5 ms·

I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the evidence is overw

I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. I think the real meat of the argument is "iPhone synthesized all those individual pieces into something coherent and incredible.". It's kind of like how the Macintosh and Lisa took the ideas from PARC, perfected them, and turned them into a real product. I think the stink is being made that Android is copying that aspect of the iPhone, instead of just a piece or two. Maybe that's not what's actually being argued, but that's what I think should be argued at least.

horv 15y ago
"I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary." Isn't that what the current legal battle over slide to unlock is over? I'll be the first to agree that the iPhone put all the pieces together, but it seems like every other week there's a new lawsuit over some iPhone or Android feature that is more of a common sense thing and probably shouldn't have been granted a patent.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  The battle over slide-to-unlock is particularly ludicrous because neither Apple nor Android invented it. To the best of my knowledge that honor (in the context of a smartphone) belongs to Neonode with their N1m (though I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out someone had anticipated them, as well).
angersock 15y ago
I mean, do we really want to support synthesis of other people's work as something that can be protected legally? Especially when most development nowadays is clicking cogs together anyways? This doesn't seem like a meme we should seek to perpetuate.
- 0x44 15y ago
  If the resulting synthesis is something new, why wouldn't we want to protect it legally? To make a literary analogy, any book written in an established genre necessarily synthesizes work that went before it… are these new works less worthy of legal protection because the ideas and tropes (and in the case of works synthesized from the Commons characters, setting, etc.) are things we've already seen? In the technology fields, it is common to base new innovation on that which came before. So long as the prior art is referenced in the claim for protection, aren't the useful arts strengthened by legal protection in exchange for continued disclosure of innovation, even in the case of innovations synthesized of prior development?
  - JoelSutherland 15y ago
    The book written establishes a copyright, not a patent. Bringing this back to technology with an example: Palm synthesized the smart phone and color LCD screen in ~2004. I'm pretty glad all smartphones have color screens today.
    - 0x44 15y ago
      I did say I was making an analogy, not establishing a direct link between patents and copyright. Patents protect a specific method of implementing an idea, so Palm synthesizing a smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by a stylus) does not prevent Apple from protecting the synthesis of smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by fingertips). If there was no innovation in bringing multi-touch to smart phones, why wasn't everyone doing it in 2007 when the iPhone was first released?
      - pyre 15y ago
        > If there was no innovation in bringing multi-touch to > smart phones, why wasn't everyone doing it in 2007 when > the iPhone was first released? For starters, because Apple bought the company that invented multi-touch, therefore controlled the rights to the technology.
kprobst 15y ago
But then you can also say that everything is a remix and a synthesis of prior innovation, and if that's the case then Apple's position is still indefensible. We all stand in the shoulders of someone else.
stonemetal 15y ago
Apple did when they got patents on them.
vibrunazo 15y ago
I think it's a bit "pushing it" by saying the iPhone was a "big" technological revolution for having synthesized a few technologies together. Deep down, every invention is to some level, an evolution over existing inventions. As many great inventors said throughout history "I can only see this far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants". But sometimes, to better see the whole picture, we need to take a step back from the drawing board. We, as engineers, like to think that every great revolution in consumer behavior is due to a technological invention fundamental to the shift. But if you pay attention you'll notice that Apple's biggest innovation wasn't technological. The area they excel the most is marketing. They built a coherent experience from the device interface design, to the propaganda on TV ads that was powerful enough to convince consumers to buy their products. Steve Jobs was a genius. But if you believe he was a genius engineer who you should try to mimic, then you'll end up making poor technical decisions. He was a genius marketer who excelled at convincing consumers his products are worth it. That's what we should take from all this. That's we should learn from Apple's growth. Marketing matters.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Decent products matter.
- gnaffle 15y ago
  While he was a genius at marketing, that's not the main lesson to take from Apple. The main lesson is that it's possible to focus on a few products and make them work really well. I don't think all the marketing genius in the world would have made the MacBooks and iPhones a success if they had been running Windows Vista or Windows Mobile 6 when they were released.

horv 15y ago

"I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary." Isn't that what the current legal battle over slide to unlock is over? I'll be the first to agree that the iPhone put all the pieces together, but it seems like every other week there's a new lawsuit over some iPhone or Android feature that is more of a common sense thing and probably shouldn't have been granted a patent.

fpgeek 15y ago
The battle over slide-to-unlock is particularly ludicrous because neither Apple nor Android invented it. To the best of my knowledge that honor (in the context of a smartphone) belongs to Neonode with their N1m (though I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out someone had anticipated them, as well).

angersock 15y ago

I mean, do we really want to support synthesis of other people's work as something that can be protected legally? Especially when most development nowadays is clicking cogs together anyways? This doesn't seem like a meme we should seek to perpetuate.

0x44 15y ago
If the resulting synthesis is something new, why wouldn't we want to protect it legally? To make a literary analogy, any book written in an established genre necessarily synthesizes work that went before it… are these new works less worthy of legal protection because the ideas and tropes (and in the case of works synthesized from the Commons characters, setting, etc.) are things we've already seen? In the technology fields, it is common to base new innovation on that which came before. So long as the prior art is referenced in the claim for protection, aren't the useful arts strengthened by legal protection in exchange for continued disclosure of innovation, even in the case of innovations synthesized of prior development?
- JoelSutherland 15y ago
  The book written establishes a copyright, not a patent. Bringing this back to technology with an example: Palm synthesized the smart phone and color LCD screen in ~2004. I'm pretty glad all smartphones have color screens today.
  - 0x44 15y ago
    I did say I was making an analogy, not establishing a direct link between patents and copyright. Patents protect a specific method of implementing an idea, so Palm synthesizing a smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by a stylus) does not prevent Apple from protecting the synthesis of smart phone with a color LCD (controlled by fingertips). If there was no innovation in bringing multi-touch to smart phones, why wasn't everyone doing it in 2007 when the iPhone was first released?
    - pyre 15y ago
      > If there was no innovation in bringing multi-touch to > smart phones, why wasn't everyone doing it in 2007 when > the iPhone was first released? For starters, because Apple bought the company that invented multi-touch, therefore controlled the rights to the technology.

kprobst 15y ago

But then you can also say that everything is a remix and a synthesis of prior innovation, and if that's the case then Apple's position is still indefensible. We all stand in the shoulders of someone else.

stonemetal 15y ago

Apple did when they got patents on them.

vibrunazo 15y ago

I think it's a bit "pushing it" by saying the iPhone was a "big" technological revolution for having synthesized a few technologies together. Deep down, every invention is to some level, an evolution over existing inventions. As many great inventors said throughout history "I can only see this far because I'm standing in the shoulder of giants". But sometimes, to better see the whole picture, we need to take a step back from the drawing board. We, as engineers, like to think that every great revolution in consumer behavior is due to a technological invention fundamental to the shift. But if you pay attention you'll notice that Apple's biggest innovation wasn't technological. The area they excel the most is marketing. They built a coherent experience from the device interface design, to the propaganda on TV ads that was powerful enough to convince consumers to buy their products. Steve Jobs was a genius. But if you believe he was a genius engineer who you should try to mimic, then you'll end up making poor technical decisions. He was a genius marketer who excelled at convincing consumers his products are worth it. That's what we should take from all this. That's we should learn from Apple's growth. Marketing matters.

ricardobeat 15y ago
Decent products matter.
gnaffle 15y ago
While he was a genius at marketing, that's not the main lesson to take from Apple. The main lesson is that it's possible to focus on a few products and make them work really well. I don't think all the marketing genius in the world would have made the MacBooks and iPhones a success if they had been running Windows Vista or Windows Mobile 6 when they were released.