed so it wasn't a 5-4 split or something, the other justices came to the same conclusion just via a different route.

<comment><USER17> (Very short) concurring opinion is there because those judges believe all business method patents should be abolished, just as they believed so in Bilski v. Kappos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is Gene Quinn pissed at this: [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/19/scotus- rules-alice-soft...](http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/06/19/scotus-rules-alice- software-claims-patent-ineligible/id=50120/)

"In what can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt opinion..."

Wow.

He thinks it will invalidate lots of software patents - not by invalidating software patents per se, but the way they have been written to date. I'm not qualified to give an opinion, but I would be interested to know if that is a mainstream view.

<comment><USER5> Oh my god. I can only hope his views aren't mainstream. Quoting from the link:

"This doesn't mean that moving forward software won't be patentable, it just means that getting a software patent will be much more difficult than it ever has been. Software can be described by reference to a series of physical actions operating through gates. This type of micro level description of what happens is going to be required, which means getting a patent for software has just become much more expensive and time consuming."

The disconnect between how he (apparently) thinks software works and what really happens is mind-boggling. He seems to have absolutely no idea that the same program (even down to the same machine code) will create radically different "physical actions operating through gates" on processors with different micro-architectures (or with an emulator or ...). Even if you could get a patent based on a description of these "physical actions" in a specific execution context, such a patent would be practically worthless. It would be like having a patent on implementing your idea on a Pentium. Anyone could trivially get around that by choosing a Pentium Pro (or an Athlon or some random ARM core or whatever).

<comment><USER26> I'd really like to see him try. Even the most trivial operation will run to a few thousand pages of very fine print. Patent examiners will have a new use for applications: fuel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Court has begun to limit the scope of software patents, but has not eliminated them. This ruling is a step in the right direction and the unanimity of the Court should be taken as a positive sign for future cases.

</comment><comment><USER28> Some thoughts on the ruling:

[http://www.vox.com/2014/6/19/5824130/7-thoughts-on-the- supre...](http://www.vox.com/2014/6/19/5824130/7-thoughts-on-the-supreme- courts-software-patent-ruling)

Shame they didn't abolish the business method patents at the very least, if not all software patents.

</comment><comment><USER29> Great decision. Once in a while they do get it right :)

The hard part was balancing genuine innovation (from small inventors, pharma, etc.) vs. squashing trolls. This goes a long way toward whacking trolls while leaving in place what the patent system was meant for - the fostering of innovation for the benefit of society. Well played.

</comment><comment><USER17> This basically seems to be a verbatim repeat of Bilski v. Kappos.

<comment><USER30> And we shall continue to get repeats until someone actually forces the lower courts to get their shit together or go home.

<comment><USER16> Both the District Court and the _en banc_ panel of the CAFC came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court, it was only the initial appeal to a smaller CAFC panel that came to a different conclusion.

So its really hard to paint this Supreme Court decision as essential because the "lower courts" are not getting things right, since both the trial court and the last panel before the Supreme Court to hear the case got it right (insofar as the Supreme Court decision defines "right".)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> wes-exp Summary: [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/claims-invalid- section.h...](http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/claims-invalid-section.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> "Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality," to a method already "well known in the art" is not "enough" to supply the " 'inventive concept' " needed to make this transformation [into a patent-eligible invention].

How does this differ from/alter existing law? Is this ruling just a clarification?

<comment><USER32> In the federal court decision, there were dissents about how to decide that the patent was invalid, although everyone agreed it was invalid. The details are over my head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> When I saw the headline I wished it was Alice Corp v. Bob Bank

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A little more clarity on abstract ideas, but not much more

</comment><comment><USER34> rip amazon one click patent.

</comment><comment><USER11> Let the motions for summary judgement commence!</comment>


Drowning in Problems – By Notch, Creator of Minecraft - <AUTHOR> http://game.notch.net/drowning/

<comment><USER2> Aww,

        a = setInterval(function() { $("a:contains('Solve')").simulate("click"); }, 1000)

minutes later:

        You are dead.

There's a lesson here somewhere.

<comment><USER3> it's working fairy well -- continuously click on actions that take no cost

        setInterval(function () {
            [].forEach.call($('#problems').childNodes, function (p) {
                if (p.children    &&
                    p.children[1] &&
                    p.children[1].className === 'award') {
                    p.children[0].click();
                }
            })
        }, 250);

        // child out
        setInterval(function() {
            if (window.relax_solve) {
                window.relax_solve.click()
            }
        }, 500)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a repost of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7652018](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7652018)

Sorry for writing this comment, but I don't know how to flag it.

</comment><comment><USER2> It's in the style of [http://adarkroom.doublespeakgames.com/](http://adarkroom.doublespeakgames.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't decide if this is a philosophical work of interactive art or an indirect request for help with depression.

<comment><USER6> I can't decide if we should just repost it every couple days to HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7>
        setInterval(function(){
        	[].forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll('a'), function(a){
        		a.click();
        	});
        }, 250);

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Apologies, I did a quick search before posting and didn't see the original submission. Happy to take it down if that's best.</comment>


Solar Roadway Handicapped Parking Demo [Dynamically Determined] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVIIjwuIIxY

<comment><USER2> Very cool! Solar Roadways have so many advantages. I was thinking about it toady and wondering about getting my own Solar Driveway. Perhaps a good way to jump start actual sales when the road panels are ready for production?

<comment><AUTHOR> I love the concept of the solar roadways, but I think they will be really expensive (at least $1000 per hexagon), and thus have a really long time to pay for themselves. But perhaps in a few years, they will be inexpensive enough to pay for themselves quickly.</comment></comment>


European parliament says it will not use facial recognition tech - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/european-parliament-insists-it-will-not-use-facial-recognition-tech <comment> the-dude One could interpret this headline as 'misleading' : The parliament is not speaking on general policy, but only on the application of the technology on themselves ( the MEPs ).

</comment><comment><USER2> Whereas Australia has blown right through the discussion and enabled facial recognition without public discourse.

I just found out a close suburb (East Perth) has 30-60 government run facial recognition cameras being installed with this being pushed this year to the entire Perth city area.

[https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking- tech...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/face-tracking-technology- rolled-out-across-east-perth/10636476)

There is a reason Australia is the guinea pig of the western nations for erosion of rights and privacy tests to see how far we can be contained and pushed.

Because Australians are the most passive of all peoples across the world and are historically the easiest population to control.

But once the five eyes work out their tech and policy here they will push it out to the rest of the world.

We are the control group.

[https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over- aus...](https://www.afr.com/technology/five-eyes-fears-rise-over-aussie- encryption-laws-20190221-h1bj6f)

Australia's population is so passive that we have passed extremely terrifying laws that now the five eyes use to bypass their own countries laws.

Australia today. UK and USA tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is good to see that large scale surveillance is rejected. But I know it is important to stay vigilant. The EU certainly has an ambition to be more attractive as a location for tech, but I think surveillance and security technologies have a high amount of grifters and should not be encouraged.

<comment><USER4> No it is not rejected. This is only about EU parliament building. In fact, I would like facial recognition to be used over there, so we know which EU MP is meeting which lobbyists, for me this is would be a legitimate usecase of such technology.

<comment><USER3> It certainly makes more sense to employ surveillance on officials instead of the whole public, but I would be cautious as well.

Achieving transparency requires meticulous checks whereas video cameras only serve as a cheap distraction. Neither public servants nor lobbyists would be stupid enough to be affected, same goes for criminals for that matter, and while I do think that public figures need to make concessions to their privacy in some cases, it doesn't have to be unnecessarily excessive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Been through an airport in the EU or going to the EU lately?

<comment><USER6> That's not up to the EU. Thats up to the individual countries.

The EU is a memebership of collective countries, not some all powerfull entity of controlling its memebers and telling them what to do.. It's not the same as the US federal system.

<comment><USER7> Not really. Visitors from outside the EU's "trusted sphere" will have their fingerprints taken at the border. Even though the EU is a membership of collective countries, this all-powerful entity is controlling its members and telling them to do this.

Likewise, using facial recognition technology on airports is exactly within scope of the EU to mandate (or outlaw).

<comment><USER6> > this all-powerful entity is controlling its members and telling them to do > this.

It's members make up the rules.. To get a facial recognition ban, all members must agree to implement it. Then it becomes part of the EU standards.. Members agree to it, then implement it. Its is NOT: "Well you have to implement this because you're a member of the EU" \- It does not work that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I does not mean there is no facial recognition deployed. I live in Marseille, France, and facial recognition is currently beeing deployey all over the city.

In fact, not only facial recognition, but posture recognition, walk recognition, etc. Marseille and Nice are two test-towns for global french deployment...

</comment><comment><USER9> , yet.

</comment><comment><USER10> As usual, politicians start to claim privacy rights when it comes to them, and yet this technology is already being tested throughout major European cities.

The hypocrisy is real.

<comment><USER6> the EU allows its countries to pursue their own policies, this is not hypocrisy, its simply clarifying that the EU itself will not be implementing this technology.

What individual countries do is not up to the EU parliment.

<comment><USER11> Interesting. I've been living in France for about 8 years now (I'm a US expat) and I really need to understand more about the EU's functions and abilities. I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not sure how each applies. Do you have any material to help educate me on the subject?

Thanks for the insight!

<comment><USER12> > I understand that there are different legislative bodies of Europe, but not > sure how each applies.

As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments.

Laws at the EU level are applicable to all countries, but individual countries have a lot of leeway in in implementation, enforcement and their own laws (as long as the don't contradict EU laws).

<comment><USER13> >As a very crude analogy with the US, you could view EU parliament as federal government and country parliaments (and governments) as state governments.

I think this is not correct because from what I know in US you don't ever need unanimity to pass federal laws but let me know if I am wrong.

<comment><USER12> That's why it's a crude analogy :) The devil is in the details, as always.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN Fathers: Happy Father's Day.  - <AUTHOR>

As it says! From a father of two (1.5 & 3yo) girls, with a full time gig, personal ventures, freelance, a mortgage and more. For all the fathers that hustle and hack for a bigger purpose, you're not alone. There are tough times and great, but it warms my heart to spend weekends with my kids and and I hope you get the same! <comment><USER2> Seriously: why is the fathers day on different days in different countries? Here, in Austria, Father's day was last week on sunday.

<comment><USER3> Mothers day varies too - at least between the USA & UK (where I am).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> well put</comment>


Amazon.com Reveals the Most Well-Read Cities in America - <AUTHOR> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle

<comment><USER2> This seems to be a list of cities that _order_ the most books. This might not be the same as reading the books. It might mean aspiring to read the books.</comment>


Using Match (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.indiana.edu/chezscheme/match/ <comment><USER2> The match most people use is match.scm by Alex Shinn, which can be found here:

[http://synthcode.com/scheme/match.scm](http://synthcode.com/scheme/match.scm)

It is written in portable scheme and produces code that can easily be optimised. In guile, proper match statement is usually as fast as a hand rolled destructuring.

The downside is that it is not extensible by user code, but that can be implemented if you convert the match-two macro to something like a syntax case macro.</comment>


TikTok: Cheerfulness and censorship - <AUTHOR> https://netzpolitik.org/2019/cheerfulness-and-censorship/ <comment><USER2> Their approach to moderation is unusual in that they don't even pretend to be a neutral platform and as such it's a powerful differentiator to businesses that are rooted in a "free speech" culture.

Shadow-banning individual posts ("Visible to self") is relatively unusual and acts as a demotivator to publish controversial content because such content doesn't drive engagement, as is actively demoting entire classes of content (like critical commentary on politics) from the start.

This approach seems to help ensure that there won't ever be a subculture on their platform that grows, becomes controversial and at some point considers it their right to use the platform for their controversial content, avoiding all the outrage that late introduction of moderation brings with it. (see Twitter)

<comment><USER3> I mean I'm as much a fan of free speech as the next guy, but there are some pretty key differences between the concepts of "free speech in the culture" and "a giant collection of unmoderated user generated internet content".

I mean actual free speech would just be an endless collection of penis videos. Nobody is actually advocating for free speech.

I don't think every app has to be about political issues. Where did that premise come from, just because it has Chinese origins?

It's ok for there to be an app for kids to make dance videos, and to keep it light and positive.

<comment><USER4> You have a darker view of human nature than most.

I mean, unmoderated, anonymous contents _might_ have more penis vids than you want, but it doesn't mean that you have to watch them; a user sponsored moderation / rating would ensure that.

If that wasn't possible, who would use the app except for penis enthusiasts?

<comment> yoz-y That is how Chatroulette died.

<comment><USER5> Well, that's what inspired Evan Spiegel to start Snapchat.

<comment><USER6> ..cos he couldn't receive dp's anymore ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty tame and actually sounds pretty pragmatic and well-organized in a non-threatening manner, especially given the target audience (kids). Moderating for different countries' rules is a requirement unless you want to get kicked out of lots of markets.

The real concern I have is in the fact that things below 50 views don't get much moderation attention, which is the same across all platforms, and where we see the most risk for these platforms to be used to bully people within small social groups (such as at school).

Anyone who thinks Facebook doesn't similarly optimize the content within Explore etc is delusional. It would be interesting to compare the information these companies offer national security organizations.

<comment><USER8> Are you joking? TikTok is absolutely awful at moderating content for (and generated by) children.

<comment><USER9> while at the same time marketing and deliberately targeting children.

I'd go as far as describing their behavior as "sexually Grooming" children.

Not a fan here as I guess you can tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Calling this censorship rather than editorial curation implies that content distribution platforms are somehow expected not to have an editorial line. I find this very odd and a misuse of the term censorship.

"America's got talent" is a great show too, and they certainly select who gets onstage from all the people they audition. Is that censorship? I don't expect that TV show to give me info about protests any more than Tiktok.

Censorship is when the powers of government or the marketplace are such that nobody could, if they wanted, get their message out. Yes there is actual censorship in China that filters anything from group messaging apps to movies, but isn't Tiktok here just defining an editorial line of non-controversial content?

<comment><USER11> Did you miss the section about Hong Kong and the blanket ban on political/protest content?

The latter is very Brave New World-esque in that it both "keeps the app fun" and acts as a means to suppress dissent. If they have the capability to identify political/protest content, why not label and allow filtering instead of blanket removing all of it from the app?

<comment><USER10> I think it's very reasonable for a content platform to enforce some kind of norm on speech including against protest content. Back when Tiktok was musical.ly, ie more explicitly devoted to music-based content, I suppose it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

<comment><USER11> Sure, I might be okay with that for a niche community. But social networks tend to be monopolies or oligopolies due to network effects and general audience social network apps (which TikTok is) empirically appear to be the main for platform for large-scale organized protest movement in the internet world we now live in.

I don't judge it as worthwhile to get rid of such a platform for capitalistic soma reasons. I'm even more suspicious when the company is from a country with close government-business ties where the government has openly demonstrated it uses such apps to suppress political dissent.

<comment><USER10> It's not clear to me that Tiktok is, or wants to be, a general audience social network. In any case I really haven't seen it used to advertise or organize protests... And let's be honest it is by itself in no monopoly situation...

> I'm even more suspicious when the company is from a country with close > government-business ties where the government has openly demonstrated it > uses such apps to suppress political dissent.

I agree it's a reason for heightened suspicion but I feel like in this and a lot of stories around Tiktok, the suspicion is close to the only thing there is.

What I don't like about this argument that all platforms, even privately- owned, should be open to political or protest speech, is that the same argument can be used to criticize the moderation of hate speech, conspiracy theories, recruitment for fundamentalist religious terrorism networks, and other toxic social forces. In the US, the law prevents the government from getting involved, so we are dependent on private actors to moderate speech online.

Now if there's something in these policies about Tiktok censoring differently videos of HK protests or criticism of the Chinese communist party vs those of unrelated protests in the US, that would be different. It's not what I've seen though....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't see how TikTik censors more than facebook or most other social platforms. This seems only to be a concern since it's the "other" side (Chinese in this case) doing it.

> the search for keywords controversial from the point of view of the Chinese > Government [...] did not yield any or only very few fitting content

Yeah I could give you a nice list of words that results in an similar results page from Google, Youtube or Facebook.

<comment><USER13> > Yeah I could give you a nice list of words that results in an similar > results page from Google, Youtube or Facebook.

Could you give me some examples?

<comment><USER14> Alex Jones, for example, has been removed from YouTube and Facebook.

<comment><USER13> He's still the top result on Google.

The parent comment is suggesting that there are topics that there are topics wich would get him banned just for mentioning them.

<comment><USER12> People have been punished here for answering a very similar question to yours ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19945640](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19945640)). Even mentioning Alex Jones is very risky. And depending on the answer to your question might actually get you sued, at least in europe.

It's become impossible to say things you're legally allowed to anywhere but very fringe places on the web. [inb4 "private company etc etc": Sites can police speech as they want. Still it's a shame.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recently featured in a music video of a friend who is a rapper. We posted a clip of it on a new tik tok account he made to promote his music to the youths. it was deleted within seconds. presumably due to feauring a realistic prop gun. the audio wasn't a problem (lyrics include "fuck the police" and "acab") as I could post harmless videos with the same track on my account. But that clip with the prop gun gets deleted instantly, even if you heavily filter it (crop, duotone, colorshift). so their ai detector seems pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprised that they moderate _every_ video with over 50-150 views, that seems quite unique in this market. This is probably largely a good thing though given the target market of kids/teenagers.

It's already very interesting seeing how this is playing out.

</comment><comment><USER17> TikTok is, as the title says, a social network for cheerfulness and fun. I don't use it, but I can understand they outright ban politics: 1) they avoid becoming the vile cesspool Twitter has become, 2) they avoid being asked by governments around the world to take down posts, 3) they avoid being targeted in propaganda campaigns.

<comment><USER18> I'm sympathetic to the argument for banning politics outright. However, this would imply making sure that all politics is banned in practice, and not that the platform has the right to selectively ban politics. I'm not convinced tic toc does that.

<comment><USER17> Yes you have a point. As I've said I don't use it, so I don't know how it goes. What I'm saying is that a politics-free social network is not only possible, but desirable.

<comment><USER19> What is the definition of "politics"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Try replacing 'TikTok' with Facebook, and replacing 'Chinese with 'American'....

<comment><USER21> Actually, replace with 'google'. Facebook did say they would permit political advertising without fact checking. Whereas google said they would enforce factualness

<comment><USER22> Facebook will let you broadcast lies in secret (ie targeted at specific small groups so you and I don't know what lies are being told) just so long as you pay facebook to propagate those lies. Nazi party propaganda targeted at those showing mental health problems, sure, just pay facebook and they'll do that for you. They've said so.

I really think this is the right way to think about what facebook are and what they do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's gonna be interesting to watch TikTok in the next few months.

Other large social medias gonna copy what they do (like what Instagram did to SnapChat) will be interesting to see them surviving it

<comment><USER24> TikTok has already been surviving it for 3 years. In China the short video battle already happened and Douyin (TikTok) came out the victor. Kuaishou is still around in rural areas and amongst the working class, but Douyin is king.

Twitter has got to be kicking themselves that they had Vine and didn't do anything with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I fail to see why every platform has to become a fucking idealogical battleground. If I'm in the market for a social network myself (HN notwithstanding) I'd probably choose a politics-free one if possible.

<comment><USER26> Did you just call Hacker News apolitical? I feel even Reddit is better when coming to political debates because on Reddit you can find a subreddit that aligns to your political ideology.

On HN, if you are from China, India, Russia, African country, the best thing you can do is to avoid articles about those geographical locations because comments will be mostly negative and any dissenting view will be downvoted until it becomes unreadable. It doesn't matter if the view was free from strong language, it will be treated like it contains strong language.

At least on Reddit you can find a subreddit that aligns with your political and ideological views. Unlike here where you have to understand that your political views will be suppressed if it doesn't align to the majority.

Every social network has a political agenda. If you don't notice that agenda, know that it is because it aligns with your own political agenda.

<comment><USER27> >On HN, if you are from China, India, Russia, African country, the best thing you can do is to avoid articles about those geographical locations because comments will be mostly negative and any dissenting view will be downvoted until it becomes unreadable.

I agree that downvoting for disagreement is bad, but have you considered you might simply be wrong? I strain to believe that anybody attacked you simply for being from Russia/China/Africa/whatever. They are attacking the regimes of those countries, not their population. These are two distinct things, and it's ridiculous to think that disliking a dictatorial government somehow means hostility towards the people themselves.

<comment><USER28> I feel a downvote must only be used for a comment that has vulgar, strong language or anything that isn't in the good spirit of a good debate. Downvotes must be used only to flag comments violating guidelines, not as a way to silence those who share differing views. If you disagree, write a comment. I realised most people use downvotes powers to silence those who disagree with them.

<comment><USER29> There's a flag button to flag comments violating guidelines, which actually silences people (unless you have showdead on). That downvotes exist as a separate, more easily accessible feature is a strong suggestion that they're intended to be used for more than just rule-violations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Facebook will probably become like this (moderating proactively rather than reactively) eventually when they become too scared of fines under governments' attempts to regulate it into being good (governments should break it up instead).

<comment><USER31> This is a great plan for governments who don't want problematic speech to be hosted online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Never before has a platform grown as fast as TikTok" \- LOL that's what they all say!! I'm not interested in helping someone build out their AI stuff by freely contributing my data to their platform. But hey highschoolers might ignorantly willing to do so. I am really looking forward to a new technology coming out next year that will give power back to the people rather than a small group of people who think that they know what is best for the masses to see or not see.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's like the Disneyland of social media.

</comment><comment><USER34> Having just watched this it seems like TikTok is working to solve what is a real problem for our society.

[https://youtu.be/ymaWq5yZIYM](https://youtu.be/ymaWq5yZIYM)</comment>


Interesting Odesk Job - <AUTHOR> https://www.odesk.com/jobs/Trafic-Bot_~~0471c7720c0eb3be?sid=54002&tot=103&pos=26&_redirected

<comment><USER2> Sounds GA black hat methods to me. But I'm not quite surprised about this. Monetization is the master word. I'm wondering whether selenium would fit their need. ( I believe one have to change the UserAgent to look more real ). Google's mission at a very early stage. Do you know if google is able to detect such behaviors? Is it even possible? Maybe detecting patterns issued from a particular IP. Or using smart cookies to track down users with definite patterns.</comment>


Learn JavaScript the Hard Way - <AUTHOR> Learn JavaScript and Rust by writing a naive JavaScript  engine in Rust from scratch<p>https://github.com/hsiaosiyuan0/naive <comment><USER2> Keep in mind that title is also the title of a book by Zed Shaw:

[https://learncodethehardway.org/javascript/](https://learncodethehardway.org/javascript/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a bit of an off-topic question for anybody who writes Rust.

I'm more familiar with web development and higher level languages, but I've always been interested in Rust. While I know a bit of C/C++, I'm far from an expert. One of the things that turns me off from those languages are the frequent use of really short or cryptic variable/function names.

I'm looking at this codebase, specifically [https://github.com/hsiaosiyuan0/naive/blob/master/src/lib/to...](https://github.com/hsiaosiyuan0/naive/blob/master/src/lib/token.rs), and I see stuff like `let (s, kv, vk, be) = gen_map!`. I have no clue what those variables would be unless I dug around the rest of the file.

Is this sort of variable/method naming convention common in the Rust world? I am not criticizing the author or the language here, merely just curious what I should expect if I dipped my toes into Rust.

<comment><USER4> It depends; Rust is more concise than many languages, but it's not always that concise. They are in this case because they're only used once, below the match statement, and are abbreviated forms of the things they're being assigned to.

Type variables and lifetime names are often only one letter, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Might this be better named "rebuilding javascript" in the style of [https://rebuilding-rails.com/](https://rebuilding-rails.com/)?</comment>


Smart shoe devices generate power from walking - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30816255

<comment><USER2> While this is sort of interesting, how is this better than a pair of AAA batteries, or even coin batteries? If this thing only generates enough power to run some sensors, I would imagine a small battery would last years in a similar setup, and cost orders of magnitude less.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a very similar startup that's been around for at least a few years:

[http://solepowertech.com](http://solepowertech.com)

I don't think they generate electricity from the swing of your step, but they certainly harvest the shock force.

</comment><comment><USER4> The idea is interesting but I would not recommend to anyone to go to airport with this.</comment>


Update and Build Prep - <AUTHOR> http://lineageos.org/Update-and-Build-Prep/ <comment><USER2> For anyone who isn't already aware, this is a continuation of the work on CyanogenMod, after the company behind the latter closed down.

More here: [http://www.gsmarena.com/lineage_os_is_now_officially_picking...](http://www.gsmarena.com/lineage_os_is_now_officially_picking_up_where_cyanogenmod_left_off- blog-22903.php)

<comment><USER3> thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I recall, Cyanogenmod builds had sha1sums. Lineage should upgrade to sha256. They could also pgp sign them like Mozilla.

And also, they shouldn't offer https download links that redirect to http mirrors. It would be nice if websites didn't do this while browser developers still haven't come terms with this issue.

<comment><USER5> There are no known attacks which make SHA1 insecure in this context. Also according to this announcement, they will be signing the builds, which is vastly superior to any unverified checksum.

<comment><USER6> The signature is only as good as the hash it's using. SHA-1 is considered insecure. From Wikipedia:

SHA-1 is no longer considered secure against well-funded opponents. In 2005, cryptanalysts found attacks on SHA-1 suggesting that the algorithm might not be secure enough for ongoing use,[3] and since 2010 many organizations have recommended its replacement by SHA-2 or SHA-3.[4][5][6] Microsoft,[7] Google[8] and Mozilla[9][10][11] have all announced that their respective browsers will stop accepting SHA-1 SSL certificates by 2017.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "We will NOT be shipping root baked into the ROM."

Does anyone know why this is the case? Is there some kind of issue with shipping it rooted + a root manger (SuperSU, Superuser, etc) as CyanogenMod did?

<comment><USER8> Having root makes many apps not work (e.g. Android pay) so if you're not going to use it you're better off not having it.

<comment><USER9> Android pay requires stock, any custom ROM will fail even without root.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> why not built in superuser anymore?

</comment><comment><USER11> Lets hope Steve remembers to do the right thing (tm) this time.

Edit: in particular, next time someone in his organization does/says something incredibly stupid I want Steve to stop it right away instead of waiting 2 years...

<comment><USER12> > next time someone in his organization does/says something incredibly stupid > I want Steve to stop it right away instead of waiting 2 years...

Can you fill me in, please?

<comment><USER13> The head of the now-defunct Cyanogen Inc famously said "we're putting a bullet through Google's head."

<comment><USER14> Is that so incredibly stupid? Did Google really start aggressively competing with Cyanogen and that's why they went down?

<comment><USER11> Google _created_ the technology they were making money of.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

<comment><USER14> >Google created the technology they were making money of.

yeah so? That may be called ungrateful, but it's not necessarily a stupid move.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


UFC subpoenas Justin.tv, Ustream.tv - <AUTHOR> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/latest+anti+piracy+subpoenas+user+generated+sites/3315707/story.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder if other companies will also do the same if UFC is successful. Those sites and others have a good number of users sharing other copyrighted videos too.

Of course the users will find another site to stream their videos and their followers will probably go along.</comment>


Rails Server Setup + App Deployment Using Moonshine - <AUTHOR> http://railsnotes.com/161-rails-server-setup/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this cogleethorpe. Big thanks to Jesse & gang at Rails Machine for making Moonshine and answering all my questions while I wrote up this guide.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great but I wonder if that much abstraction is a good thing for a production server.

I tried five run's rails stack on my dev box, it was great at first but once I needed to hack around the backend it was more complicated because not everything installed in the usual places.

I now prefer the longer and manual path but the amount of time moonshine would save is very tempting.

<comment><USER2> I did use the Five Run script as well ([http://railsnotes.com/38-ruby-on- rails-hosting-for-your-new-...](http://railsnotes.com/38-ruby-on-rails- hosting-for-your-new-ror-super-app/)) and I kind of had the same issue later on when I needed to get things upgraded and when I needed to install additional stuff. I haven't had that issue with Moonshine yet.

One of their goals with Moonshine was idempotency and from my perspective, they've really done a good job of reaching it. I've found that I haven't needed to hack around the production server much because I can do (almost) everything through moonshine.

It's kinda like Rails in that a lot of things seem to happen automagically but you can easily look at the source code and understand how it works. The recipe files let you see exactly where things go and change it to suite your needs.

Give it a shot. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.</comment></comment>


Onyx 0.8.0: Automatic State Management - <AUTHOR> http://michaeldrogalis.github.io/jekyll/update/2015/11/12/Onyx-0.8.0-Automatic-State-Management.html <comment><USER2> _> To defend against duplicate messages, we employ an embedded key/value store - namely, RocksDB. RocksDB contains an in-memory Bloom Filter that we use to check for, and ignore, previously applied messages._

Wait, what? Can anybody explain this part? I don't understand how you could use a bloom filter for this. A bloom filter will have false positives by definition. When a false positive is encountered, the message would be ignored even though it has not been previously applied? I'm guessing the explanation is missing something as this seems a very straight forward issue to miss.

<comment><USER3> We persist the IDs to disk with RocksDB itself when that happens, periodically pruning them away when the messages are complete. The Bloom filter is mostly an optimization - even though it does the job most of the time. You're right - we intentionally omitted further discussion of that piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Strange, I thought this was the well known Onyx software for Mac system mainenance: [http://www.titanium.free.fr/onyx.html](http://www.titanium.free.fr/onyx.html)

<comment><USER5> At first glance, me too!</comment></comment>


New study points to universal code in our brains for what we find beautiful - <AUTHOR> https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-universal-code-brains-beautiful.html <comment><USER2> Boy is that a misleading headline. Actual study: there's a part of our brain that universally activates in response o whatever thing we find beautiful, but those things are still different for different people.</comment>


Disqus the Censorship Machine - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/OCyuNAV

<comment><USER2> Short version: Automatic spam filtering is censorship and the spirit of the US First Amendment requires that everyone host all comments.

I believe this is a false understanding, which places free speech on a pedestal over other human rights.

Freedom of assembly also means the right for private persons to exclude others from participation. A club can hire a bouncer from a local security firm to prevent certain classes of people from entering (eg, drunk, inappropriately dressed, or known troublemakers; so long as its not legally prohibited discrimination), without specifically telling the bouncer all of the conditions for exclusion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Where is spam in the post that shows this picture? Nowhere.

What does this tell us about spam detection algorithms?

How does your startup handle user rights?

Why are you writing about freedom of assembly here? No relation to censorship.

<comment><USER2> 1) This (poorly written) comment concerns spam. I didn't say that the comment itself was spam.

(Edit: I see now the tag "Detected as spam." I rarely use Disqus and didn't catch it the first few times I looked at it.)

2) Spam detection algorithms are hard. There are false negatives. [https://disqus.com/home/channel/discussdisqus/discussion/cha...](https://disqus.com/home/channel/discussdisqus/discussion/channel- discussdisqus/detected_as_spam_is_getting_tedious/) suggests that Disqus has many problems, but without knowing the baseline rate, it's hard to judge if it's really bad. (If it stops 1 billion spam comments per day, and falsely categorizes 10 real ones, but all 10 complain, then it will appear that there is a high failure rate.)

3) Huh?! I don't have a startup. I sell software under a free license.

4) You must have missed the part which says "against the spirit of the constitution of the USA". Free speech and freedom to assemble are equally part of the first amendment. If you want to protect user rights, you have to protect _all_ of them, and realize they are sometimes in tension with each other.

Otherwise, chance your account name to "FreeSpeechRights".</comment></comment></comment>


I Do Not Marry a Married Man - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/i-do-not-marry-married-man <comment><USER2> This is an interesting interpretation of polygamy. The usual interpretation is along the lines of "to the rich go the spoils".

But sex imbalances would have occurred throughout history and, questions of morality aside, polygamy seems like a reasonable solution, at least if women outnumber men.

I wonder if anyone has tried to investigate a possible correlation between polygamy and imbalanced sex ratios throughout history.

<comment><USER3> I haven't found a good online source for this, but it's common knowledge that Paraguay allowed polygamy after a war killed a large proportion of men.

[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligamia#El_caso_del_Paraguay](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligamia#El_caso_del_Paraguay)

<comment><USER4> Heck a few years back a bill was almost passed that would make merrying a second wife mandatory in Iraq . The government would give financial incentives and ignore the first wife's wish of not allowing her husband a second wife . It was revoked after extreme criticism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So this is primarily about polygamy in Indigenous people's of North America. It is secondarily commentary on women's rights in those peoples, where women apparently had more agency, choice and personhood than was typical for women in Europe at the time. The Jesuits, so keen to spread their faith, often didn't so much as bother to record the names of the wives because they so did nit view women as actual people.

Even in developed countries, women continue to struggle towards equal treatment as full human beings while their complaints often fall on deaf ears and become some new excuse to heap abuse upon them.

Perhaps I'm saying that wrong. Perhaps my statement merely reflects my own prejudice at the presumed superiority of _developed_ nations. Maybe we would have a better world if some of these other peoples had more influence, people with apparently a better track record of treating women like human beings and giving them a say in their own lives.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having only one wife wasn't a commandment and the biblical patriarchs had multiple wives. This is more about Jesuits and the Catholic church trying to enforce their own belief systems on someone.

<comment><USER7> Taught, yes, but imposed? In any case, you're ignoring important facts, many of them addressed in a broad view of the Old Testament and the Gospel of Matthew.

First, in Genesis, the ideal, created union is given as monogamous. Second, none of the prophets were polygamous. Third, polygamy is usually spoken of disparagingly and as something having disastrous consequences. Fourth, Mosaic law also permitted divorce, but that was a divine dispensation that Jesus lifted and that one existed in the first place because "your hearts were hard". He goes on to say that "it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt 19:8-9).

Thus, polygamy may have been tolerated for similar reasons, that is, as a concession to the times, as it were. Furthermore, Maimonides argues that while the Torah may permit certain behaviors, a synoptic reading would show that it establishes rules that show these behaviors are wrong.

<comment><USER8> I'm not arguing from a religious standpoint or whether the Bible should decide what other people do. I'm just making factual statements....

The biblical great grandfather of the Jews - Abraham - had multiple wives. As did King David who was put forth as a great, but flawed king.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why I am seeing this on HN?

<comment><USER10> Because hackers have a wide variety of interests and often love learning about things they never heard of before.

<comment><USER11> The parent comment reminds me of how often commenters on articles posted by The Economist wonder why the article wasn't about economics. [https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus](https://www.economist.com/unknown/1843/08/05/prospectus)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fry: Everything was going great! Then all out of a sudden, she's talking about hanging out. Hanging out?! She's getting way too serious. I'm not a one-woman man, Leela.

Leela: You'll be back to zero soon enough.

</comment><comment><USER7> Polygamy encourages the objectification of women. Marriage ceases to be a union of equals in which there is a total self-giving of spouses to one another. While we has become dull to and ignorant of an understanding of the essence and purpose of marriage (years before the last two decades, I might add), it is a union which is unitive and procreative in principle. The unitive and the procreative are not separable. The unitive is ordered toward the good of the family (and, of course, by extension society).

While monogamous marriages can be defective in practice, they are not so in principle. Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, impose these defects in principle.

There may be a similarity here with hookup culture, that is, a polygamous culture seems to likewise, though perhaps to a lesser degree, encourage men to view women as mere instruments of sexual gratification. Harvey Weinstein is in essence not some exception, but the poster child for our age.

Far from denigrating women as has been falsely claimed by some, the Christian (specifically Catholic) defense of insoluble, monogamous marriages was one of many ways in which woman was saved from the disordered predations common in human societies throughout history.

(P.S. A relatively recent philosophical tract worth reading is the late Karol Wojtyla's "Love and Responsibility".)

<comment><USER13> Would you be ok with form of polygamy where a woman has multiple husbands ?

<comment><USER8> From a moral standpoint no.

I don't think this would work out as well from an evolutionary standpoint, if you believe that men are driven to have as many children as possible, a woman can only have one man's child at a time. A man can get multiple women pregnant.

<comment><USER14> You understand neither morality nor evolution.

<comment><USER8> I'm not arguing morality I really don't care what two or more consenting adults do. I think the most "moral" thing we can do as a society is to leave other people the hell alone to live their own life.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Natural language processing (NLP) toolkits for Go and Rust? - <AUTHOR>

Are there NLP toolkits for Go and Rust similar to GATE (Java), OpenNLP (Java), UIMA (Java) or NLTK (Python)?
Useful features would be: tokenizer, gazetteer, sentence splitter/segmentation, part of speech tagger, named entities transducer, chunking, parsing, coreference tagger, WordNet integration, support for languages like English, French, German, Spanish.
C/C++ libraries would be ok too (can be called from Rust (and Go)). <comment><USER2> For Go:

[http://biosphere.cc/software-engineering/go-machine- learning...](http://biosphere.cc/software-engineering/go-machine-learning-nlp- libraries)</comment>


LHCb confirms existence of exotic hadrons - <AUTHOR> http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2014/04/lhcb-confirms-existence-exotic-hadrons

<comment><USER2> almost read that as exotic hardons... lol

<comment><USER3> i would probably turn my auto-complete off while typing that headline.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hidemail.us – Temporary email redirects, easy - <AUTHOR> https://hidemail.us/ <comment><USER2> > _Emails do not get saved. No logs. 100% private on swiss servers_

I appreciate your effort to keep privacy, but I think it's more realistic something like the old policy of [http://www.mailinator.com](http://www.mailinator.com) privacy:

> _So if the government issued a subpeona to Mailinator to divulge emails or > logs, you 'd rat me out? Holy crap, yes. I'm not going to jail for you, I > have a boyish face and very (very) supple skin._

> _Here 's the short version- Mailinator/Outscheme/Paul does not > keep/store/archive ANY emails in the system beyond the time that they live > in the box normally. In other words, if I can get an email, that means you > can too simply by checking the box. We have had law enforcement already > approach us to retrieve emails - it simply can't be done. There is nothing > to retrieve once the email is deleted._

<comment><USER3> I prefer to blackhole everything in a Zoho account with the catchall[1] feature turned on, so I can just type random crap as the username when signing up like:

email@example.com

The trick is to keep that domain renewed for as long as you're alive so nobody can take new ownership and pwn all your accounts as a result.

[1] [https://www.zoho.com/mail/help/adminconsole/catch-all- setup....](https://www.zoho.com/mail/help/adminconsole/catch-all-setup.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I do that too! (hence the service this service is build on). I even have a domain especially for stuff that is going to spam me.

Back when i was still a kid in school without access to a credit card i used a lot such services as the one above. Especially forwarding ones, as i like to have any details in my central inbox. I realize that the majority of the HN crowd has found better solutions meanwhile ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just a quick hack i build around ForwardMX (In ShowHN a few hours ago) as i got bored after finally finishing that :)

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13416966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13416966)</comment>


Goodly looks to give companies student loan payments as an employee benefit - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/03/goodly-looks-to-give-employers-student-loan-payments-as-a-perk/ <comment><USER2> The last company I worked for offered that, but I didn't get it because after graduation, I was responsible, lived very frugally, and paid off all my student loans within a year.

Kind of annoying. How about you pay us $100/mo more, and if people want to spend that money on craft cocktails and jetskis instead of their student loans they can.</comment>


Payment Processing in Canada - <AUTHOR>

We are planning out our payment processing method and from my research this is how it should work:
1. Use Wufoo to mange the sales form 2. Chargify to manage the recurring payments and the client lists 3. Beanstream to do the actual payment processing and deposit to our bank account.
Anyone have any feedback on this?  Is there an easier way to do it?
Thanks <comment><AUTHOR> I think I am going to take Wufoo out of the picture as its $30/month for the payment integration forms. Chargify has some decent payment pages that will fit our needs.

</comment><comment><USER2> You may want to take a look at SaaSy, FastSpring's sister service for SaaS companies. You'd get all you need in a single, all-inclusive solution.</comment>