Cor, I can't tell much from the UI sketches on the 770.

Sorry, I *live* by the buttons!! One of my gripes isthe pair of Mag icons in the Opera toolbar. What a waste!! Optimized View should be there (or your 4th or 5th front button!). Going to the menu for OV is ¥#%@!!

Oh, I understand completely. Some people like to be able to "feel" what they are doing more than "see" what they're doing. It's what makes us all so special. Also some people just have grown up using buttons all their life and rather not change that way of working with things like this.

I do find it kind of funny that some of the same people that scream for change are yelling to keep things the same. Sort of an inner conflict. In fact, I think I may have that problem at times. Guess that's some flaw somewhere in the decision making skills. Anyway, I'm getting way too much into psychology here.

I'm going to work on some more sketches over the next week in my spare time to come up with a "happy medium" of sorts that doesn't make anyone cringe too much.

I think my gripes have been 95% software, 5% CPU/RAM. Well, throw in there a *suggestion* for an OQO-likee sliding keyboard. The exterior hardware hasn't been an issue with me. Just the guts!

Apple wouldn't like that at all; they recently took out "patents" on multiple input touchscreen user interfaces.

Mind you, they didn't actually develop such a touchscreen, they just took dibs on how to use it, should anyone ever be actually productive and make one.

Jobs is a nutter.

So, if the OSS community produces a "working" solution, does it still violate patent law?

I know the multiple simultaneous input idea can't be done through software, but looking at things a little closely, we already have caps lock functionality.

Here's what I think: the Apple patents on a user interface without any hardware tied to them, are shameful. It is nothing short of extortion on future creativity. I would go so far as to state that, if I were to meet Steve Jobs in a dark alley, I would kick him in the 'nads.

And drop a dustbin on his head while he was down.

As to your earlier question: the Apple patents are on algorythms, gestures and a general philosophy, not on anything specific. As far as I can see, any working solution would violate them. Obviously, even a patet court in the middle of the Gobi desert would throw Apple's claims out, because they're so ludicrously generic, but in the mean time it would have cost some OSS developer money, plus given Apple time to steal his idea.

Compare it to the mafia-style way Apple is coming down on anyone who dares to use "i" or "pod" in their product name. It's silly, nearly criminal and unwinnable in court, but nevertheless countless small businesses and individuals have cringed and ran from a "Cease and desist" letter from the Apple vult^H^H^H^Hlawyers.

That's how patents work. And they do eventually expire.

As for podcast, it's because Apple is trying to snag a trademark on "iPodcast." Too bloody late, I say, and so far the USPTO isn't granting it.

People say the word should be changed. I agree.

Maybe. They have not been granted yet, though, I think.

And even if they were, we don't know what Apple intend to do with the patents - they can either sue OSS practitioners over infringement (and lose serious amounts of kudos) or grant the OSS community immunity from prosecution.

We're pre-judging Apple here - IBM have been granted thousands of fundamental software patents, yet they have handed over several hundred patents to the OSS community. Who is to say Apple won't do the same? Maybe Apple are claiming the patent before Microsoft do - who would you rather held the patent, Apple or M$?