【每日阅读训练第四期——速度越障6系列】【6-19】经管

Rena张

~ Have a good weekend ~

【speed】

How silkmoths could defeat terrorism and drug smuggling



【time 1】
Forget surveillance cameras – what if our world were filled with always-on electronic noses tuned to detect all manner of contraband at minute concentrations? Drugs, explosives, air pollution, all of them could be monitored continuously, creating a "smell portrait" of the entire planet, and making it virtually impossible to conceal the trace odour of many legal and illegal substances.

That's the vision of scientists who work on electronic noses, and now, thanks to the silkmoth, the world's most sensitive electronic nose for explosives was recently demonstrated in the lab. One thousand times more sensitive than comparable devices, it consists of a tiny, vibrating cantilever coated in a forest of titanium dioxide nanotubes that were inspired by similar structures on the antennae of silkmoths.

Male silkmoths can detect females at distances of 5-10 kilometres (3-6 miles), and can register as few as one or two molecules of their pheromone scent. Five years ago, Denis Spitzer of the defence-focused Institut Franco-Allemand de Recherches de Saint-Louis heard about the super-sensitive feats of the silkmoth and wondered whether this could be reproduced by a machine.

One of the keys to the moth's performance is that its antennae are covered with a carpet of tiny sensilla, or microscopic fibres. These sensilla give the moth's detection apparatus much greater surface area than they would otherwise have, which is important for detecting very small concentrations of volatile compounds. These sensilla inspired Spitzer to upgrade an existing solution to "smelling" compounds with silicon.

Cantilevers – which, under high magnification, look like tiny diving boards – are a tried and true method for detecting target substances in air. Coated with a substance to which target molecules will attach themselves selectively, driven by a piezoelectric actuator, these tiny silicon rectangles vibrate at a high frequency, and when a molecule of the target substance sticks to them, the frequency of their vibration changes.
【309 words】

【time 2】
By covering a typical cantilever with titanium dioxide nanotubes, Spitzer and his team were able to increase its surface area 100-fold, and multiply its sensitivity by a factor of 1,000.

"For me, this is bioinspiration, not biomimicry," says Spitzer. The moth detects molecules through a "lock and key" system in which individual molecules are caught by smell sensor receptors, which then activate neurons connected to the animal's brain. Spitzer's system works by a very different mechanism, but this insight from the physical structure of the moth's antennae proved to be a crucial one.

Currently, this electronic nose can detect traces of TNT and related compounds as low as parts per million or less, because the titanium dioxide coating likes to bond with molecules of these explosives. Spitzer estimates it will be 2-4 years before this system will make it into the real world, but he already has plans to test it outside the lab. Future research efforts will be aimed at making the device even more sensitive, as well as making it selective for a host of other compounds, including drugs and pollutants.

Ultimately, notes Spitzer, this sensor's real competition will be the drug and bomb-sniffing dogs employed by law enforcement the world over. Presently, no electronic system is more sensitive than a well-trained sniffer dog, but Spitzer thinks that he can create something that will be as sensitive as these animals, while overcoming their one shortfall: after an hour, a dog's nose becomes saturated with the target substance, making them less useful.

"This kind of detector can work continuously," says Spitzer. "The principle is that it's reusable. You just heat the system and the TNT goes away."
Ultra-sensitive, continuously operating, and as cheap to mass-produce as current silicon microchips, that's the sort of device that will transform the surveillance state into one which can see, hear – and smell.
【309 words】


Apple v Samsung
iPhone, uCopy, iSue
Not every innovation deserves a patent. Not every copycat deserves a punishment



【time 3】
WHEN Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he changed an industry. Apple’s brilliant new device was a huge advance on the mobile phones that had gone before: it looked different and it worked better. The iPhone represented innovation at its finest, making it the top-selling smartphone soon after it came out and helping to turn Apple into the world’s most valuable company, with a market capitalisation that now exceeds $630 billion.

Apple’s achievement spawned a raft of imitators. Many smartphone manufacturers now boast touch-screens and colourful icons. Among them is Samsung, the world’s biggest technology manufacturer, whose gadgets are the iPhone’s nearest rivals and closest lookalikes. The competition and the similarities were close enough for Apple to sue Samsung for patent infringement in several countries, spurring the South Korean firm to counterclaim that it had been ripped off by Apple as well. On August 24th an American jury found that Samsung had infringed six patents and ordered it to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages, one of the steepest awards yet seen in a patent case.

Some see thinly disguised protectionism in this decision. That does the jury a disservice: its members seem to have stuck to the job of working out whether patent infringements had occurred. The much bigger questions raised by this case are whether all Apple’s innovations should have been granted a patent in the first place; and the degree to which technology stalwarts and start-ups alike should be able to base their designs on the breakthroughs of others.
【255 words】

【time 4】
It is useful to recall why patents exist. The system was established as a trade-off that provides a public benefit: the state agrees to grant a limited monopoly to an inventor in return for disclosing how the technology works. To qualify, an innovation must be novel, useful and non-obvious, which earns the inventor 20 years of exclusivity. “Design patents”, which cover appearances and are granted after a simpler review process, are valid for 14 years.

The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue are features like the ability to zoom into an image with a double finger tap, pinching gestures, and the visual “rubber band” effect when you scroll to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure, some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone’s arrival, but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of “novel” and “non-obvious” to breaking-point.

A proliferation of patents harms the public in three ways. First, it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second, it hampers follow-on improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon it as well. Third, it fuels many of the American patent system’s broader problems, such as patent trolls (speculative lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything); defensive patenting (acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt the risk of litigation, which raises business costs); and “innovation gridlock” (the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players).
【305 words】

【time 5】
Some basic reforms would alleviate many of the problems exemplified by the iPhone lawsuit. The existing criteria for a patent should be applied with greater vigour. Specialised courts for patent disputes should be established, with technically minded judges in charge: the inflated patent-damage awards of recent years are largely the result of jury trials. And if patents are infringed, judges should favour monetary penalties over injunctions that ban the sale of offending products and thereby reduce consumer choice.

Pinch and bloom
A world of fewer but more robust patents, combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes, would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen, a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious patent? Apple’s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw, notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Centre. “It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you’re doing,” said Jobs in a television documentary, “Triumph of the Nerds”, in 1996. “And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
【222 words】



【obstacle】

Apple versus Samsung
Copy that



AFTER a jury in a federal court in California ruled on August 24th that Samsung had violated some of Apple’s patents, one wag online began referring to the South Korean company as “Samesung”. But for Samsung, the verdict is no laughing matter. As well as vindicating Apple, the jury awarded it $1 billion in damages—an amount that could be tripled because Samsung is deemed to have “willfully” copied some aspects of Apple’s wildly popular iPhone and its iPad tablet computer.

The outcome of the case will have significant repercussions in the tech world. For a start, it will encourage Apple to lob even more lawsuits at firms it believes are ripping off its intellectual property. It will also encourage other companies that make smartphones and tablets either to license patents from Apple or to modify the design of products to minimise the risk they will be hit with lawsuits too. And the whopping size of the damages will intensify the debate over whether or not America’s system for protecting innovations needs revamping.

Samsung has already made clear that it intends to appeal against the ruling, a process that could take months or, more likely, years. But legal experts think the chances of getting it overturned are slim. The jury concluded that the company had violated a number of Apple’s patents covering things such as a “rubber-banding” feature in its firm's operating system, which makes lists jump back when pulled beyond their limit, and a “pinch-and-zoom” feature which is now found in a wide range of mobile devices. It also upheld Apple’s claim that Samsung had infringed on its design patents by copying aspects of the iPhone's design, such as the system used to display icons.

At the same time, the jurors tossed out Samsung’s charge that Apple owed it money for violating several of its patents, including one that allows a user to listen to music in the background while carrying out another task on a device. On the same day that the American ruling came out, a court in South Korea that had been hearing a similar case between the two firms concluded that both were guilty of violating patents and banned some of their devices from being sold in the country. But because America is the world’s largest market for consumer electronics, the Californian ruling will have a far bigger impact.

The fight between the two companies had been brewing for some time and was a litmus test for Apple’s determination to thwart the progress of Android, a rival mobile operating system championed by Google and embraced by Samsung and a host of other mobile-device makers. (Gartner, a research firm, says that more than two-thirds of the smartphones shipped in the second quarter of 2012 were powered by Android.) Before his death last year, Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs, told his biographer Walter Isaacson that he believed Android had stolen important features from Apple’s iOS operating system and said he would wage “thermonuclear war” on it.

His successor, Tim Cook, who celebrated his first year at the helm of Apple on the same day that the court ruling came out, isn’t about to declare a truce. During the trial, the notoriously secretive American firm revealed details about its design process and put on the stand a couple of its most senior executives. It also crowed about the verdict. In a statement the firm thanked the jury for sending “a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right” and said that the evidence presented in court “showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper” than even Apple had suspected.

Samsung, unsurprisingly, had a different view of the outcome, describing the ruling as “a win for Apple, and a loss for the American consumer”. “It is unfortunate,” it added, “that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies.” The South Korean firm did, however, have a couple of consolation prizes: the jury found that its Galaxy Tab tablet computer had not copied the iPad’s design, as Apple claimed, and it refused to grant Apple the full $2.5 billion in damages it had asked for.

Robert Scoble, a tech pundit, has even argued that the outcome of the case could be seen as a victory for Samsung on the ground that the penalty is a small price to pay for copying stuff that has helped the firm become a powerhouse in mobile devices. But other experts have pointed out that Apple has a huge stash of patents that it is now likely to defend more aggressively. And it is bound to step up its efforts to have offending Android devices banned from sale. The firm has already asked for a preliminary injunction against Samsung to stop it selling the products that infringe on Apple’s patents in America. A hearing is set for September 20th.

As a result of all this, makers of Android devices will either have to fork out money to license Apple’s technology, which will push up the price of their gadgets, or alter the design of their products sufficiently to shield them from legal challenges. That could slow the roll-out of new devices in the short term. But it could also spark a new round of innovation in the long run, as firms in the Android ecosystem seek to differentiate their offerings to protect them from more legal strikes by Apple.

The case will also stir up further debate about the way America’s patent system operates. Its fans are already hailing the California ruling as proof that the patent system protects inventors and that its benefits outweigh the costs. But critics will seize on the ruling as evidence that the litigation frenzy and a proliferation of software patents are having a chilling effect on innovation, leaving society worse off. If Samsung pursues its appeal all the way through the America's legal system, the Supreme Court may end up having to decide which camp is right.

【1007 words】

miffyhui

1’27” the silkmoth is used to detect the contraband or othercrimes. How the silkmoth achieve it? The silkmoth’ antenna has microscopicfibres.
1’36” This system’s mechanism is different. And The detectoris cheaper and reusable.
1’07” The Apple’ iphone is advance in the mobiledevelopment. Sequentially, the Samsung’s mobile  are similar with Apple’. Jury has judged that Samsunginfringed the Apple’s six patent. Whether the Apple should get the patent inthe first place, or whether the verdict is impartial?
1’42” Why we should a patent granting to the inventor? Nowthe patent harm the public in three aspect: 1.more competition in court ratherthan in market; 2.limit the inventor innovate in the available technology;3.patent system’s problems
1’07” propose a basic reform of our patent.
5’18”  The patentbattle between Samsung and Apple.
The court in America judged that Samsung infringed the Apple’spatent, either in the operating system or in the design patent. The judgearouses a widely public concern. Critic thinks that Patent law hinders theinnovation and makes the society worse off and intensifies the debate ofwhether revamps the patent law.
The Samsung Company thinks that this verdict is the victoryfor Apple but loss for American consumer. Samsung Company will appeal for it, butexperts think that the opportunity of success is slim.
The Apple Company thinks that the Android system imitatesthe apple’s iOS system. As a result, the makers of Android system should paymuch money to license Apple’s technology

NionaNi

好物

我心匪席

占位~
2’17

Male silkmoth can detect female silkmoth at very close distance. Such sensitivity can be reproduced as a electronic nose for explosives.

2’27

Scientists can use titanium dioxide to make electronic nose more sensitive. Currently this nose can detect TNT in lab, and applying it in the real world needs further researches.

1’50

iPhone is the breakthrough in the world smartphone. Samsung, as a great imitator, begins to producing mobile phones with touch screen and colorful icons. Apple now sue Samsung for patent infringement. The most problem is that whether the patents Apple applied should be granted.

2’18

Patent is a 20 years of exclusivity of protecting design or appearance inventor. The dispute between these two companies is on the device’s look and feel.

2’00

The key point to settle down the lawsuit should weighs more on monetary penalties over injunctions.

7’24

Apple and Samsung have a debate on patent infringement.

Such lawsuit has a significant impact on tech world. For Apple will sue more companies who it thought infringe patents, therefore, inspiring more innovations.

Samsung and Apple appeal to courts separately in their own countries, and try to ban products from selling in the country. It seems that Apple will benefit more, since America is the largest marketing for electronic devices.

This fight is always between Android and iOS. The former one is developed by Google, and covers the two thirds of mobile phones. And Apple believes it steal iOS’s core technology.

In this lawsuit, Samsung lose and had to pay for $2.5 billion Apple asked. This can push more producers with Android get around the patents from Apple.
This case will stir America’s patent system to review its motivation on patenting tech-design, whether it will kill innovation or protect it.

感谢楼主~

莽莽要上7

1‘27
1’45
1‘28
1’58
1‘22

Obstacle：
7’51

There comes a lawsuit between Apple and Samsung because Samsung seems to be an Apple patents' copycat (I just learned this word from Speed part). As a result, Samsung has to pay the penalties.
This lawsuit has a huge response in high-tech industry. On one hand,  it warns the makers of smartphone to aware the patents of their intellectual property. On the another hand, it may makes Apple become more aggressive. Apple has the advantages of the ruling because it has bigger market in the United States compared with Samsung. At Samsung's point of view, it shows that consumers will suffer because of apple's monopoly. At the end, this article provides some comments of other people concerning the results of this lawsuit. Besides, the patent system in US XXX i forgot..should be regulated? I cant remember the details...

Thanks for posting!!^^

kathy0911

2:29
2:18
1:56
4:21（最后2个太精彩了，忘记换计时器。。。）


6:30

bank11

1. 1'49
2. 1'32
3. 1'19
4. 1'44
5. 1'17
越障：5'08
MI: Apple and Sumsung was on a fight with patent and the author believe that although Apple won the fight, the outcome has bad influence.
1. Apple sue Sumsung for using Apple's patents. feeling of the screen, home icons ect.
2. Although Sumsung pay Apple money, Sumsung has a different view of the outcome. they say that it is a bad news for American people, because Apple is taking its way to monoply.
3. some viewer even say that the outcome is a sccess of Sumsung.
4. the outcome inspire people's discussion about American's patent legal system.

Rena张

好久木有看到bank jj啦~~~

sparklelynn

2'14''
2'21''
1'48''
2'19''
1'39''
速度与理解无法兼顾啊~~~

zcyljy

1'42
1'14
1'22
1'47
1'12

5'29