11 ms·

Miguel de Icaza on Samsung v Apple

53 points by esolyt 14y ago

mrich 14y ago
A sane voice. Trademark/copyright is enough to protect your product, only in rare cases should a patent be awarded for an algorithm (think RSA).
- josephlord 14y ago
  RSA is more clearly maths (which should be unpatentable) than a UI patent like the scroll bounce which is defined by an imperative if this then do that process and directly affects the world state (by causing light to be projected into it). I think for software patents do more harm than good but it is incredibly hard and dangerous to try to carve out special rules to keep the few good ones (even if we could agree on which those are).
- darkestkhan 14y ago
  There shouldn't be any patents for algorithms - algorithms are math, and math is not patentable.
  - radarsat1 14y ago
    Mechanical diagrams are also math.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Algorithms and mechanical diagrams are both math in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem and a picture of some triangles are both math.
  - eckyptang 14y ago
    Math is all prior art!
cageface 14y ago
Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble. Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.
magicalist 14y ago
> Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"? And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple? > I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough. > It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible. Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302 People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach). The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction. > I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing. People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better. Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul... Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time... Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here without the utility patents. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.
- Someone 14y ago
  "Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?" Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them. I think they have a good point on the copying part; IMO, it was more than 'being inspired by the iPad'. Only time will tell whether the former is true. And yes, I agree that it would be better if patents on how things look and feel would not have played a role in this case.
Newky 14y ago
This is slightly off topic, but I don't really understand Miguel de Icaza. He is a "free software programmer" according to Wikipedia, and I really value his contributions to both the GNOME and MONO projects. I am not trying to in anyway put down his acheivements but his comments on social media (G+ and twitter) are often about ordering truckloads of Apple products. Was there a falling out with the Gnome project or why is he such an avid supporter of the Apple brand? Perhaps its just a case that he has moved on from his free software roots. I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to sell software but I am curious what has caused this shift in philosophy or perhaps his involvement with the free and open source software was simply about producing code rather than the free principles behind it.
- gcp 14y ago
  People can contribute to Free Software without holding mindsets that are so extreme in one end as those of rms. Perhaps de Icaza has just gradually shifted his views to the other end.
  - Newky 14y ago
    I completely agree, I have just read that Icaza was awarded the "Advancement of Open Source Software" a while back. I'm just curious as someone who has made such commitments to the open source and also to the Linux eco system, can use another platform so enthusiastically.
    - i386 14y ago
      Since when does becoming an advocate for open source make that advocacy exclusive?
      - Newky 14y ago
        Thats not what I'm saying nor am I criticizing him for it. From prior experience, when I make something I can use on a daily basis, I would find it hard to use something different. Also being an advocate for open source software would make it more difficult to transfer to being a closed source software user. I'm not saying its not possible or wrong, I just feel his case is a curious one. He is effectively a self proclaimed Apple fanboy on Twitter etc, and I would like to know more about the circumstances.
notatoad 14y ago
Didn't apple recently win a sales injunction against google over the galaxy nexus, because it included a search box on the homescreen that dared to search multiple sources of content at the same time? That seems to disprove Miguel's point that if you don't blatantly rip off apple, you have nothing to fear.

53 points by esolyt 14y ago

mrich 14y ago

A sane voice. Trademark/copyright is enough to protect your product, only in rare cases should a patent be awarded for an algorithm (think RSA).

josephlord 14y ago
RSA is more clearly maths (which should be unpatentable) than a UI patent like the scroll bounce which is defined by an imperative if this then do that process and directly affects the world state (by causing light to be projected into it). I think for software patents do more harm than good but it is incredibly hard and dangerous to try to carve out special rules to keep the few good ones (even if we could agree on which those are).
darkestkhan 14y ago
There shouldn't be any patents for algorithms - algorithms are math, and math is not patentable.
- radarsat1 14y ago
  Mechanical diagrams are also math.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Algorithms and mechanical diagrams are both math in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem and a picture of some triangles are both math.
- eckyptang 14y ago
  Math is all prior art!

cageface 14y ago

Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble. Not yet. You're naive if you think Apple is done going after Android.

magicalist 14y ago

> Despite all the outrage around patents being bad, at the end of the day, what is clear is that Android products that did not set out themselves to copy everything Apple had did not find themselves in trouble Is that clear, or is he just being cute? Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"? And if legal trouble is the only criteria we need here, what does Apple's settlement with Nokia mean about Apple? > I would love an Android with bouncy scrolling Well that just about sums up how stupid the situation is. Sorry, bouncy scrolling. Apple has a 20 year monopoly on you. Nevermind how you're implemented! We don't need pesky implementation details, just knowing that you're a rubber-banding scrolling view on a computing device with touch sensitive display is enough. > It is clearly possible to create fresh new OS that does not copy the iPhone. Windows Phone, the Palm Pre and Blackberry's new OS show that it is possible. Saurik summed this up perfectly earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4430302 People who say this haven't actually tried these phones or they're practicing some powerful cognitive dissonance (or they're fans of the "they're copycats, so I'm just happy they lost" legal approach). The utility patents that Samsung lost on today weren't magical iphone-making ones, they were things like pinch to zoom. Those other phones "copy" these things too, they just happen to have patent licensing for historical reasoning, or a reasonable threat of serious mutual destruction. > I agree that many software patents set the bar too low, and I think we should work towards making that bar useful, instead of outright dismissing the whole thing. People really don't seem to remember that software patents did not exist not too long ago. They are a legal fiction of only the last decade or two, and the sooner the supreme court takes them back on and shuts them down, the better. Ars has a good take on it, when the EFF started their campaign for at least reforming the software patent system: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-should-call-for-the-elimination-of-software-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/opinion-eff-shoul... Bilski was our last chance, but they ruled narrowly. Hopefully next time... Edit: Incidentally, Apple had plenty of protections here without the utility patents. There could be no such thing as software patents and Samsung would still have been handed a very large bill for their products. Bullshit patents are not necessary for trademark, trade dress, and copyright protection.

Someone 14y ago
"Are there any android products that aren't currently "in trouble"?" Apple's message is that it only pursued Samsung because they so blatantly copied them. I think they have a good point on the copying part; IMO, it was more than 'being inspired by the iPad'. Only time will tell whether the former is true. And yes, I agree that it would be better if patents on how things look and feel would not have played a role in this case.

Newky 14y ago

This is slightly off topic, but I don't really understand Miguel de Icaza. He is a "free software programmer" according to Wikipedia, and I really value his contributions to both the GNOME and MONO projects. I am not trying to in anyway put down his acheivements but his comments on social media (G+ and twitter) are often about ordering truckloads of Apple products. Was there a falling out with the Gnome project or why is he such an avid supporter of the Apple brand? Perhaps its just a case that he has moved on from his free software roots. I appreciate that his company xamarin are working solidly on Mono which is open source, but a number of their products are not open source such as Mono Touch and Mono for Android. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to sell software but I am curious what has caused this shift in philosophy or perhaps his involvement with the free and open source software was simply about producing code rather than the free principles behind it.

gcp 14y ago
People can contribute to Free Software without holding mindsets that are so extreme in one end as those of rms. Perhaps de Icaza has just gradually shifted his views to the other end.
- Newky 14y ago
  I completely agree, I have just read that Icaza was awarded the "Advancement of Open Source Software" a while back. I'm just curious as someone who has made such commitments to the open source and also to the Linux eco system, can use another platform so enthusiastically.
  - i386 14y ago
    Since when does becoming an advocate for open source make that advocacy exclusive?
    - Newky 14y ago
      Thats not what I'm saying nor am I criticizing him for it. From prior experience, when I make something I can use on a daily basis, I would find it hard to use something different. Also being an advocate for open source software would make it more difficult to transfer to being a closed source software user. I'm not saying its not possible or wrong, I just feel his case is a curious one. He is effectively a self proclaimed Apple fanboy on Twitter etc, and I would like to know more about the circumstances.

notatoad 14y ago

Didn't apple recently win a sales injunction against google over the galaxy nexus, because it included a search box on the homescreen that dared to search multiple sources of content at the same time? That seems to disprove Miguel's point that if you don't blatantly rip off apple, you have nothing to fear.