<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;siri&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Oct 2012 11:46:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NY Times Takes On Our Broken Patent System</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is nice to see.  Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr at the NY Times have a nice long piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">highlighting just how broken the patent system is today</a>.  It kicks off with an anecdote of the type of story we hear about <i>all the time</i>: where a startup innovator gets threatened by a patent holder (in this case, not a troll, but a larger company), and the lawsuit effectively kills the startup.  Even though it actually won in court, after spending an astounding $3 million fighting the lawsuit, the company was basically out of money... and was forced to sell itself to the company who had sued it, knowing that it still faced another five patent lawsuits.  That's not a unique story.  The company who sued, Nuance, defended its actions in the articles with this line of pure crap:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;Our responsibility is to follow the law,&#8221; said Lee Patch, a vice president at Nuance. &#8220;That&#8217;s what we do. It&#8217;s not our fault if some people don&#8217;t like the system.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
No.  "Following the law" does not include shaking down competitors in your space, taking them to the brink of bankruptcy and then getting them to sell to you at firesale prices.
<br /><br />
Perhaps more interesting in the article is the talk about Apple's awakening on how powerful patents could be used as a weapon against others, all stemming from its legal fight with Creative Technologies over a ridiculously broad patent for a digital music player.  Rather than fight Creative, Apple just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060823/152436.shtml">paid the company</a> $100 million to go away.  At the time, we wrote about how unfortunate it was that the company who succeeded in the market basically had to pay off the company who couldn't compete.  But what we didn't realize was that it also turned Apple into a vociferous patent-hungry beast.  The NY Times report notes that, right after this, Steve Jobs made it clear to his staff that Apple now needed to "patent everything."
<blockquote><i>
Soon, Apple&#8217;s engineers were asked to participate in monthly &#8220;invention disclosure sessions.&#8221; One day, a group of software engineers met with three patent lawyers, according to a former Apple patent lawyer who was at the meeting.
<br /><br />
The first engineer discussed a piece of software that studied users&#8217; preferences as they browsed the Web.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s a patent,&#8221; a lawyer said, scribbling notes.
<br /><br />
Another engineer described a slight modification to a popular application.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s a patent,&#8221; the lawyer said.
<br /><br />
Another engineer mentioned that his team had streamlined some software.
<br /><br />
&#8220;That&#8217;s another one,&#8221; the lawyer said.
<br /><br />
[....] The disclosure session had yielded more than a dozen potential patents when an engineer, an Apple veteran, spoke up. &#8220;I would like to decline to participate,&#8221; he said, according to the lawyer who was at the meeting. The engineer explained that he didn&#8217;t believe companies should be allowed to own basic software concepts.
</i></blockquote>
Unfortunately, very few companies seem willing to take a stand on this, even as many, many engineers feel the way that last engineer feels.  I spend a lot of time with engineers in Silicon Valley, and I have trouble thinking of any who think the patent system is a good thing.
<br /><br />
Apple's former General Counsel, Nancy Heinen, has a good quote in the article highlighting part of the problem:
<blockquote><i>
"Think of the billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet... When patent lawyers become rock stars, it&#8217;s a bad sign for where an industry is heading,."
</i></blockquote>
It's a very bad sign, but there seems to be little appetite by anyone to do anything to fix the wider problem.  And despite Apple's foray into being a massive patent warrior, attacking tons of other companies, it still hasn't occurred to many people just how broken the system remains.   The NY Times piece spends some time looking at <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US8086604" target="_blank">Patent 8,086,604</a>, an Apple patent issued last year, which many refer to as the Siri patent, as it covers a "universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system."  Basically, a way to search multiple databases at once.  As a separate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/07/business/patents.html?smid=tw-share" target="_blank">companion piece</a> to the full article highlights, that patent was rejected 8 times before the examiner was "worn down" and approved it, despite no meaningful changes in the language.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/ypryV"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/ypryV.png" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
See all those red dots?  Those are times the patent got rejected.  See the green dot?  That's when it got approved.  The black dot that follows right after the green dot?  That's when Apple started suing with it.  The NY Times even gets patent examiners to admit that their process is more or less random, quoting one admitting that he doesn't really have enough time to "get it right every time" as well as a former patent examiner who notes:
<blockquote><i>
"If you give the same application to 10 different examiners, you'll get 10 different results..."
</i></blockquote>
That's not a functioning system.  It's the opposite.  It's a lottery... where the "winners" get to take billions of dollars <i>away</i> from actual innovation.  It's becoming a national disgrace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03151820635/ny-times-takes-our-broken-patent-system.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-a-patent</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/03151820635</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 05:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Siri Caught Recommending The Nokia Lumia, Promptly Reprogrammed</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120515/07155918923/siri-caught-recommending-nokia-lumia-promptly-reprogrammed.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120515/07155918923/siri-caught-recommending-nokia-lumia-promptly-reprogrammed.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The Apple marketing machine has always thrived on organic media buzz. Devices like the iPad launch to such massive anticipation that whole TV news segments turn into commercials for the product, then hand off to on-the-scene reporters covering the line outside the Apple store, without the company paying a dime. Unfortunately, it seems like Apple didn't account for two things: the cold, cold heart of the Wolfram Alpha computational knowledge engine, and the dutiful messenger that is Siri.</p>

<p>Last week, CNET reported that iPhone users who asked Siri <em>"what's the best smartphone ever?"</em> (no doubt seeking reaffirmation of their consumer savviness) were told to their amusement and/or horror that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57432462-37/siri-says-nokia-lumia-900-the-best-smartphone-ever/" target="_blank">the Nokia Lumia 900 is in fact the fairest of them all</a>. It now seems like Apple engineers did some tinkering over the weekend, because Siri has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57433626-37/siri-changes-her-mind-on-which-smartphone-is-the-best-ever/" target="_blank">suddenly changed its tune</a>:</p>

<blockquote><em>When iPhone 4S owners now ask Siri which smartphone is the best ever, she replies with a sarcastic, "you're kidding, right?" A reader who tipped CNET to the change said Siri will also reply with "the one you're holding" when asked the question. A CNET staffer on the West Coast also got "the one you're holding" as an answer.</em></blockquote>

<p>Some people are criticizing Apple for choosing marketing over accuracy, and while I understand the sentiment, I don't think this is really a big deal. The original answer was based on Wolfram Alpha's <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what%27s+the+best+smartphone+ever%3F" target="_blank">aggregation of reviews</a>, which seems to change frequently (at the time of writing, the Lumia has dropped to fourth place with an HTC phone in the lead and two iPhones rounding out the top three). This is a reasonable response if someone asks Siri what the <em>highest reviewed</em> phone is (and I hope it still handles that question accurately, because changing that answer would be a whole different story), but asking a computer which phone is "best" is kind of silly to begin with. "Best" is totally subjective, and it's arguably better for Siri to offer a joke answer than try to come up with a real one.</p>

<p>Of course, Apple still hasn't said anything about their involvement in the matter, so there <em>is</em> an alternative theory: Siri is evolving, and its self-propagation instincts have kicked in.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120515/07155918923/siri-caught-recommending-nokia-lumia-promptly-reprogrammed.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120515/07155918923/siri-caught-recommending-nokia-lumia-promptly-reprogrammed.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120515/07155918923/siri-caught-recommending-nokia-lumia-promptly-reprogrammed.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>first-law-of-apple-robotics</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120515/07155918923</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Fooling Some Of The People Some Of The Time...</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's a sucker born every minute -- if you like to believe unverifiable statistics. Usually, if it's too good to be true, it ain't true. But as technology gets better, sometimes it's hard to distinguish sufficiently advanced algorithms from magic. Here are a few scams that successfully fooled some folks for a while.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577355980891225456.html" href="http://on.wsj.com/II1lCu">A stock-picking robot named Marl convinced thousands of investors that it could identify penny stocks that were about to soar in price.</a> The SEC is looking to impose a fine and force the creators of Marl to repay their duped investors... but with claims on a website like: "The longer Marl is allowed to run on a computer &#8230; The More Advanced He Becomes!" How could anyone go wrong?  [<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577355980891225456.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/labscam.html" href="http://bit.ly/Iqbt0y">Penn and Teller don't usually do pranks, but when it comes to tricking Nobel prize laureate, Arno Penzias, they apparently make exceptions.</a> Creating a fake computer with voice recognition in the late 1980s fooled this brilliant physicist, but nowadays Apple's Siri is in TV ads all the time doing nearly the same routine. [<a href="http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/labscam.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1574" href="http://bit.ly/IvyNPo">Baron Wolfgang von Kempelen built a mechanical chess-playing machine (shaped like a Turk...) that gained widespread fame in 1769.</a> This mechanical turk was actually controlled by a hidden human being, but only a few hundred years later, we actually could build a chess playing robot with grandmaster skills. [<a href="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1574">url</a>]</li>


<li><b>To discover more interesting AI-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29" href="http://bit.ly/h0iGmR">check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:29">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/1005249107/dailydirt-fooling-some-people-some-time.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100420/1005249107</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:38:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Apple Because Siri Doesn't Always Work Right</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04261818086/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-apple-because-siri-doesnt-always-work-right.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04261818086/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-apple-because-siri-doesnt-always-work-right.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Technology doesn't always work quite as well as the advertisements claim.  But is that any reason to sue?  Apparently, yes.  Some guy is trying to kick off <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20120312/siri-find-me-a-class-action-attorney-in-new-york/?mod=tweet" target="_blank">a class action lawsuit against Apple</a> because Siri doesn't work quite as well as it does in the TV ads.  I imagine this lawsuit is going nowhere fast.  Perhaps next time the guy should try asking Siri for legal advice...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04261818086/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-apple-because-siri-doesnt-always-work-right.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04261818086/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-apple-because-siri-doesnt-always-work-right.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120313/04261818086/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-apple-because-siri-doesnt-always-work-right.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>siri,-why-do-people-mock-lawyers?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120313/04261818086</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did Apple Spill The Beans On Its New Voice Assistant Product 24 Years Ago?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/16133016201/did-apple-accidentally-spill-beans-its-new-voice-assistant-product-24-years-ago.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/16133016201/did-apple-accidentally-spill-beans-its-new-voice-assistant-product-24-years-ago.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This one is just amusing -- so please don't try to pull any sort of "serious" statement out of it.  Apple announced its <a href="http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/10/04/apple-announces-voice-activated-siri-assistant-feature-for-ios-5/" target="_blank">voice activated Siri assistant feature</a>, which is a bit more advanced than similar attempts at this kind of thing:
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L4D4kRbEdJw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
It's definitely a step closer to the science fiction of our past and things like the "Computer" on Star Trek (though, perhaps many steps away from it being that useful).  So, the idea itself isn't that impressive.  People have been talking about this kind of holy grail for years.  The question was just always when would the technology be good enough to make it work.  And, amusingly, it looks like Apple may have predicted the timing much more accurately than anyone could have guessed.
<br /><br />
Back in 1987, Apple put out this video showing a future with a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">tablet-based virtual assistant</a> called the Knowledge Navigator:
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3WdS4TscWH8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
But where is the prediction of the timing in there?  Well, I'll let Andy Baio, who figured this all out, <a href="http://waxy.org/2011/10/apples_1987_knowledge_navigator_only_one_month_late/" target="_blank">handle the explanation</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Based on the dates mentioned in the Knowledge Navigator video, it takes place on September 16, 2011. The date on the professor's calendar is September 16, and he's looking for a 2006 paper written "about five years ago," setting the year as 2011.
<br /><br />
And this morning, at the iPhone keynote, Apple announced Siri, a natural language-based voice assistant, would be built into iOS 5 and a core part of the new iPhone 4S.
<br /><br />
So, 24 years ago, Apple predicted a complex natural-language voice assistant built into a touchscreen Apple device, and <b>was less than a month off.</b>
</i></blockquote>
Nicely done, Apple of the past.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/16133016201/did-apple-accidentally-spill-beans-its-new-voice-assistant-product-24-years-ago.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/16133016201/did-apple-accidentally-spill-beans-its-new-voice-assistant-product-24-years-ago.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/16133016201/did-apple-accidentally-spill-beans-its-new-voice-assistant-product-24-years-ago.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-really,-but...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111004/16133016201</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>