Headlines and documents from the FTC vs BFL Bitcoin mining case - <AUTHOR> https://www.bcoinnews.com/ftc-vs-bfl-bitcoin-mining/

<comment><AUTHOR> Why were there so many pitchforks?

> FTC examiner at Butterflylabs:

> During my inspection of the premises located at 10770 El Monte, I observed > red foam pitchforks, with the words "BFL is late!" and "Y U NO SHIP!" > imprinted on them, located at various places within the offices and work > stations. There were many red foam pitchforks being stored in Mr. Zerlan's > office at 10770 El Monte, as well as at the storage facility located at > 17501 West 98th St. True and correct copies of photos and/or image stills > from Mr. Lex's video recordings demonstrating the locations of the items are > attached here as</comment>


How to follow your metrics on iGoogle - <AUTHOR> http://bemmu.blogspot.com/2009/03/using-google-spreadsheets-with-igoogle.html

<comment><USER2> Sorry, this is off topic, but what software did you use to make that secant square on your blog?

<http://bemmu.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html>

Also, what license are you using for it - Creative Commons? Or is it copyrighted? I'd love to use that somewhere, but with permission/attribution of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's just a small Flash file, I don't quite see how you could use that anywhere?

<comment><USER2> I'm an artist. I could project it in a public space at night, for example. Or incorporate it into a dance performance. But it's ok if you don't want me to use it. Perhaps you could tell me what software I could use to make my own?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't mind at all if you use it, but I have the file on some other computer right now. If you can use the one which is on the page, feel free to do so.

I'm sure any flash developer could make you something similar in a few hours, if you need a custom one.

<comment><USER2> Wonderful. Thank you.

Ok, so you just used Flash. I wasn't sure whether you used some alternative flash-generating tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice writeup. Had no idea you could do that with Google Spreadsheets.</comment>


Google Responds to Searchable Voicemails - <AUTHOR> http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/about-voicemail-and-privacy.html

<comment><USER2> _The link points to a web page that displays only that particular message. The web address for that unique message is virtually impossible to guess.

However, if a user copied that unique URL from their email notification, and published it on a public website, then typical search engines, including Google, could have indexed it._

aka "Security through obscurity fails again"

<comment><USER3> It's not really all that obscure if you link to it on a public website.

<comment><USER2> In that case, why hide it behind an "unguessable" link?</comment></comment></comment>


Fundamentals of Product-Market Fit - <AUTHOR> https://www.holloway.com/s/rvc-fundamentals-of-product-market-fit <comment><USER2> Wow, the two founders started awesome guides that I consulted in the past, from [https://www.holloway.com/about?section=story](https://www.holloway.com/about?section=story):

\- Josh Levy: _The Open Guide to Amazon Web Services (AWS)_ ([https://github.com/open-guides/og-aws/](https://github.com/open-guides/og- aws/)) and _The Art of the Command Line_ ([https://github.com/jlevy/the-art- of-command-line](https://github.com/jlevy/the-art-of-command-line))

\- Andy Sparks: _Everything You Should Know About CRISPR—And Where to Learn More_ ([https://medium.com/startup-grind/a-primer-on-crispr-and- how-...](https://medium.com/startup-grind/a-primer-on-crispr-and-how-to-learn- more-c1b4ca7159f6))

<comment><AUTHOR> Aw thank you! We're glad you found them helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is no such thing as a Product-Market Fit. The article is at best marginally useful in thinking about your startup and at worst will take you on a tangent of intellectual mastrubation which can be a completely misguide you on how to think about your startup.

Startups exist in a complex ecosystem of competing forces. This ecosystem changes all the time. Your product and the market are only two of the multiple factors that could influence your startup. Even then, what constitutes your product and how you define your market will also change throughout the course of your startup.

The ideas behind 'product-market' reduce this complexity into an intellectual exercise whose premise that product should fit market for success to happen is too simplistic and inaccurate. Assuming the product-market fit theory and extrapolating to corollary's and model's the kind this article portrays is great for an MBA classroom workshop but little else outside.

<comment><USER4> PMF is nothing but a framework, a mental model, a bunch of heuristics rather than a magic bullet.

Yes, the ecosystem is constantly changing - but at any given moment in time, you have a specific product targeting a specific market. PMF is a framework to see if you're delivering on your promise to that market in that specific point in time. The corollary to PMF is that the market you've picked is big enough and/or growing.

PMF is not going to save you from external forces (the arrival of the internet in yesteryears or in more contemporary times, the SaaS-ification of everything) happening and neither does it claim to be. That would be an entire different topic ("Innovators Dilemma" \- but even then you need to have PMF in the first place to even have that dilemma ;)

<comment><USER3> The fundamental premise of the framework is that PMF is a discrete event and the journey of a company can be thought of as pre PMF and post PMF. The reality is that most founders will be unable to articulate when and if PMF has been achieved.

A journey of a startup to scale is better categorized as a continuous series of PMF points where the product evolves to target a continuously changing perception of the target market in the eyes of the founders.

Obsessing over PMF as a fundamental metric will limit founders from exploring the true complexity of the ecosystem in which a startup operates in and can often be a stumbling block in optimising for their subjective outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excited to see this new form of content from Holloway!

If you haven't seen some of their past content you should check out their (free) guide to Equity Compensation: [https://www.holloway.com/g/equity- compensation](https://www.holloway.com/g/equity-compensation)

Disclaimer: I'm working with Holloway on a future guide (to Technical Hiring and Recruiting).

<comment><USER6> Just took a look at some of their other stuff. Looks like it's high quality and well researched.

Just curious...how did you start working with Holloway? Did you reach out to them or did they find you?

<comment><USER5> I've known the Holloway team almost since inception, and knew Josh (one of the cofounders) from before that. I had originally cold reached out to him on LinkedIn after I read some stuff he had written on Quora (where I was working at the time), and we got coffee a few times and became friends.

I've been a huge fan of what they're trying to do. It's also a really strong team—they're polymaths in some sort. They had wanted to write about hiring and recruiting (and in fact had already started having conversations about it with some really credible folk), and at some point we just decided I'd help out (I had written some stuff on Quora and Medium but never worked on something of this magnitude).

Anyway that's probably more detail than you wanted :) I'd say reach out from their website (or by emailing contributing@h..y.com), they're pretty approachable (Andy is in these threads too).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm getting a deceptive site warning from Chrome. Has the link been compromised?

</comment><comment><USER8> This is phenomenal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Everything we publish at Holloway is built to be improved over time, so let us know if there's anything we missed so we can make this as helpful of a resource as possible!

<comment><USER9> What's the revenue model? You guys deserve to be compensated (richly) for the content; it's awesome. I'm just wondering how you folks make money.

<comment><AUTHOR> What a lovely question. Top of mind for us, too. Our first Guide, on Equity Compensation, is entirely free. Think of it like our public sandbox. For now, we're thinking all future Guides will be available for purchase (one-time payment and you get digital access + updates). The first Guide we'll launch for purchase is The Holloway Guide to Raising Venture Capital ([https://www.holloway.com/g/venture- capital/about](https://www.holloway.com/g/venture-capital/about)), which we're hoping to have out in June. This post is an excerpt from that.

We'll also be posting more on our blog, like this post, to build up awareness of what we're up to. Our policy internally is that if we're going to post content to promote one of our products, though, it needs to be helpful to readers on its own. It can't just be content marketing junk to get you to click.

So, fingers crossed. We're making a bet on people being willing to pay for what we're creating!

<comment><USER4> You guys certainly have product market fit for the free articles (atleast using HN as a proxy) :)

Curious to see if the same reception is there for the paid content, especially given that the topics you cover have a lot of free articles and videos (e.g.: YC has an entire library of it).

Good luck!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Facebook making an airplane? - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=infrastructure&req=a0IA000000CzHxYMAV

<comment><AUTHOR> There is also this position: [https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=infrastruct...](https://www.facebook.com/careers/department?dept=infrastructure&req=a0IA000000CzHxYMAV)

"Facebook is looking for someone to assist in the Airframe assembly efforts development phases of their high-altitude solar powered aircraft. A successful candidate will be able to assist with airframe assembly and integration."

High altitude solar aircraft? Sounds similar to the Solar Impulse 2, but what does Facebook want with that?

</comment><comment><USER2> Told ya!! [http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/03/facebo...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2014/03/facebook-to-provide-internet-connectivity-from-solar- powered-planes/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The job is primarily centered around maintenance.

The interesting part is the solar cells, maybe a solar powered drone for very long flight times?

</comment><comment><USER2> ohh, maybe it's something similar to Google Loon project but to put Facebook in the hands of all...</comment>


Facebook Turns To Twitter For Inspiration Again, Brings @ Tagging To Updates - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/10/facebook-turns-to-twitter-for-inspiration-again-brings-tagging-to-status-updates/ <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=816040></comment>


JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit - Interactive Data Visualizations for the Web - <AUTHOR> http://thejit.org/ <comment><USER2> dup <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639911> (no comments unfornately)

</comment><comment><USER3> information visualization, visual analytic ... etc.

they are the HCI when done right, aesthetically and empirically; they will transform us into human cyborgs for the coming future

</comment><comment><USER4> Beautiful.</comment>


Kuwait city hottest place earth climate change gulf oil temperatures - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/18/kuwait-city-hottest-place-earth-climate-change-gulf-oil-temperatures <comment><USER2> The subject line at the Guardian website is now:

Kuwait's inferno: how will the world's hottest city survive climate change?

I think this would be a much better choice than the non-sequitur currently shown above.

<comment><USER3> I thought OP had accidentally posted the keywords line.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Successful Saas owners, how long did your first version take to build? - <AUTHOR> It's amazing to me how long it can take to get a saas app done. Even a seemingly simple looking one. Very interested to hear how long people here took to get their first iterations out the door! I'd also be interested in hearing about the stack you used. And if you had to make any significant changes to it over time, such as rewriting the entire codebase in a new language. <comment><USER2> How long do you think it takes?

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 months</comment></comment>


The World's First Robot-Made Burger Is About to Hit the Bay Area - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloombergquint.com/pursuits/2018/06/21/the-world-s-first-robotic-burger-is-ready-to-hit-the-bay-area <comment><USER2> I've had an air conditioner stolen off my building while I had employees working there can't imagine what metal scrap value of that machine would be.</comment>


Show HN: Create and Share a Timeline - <AUTHOR> https://timeo.me <comment><AUTHOR> I made as a weekend project. What do you think the project? I would like to hear your comments and suggestion. [https://timeo.me](https://timeo.me)

</comment><comment><USER2> The start button isn't working for me. iOS.</comment>


Tesla asserts Autopilot makes the world safer – days after fiery, fatal crash - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/03/31/tesla-asserts-autopilot-unequivocally-makes-the-world-safer-days-after-fiery-fatal-crash/ <comment><USER2> That's such BS. That crash wouldn't have happened if the human wouldn't have used the Autopilot at all (which Tesla encourages you to do when you buy their cars).

Also, I'm not sure I even understand their point - how exactly does _Autopilot_ make for "safer driving" _right now_ (not talking about a perfect version of it 15 years from now)?

Are they talking about auto-braking maybe? I can see how auto-braking can make for safer driving, but I don't think you even need the Autopilot enabled for that, do you? Plus, you'd be driving as you normally would. So why attribute that sort of feature to "Autopilot making driving safer"?

I think they are very distinct features, and they should be advertised as very distinct features. I have no problem with features that protect the manual driver _in case of imminent accident_ , but "self-driving" of any level should not be enabled until the car can drive the human without any interaction from the human, which would be at least Level 4.</comment>


You pick YC Research's first three groups - <AUTHOR> Algorithmically constructed link-bait HN post-title notwithstanding, I'm losing it waiting to know more about what YCR is doing.  Aren't you?  Let's just pick.  If you had your hand on the tiller what areas would see YCR building in the short-term?
Rather than the one initial group, let's say three announced research areas over the next three years.  Parsing Sam's original post we know there's $10mil.  $24mil is a good number for a roughly MIT Media Lab sized yearly budget.  We can assume efforts to bring on other investors and many external partners although most will likely be providing resources and pro bono services rather than direct investment.  Similarly, certain types of research will be better able to leverage YC's infrastructure without incurring the cost of building, say, a synthetic biology lab.
Also consider that this is YC in terms of overall strategy.  Does this mean there is more or less likelihood to be proximal to current long-term research themes in SV?  It's fascinating that multiple firms converge on things like flying networks infrastructure, VR, automotive, mapping tectonic, long-term futures on parallel lines.  Will YCR be in there?  Noticeably absent from the initial post (http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-research) is a critique of research as it's conducted in industry.  Even if the goal is to make the IP openly available, there are myriad other business models including spin-offs.  Nonetheless, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I'm getting a family vibe from roll-out strategy: a 10 person start, doing diligence with Alan Kay and the like thinking of the old and highly insular (in a good way) think tanks, reference to 'projects' with 25 year horizons. So, maybe no spin-offs.
You're pick. <comment><USER2> I'd like to see YC Research create Academia 2.0. The current university research model is trending towards broken. Scientists are forced to chase funding. That's not inherently bad, but it's reached a degree that subverts the scientific method.

Creating a new model seems more valuable than specific areas of research.

As far as specific projects go: big discoveries are almost never centrally planned. It might be important to set up the environment to let small ideas grow from acorns into oak trees.

A research team needs to be able to pivot like a startup, and current systems don't really allow for that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Downstream from academia, how about education? It's not too hard to imagine what a great education would be, and yet, you know, schools, here we are. Parents with any number of opportunities from home-school to public to private still find themselves unhappily optimizing among several unpalatable choices. Looking at something like Musk is doing, or even more ambitious, Khan academy as an experimental platform, you'd think there's a lot of room here. I just wonder how it would best met by a small crack research team with a 25 year mandate. Unsure.</comment></comment>


Things I learned from functional programming - <AUTHOR> http://sokolmichael.heroku.com/

<comment><USER2> Okay, I have a decent amount of introductory functional programming experience. I agree with most of the article, but this sentence makes no sense to me:

When done correctly, recursion increase a lot readability and avoids using cumbersome control structures such as loops.

In my experience, recursion makes things much harder, mainly because if you have a bug, you can narrow down the location in an iterative process but a recursive process is too interconnected to do that with easily. Also readability suffers a little for mathematical people like me, and a lot for anyone else. I agree that replacing loops with map/reduce/filter increases readability, but replacing loops with recursion?

<comment><AUTHOR> Your point is valid. My stand is that recursion forces the programmer to think about the edge cases first, which would make a bug less likely to appear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you like OO and Functional paradigms, you should try Scala.</comment>


Mathematics predicts a sixth mass extinction - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920 <comment><USER2> Mathematics does not predict anything, let alone a mass extinction. Some model, which is mathematically based, might predict a mass extinction.</comment>


Exactitudes - <AUTHOR> https://www.exactitudes.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> I guess you need to read the about me page, which is here: [https://www.exactitudes.org/index.php?/about/](https://www.exactitudes.org/index.php?/about/)

I found this while reading a Twitter thread about a man who complained that his image was used in an article about hipsters all looking the same (only for it to turn out that it wasn't him) [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/man- angry-his-photo-was...](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/man-angry-his- photo-was-used-to-prove-all-hipsters-look-alike-then-learns-it-wasn-t- him-1.5046933)

<comment><USER2> ... which was on Hacker News several times, including at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19336512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19336512) where it garnered the most discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, completely aside from the content, the navigation on the site is terrible!

First you have this mouse-over effect that highlights a 3x4 segment of photos; but does nothing, which made me think I was doing something wrong when I kept arriving at the same page.

Then you have the horizontal scrolling gallery which doesn't let you click other photo series than the one currently "selected" by being in the middle of the page.

Then you finally arrive at the single photo series, and the scroll wheel is disabled, leaving you to move your mouse at the edges of the page to move it RTS-style.

All of the standard navigation features are reimplemented badly, it's like they tried to be non standard and surprising.

But the photos themselves are great, I like it!

<comment><USER4> You have to understand that it is art. Hence the user interface has these "affordances". You are probably not an artist so you therefore don't understand why the main page has the images and text too small.

The slight UX concern though is the audio. Not sure whether I would want to open this page in an open plan office with the speakers on:

[http://exactitudes.com/index.php?/series/detail/5](http://exactitudes.com/index.php?/series/detail/5)

<comment><USER3> Nah, if anything I'd say I'm primarily an artist, in web/digital as well as interactive A/V works; and I didn't even mention anything about images and text being "too small", don't know where you got that from.

In any project though, and in art especially, there should be a purpose to the decisions made (even if it's as vague as "it felt good"), but in this case I don't really see how the navigation features I mentioned help me appreciate the photos better, or how they work on their own.

Clicking twice to get to a gallery doesn't help me see the project in a different light. Absence of a scroll wheel makes me focus more on hovering my mouse at the edges just long enough to not overshoot or undershoot, rather than the photos themselves.

In the end it's just a web presentation of a photography project! There's not much room to change stuff constructively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The project is now in it's third decade. I heard about first around ten years ago or so.

Here is an interview with Ari Versluis from 2012: [https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/gqnevx/fashion-uk- intervi...](https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/gqnevx/fashion-uk-interview- ari-versluis-exactitudes)

</comment><comment><USER6> Chrome reports the site (this URL [1]) as deceptive.

[1]: [http://exactitudes.com/index.php?/expo/all/](http://exactitudes.com/index.php?/expo/all/)

EDIT: Also, extremely loud auto-play within Series details pages with no button to turn it off.

</comment><comment><USER7> My first reaction was woah I guess this is like [https://thispersondoesnotexist.com](https://thispersondoesnotexist.com) .

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this like Unicode for fashion, or something?

</comment><comment><USER9> My guess is about 10% of these photos are mirrored to account for left-handed poses (or maybe the lefties were left out)

<comment><USER10> > (or maybe the lefties were _left_ out)

Well, we are a _sinister_ bunch after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is this?

<comment><USER12> [https://www.exactitudes.org/index.php?/about/](https://www.exactitudes.org/index.php?/about/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: $4.4B in Startup Funding Rounds Visualized - <AUTHOR> http://www.machete.io/board/view/seed_db_funding_rounds/157a518b-cbf2-4bde-84b4-98cfa0bc15ba <comment><AUTHOR> I created this with a new service I released (Machete). Machete is built on top of dc.js (which in turn is built on d3.js and crossfilter). dc and d3 both have decent learning curves, Machete is aimed at non-programmers or as a prototyping tool for developers.

The visualization works best in chrome or any edge browser. In the off chance you're a huge Luddite and surfing HN with IE8, here are a couple extracted stats across the 2,040 rounds:

YC dwarfs other accelerators with $2.8B in funding, next largest is AngelPad with $185M.

Average A Round - $4.3M, B - $17M, C - $58M, D - $98M

Airbnb and Dropbox so skewed stats, that I created a filterable attribute for them called "Freakish_Outlier".

I should be on for a couple hours, please feel free to comment or ask questions.

<comment><USER2> Looks good. There are two things that will be really important:

\- How is data imported? It would be great to be able to set up custom SQL queries, CSV imports, and other service gateways to do analytics on.

\- How do I define graphs? I'll want to be able to do time-series, but easily switch between day/week/month/year resolution, and create trailing period averages without having to think about it.

I signed up for the beta. I'd love to play around and do some deep diving on stats we have collected.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now we only support CSVs they get served directly from blob storage to the browser (without going through our webserver). We obviously want to expand on those options, but CORs makes serving from internal company data sources a PITA. We could use our domain as a proxy to the relevant info, but that has its own issues (auth, perf). I'm sure we'll be able to work it out though. Automated CSV imports will probably be the best way to do things initially.

When you import your CSV, we take educated guesses about the data in each column (number, category, date), but you can change it if necessary (sometimes numbers should be treated like categories). We give you the ability to group dates by day of week and month. Month-year isn't in there yet, but should be by launch.

It works best one un-aggregated source data (since we do so all the fine level aggregation ourselves in the browser). Dealing with weighted averages is possible and we've done it a lot in custom work, but machete doesn't yet have support for it.

Thanks for the kind words :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Anyone know why Dropbox is considered a Dublin-based company? Shouldn't their SF office be considered the main HQ?

<comment><USER4> What are the tax laws of Ireland like this time of a year?

<comment><USER5> Soft day, thank god

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where are you getting the data for this? It seems to be missing a fair number of startups that have had significant (>20M) rounds.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.seed-db.com/companies/funding?value=1](http://www.seed- db.com/companies/funding?value=1) plus a little extra meta-data from crunchbase. Seed-DB (so far as I can tell) only tracks startups that went through an accelerator. We've got a larger list that includes everyone, but it made viewing the accelerator info more difficult because there are so many startups that haven't gone through one.

We'll probably create another board with all startups but will probably do it on a company basis instead of a funding round basis. There are a lot of different ways you could want to see this data.

If you sign up for the beta, we'll let you know when you can create your own. We're following the github model - public projects are free, private projects have a modest fee.

<comment><USER7> > Seed-DB (so far as I can tell) only tracks startups that went through an > accelerator.

You should alter the HN post's title to reflect that.

<comment><USER8> You think so? I read the title and it never crossed my mind to think it was _all_ funding. To me the fact that it says "this much of it" already implies it's a selection.

Edit: that said, the page should definitely mention it (the source and selection criteria).

<comment><USER7> It wasn't apparent from the title that this data was mostly from Seed-DB, and partly from Crunchbase.

Seed-DB is accelerator based funding, and the crunchbase data that was used is incomplete.

It lists Seattle behind Atlanta in terms of Startup Funding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Surprised to see so little startup activity in the Seattle area. Is there a reason for this? - in spite of what I expect to be a pretty serious pool of a talent drawn in by Amazon and Microsoft.

<comment><USER7> The data is missing a lot of Seattle based startups.

Including some of the larger non-exited startups:

Chef raised 65 million. INRIX 78.1 million Avalara 84.6 million

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Awesome idea. The name, "Machete" is fine, but the logo is too aggressive. Consider something more playful, like a smiling machete, or ASCII art of Danny Trejo :D, [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Danny_Tre...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Danny_Trejo_2009.jpg)

Just kidding. But seriously, a friendlier logo would make me more likely to try the service. Best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> ASCII Art of Danny Trejo, lol. I can certainly say we did not consider that for our logo. I like where your head is at though. The name "Machete" was/is a bit of a risk, I'll definitely remember your feedback when we re-do it. It currently was just a quick and dirty fiverr job :)

<comment><USER11> It's an awesome logo, don't wimp out. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's the data source?

Is it the rapid increase in total raised from 2012 - 2014 (even without Freakish_outlier) a data artifact or has the amount of funding actually exploded?

<comment><AUTHOR> Every company in this dataset went through an accelerator, my guess is that it is due to the explosion in accelerators after YC's success. (Hell, I'm from Iowa and we have one now and two more are opening in the summer).

We've got another dataset that has more companies (ones that didn't go through accelerators). There is more data so we wanted to re-work and re-aggregate some of the data on a company level instead of a round level. We'll probably release it in a couple days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's almost impossible to click on Grant, and other. Suggestion: Make the Title a part of the Label area.

<comment><AUTHOR> Took me a second to understand what you are saying, but YES, that is definitely on our backlog. It's a PITA when item has very small clickable bar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, YC-accelerated companies has captured 64% of the 4.4B.

<comment><USER15> You can thank Dropbox for a large chunk of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> dc.js as always made a good job.</comment>


Apple granted 'the mother of all smartphone software patents' - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/18/apple-granted-the-mother-of-all-smartphone-software-patents/?source=linkedin

<comment><USER2> The worst part about this is people are actually celebrating this as a victory for Apple and a vindication of sorts.

We have to realize that every time some patent is awarded, someone has just robbed the collective human knowledge pool, some patent office has just made money off selling something it doesn't own by taking it away from anyone else who could have come up with it now, or in the future.

Kickstarter's model is the way to go. An idea is only worth so much, you ask what you want to be paid and make it if it matches your price. But given how deeply ingrained the inflated value of an idea and the repeatability of charging for it is in our being, a lot of us think 'But, but he deserves the patent! I mean he was the first one to think about such a complex system.'

How to have a sustainable business model you ask? Charge for your idea upfront and do your repeat business on manufacturing, maintenance, innovation and service. This model inherently tends to promote innovation and forces competition in terms of manufacturing, pushing for the improved and more efficient ways of doing anything. This is how humanity collectively progresses much faster than what we see right now.

Even the smartest people get stuck at the thought of software patents not making any sense but somehow non-software patents seeming fine. The problem is in the idea that someone can be arbitrarily given the right to something that someone else can come up with freely completely independently.

<comment><USER3> "some patent office has just made money off selling something it doesn't own"... really? This is a compelling argument to you?

<comment><USER2> That's not the argument, that's a bullet point in the whole argument. The argument is that patents are inherently unnatural, arbitrary (where do you draw the line on what's patentable?) and need an artificial force to enforce them.

If all you got out of my post was 'the patent system is a way for the patent office to make money,' then with all due respect, I request you to look through it again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If Apple uses these new patents to again attack an Android vendor, I will walk away from my lucrative iOS consulting work, the time I have invested mastering their tools and APIs, the hard work I have invested in my own apps, and all the many Apple devices I own and use every day.

I've really enjoyed being a part of their ecosystem but I will not support any more toxic patent warfare.

<comment><USER5> If you are really serious about this, then you should start now. Given their recent history it's virtually certain they will use this if they possibly can.

<comment><USER4> I'm already working on an Android version of a new app.

I've been working on an iOS version in parallel but if this happens I'll just abandon it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also see this article (it has some screens and images so a little easier to skim through) [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_por...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/17/apple_wins_portable_device_ui_scroll_bar_patent.html)

Every time I hear Apple and patent in the same sentence, Gargamel kills a baby smurf.

This one is just ridiculous and clearly does not have any kind of an inventive step. Also, from filing the application, it only took 4 months to being awarded. FOUR MONTHS?! March 5, 2012 was the filing date... The USPTO couldn't load up Apple's legal-Bazooka fast enough if they tried.. To be honest, you would naive to think that this wasn't pushed through anyway. It will almost surely be used immediately to defend Apple's initiative it shows by coming up with such "worthy" patents.

Edit: (As pointed out below, the March 2012 date is a continuation.. not the initial filing date. My mistake.)

<comment><USER7> > This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/969,819, > filed Jan. 4, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,130,205, entitled "Portable > Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying > Electronic Lists and Documents," which claims priority to U.S. Provisional > Patent Application Nos. 60/947,386, "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and > Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Documents and Lists," > filed Jun. 29, 2007; 60/937,993, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jun. > 29, 2007; 60/879,469, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 8, 2007; > and 60/879,253, "Portable Multifunction Device," filed Jan. 7, 2007. All of > these applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

It actually dates back to Jan. 7, 2007. This latest "continuation" was what was just filed March 5, 2012.

<comment><USER8> Yes, it has the signature of a submarine patent, one of those that keeps getting amended and amended based on what is going on in the industry, only goes to 'issue' when the owner needs it to put the smack down on someone.

I wonder though if it will work against Apple. Reading through it, the claims seem to reflect a lot of what folks 'skilled in the art' might equally have done. Since it will no doubt be brought to the frontlines right away and put into the battle we should be able to see how well it holds up.

<comment><USER9> As I understand it, actual submarine patents come from organizations who haven't been doing publicly visible work in the area of the patent.

A patent like this was pretty foreseeable, given that Apple's had the described technology on the market for five years. Nobody's going to be taken by surprise here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The patent is peppered with this phrase:

       portable multifunction device, comprising: a touch screen display

Which I don't get. One part of the document talks about disappearing scrollbars, which have been around for ages. This patent apparently only applies if the disappearing scrollbar appears on a "portable multifunction device, comprising: a touch screen display", which just doesn't make sense to me. In the same way patent are also awarded for "some thing that previously existed" but with 2 fingers instead of 1! Or "some thing that previously existed" but inside of a web browser! IANAL and obvious this stuff is awarded, but I don't get it.

<comment><USER11> I actually wasn't aware of disappearing scrollbars before iOS.

Care to provide an example of prior art ?

<comment><USER12> Are "disappearing scrollbars" in general patented or just the implementation on mobile touchscreens with a non full-scrollbar and moves with the scrolling?

The language used suggests that disappearing scrollbars aren't completely novel but the prior ones used a full length scroll bar (on desktops, etc.)

The iOS scrollbar does seem both novel and innovative. It also seems fairly minor and the kind of thing I'd be easy to program around.

<comment><USER10> Yes, you're definitely right that this is what their patenting, not disappearing scrollbars generally. But I don't agree that it being done on a touch screen makes it novel.

<comment><USER12> I'm not saying doing it on a phone is what makes it novel.

The minimal and smaller but proportional bar that moves and then fades out does seem novel to me in total regardless of prior bars that were minimal (windows has had a setting that allowed 1 pixel bars since xp or vista at least), smaller (my understanding is that smalltalk's original bar was not full length), gave a sense of proportion (pretty sure BeOS had a setting for this) or disappeared (I'm sure there's something).

Analogously there could already be robots that ride horses, robots that chew bubble gum and robots that do the macarena but we can still patent a new robot that did all three of those at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Even if Apple was the first company ever to have a disappearing scroll-bar on a mobile device, I'm amazed something like that can be patented. To me it seems like a common sense evolution when shrinking things down to mobile proportions.

"You know there isn't much screen real estate here, so lets get rid of the bar, and only show the scroll head when you are scrolling. Good idea!" Why should someone be allowed to patent that?

It's like the first website ever to say, "We really have a lot of menu items here... I know, let's group them into sub-menus that 'drop-down' when you mouse over them?" Boom, drop-down menus are now patented, pay up if you want to use them in your website. Sure there were drop-down file menus on computers before this, but I'm the first one ever to do it on a website.

Can someone explain why the two are nothing alike and I'm an idiot for feeling this way?

<comment><USER14> Windows had disappearing scroll-bars since the early 90's. It was called scrollbar.display=auto.

<comment><USER15> That meant they disappeared when there was nothing to scroll (correct?)... not disappear when not scrolling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Many sites carrying this news are filled will comments of the sort, "... and then <company> COPIED Apple's innovation."

Forget the world of patents for a second. In what aspect of life is copying good ideas not a good idea? I do have some sympathy for the idea of protection in cases where the ratio of R&D to duplication costs is very high. A scroll bar doesn't pass that test.

<comment><USER17> > In what aspect of life is copying good ideas not a good idea?

It's always a good idea, that's why it's so popular.

In this profit-driven society we live in, we've decided to make blatant copying of good ideas illegal so the original party with the good idea can reap all the profit from it.

Let's face it, if you, or I, or anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea worth billions, and some company produced _exactly_ the same thing in 6 months, we'd be pretty pissed about that.

(Note: I'm not saying that people are copying Apple _exactly_ , or that Apple are justified in doing what they're doing, I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind what's going on)

> A scroll bar doesn't pass that test.

Interesting you should say that. You have no idea how much effort went into thinking up, then implementing the first scroll bar. Just because it's common- place now, doesn't mean it wasn't an example of the "good idea" we're talking about above.

Let's use the example that you invent a technique for 100% efficient solar panels. 5 years from now when every tom, dick and harry company has ripped off you idea and is selling it, there will be tons of people saying "but those things are so common, you can't patent that" exactly as you are with scroll bars, etc.

<comment><USER16> >if...anyone of us came up with a phenomenal idea worth billions, and some company produced exactly the same thing in 6 months, we'd be pretty pissed about that.

Only since we're conditioned to the current environment where patents play a role. If I know very well that anyone could copy the idea readily, then perhaps it wasn't ever worth billions to me. But maybe it is a little hard to copy, or at least takes some time to implement well. Then I have a first-mover advantage that's worth something. And of course the really tough-to-copy items can possibly net me those billions.

I think removing patents from the equation would result in everything settling to a new norm. Maybe that results in some ideas/investments not being pursued because they are then considered too risky. But you've also just removed a huge tax across the entire R&D process--for everyone. Perhaps that offsets the abandoned inventions.

It probably won't happen in my lifetime to that degree, but I think we'd be better off the further we move in that direction.

<comment><USER17> > I think removing patents from the equation would result in everything > settling to a new norm.

I don't disagree. But the only way we, and Apple, and anyone else can operate right now, is under the current system. If you're not willing to work within the current system, you're not going to do well.

Of course, that's not to say we all shouldn't be investing energy into a new system, but you have to use what you've got when you've got it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The reason this gets programmers upset is because they design shit like this on a weekly basis, I know I do. There is nothing "significant" about this, it just usually day-to-day stuff software dev. No room for a scroll bar? Hide it from view. The patent office is seriously out of touch with what is non- obvious.

</comment><comment><USER19> "We've patented the hell out of it"

\- Steve Jobs Jan 2007

<comment><USER20> That quote was in reference to the on-screen keyboard, specifically, iirc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am really weary of this. Apple, I accept you've had some innovative ideas but being a leader in the patent process and IP ownership is not something that many look upon favorably. Don't forget it wasn't too many years ago that Microsoft "invested" in you and really kept you afloat.

My Mac 128K has a frowny face most of the time these days and not because of geriatric ailments.

<comment><USER11> Here we go again.

Firstly, Apple didn't invent IP ownership, pioneer it or is the leader of it by any stretch. That award most likely goes to IBM.

Secondly, it is a myth that Microsoft's 'investment' in Apple is what it kept it alive. That money was in effect a settlement with Apple to drop the UI lawsuits. What kept Apple alive was the iMac.

<comment><USER22> I'm pretty sure I remember reading in the Steve Jobs Biography that Steve admitted Apple wouldn't survive without Microsofts investment. At the same time, Bill seemed to agree that Microsoft would have been in quite some trouble if the UI lawsuits went through. So while the investment was indeed a settlement of sorts, Apple may not have survived to tell the tale without Microsoft's cash infusion.

<comment><USER11> $150 million is nothing for a company that was looking at billion dollar losses.

<comment><USER23> Losses that involve writing down inventory, goodwill, and accounts receivable don't stop you from settling paychecks each month.

It's weird that people keep refuting the importance of Microsoft's investment when the actual Apple people involved herald it as critical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Doesn't like everything Palm did in the 90s prior art the shit out of this?

<comment><USER25> Loved my palm pilot (kinda). Really loved my treo. Didn't realize how lame it was until seeing the Jobs keynote for the original iPhone.

Originally these patent portfolios were considered defensive like nuclear stockpiles. Everyone assumed that mutually assured destruction would prevent the war from starting.

I'm not sure who is responsible for the current state but I do remember what every phone I ever saw looked like the month before the iPhone was released.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It is very interesting how patent law is now entering the greater engineering popular culture with full force. While I hate to be an elitist, I must mention that patents tend to be complex documents and the full scope of the patent is usually very different than what a quick read by a non-expert suggests.

The scope of protection of patents is supposed to be described and defined very precisely. And unless one fully understands that scope of protection it is meaningless to say how important or crucial any particular patent is. In my experience, most journalists and bloggers do not show such understanding (with the exception of a couple of patent attorney bloggers).

I only gave this one a cursory look, but it does not seem to be that big of a deal. It seems like it would not be too difficult to engineer around it.

</comment><comment><USER27> people, read the patent text. it's for the vertical scroll bar. not the whole smartphone interface as the cnn article is making the reader believe.

<comment><USER28> Indeed, and the claims in particular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The patently apple link has links to some of the other patents awarded today.

[http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple- wi...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/07/apple-wins-another- major-iphone-ios-interface-patent.html)

These are the ones I'm randomly speculating that look most likely to be seen in future court cases:

8,225,121 Forced idle of a data processing system

8,225,079 Accelerating system boot using a set of control data recorded by operating system during a first OS boot

8,225,061 Method and apparatus for protected content data processing

</comment><comment><USER29> What can I do to help stop this madness? Enough is enough.

<comment><USER30> Gather prior art and file for a reexamination.

You can file prior art for applications now, too: <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120717/00232219721/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think multi-touch is worth a patent. I'm not sure if Apple is the one that deserves to hold it (I'm not sure what the prior art is on it), but it is THE THING that made the current crop of tablets and smart phones possible. To me, it seems non-obvious because if it was so obvious, why did we have to endure a decade of shitty unresponsive stylus interfaces?

<comment><USER32> I am not sure they could get it depending on the dates because the "preliminary" version of the surface tablet was the multitouch surface table by microsoft in early 2007

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sigh. As if Apple needed any more reasons to sue more people. "Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Electronic Lists and Documents" seems like the patent office will grant patents on anything these days. Just waiting for Apple to file patents on breathing and the beat of a human heart now, this is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER24> You can really picture Apple lawyers like evil wizards from Lord of The Rings all laughing heartily about this before launching a new swath of attacks on their enemies... I mean competitors?

</comment><comment><USER34> Wasn't Symbian there before iOS was even conceived?

</comment><comment><USER35> HTF is this stuff: \- Not obvious (list, detail) \- Not been done before (yes, before 2007)

Please someone explain

<comment><USER11> Example of being done before ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> _The effects could be "swift and lethal" says a pro-Android blogger_

Great reporting...

</comment><comment><USER37> Well, shit.

</comment><comment><USER38> There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I think this is a complete non-issue.

<comment><USER28> If you have the prior art to "demolish this easily", why don't you push it into reexam? Is it because you actually don't have the prior art?

... that's what I thought.

<comment><USER23> What an utterly asinine response, as if a random HNer is going to force a reexamination.

However their point is, it seems, that once Apple tries to leverage this it will be forced into re-examinations. Apple has forfeited a number of patents when they've used them, a re-examination occurs, and most or all of the claims are tossed. This will likely be another of the same.

In some ways I think Apple is a bit naive in this: Microsoft tries its hardest not to actually go to the courts, and they'd rather extort with blanket patent threats, thereby keeping the actual stockpile somewhat safe. Apple just keeps blowing their patent load, losing a bunch in the process.

<comment><USER28> I would say the asinine comment was this one:

> There's enough prior art to demolish this easily. It won't even remotely > hold up under legal scrutiny if it's ever used by Apple in a lawsuit. I > think this is a complete non-issue.

It's just a summary dismissal, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks like Apple wants to spend its billions in profits on lawyers. Almost everything on the iPhone exists as prior art. I can't really think of anything original on the iPhone other than the unification, control and polish. I think Apple realizes this is not patentable.</comment>