I have the Boox Max, and it's expensive as shit compared to the smaller ereaders, but I use it more than enough to justify. You can't fit a textbook or coding book on a Kindle (probably the scribe you can now), but you can fit two pages comfortably with the 13.3 inch max.
Android is a huge value add, too. I can't take it for my phone, but for an ereader, it means I can use multiple library apps and scribd to borrow books to supplement my purchases from whatever platforms.
I might need some. Play that for long enough with the difficulty high enough and I'm wiped out.
They're also the only one with systematic mind/body training instead of just winging it.
It was always going to be a super max.
You don't have a path to get better by not paying him.
IMO Trader Joe's version is about 100x better.
I still haven't had them in ages, but they don't just taste like sugar soaked in chemicals.
I did read it, and no, it does not describe a complex process. It's an obscenely broad general idea. None of the elements are 1 % of the way to novel or nonobvious.
I think the key part of this patent is that the server provides the stream to all devices.
It is unconditionally impossible for a system that enables this to be owned to possibly be a functional system that can benefit society in any way. The entirety of the existence of computer software is a product of iteration of millions of actually new ideas, every single one of them more novel than this ridiculous horseshit.
Design patents and utility patents are not the same thing and have no connection to each other.
You already told me what the patent was. I saw it. No part of it resembles an invention in any way. It's vague enough that anything that sends content to a display will inherently violate it. Google argued it's not valid because it's not a fucking invention and has literally nothing in common with one. It's the exact same horseshit as "a shopping cart, but online" or "volume control multiple devices, but online". Almost no software can possibly justify a patent being awarded and this is an especially offensive example of it.
ARM designed a complex instruction set and explicit hardware implementations. That't not the same as owning trivial features.
"Rounded corners" is one small element of a design patent. Design patents are an entirely different, unrelated category not connected to utility patents at all and only protect against companies deliberately ripping off your entire package of branding choices. That's not the same as pretending you can own a very basic idea that thousands of people had before you did.
Utility patents for basic software features are fundamentally broken and massively detrimental to society. If the actually innovative algorithms over time had been patented and enforced, we probably wouldn't even have an OS yet, let alone the rich ecosystem modern software is, all built on the fact that you don't own basic features, only the code of your specific implementation of it.
Malcolm Gladwell does this thing where he starts with a kernel of truth and gets way too excited about it and goes way beyond what's actually there. I don't think it's malicious, and I don't hate him as a writer, but he's much better at making things engaging than making them correct. If you read him like those business books where leaders break down their core philosophies and you see what ideas you can take for yourself, they're not bad. He finds some interesting ideas to bring to light. But if you take them as an academic source, you're going to get in trouble.
The core concept that learning takes a substantial amount of work is solid. The premise that you can just do something for X hours (ignoring the number he chose because it's flashy) and be an expert isn't. The methodology used for violin training involves a very structured, mindful approach to practice where you're constantly making corrections and constantly working right past the limit of your ability in order to continually develop.
I absolutely do recommend Peak, and also Range by David Epstein, for contrasting views on different ways we learn and solve problems. They're not the simplistic pop-sci Gladwell does, but they're still pretty accessible and don't assume a lot of prior knowledge, and they both take more care to be based in evidence (though the nature of range means there's still anecdotes).
No, it's not unique or novel in any way.
That entire patent is technobabble that means "send content to a display". There is nothing about it that's in any way innovative or that it's even possible that they were one of the first 1000 people on the planet to think of.
The entire premise of allowing people to "invent" extremely obvious, extremely simply things is an obscenely broken system. Submitting a patent application for this shouldn't just get rejected. It should get you permanently barred from ever being able to submit or own a patent until the end of time.
Nothing you mentioned even vaguely resembles an invention.
Exactly. That's not an invention, and "using" your absurdly uninnovative idea that no intelligent person could possibly consider granting a patent for doesn't make you not a patent troll.
Yes that's shit.
But also on top of that 25 really means maybe 15, because they also don't require them to provide the bandwidth they advertise to you.