Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program code

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by dmoy on Sunday July 01, 2012 @10:57PM (#4187082)

Your assessment almost exactly mirrors what I thought when I saw this. Same book too, though that's not surprising I suppose since H&P is a good, common text.

To be fair to the original poster, the HN title is not "needlessly linkbaity". It is verbatim what the title of the patent is - "Method and apparatus for executing program code". Not terribly informative, but a hn link title is short as well. Can't fault the OP for copying the title.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by reitzensteinm on Sunday July 01, 2012 @11:14PM (#4187128)

I didn't mean to blame the OP for the title, I just meant it in the sense that it was vaguely misleading and was going to cause a predictable response, which it did - by the time I clicked reply, the article was at #1 and there were 8 responses (then it got flagged into oblivion for 30 minutes).

If it were a far more reasonable "Apple patent for instruction rewriting for vector operations on CPUs", would it have gotten the same response?

You're right that it's not the OP's fault for directly copying it, and probably wasn't intentional, but it's a situation that comes up again and again on HN for patent related posts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple patent: Method and apparatus for executing program ... by joe_the_user on Monday July 02, 2012 @04:45AM (#4187982)

So the problem is... predictable hn outrage at Apple patenting something that's obvious when what is happening is ... Apple patenting something obvious?

The problem is hn readers look at the title and think Apple has egregiously patented one obvious thing when really Apple has egregiously patented another slightly narrower but still obvious thing?

Basically, the title of patent makes it sound as bad as it is. This should ideally be a problem for Apple rather than us.

[ Parent | on HN ]