Apple to Third-Party iOS Developers: You Can Return Now

I got this from an OSNews submission on this. In a previous post on the subject, I lamented how Apple exercises near-total control over third-party developers' abilities to write applications, such as what programming language and tools they use.
Well folks, this just in from Apple itself: the requirements have been relaxed! Now, developers can use any tools and languages they want (as long as no other code is downloaded); in addition to this, Apple is being more transparent (or so it says, but we'll see about that) about its review process.
These are both huge pieces of good news for iOS developers who have been shut out of the process for reasons never fully made clear (until now). Hooray, and bravo Apple!

Read More

Programming is Creative

I was reading FSDaily (or something like that) a few days ago when I came across this submitted article.
The blog author posits in this article that the reason software shouldn't be patentable is because it is, at its core, a very large binary number. The author elaborates by saying that if one was to create a program that wrote a random series of binary digits to a file in an infinite loop and this program was repeated ad infinitum, eventually every program ever devised in the past, present, and future would be (re)created.
Upon reading this article at first, I was taken by the argument and by its simplicity. However, [this information is strictly private], I realized that this particular argument against software patents falls flat. This is because of the Infinite Monkey Theorem. (Wikipedia is an excellent resource with regard to this. For the readers who choose not to trouble themselves with clicking on another link, the Infinite Monkey Theorem states that if a monkey typed at a typewriter continuously for all of eternity, eventually the monkey would type out every work mankind has ever written. Traditionally, this is stated as "the monkey would eventually type out all the works of Shakespeare", and I will go with this statement for argument's sake.)
One could similarly posit that all the works of Shakespeare are merely very long strings of characters from a set of 27, and that they could similarly be taken at random. Yet this seems to make Shakespeare less of a genius.
Similarly, calling a computer program "just a number" demeans the work a programmer must put in to actually arrive at that "number".
Of course, this doesn't mean that software should be patentable. All this means is that programming is a creative work and programs aren't "just numbers" any more than books are just very long strings of letters, spaces, and punctuation; hence, the argument against software patents should not rest on calling software "just a number".

Read More