7 ms·

This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became o

This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. And I’m not at all convinced that it was such an obvious idea given the development of multitouch. I think it only seems obvious after the fact.

CamperBob2 8y ago
Sorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears. Or do people think Apple invented that, too? And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.
- nicky0 8y ago
  Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no hardware keyboard? It was widely predicted to be a failure.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense. It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.
    - sumedh 8y ago
      > It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. How exactly does this contribute to the discussion, To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the patent in question. It seems very important to the people in this thread to deflect from any discussion of the actual case. I wonder why that might be?
        sumedh 8y ago
        So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place?
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place? To bolster the argument of inevitability, as opposed to divine inspiration worthy of eternal reward (or at least 20 years). The iPhone depended on a single gating technology: touchscreens that didn't suck. Those appeared on the market a couple of years before the iPhone, but none of the major players took advantage of them. Apple did, and the rest is deterministic history. Yes, some people laughed at touchscreen UIs. Yes, they were wrong to do so. Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument. Exactly.
- sjwright 8y ago
  If you don't agree with the patent system, the only solution is to lobby to get the laws changed. Why should Apple voluntarily withdraw if all their competitors (e.g. Samsung, Google, Microsoft) sure as hell aren't going to?
bildung 8y ago
Multitouch and the accompanying interface was most probably developed by Synaptics, Apples touchscreen supplier: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-captured-on-video-051947/ https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c...
- sbuk 8y ago
  They bought a company called FingerWorks in 2005 - Synaptics had nothing to do with the iPhone.
exodust 8y ago
> This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. Krustyburger, it sounds like you're directly quoting Tim Cook. > I think it only seems obvious after the fact. It's easy to say that now, to claim that nobody would have thought of it. But of course we know the history of technology and innovation in a competitive marketplace sees many innovations and evolution in design. There is no doubt in my mind that Apple tried to cling to something which would have been absolutely "discovered" and developed very soon after. It was a land-grab for profit reasons, nothing to do with "diminishing efforts of talented people" that is such a cheesy line btw.

CamperBob2 8y ago

Sorry, but the idea is so obvious that the burden of proof lies with those who suggest that an iPhone-like device isn't inevitable once capacitive multitouch tech appears. Or do people think Apple invented that, too? And make no mistake, it's ideas, and not implementations, that are behind these ludicrous half-billion dollar patent judgments. Patents were not supposed to work that way, but they do.

nicky0 8y ago
Actually the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. If the idea was so obvious, why was it so widely ridiculed in the industry for having no hardware keyboard? It was widely predicted to be a failure.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  It was ridiculed only by people like Steve Ballmer who were either whistling past the graveyard or just plain dense. It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. To me, and to most other people I hung out with at the time, it was very obvious that physical keyboards on cell phones were not going to be A Thing for very much longer. Everything else that happened simply followed from that.
  - sumedh 8y ago
    > It wasn't ridiculed by myself, or by anyone I knew. How exactly does this contribute to the discussion, To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      To counter your point, my friends were blackberry fanatics, they just laughed when they saw the iphone without a physical keyboard and said this will never work. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the patent in question. It seems very important to the people in this thread to deflect from any discussion of the actual case. I wonder why that might be?
      - sumedh 8y ago
        So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place?
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        So if its not relevant why bring it up in the first place? To bolster the argument of inevitability, as opposed to divine inspiration worthy of eternal reward (or at least 20 years). The iPhone depended on a single gating technology: touchscreens that didn't suck. Those appeared on the market a couple of years before the iPhone, but none of the major players took advantage of them. Apple did, and the rest is deterministic history. Yes, some people laughed at touchscreen UIs. Yes, they were wrong to do so. Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Both of these facts are irrelevant to the underlying argument. Exactly.
sjwright 8y ago
If you don't agree with the patent system, the only solution is to lobby to get the laws changed. Why should Apple voluntarily withdraw if all their competitors (e.g. Samsung, Google, Microsoft) sure as hell aren't going to?

bildung 8y ago

Multitouch and the accompanying interface was most probably developed by Synaptics, Apples touchscreen supplier: https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-captured-on-video-051947/ https://www.slashgear.com/synaptics-onyx-concept-live-demo-c...

sbuk 8y ago
They bought a company called FingerWorks in 2005 - Synaptics had nothing to do with the iPhone.

exodust 8y ago

> This is such a blatant attempt to diminish the massive effort huge numbers of very talented people put in in order to make the iPhone a reality when it became one. Krustyburger, it sounds like you're directly quoting Tim Cook. > I think it only seems obvious after the fact. It's easy to say that now, to claim that nobody would have thought of it. But of course we know the history of technology and innovation in a competitive marketplace sees many innovations and evolution in design. There is no doubt in my mind that Apple tried to cling to something which would have been absolutely "discovered" and developed very soon after. It was a land-grab for profit reasons, nothing to do with "diminishing efforts of talented people" that is such a cheesy line btw.