28 ms·

The Tim Cook memo: line by line

334 points by plinkplonk 14y ago

pclark 14y ago
I think it's bullshit that Apple did this for money.
- checker659 14y ago
  Why? Because Apple already has all the money it will ever need. Think again.
- onedev 14y ago
  You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.
  - danmaz74 14y ago
    They didn't it to get $1b from Samsung. They did it to stop anybody else to compete with the iPhone, and so be able to make even more money.
    - bulltale 14y ago
      Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.
      - danmaz74 14y ago
        Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them? By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.
        bulltale 14y ago
        I think that is at the core of this issue: Apple feels Samsung copied the iPhone experience, without any effort or even vision on Samsung's side on how to create this experience. Blind copying so to say. So Apple wants to sue them on look and feel, but they can't; what I remember from the Microsoft-Apple litigation about look and feel is that it turned out that look and feel is almost impossible to patent and defend. That is my explanation on why Apple is now suing over their obvious patents, because they cannot sue over look and feel.
  - DiabloD3 14y ago
    Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market). I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?
    - Apocryphon 14y ago
      That's the magic of investment! It may not be worth that much to you, personally, but the shareholders beg to differ.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      > the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market I'm sorry but you just flipped your own bozo bit.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?
      - mnl 14y ago
        Don't forget the cute minimalistic bitten apple and the fact that they are #1 in product placement.
      - DiabloD3 14y ago
        None of those are particularly interesting to me... not at double the product cost. Maybe I'm just in the minority and don't get it.
    - swah 14y ago
      I can see how Facebook could loose its value in a couple years, but Apple, no way. They can market and sell stuff with a great profit margin.
  - vesky 14y ago
    You're forgetting the impact this will have on it's stock, already reaching records highs since the decision was announced. So if you think it a "measly $1b" you're horribly mistaken. How about a "measly" tens of billions in overall stock growth over the next months?
taligent 14y ago
All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea. After all the idea of "how to let the user know they have reached the top of the scroll view" can be implemented many ways. Apples is one way. LG, Samsung and HTC all have different ways.
- checker659 14y ago
  You know, you're missing the whole point here. Patenting a Human Computer Interaction 'pattern' is absurd no matter how you put it. Enough said.
  - swombat 14y ago
    Patenting a single one is absurd. Protecting the hundreds of design decisions that go into making a product look and feel a certain way, against people who are willing to just basically make a copycat product that does everything the same way - that's not so absurd. I think Samsung lost not because of one specific patent, but because of the overwhelming number of points on which they copied Apple.
    - learc83 14y ago
      >Patenting a single one is absurd. Yet the individual patents are still there. If Apple decides to go after any company for implementing a single one they can still do so, and probably will.
      - pooriaazimi 14y ago
        Then make the stink when they do. Honestly, as an Apple "fan" who has no plan to switch from MacBook/OSX/iPhone/iPad, if they decide to just sue others for infringing one or to non-important patents I'll stop using their products and devote my time renouncing them. But that's not happening, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen. We all "know" that Samsung copied Apple in almost every thing. Home screen icons, packaging, UI elements, icons, USB charger, the "Mac mini" clone (which is almost identical to a Mac mini) they made recently, showing App Store icon and icons of iOS-only apps in their booth at a conference, audaciously cloning "Smart Cover", and hundreds of other little things. Their own lawyer failed to distinguish between a Tab and the iPad! They're suing over just these petty patents because they can't sue them over a hundred un-patentable ideas that make a product great and they (Apple) has spent billions of dollars of R&D on researching them. Every one of these was a "fuck you" to Apple. I'd do the same if I were Tim Cook or Jobs and would want to teach Samsung a lesson.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- checker659 14y ago
  Eat it.
  - andyzaharia 14y ago
    enjoy it
timkeller 14y ago
Phew. That's a little over-wrought. Surely Apple has a responsibility to defend its patents and innovations? We ("rabid Apple fan[s]") need a strong and successful Android to ensure some balance in this next generation of computing. We need a successful Android to keep Apple on their toes. Google has figured out how to innovate with Android. Ice-cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean feature a unique and notable user interface. Samsung, on the other hand, designed 'TouchWhiz' to imitate parts of the iOS look-and-feel in order to mislead customers.
- checker659 14y ago
  None of the companies are saints. However, the software patent idea is so absurd it makes my blood boil with anger. But, of course, Apple has the rights (and responsibility) to defend it's patents no matter how baseless / crazy they are.
- fkdjs 14y ago
  "Pinch to zoom" is an innovation? Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans. I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.
    - fkdjs 14y ago
      Minority Report had the concept, but with two hands. Something new would be the notifications stolen from android. But in any case, it's a patent and companies are required to protect their innovation!
    - 14y ago
cageface 14y ago
I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.
- zakshay 14y ago
  Hindsight, I don't agree with a lot of things in that essay. Its mostly hard lined towards software development point of views.
- jyap 14y ago
  Wow, you're going to also take down your current iOS apps from the App Store as well?
  - cageface 14y ago
    I think so. I'm trying to decide what's best for my customers. Since I don't plan to update them anymore I think it's best if I stop selling them. However, I do want to make sure that I get at least one more update out there to take care of any issues that might arise from the iOS 6 transition so I'll probably wait until I'm sure there's nothing serious there.
- cageface 14y ago
  I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform. I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me.
  - justinh 14y ago
thomasf1 14y ago
It´s very clear that it´s been a personal mission by Steve Jobs who felt it´s wrong. I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new. On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed. Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it. For me the morale right or wrong is the following: make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value. copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others. Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.
- robin_reala 14y ago
  While lots of MacOS was taken from Xerox’s work it wasn't’t copied, it was licensed.
  - thomasf1 14y ago
    Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC. What´s your take on the morals of this?
    - cremnob 14y ago
      Uh in one case they've gotten permission and are paying to use it and in the other they're not? The morality is clear.
      - thomasf1 14y ago
delllapssuck 14y ago
This is a consumer. Do the opinions of consumers matter? All that matters to Apple is sales. Do they care what consumers say about them on the web? Silence the nonbelievers! Consumers do not need to understand patent law to make purchase decisions. But most consumers know what lawsuits are, especially ones that make a mockery of the justice system. It's possible many consumers really don't care if they're buying Apple or Samsung. If they did care, if they only wanted Apple products, then Apple wouldn't need to sue other manufacturers, would they?
arn 14y ago
But it wasn't (all) about the money. It was personal. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biography-im-going-to-destroy-android/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biograph... "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." With that in mind, the email reads far more genuine than the blog post implies.
- mappu 14y ago
  It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur. Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally, at what point does the state intervene?
  - Macha 14y ago
    Samsung also makes a hell of a lot more than phones. 1 in 30 people in Korea mig be employed by Samsung, but they're not all making phones, and they're not all going to be affected by this decision. Even if Samsung was forced to abandon mobile phones altogether, it's big enough to weather it out.
  - robbiep 14y ago
    Imagine an apple battle tank. Would it whale on a samsung tank? Or Drone? Or would Samsung need to down an apple drone then reverse engineer it before they had equality in the war?
    - gurkendoktor 14y ago
      The fact that Samsung does actually manufacture killer robots makes your posting a little sad. (I know that it's not the entertainment division, but I still don't understand why no one cares about that part of Samsung.) http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-machinegunning.php http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-machinegun...
timmyd 14y ago
Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would come into play and it wouldn't be patentable. Yet it is - and yet despite all of Samsungs insistences and millions (no doubt) spent on prior art research - nothing has been shown prior to the date of filing that anything existed. It's no different than Amazon's One-click. It would be interesting - if you invented something, you spent ten-of-thousands on patents, you spent huge amounts of capital in developing a product - you launch it to much positive press and then someone simply copies everything you have done. You're a small business - what do you do now ? According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage". The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system) The entire basis of patents was essentially trying to protect the little guy, with an idea against the onslaught of bigger companies just copying them outright and giving them no chance. You state "gone are the days of Steve Wozniak" and indeed "gone would be the days of apple" long ago - because he just wanted everyone to have everything and thats not how you run any business. I agree that patent law needs reform - but I totally disagree that your somewhat misconstrued article that we should simply destroy patents all together. It should destroy them if they are not being actively used - but a company trying to protect its innovations in not something that I'm against. If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for some abstract concept of "a greater good". America is a capitalist society and therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry. I know my post will get down-voted but it's a reality of business and running a business - you either file for protection or you don't and get copied.
djt 14y ago
I think Steve said it best himself: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfcf694a957fc9c5a8a24297e94ad.jpg http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc... Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now. PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website are dead links
- magicalist 14y ago
  If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead. Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.
gearoidoc 14y ago
I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and (Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like. I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's nipple :D
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  Unlikely that there's a difference. It wasn't Apple (or Steve Jobs Himself[tm]) that invented the capacitive touch screen and made it available in large quantities (ie. mainstream compatible). There were prototypes at many (probably all) mobile vendors exploring the capabilities unlocked by that technology. Apple "merely" was boldest - but then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered. Things might lag half a year or so due to this, but someone, somewhere would have kicked off the "touch revolution" in about the same time without Apple. Maybe even RIM or Nokia. Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, in about the same time (new market to enter, knowing the old style mobile HCI and touch, having prototypes for both) - and they seemed to prefer the old style for now. In a world without iPhone they probably would have waited for one of the big guys to introduce touch, and then followed quickly. Google wasn't as confident about pushing an unproven HCI onto users as Apple was.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    "but then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered." And that's the BS that Apple ignores and that it makes them go forward. They should consider how shipping crappy products impacts their brand (are you listening Motorola) There is a reason I don't even look at the prices for Motorola products anymore. "Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, ... and they seemed to prefer the old style for now." That's what happens when you only have engineers making decisions.
  - wklauss 14y ago
    Capacitive screens were already used by one terminal, I think an LG phone. But the iPhone put something different in the market: multitouch and gestures. Some things like slide to unlock or pinch to zoom seem trivial now but they weren't really product of the normal evolution of phone interfaces. Locking the screen was done with a hardware button because it was deemed safer, zoom was double tapping in the part of the image you wanted to magnify. Had the iPhone not been introduced I doubt small little details like these would have changed at all, and there are tons of these small subtleties in the current smartphone OSs.
EricDeb 14y ago
How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of 5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast for 14 or 20 year patents...
- danmaz74 14y ago
  It would alredy be much better. But it's never going to happen imho.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  Agreed, and another thing Make patents unsellable.
- lancewiggs 14y ago
  And how about compulsory licensing after, say, 2 years, at reasonable terms, subject to arbitration and penalties for excessive demands. The patent system needs to be fixed globally. Current international trade agreements are going in the wrong direction, driven by the USA negotiators who are ultimately driven by Disney, MPAA and so on. The rest of te world would dearly like to see US citizens get involved - the TPP is a good place to start.
  - tcbawo 14y ago
    I have an idea of creating an Intellectual Property tax (similar to property taxes) based on an assessed value of the licence. You would pay yearly to maintain a patent. Or, you could enter it into the public domain.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Given that it takes about 3 years for patents to be issued now, that 5 year window is comical. However, if you could get a software patent in, say, 6 months, then that 5 year window would make a lot more sense.
dogan 14y ago
Software patents don't make sense, but copying something bit by bit also makes no sense. It is one thing use good ideas as inspiration and another thing to just copy something recklessly.
rrrene 14y ago
While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents. But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"
zakshay 14y ago
So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar. You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.
- nirvana 14y ago
  I find this contradiction quite curious. I think it is because their position is ideological, not logical. Samwer is evil. Copying another startups look is evil. Google is good (remember their slogan: "Do no evil." how could they be evil?) Apple is bad- and has been forever. The RIAA and MPAA are evil. So, sometimes copying is good when google does it, but its bad when the samwers do it, and of course they will trumpet any "Example" of apple doing it no matter how disingenuous or dishonest they have to be. This is more about their personal feelings towards their brands than any kind of logical consistency.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    Well, it is partially also that there are many people with different opinions. You seem to assume that most people here hold all the views expressed by the entire community.
epo 14y ago
Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's patents.
- aristidb 14y ago
  A "fandroid" who uses a Nokia dumb phone. Yeah right.
thomasilk 14y ago
Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming that Apple is a threat to innovation. The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry in the long term. I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and Android at least started as clones.
- thomasilk 14y ago
  My comment in another HN Thread: Is it good for the industry in the short term? I'd say No. Is it the best thing that could have happened to the tech industry in the long term? Yes, I think so. Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone. From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves. Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
- jwr 14y ago
  Exactly. I find it amazing that people suddenly start applying a different set of rules once it's about Apple. If I was a startup founder who designed and developed the iPhone, and then saw the blatant rip-off by Samsung, I would go nuts with rage. And HN would likely rage with me. But hey, it's Apple, so no bullying, and anyone is allowed to copy whatever they do, right? Also, I view this whole trial as "a way" for Apple to get at Samsung. Patents were a tool here, not the end goal. We all know the patent system is broken and obsolete, but since it exists, it is a tool that Apple could use. Note that no one seems to dispute that Samsung copied Apple designs, people just complain about the use of patents. I think that is a very one-sided view. Samsung blatantly copied (and continues to do so) Apple designs and they deserve to be punished — that Apple used patents is something I'd consider secondary.
jahewson 14y ago
Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it. The 800lb gorilla in the room is patent reform, not Apple. They certainly don't need the money. Given the discovery that went into this case, claims like "Apple didn't even invent it" seem rather far-fetched.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  > If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it So when and how exactly are we supposed to complain? In a vacuum? When nothing bad is happening, just start writing letters about how awful the patent system is and hope somebody listens? Do you honestly think that would ever work? It's a ludicrous proposition. If you want change, you have to illustrate why that change is needed. You do that by highlighting demonstrably problematic cases, and by showing that the parties involved are behaving in a fashion that is contrary to the public interest, yet legal, and thus changes to the laws are needed. That is how it works. If anybody thinks the patent system needs reform then this is exactly when they should put their effort into complaining, and they should absolutely be criticizing Apple for their actions. It is not just appropriate - it's the only way change will get achieved.
wamatt 14y ago
Uggh, it's getting pretty tricky to work through the moral ambiguity of all this. Probably because it's 3am and I'm tired, but wouldn't it be nice for a change, to let someone else convince us that "Apple == good" and "Samsung == Bad", or vice versa? But no, reality has to go and be all grey and complex. :p
marcamillion 14y ago
Wow Jacques, I usually love your posts and your comments here are valuable - but I think you are so off the mark with this post. For starters, the reality is that Apple's revenue streams are quite diversified and their product portfolio is very strong. From iMac, to iTunes to iPods/iPhones/iPads. So the notion that Apple would launch into litigation "just for the money" seems misguided, at the least - if only for the fact that if they lost the suit, there could be significant ramifications for their sales (e.g. an injunction against selling any of the products in the suit for X period of time, etc.). With sales and revenues growing as much as they are, a wrongly filed lawsuit can be even more risky than rewarding. For a company as wealthy (and innovative) as Apple, there are more considerations than just protecting market share and trying to extract patent rent from competitors as a revenue stream. There are many other companies that come out with many features in their products that Apple doesn't sue. See Windows, Safari vs Chrome, iPod vs Zune, Adobe Premiere vs Final Cut Pro, most "ultrabooks" vs Macbook Air, etc. The issue here is that Samsung, HTC, et al. essentially have done what many companies in China have done. They acted like a hardware manufacturing partner - then using the inside knowledge they gained of the intimate architecture of the products, they reverse engineered them and competed directly. That's like you hiring a web developer to build your startup - and both of you build it to traction, and once you take all the risk and prove the market, (s)he leaves and builds a direct competitor using his insider knowledge. It's the most insiduous kind of 'IP stealing' that you can get. If you had that done to you, and your ex-developer (in fact, he is still managing your codebase) is making a ton of money off of your ideas and IP in your market, I am sure you would be pissed too. The money is just sprinkling on top. Also, I think it is hard to argue that Apple doesn't pour their hearts into what they do. That's why they are the most valuable company on the planet and will continue to be for years to come. It's because of the rate at which they innovate. Not the rate at which they copy. So cut them some slack, and walk a mile in their shoes.
- eyevariety 14y ago
  Really well said- for all of Jacques great posts, this opinion piece isn't well supported and doesn't go very deep considering its length.
- cwisecarver 14y ago
ForrestN 14y ago
This is absurd and frustrating. Apple is not responsible for the broken patent system. Apple is a public company. If Apple decided to hold itself to a set of standards more stringent than its competitors, it would be hampering itself and acting against the interests of its shareholders. Complain about, and work to fix, the system. Don't expect Apple to fix it by ceding the rights it currently has to its competitors. Especially when, as a company, Apple genuinely seems to believe that the blatant copying of iOS in Android is unethical. Also, you know Samsung has filed similar suits around the world, and in no way is opting out of the patent system, right? Buying a Samsung as a fuck-you to patent law is a joke. They aren't working to fix the problem. They're just losing.
- nikic 14y ago
  Just because you can, doesn't mean that you have to. Look at Google. That's a nice company, which keeps the patent trolling down.
  - vavb 14y ago
    Google is a nice company?!
  - silvestrov 14y ago
    Oh, so now that Google has bought Motorola, they've stopped Motorola suing Apple?
    - tcbawo 14y ago
      I would not be surprised if suing Apple was a pre-condition of sale for Motorola.
  - jopt 14y ago
    Right. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you can. This is little more than a new round of the CSR debate. I find it hard to fault Apple for cashing in on the ridiculous legal system.
srinathvj 14y ago
This is total abuse of patents and copyrights! Of course, the obvious way to do things should never be patent-able in the first place!! Someone definitely needs to re-look @ how patenting works... I think the rules have obviously become archaic... and not useful anymore. Another example of this is the Indian Judiciary... completely meaningless laws and rules all over the place. A law book to govern a nation should ideally not be over 150 Pages, but now we have one which is like 5,000 pages and its completely meaningless!! Dawh!!!
vavb 14y ago
To me, there are two potential benefits to all innovation: 1. to improve the standard of living for the general population (consumer/user) 2. to reap the rewards of making your ideas reality (inventor/creator) My understanding of the patent system was to balance these two concepts - the inventor has the right to get the benefits (financial or otherwise) from their creation for a reasonable time but must in return share their idea so that it becomes public knowledge. In my view, patents aren't necessarily about protecting small businesses - the system is designed to incentivise innovation. In theory this is fairly sound, however the potential for abuse, specifically trolling, is high. In practice, we live in arguably the most innovative time of human history. Of course the system isn't perfect, I'm not pretending it is. It seems to work OK most of the time though. The tech advances are putting strain on a system intended for physical manufacture and so we'll probably see a reform soon. Here's hoping they don't screw it up (though they prob will). The thing that strikes me about this article is that the patents such as pinch to zoom and double tap were NOT obvious to me at all before the iPhone existed. I'm fairly young though and I didn't really know about what the cutting edge of tech was like when the iPhone came out. I do remember how much the device amazed me when it came out though. Now these methods of interacting with a touchscreen are so ubiquitous that I get annoyed whenever a touch screen doesn't implement multitouch, two finger scrolls etc. You probably do too. It doesn't matter if they're obvious now - it matters if they were obvious when they were created. In that sense, I can understand where apple is coming from. After reading the 150 page leaked document where Samsung blatantly stated they would copy hundreds of features of iOS I think this situation is a bit more grey than the "Fuck Apple, I'm using a Samsung TV as a computer now" position that the author has taken. See also the Samsung store in Sydney, Aus. My startup falls exactly within the 'obvious in hindsight' category - it's an app that can work out what emotions a child is feeling. You can bet your ass I will be patenting it everywhere we plan to sell for exactly that reason.
irreverentbits 14y ago
I can't help but feel as if all of the claims made regarding "real innovation" in this post grossly undervalue the strides Apple has made in UI/UX and overall product design in favor of elevating more immediately self-evident technical advances. The strength of Apple's innovation has always been in delivering complete, cohesive products. In that regard, user interface details and interactions which seem trivial technically are hardly trivial in terms of user experience. As a competitive entity, there's no reason for Apple not to leverage every technique at its disposal to ensure its competitive viability - and one of these techniques is using patent litigation to prevent competitors from carbon-copying its innovations. Moral and ethical arguments should be made with regard to the integrity of the patent system itself, not a single corporation's lawful use of that system. Decrying Apple's behavior either speaks to hopeless naiveté regarding the nature of competition, or self-congratulatory moral posturing.
aristidb 14y ago
There's a nice video series about why the primitive moral idea "stealing is wrong" wreaks havoc in the world of ideas: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/ http://www.everythingisaremix.info/
mchanson 14y ago
How can we make these threads not be like comp.sys.mac.advocacy?
- pjscott 14y ago
  Wait for ten years. If that doesn't work, twenty. In that much time, something is bound to change. (This may sound impractical, but it's the approach I'm taking. And, hey, it already worked for discussions involving Microsoft.)
jaebrown 14y ago
Your argument is really off base. Like most, it seems that you're biased on this issue. There are clearly a couple of things most people have an issue with in this case and all are no reason to be mad at Apple. 1. Design - It has been stated over and over by people that Apple shouldn't be able to patent hardware and software design; which is why these same people believe they lost their trial against Microsoft in the 90s. I believe Apple lost that trial because they waited to late and by that time; which was years in, people had a hard time believing the novelty of a computer UI was something to copy but rather a standard to implement. This is why Apple since Jobs return in 97, has made it their mission to put design first and foremost. They have built the company since 97 on design because it's the one thing, that truly distinguishes a product upon appearance. This is why that went after Samsung early, as they didn't want to give people time to infuse the two. No, Apple did not win the right to have a rectangle. Clearly Palm, Blackberry and a couple other smartphone makers from earlier in the 2000s have been doing this but Apple did win because Samsung blatantly copied the look and feel of their rectangle. 2. Innovation - If anything, this verdict will spur innovation in the smartphone space. I personally can't wait to start seeing different UIs and hardware models. After the iPhone in 2007, everything has pretty much looked the same. It has really become boring. I applauded Microsoft for what they did with Windows Phone/Mobile from a UI perspective. It shows the possibilities when you think outside the box and try to innovate and now their Windows OS is going in the same direction. We don't know the possibilities with hardware because no one has taken the risk to introduce some truly different or revolutionary, since 2007. Look what FrogDesign has done with the UI of Android, that no other OEM has even attempted to do. http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html 3. Patents - The Patent System is clearly broken and needs change; which is why there is a bill on the Senate floor right now for that. I personally don't agree with software patents but I'm in huge favor of design and utility patents. Those are the patents that don't stifle innovation and force companies to be creative and innovative when building their products. Companies should definitely have to license patents that infringe on these two, as these are the areas where the most and hardest work is done because these are the areas that are most transparent to the consumer. For all the talk and comments, I've seen and read from people, I've not heard of any more pressure to Congress on this issue. I've not heard one politician say "I'm pushing this issue because my constituents have been urging me to do something about it". We did something about SOPA and PIPA but have done nothing about patent reform. So, I fail to really hear anyone out on this stance if they're not actively trying to pursue a change. I've not seen one sign up or online petition on HN, Reddit or any of the other internet darling pushing this issue. I think people need to stop taking such an interest in this, as Apple is only doing whats best for them, within the law that we all follow and are not trying to change. We all do whats best for us. An even though we're not companies, I think that's a greater reason for them to do so, as they adhere to shareholders; which are people. So if you have a problem, have it with the Shareholders Dilemma.
macspoofing 14y ago
Was a line-by-line analysis really necessary?
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  Someone apart from me found it amusing, Phew!
- pjscott 14y ago
  Line-by-line flames are seldom necessary, but are often fine examples of their literary genre.
nirvana 14y ago
It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the "right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work, and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this ideologically motivated, but obviously factually false claim. Jeff Han demonstrated a touch interface using cameras a few months before the iPhone was demonstrated. Both sets of work can be patented because the idea of using a "touch interface" cannot be patented, by anybody. Similarly, "pinch to zoom" or "one click purchase" or "pull to refresh" cannot -- and HAVE NOT-- been patented. You can only patent inventions. Inventions can be particular implementations of features. And this is what Apple has patented. Jeff Han's touch implementation uses cameras and Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software. They are both distinct and non-obvious and both of them could be patented. I know this is an ideological position for those who are spreading (or repeating) the misinformation. It is much easier to pretend like these patents are trivial monopolies on ideas, than to admit that Apple put half a decade of work into them. But you should question your ideology when it requires you to lie in order to make points.
- learc83 14y ago
  >Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software. Here is a summary of the claims. A multitouch display detects at least two contacts. Those contacts perform a first gesture. That gesture adjusts an image in some way The first set of contacts is broken. A second set of contacts is detected. The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time. The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way. That is the obvious way to implement pinch to zoom on a touch screen. You don't have to copy their "very sophisticated" software to violate that patent. If you implement a feature that copies the above claims, you are in violation. Apple effectively has a monopoly on the feature pinch to zoom on touch screens. The patent is sufficiently broad that there is no way to do it on a touch screen that avoids the patent. That is the problem with the patent system. Many patents are so broad that they don't cover a specific implementation. If that were the case the infamous Amazon one click patent would cover a specific implementation of one click--say a particular way to store the user information, and you could implement a similar feature using a different method. However, you can't therefore Amazon effectively has a monopoly on a feature.
tripzilch 14y ago
It actually all becomes really clear as soon as you realize that what Apple wanted to patent all along, was innovation itself. Apparently that claim did not get accepted[1] so now they're trying to stop competition from using iNnovation by means of patent-lawsuits for everything else. [1] Prior art, they said. Even though it's absolutely indisputable that Apple came up with the iWheel first, and everybody else copied its rounded corners.
blaines 14y ago
Okay this guy wrote paragraph(s) retorting each individual line in a memo. The author is reading way too much into this. They wrote their opinion, this clearly wasn't a fact finding mission. I'd probably give this a "C-" for poor format, unbalanced opinionated writing, and it's length (too long). In the future, it's fine to pick a side, but make a case and defend it with research. Don't ask a series of questions in response to a memo. Questions are unconvincing at best. "Should your kids be home before 10PM?" vs "Your kids should be home before 10PM" Hopefully this helps the author improve their writing. I don't even have a Nokia phone, I have no phone. Maybe we'd be friends.
darkstalker 14y ago
I'm surprised how Apple-biased the people here is. They're clearly abusing the patent system by patenting ridiculous things. How come things like slide to unlock are considered innovation? that's been used to open laptops before Apple patented it.
learc83 14y ago
The thing you have to ask is: would apple have invented the iPhone if the patent system as it stands didn't exist? Also assuming that copyright protection, and protection against counterfeit goods was still in place. I think the answer to that is, yes. Samsung and other companies did copy Apple just about as far as they could without actually creating a counterfeit. Yet, that didn't stop Apple from making billions of dollars. To me that is proof that in this case the patent system did nothing to foster innovation. Take the example of pinch to zoom. If Apple knew they couldn't patent the process would they have implemented it? Of course they would have, it's a better interface (and the fact nearly every other smartphone copied it, yet they still created it proves my point). Furthermore the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by rewarding inventors for not hoarding innovation with trade secrets. Could something like pinch to zoom even realistically be protected by trade secrets. The implementation is so simple that once someone has seen it, nearly anyone could replicate it. Patents no longer serve they purpose of disseminating knowledge. Companies aren't digging through the patent office in search of implementation details, the way it was intended to be used.
deepGem 14y ago
"Even the most rabid Apple fan can see through this and realize this is just about money. If it wouldn’t be about money and control then there wouldn’t be so many efforts to get injunctions and damages." - Seriously ??? Dude, A billion dollars is nothing for Apple. They probably earn more than that in a month. If I'm not wrong, these were Steve's words to Eric Schmidt - 'I don't want your money, I don't want 5 billion $, I just don't want you to do Android, period'. So the lawsuit is definitely not about money.
jderick 14y ago
If an idea can be described in one sentence, it shouldn't be patentable.
andreyf 14y ago
I don't think this is about money. Apple has enough money. This is about destroying the competition - in particular, Android. I believe Steve Jobs wasn't shy about it, either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984
ChuckMcM 14y ago
My take on it is encapsulated by this: "For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money." It is clear that it can't be about the money because Apple makes 10x the money Samsung does, its all about crushing your enemies using every available tool in your arsenal, no matter what. When Microsoft did that by bundling their own browser into their dominant OS they were convicted of illegally using their market domination to crush competition. I don't think that fate will befall Apple but the ramifications of this on Apple will be far and wide and for the most part uncontrollable. I expect that everyone reading this today will, in 5 to 10 years be able to look back at today and see all the manifestations of what happened because of it and then see what Apple has wrought. I have no idea if it will be the best or stupidest thing they ever did, but it will define them as a company. I'm strangely reminded of the Tesla / Edison rant for some reason.
pasbesoin 14y ago
The problem with prior art is that, with the Patent Office doing such a crap job -- thanks in part to the Congress that funds it -- you and your attorney have to document and present it yourself, at $300/hour. Add first-to-file to this mess, and, well, at least there will no longer be any point in spending that $300/hour.
novaleaf 14y ago
while I personally dislike Apple, I think the poster would have kept me more interested if he took a more neutral stance. overt hostile rebuttals made this a "TLDR" for me
aklofas 14y ago
Apple sucks.
goggles99 14y ago
Lets see how you all feel after Apple is done suing every android and smartphone manufacturer. This is just the beginning. The first shot fired... The real war is yet to come.
uvTwitch 14y ago
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs; Triumph of the Nerds.
EthanEtienne 14y ago
Does anyone else see the irony in that he himself is a domain squatter? The shit he hates, he is himself.
sterlingwes 14y ago
This is the ultimate in hypocrisy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
sapuser 14y ago
The idea behind patents is a _sound_ one; it provides incentive to innovate by guaranteeing profits for a certain period of time. Those who don't care about profits can freely give away patents or not bother getting one! The details are probably up for a fair debate -- 20 years of loyalty that can be trivially extended by trivial process changes (e.g. Pharma companies) is undesirable. For the argument that someone else can come up with an idea, that is an interesting point. If you can see how something works, it is not that difficult to reverse engineer it. But, in the true spirit of innovation, the innovators should be thinking about _outdoing_ what they see. Merely copying someone else is not innovation. And, that is the case with so many software features: both genuine and trivial ones are considered equal. If there's a way to hide the secret sauce, people would easily do that (and that was historically done for so many things like the spices etc). The only way to achieving that in modern day is to (i) manufacture each important component by self and (ii) create a product that can't be taken apart. Imagine an Iphone that can't be un-assembled without destroying it. In this context, patents would speed up innovation (see the development of alternative compression algorithms) by allowing to examine the details of current implementation and improve upon it. Samsung (and others) have been making un-wieldly phones for decades. I wonder why they decided to make "rectangular phones with rounded corners" after runaway success of iPhone. And, this comes from someone who hasn't owned an iPhone :-)

334 points by plinkplonk 14y ago

pclark 14y ago

I think it's bullshit that Apple did this for money.

checker659 14y ago
Why? Because Apple already has all the money it will ever need. Think again.
onedev 14y ago
You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.
- danmaz74 14y ago
  They didn't it to get $1b from Samsung. They did it to stop anybody else to compete with the iPhone, and so be able to make even more money.
  - bulltale 14y ago
    Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.
    - danmaz74 14y ago
      Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them? By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.
      - bulltale 14y ago
        I think that is at the core of this issue: Apple feels Samsung copied the iPhone experience, without any effort or even vision on Samsung's side on how to create this experience. Blind copying so to say. So Apple wants to sue them on look and feel, but they can't; what I remember from the Microsoft-Apple litigation about look and feel is that it turned out that look and feel is almost impossible to patent and defend. That is my explanation on why Apple is now suing over their obvious patents, because they cannot sue over look and feel.
- DiabloD3 14y ago
  Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market). I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?
  - Apocryphon 14y ago
    That's the magic of investment! It may not be worth that much to you, personally, but the shareholders beg to differ.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    > the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market I'm sorry but you just flipped your own bozo bit.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?
    - mnl 14y ago
      Don't forget the cute minimalistic bitten apple and the fact that they are #1 in product placement.
    - DiabloD3 14y ago
      None of those are particularly interesting to me... not at double the product cost. Maybe I'm just in the minority and don't get it.
  - swah 14y ago
    I can see how Facebook could loose its value in a couple years, but Apple, no way. They can market and sell stuff with a great profit margin.
- vesky 14y ago
  You're forgetting the impact this will have on it's stock, already reaching records highs since the decision was announced. So if you think it a "measly $1b" you're horribly mistaken. How about a "measly" tens of billions in overall stock growth over the next months?

taligent 14y ago

All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea. After all the idea of "how to let the user know they have reached the top of the scroll view" can be implemented many ways. Apples is one way. LG, Samsung and HTC all have different ways.

checker659 14y ago
You know, you're missing the whole point here. Patenting a Human Computer Interaction 'pattern' is absurd no matter how you put it. Enough said.
- swombat 14y ago
  Patenting a single one is absurd. Protecting the hundreds of design decisions that go into making a product look and feel a certain way, against people who are willing to just basically make a copycat product that does everything the same way - that's not so absurd. I think Samsung lost not because of one specific patent, but because of the overwhelming number of points on which they copied Apple.
  - learc83 14y ago
    >Patenting a single one is absurd. Yet the individual patents are still there. If Apple decides to go after any company for implementing a single one they can still do so, and probably will.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      Then make the stink when they do. Honestly, as an Apple "fan" who has no plan to switch from MacBook/OSX/iPhone/iPad, if they decide to just sue others for infringing one or to non-important patents I'll stop using their products and devote my time renouncing them. But that's not happening, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen. We all "know" that Samsung copied Apple in almost every thing. Home screen icons, packaging, UI elements, icons, USB charger, the "Mac mini" clone (which is almost identical to a Mac mini) they made recently, showing App Store icon and icons of iOS-only apps in their booth at a conference, audaciously cloning "Smart Cover", and hundreds of other little things. Their own lawyer failed to distinguish between a Tab and the iPad! They're suing over just these petty patents because they can't sue them over a hundred un-patentable ideas that make a product great and they (Apple) has spent billions of dollars of R&D on researching them. Every one of these was a "fuck you" to Apple. I'd do the same if I were Tim Cook or Jobs and would want to teach Samsung a lesson.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

checker659 14y ago
Eat it.
- andyzaharia 14y ago
  enjoy it

timkeller 14y ago

Phew. That's a little over-wrought. Surely Apple has a responsibility to defend its patents and innovations? We ("rabid Apple fan[s]") need a strong and successful Android to ensure some balance in this next generation of computing. We need a successful Android to keep Apple on their toes. Google has figured out how to innovate with Android. Ice-cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean feature a unique and notable user interface. Samsung, on the other hand, designed 'TouchWhiz' to imitate parts of the iOS look-and-feel in order to mislead customers.

checker659 14y ago
None of the companies are saints. However, the software patent idea is so absurd it makes my blood boil with anger. But, of course, Apple has the rights (and responsibility) to defend it's patents no matter how baseless / crazy they are.
fkdjs 14y ago
"Pinch to zoom" is an innovation? Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans. I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.
  - fkdjs 14y ago
    Minority Report had the concept, but with two hands. Something new would be the notifications stolen from android. But in any case, it's a patent and companies are required to protect their innovation!
  - 14y ago

cageface 14y ago

I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

zakshay 14y ago
Hindsight, I don't agree with a lot of things in that essay. Its mostly hard lined towards software development point of views.
jyap 14y ago
Wow, you're going to also take down your current iOS apps from the App Store as well?
- cageface 14y ago
  I think so. I'm trying to decide what's best for my customers. Since I don't plan to update them anymore I think it's best if I stop selling them. However, I do want to make sure that I get at least one more update out there to take care of any issues that might arise from the iOS 6 transition so I'll probably wait until I'm sure there's nothing serious there.
cageface 14y ago
I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform. I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me.
- justinh 14y ago

thomasf1 14y ago

It´s very clear that it´s been a personal mission by Steve Jobs who felt it´s wrong. I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new. On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowed. Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it. For me the morale right or wrong is the following: make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for me, it has creative value. copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others. Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made the iPhone great and delighted the users.

robin_reala 14y ago
While lots of MacOS was taken from Xerox’s work it wasn't’t copied, it was licensed.
- thomasf1 14y ago
  Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC. What´s your take on the morals of this?
  - cremnob 14y ago
    Uh in one case they've gotten permission and are paying to use it and in the other they're not? The morality is clear.
    - thomasf1 14y ago

delllapssuck 14y ago

This is a consumer. Do the opinions of consumers matter? All that matters to Apple is sales. Do they care what consumers say about them on the web? Silence the nonbelievers! Consumers do not need to understand patent law to make purchase decisions. But most consumers know what lawsuits are, especially ones that make a mockery of the justice system. It's possible many consumers really don't care if they're buying Apple or Samsung. If they did care, if they only wanted Apple products, then Apple wouldn't need to sue other manufacturers, would they?

arn 14y ago

But it wasn't (all) about the money. It was personal. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biography-im-going-to-destroy-android/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biograph... "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." With that in mind, the email reads far more genuine than the blog post implies.

mappu 14y ago
It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur. Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally, at what point does the state intervene?
- Macha 14y ago
  Samsung also makes a hell of a lot more than phones. 1 in 30 people in Korea mig be employed by Samsung, but they're not all making phones, and they're not all going to be affected by this decision. Even if Samsung was forced to abandon mobile phones altogether, it's big enough to weather it out.
- robbiep 14y ago
  Imagine an apple battle tank. Would it whale on a samsung tank? Or Drone? Or would Samsung need to down an apple drone then reverse engineer it before they had equality in the war?
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    The fact that Samsung does actually manufacture killer robots makes your posting a little sad. (I know that it's not the entertainment division, but I still don't understand why no one cares about that part of Samsung.) http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-machinegunning.php http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-machinegun...

timmyd 14y ago

Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would come into play and it wouldn't be patentable. Yet it is - and yet despite all of Samsungs insistences and millions (no doubt) spent on prior art research - nothing has been shown prior to the date of filing that anything existed. It's no different than Amazon's One-click. It would be interesting - if you invented something, you spent ten-of-thousands on patents, you spent huge amounts of capital in developing a product - you launch it to much positive press and then someone simply copies everything you have done. You're a small business - what do you do now ? According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage". The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system) The entire basis of patents was essentially trying to protect the little guy, with an idea against the onslaught of bigger companies just copying them outright and giving them no chance. You state "gone are the days of Steve Wozniak" and indeed "gone would be the days of apple" long ago - because he just wanted everyone to have everything and thats not how you run any business. I agree that patent law needs reform - but I totally disagree that your somewhat misconstrued article that we should simply destroy patents all together. It should destroy them if they are not being actively used - but a company trying to protect its innovations in not something that I'm against. If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for some abstract concept of "a greater good". America is a capitalist society and therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry. I know my post will get down-voted but it's a reality of business and running a business - you either file for protection or you don't and get copied.

djt 14y ago

I think Steve said it best himself: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfcf694a957fc9c5a8a24297e94ad.jpg http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc... Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now. PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website are dead links

magicalist 14y ago
If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead. Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.

gearoidoc 14y ago

I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and (Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like. I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's nipple :D

pgeorgi 14y ago
Unlikely that there's a difference. It wasn't Apple (or Steve Jobs Himself[tm]) that invented the capacitive touch screen and made it available in large quantities (ie. mainstream compatible). There were prototypes at many (probably all) mobile vendors exploring the capabilities unlocked by that technology. Apple "merely" was boldest - but then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered. Things might lag half a year or so due to this, but someone, somewhere would have kicked off the "touch revolution" in about the same time without Apple. Maybe even RIM or Nokia. Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, in about the same time (new market to enter, knowing the old style mobile HCI and touch, having prototypes for both) - and they seemed to prefer the old style for now. In a world without iPhone they probably would have waited for one of the big guys to introduce touch, and then followed quickly. Google wasn't as confident about pushing an unproven HCI onto users as Apple was.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "but then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had no old mobile HCI that mattered." And that's the BS that Apple ignores and that it makes them go forward. They should consider how shipping crappy products impacts their brand (are you listening Motorola) There is a reason I don't even look at the prices for Motorola products anymore. "Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, ... and they seemed to prefer the old style for now." That's what happens when you only have engineers making decisions.
- wklauss 14y ago
  Capacitive screens were already used by one terminal, I think an LG phone. But the iPhone put something different in the market: multitouch and gestures. Some things like slide to unlock or pinch to zoom seem trivial now but they weren't really product of the normal evolution of phone interfaces. Locking the screen was done with a hardware button because it was deemed safer, zoom was double tapping in the part of the image you wanted to magnify. Had the iPhone not been introduced I doubt small little details like these would have changed at all, and there are tons of these small subtleties in the current smartphone OSs.

EricDeb 14y ago

How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of 5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast for 14 or 20 year patents...

danmaz74 14y ago
It would alredy be much better. But it's never going to happen imho.
raverbashing 14y ago
Agreed, and another thing Make patents unsellable.
lancewiggs 14y ago
And how about compulsory licensing after, say, 2 years, at reasonable terms, subject to arbitration and penalties for excessive demands. The patent system needs to be fixed globally. Current international trade agreements are going in the wrong direction, driven by the USA negotiators who are ultimately driven by Disney, MPAA and so on. The rest of te world would dearly like to see US citizens get involved - the TPP is a good place to start.
- tcbawo 14y ago
  I have an idea of creating an Intellectual Property tax (similar to property taxes) based on an assessed value of the licence. You would pay yearly to maintain a patent. Or, you could enter it into the public domain.
danielweber 14y ago
Given that it takes about 3 years for patents to be issued now, that 5 year window is comical. However, if you could get a software patent in, say, 6 months, then that 5 year window would make a lot more sense.

dogan 14y ago

Software patents don't make sense, but copying something bit by bit also makes no sense. It is one thing use good ideas as inspiration and another thing to just copy something recklessly.

rrrene 14y ago

While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents. But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"

zakshay 14y ago

So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar. You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.

nirvana 14y ago
I find this contradiction quite curious. I think it is because their position is ideological, not logical. Samwer is evil. Copying another startups look is evil. Google is good (remember their slogan: "Do no evil." how could they be evil?) Apple is bad- and has been forever. The RIAA and MPAA are evil. So, sometimes copying is good when google does it, but its bad when the samwers do it, and of course they will trumpet any "Example" of apple doing it no matter how disingenuous or dishonest they have to be. This is more about their personal feelings towards their brands than any kind of logical consistency.
- jeltz 14y ago
  Well, it is partially also that there are many people with different opinions. You seem to assume that most people here hold all the views expressed by the entire community.

epo 14y ago

Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's patents.

aristidb 14y ago
A "fandroid" who uses a Nokia dumb phone. Yeah right.

thomasilk 14y ago

Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming that Apple is a threat to innovation. The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry in the long term. I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and Android at least started as clones.

thomasilk 14y ago
My comment in another HN Thread: Is it good for the industry in the short term? I'd say No. Is it the best thing that could have happened to the tech industry in the long term? Yes, I think so. Android and most devices started as a direct response to iOS. All the major players saw that iOS was disrupting the market and there was no time left to invent something on their own, so they simply built a clone. From a business point of view the right decision, Microsoft invented a new UI and new devices with Nokia, but it seems they failed, since they were late to the market and to succeed they would have needed a really disruptive idea themselves. Google had the team and skills to invent something that could disrupt iOS, but they decided to copy it instead and in the process wasted all the brain power of the team that probably has the best chance of finding the next paradigm. What a waste of talent to use all those great people for building a clone.
jwr 14y ago
Exactly. I find it amazing that people suddenly start applying a different set of rules once it's about Apple. If I was a startup founder who designed and developed the iPhone, and then saw the blatant rip-off by Samsung, I would go nuts with rage. And HN would likely rage with me. But hey, it's Apple, so no bullying, and anyone is allowed to copy whatever they do, right? Also, I view this whole trial as "a way" for Apple to get at Samsung. Patents were a tool here, not the end goal. We all know the patent system is broken and obsolete, but since it exists, it is a tool that Apple could use. Note that no one seems to dispute that Samsung copied Apple designs, people just complain about the use of patents. I think that is a very one-sided view. Samsung blatantly copied (and continues to do so) Apple designs and they deserve to be punished — that Apple used patents is something I'd consider secondary.

jahewson 14y ago

Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it. The 800lb gorilla in the room is patent reform, not Apple. They certainly don't need the money. Given the discovery that went into this case, claims like "Apple didn't even invent it" seem rather far-fetched.

zmmmmm 14y ago
> If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it So when and how exactly are we supposed to complain? In a vacuum? When nothing bad is happening, just start writing letters about how awful the patent system is and hope somebody listens? Do you honestly think that would ever work? It's a ludicrous proposition. If you want change, you have to illustrate why that change is needed. You do that by highlighting demonstrably problematic cases, and by showing that the parties involved are behaving in a fashion that is contrary to the public interest, yet legal, and thus changes to the laws are needed. That is how it works. If anybody thinks the patent system needs reform then this is exactly when they should put their effort into complaining, and they should absolutely be criticizing Apple for their actions. It is not just appropriate - it's the only way change will get achieved.

wamatt 14y ago

Uggh, it's getting pretty tricky to work through the moral ambiguity of all this. Probably because it's 3am and I'm tired, but wouldn't it be nice for a change, to let someone else convince us that "Apple == good" and "Samsung == Bad", or vice versa? But no, reality has to go and be all grey and complex. :p

marcamillion 14y ago

Wow Jacques, I usually love your posts and your comments here are valuable - but I think you are so off the mark with this post. For starters, the reality is that Apple's revenue streams are quite diversified and their product portfolio is very strong. From iMac, to iTunes to iPods/iPhones/iPads. So the notion that Apple would launch into litigation "just for the money" seems misguided, at the least - if only for the fact that if they lost the suit, there could be significant ramifications for their sales (e.g. an injunction against selling any of the products in the suit for X period of time, etc.). With sales and revenues growing as much as they are, a wrongly filed lawsuit can be even more risky than rewarding. For a company as wealthy (and innovative) as Apple, there are more considerations than just protecting market share and trying to extract patent rent from competitors as a revenue stream. There are many other companies that come out with many features in their products that Apple doesn't sue. See Windows, Safari vs Chrome, iPod vs Zune, Adobe Premiere vs Final Cut Pro, most "ultrabooks" vs Macbook Air, etc. The issue here is that Samsung, HTC, et al. essentially have done what many companies in China have done. They acted like a hardware manufacturing partner - then using the inside knowledge they gained of the intimate architecture of the products, they reverse engineered them and competed directly. That's like you hiring a web developer to build your startup - and both of you build it to traction, and once you take all the risk and prove the market, (s)he leaves and builds a direct competitor using his insider knowledge. It's the most insiduous kind of 'IP stealing' that you can get. If you had that done to you, and your ex-developer (in fact, he is still managing your codebase) is making a ton of money off of your ideas and IP in your market, I am sure you would be pissed too. The money is just sprinkling on top. Also, I think it is hard to argue that Apple doesn't pour their hearts into what they do. That's why they are the most valuable company on the planet and will continue to be for years to come. It's because of the rate at which they innovate. Not the rate at which they copy. So cut them some slack, and walk a mile in their shoes.

eyevariety 14y ago
Really well said- for all of Jacques great posts, this opinion piece isn't well supported and doesn't go very deep considering its length.
cwisecarver 14y ago

ForrestN 14y ago

This is absurd and frustrating. Apple is not responsible for the broken patent system. Apple is a public company. If Apple decided to hold itself to a set of standards more stringent than its competitors, it would be hampering itself and acting against the interests of its shareholders. Complain about, and work to fix, the system. Don't expect Apple to fix it by ceding the rights it currently has to its competitors. Especially when, as a company, Apple genuinely seems to believe that the blatant copying of iOS in Android is unethical. Also, you know Samsung has filed similar suits around the world, and in no way is opting out of the patent system, right? Buying a Samsung as a fuck-you to patent law is a joke. They aren't working to fix the problem. They're just losing.

nikic 14y ago
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you have to. Look at Google. That's a nice company, which keeps the patent trolling down.
- vavb 14y ago
  Google is a nice company?!
- silvestrov 14y ago
  Oh, so now that Google has bought Motorola, they've stopped Motorola suing Apple?
  - tcbawo 14y ago
    I would not be surprised if suing Apple was a pre-condition of sale for Motorola.
- jopt 14y ago
  Right. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean you can. This is little more than a new round of the CSR debate. I find it hard to fault Apple for cashing in on the ridiculous legal system.

srinathvj 14y ago

This is total abuse of patents and copyrights! Of course, the obvious way to do things should never be patent-able in the first place!! Someone definitely needs to re-look @ how patenting works... I think the rules have obviously become archaic... and not useful anymore. Another example of this is the Indian Judiciary... completely meaningless laws and rules all over the place. A law book to govern a nation should ideally not be over 150 Pages, but now we have one which is like 5,000 pages and its completely meaningless!! Dawh!!!

vavb 14y ago

To me, there are two potential benefits to all innovation: 1. to improve the standard of living for the general population (consumer/user) 2. to reap the rewards of making your ideas reality (inventor/creator) My understanding of the patent system was to balance these two concepts - the inventor has the right to get the benefits (financial or otherwise) from their creation for a reasonable time but must in return share their idea so that it becomes public knowledge. In my view, patents aren't necessarily about protecting small businesses - the system is designed to incentivise innovation. In theory this is fairly sound, however the potential for abuse, specifically trolling, is high. In practice, we live in arguably the most innovative time of human history. Of course the system isn't perfect, I'm not pretending it is. It seems to work OK most of the time though. The tech advances are putting strain on a system intended for physical manufacture and so we'll probably see a reform soon. Here's hoping they don't screw it up (though they prob will). The thing that strikes me about this article is that the patents such as pinch to zoom and double tap were NOT obvious to me at all before the iPhone existed. I'm fairly young though and I didn't really know about what the cutting edge of tech was like when the iPhone came out. I do remember how much the device amazed me when it came out though. Now these methods of interacting with a touchscreen are so ubiquitous that I get annoyed whenever a touch screen doesn't implement multitouch, two finger scrolls etc. You probably do too. It doesn't matter if they're obvious now - it matters if they were obvious when they were created. In that sense, I can understand where apple is coming from. After reading the 150 page leaked document where Samsung blatantly stated they would copy hundreds of features of iOS I think this situation is a bit more grey than the "Fuck Apple, I'm using a Samsung TV as a computer now" position that the author has taken. See also the Samsung store in Sydney, Aus. My startup falls exactly within the 'obvious in hindsight' category - it's an app that can work out what emotions a child is feeling. You can bet your ass I will be patenting it everywhere we plan to sell for exactly that reason.

irreverentbits 14y ago

I can't help but feel as if all of the claims made regarding "real innovation" in this post grossly undervalue the strides Apple has made in UI/UX and overall product design in favor of elevating more immediately self-evident technical advances. The strength of Apple's innovation has always been in delivering complete, cohesive products. In that regard, user interface details and interactions which seem trivial technically are hardly trivial in terms of user experience. As a competitive entity, there's no reason for Apple not to leverage every technique at its disposal to ensure its competitive viability - and one of these techniques is using patent litigation to prevent competitors from carbon-copying its innovations. Moral and ethical arguments should be made with regard to the integrity of the patent system itself, not a single corporation's lawful use of that system. Decrying Apple's behavior either speaks to hopeless naiveté regarding the nature of competition, or self-congratulatory moral posturing.

aristidb 14y ago

There's a nice video series about why the primitive moral idea "stealing is wrong" wreaks havoc in the world of ideas: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/ http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

mchanson 14y ago

How can we make these threads not be like comp.sys.mac.advocacy?

pjscott 14y ago
Wait for ten years. If that doesn't work, twenty. In that much time, something is bound to change. (This may sound impractical, but it's the approach I'm taking. And, hey, it already worked for discussions involving Microsoft.)

jaebrown 14y ago

Your argument is really off base. Like most, it seems that you're biased on this issue. There are clearly a couple of things most people have an issue with in this case and all are no reason to be mad at Apple. 1. Design - It has been stated over and over by people that Apple shouldn't be able to patent hardware and software design; which is why these same people believe they lost their trial against Microsoft in the 90s. I believe Apple lost that trial because they waited to late and by that time; which was years in, people had a hard time believing the novelty of a computer UI was something to copy but rather a standard to implement. This is why Apple since Jobs return in 97, has made it their mission to put design first and foremost. They have built the company since 97 on design because it's the one thing, that truly distinguishes a product upon appearance. This is why that went after Samsung early, as they didn't want to give people time to infuse the two. No, Apple did not win the right to have a rectangle. Clearly Palm, Blackberry and a couple other smartphone makers from earlier in the 2000s have been doing this but Apple did win because Samsung blatantly copied the look and feel of their rectangle. 2. Innovation - If anything, this verdict will spur innovation in the smartphone space. I personally can't wait to start seeing different UIs and hardware models. After the iPhone in 2007, everything has pretty much looked the same. It has really become boring. I applauded Microsoft for what they did with Windows Phone/Mobile from a UI perspective. It shows the possibilities when you think outside the box and try to innovate and now their Windows OS is going in the same direction. We don't know the possibilities with hardware because no one has taken the risk to introduce some truly different or revolutionary, since 2007. Look what FrogDesign has done with the UI of Android, that no other OEM has even attempted to do. http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html 3. Patents - The Patent System is clearly broken and needs change; which is why there is a bill on the Senate floor right now for that. I personally don't agree with software patents but I'm in huge favor of design and utility patents. Those are the patents that don't stifle innovation and force companies to be creative and innovative when building their products. Companies should definitely have to license patents that infringe on these two, as these are the areas where the most and hardest work is done because these are the areas that are most transparent to the consumer. For all the talk and comments, I've seen and read from people, I've not heard of any more pressure to Congress on this issue. I've not heard one politician say "I'm pushing this issue because my constituents have been urging me to do something about it". We did something about SOPA and PIPA but have done nothing about patent reform. So, I fail to really hear anyone out on this stance if they're not actively trying to pursue a change. I've not seen one sign up or online petition on HN, Reddit or any of the other internet darling pushing this issue. I think people need to stop taking such an interest in this, as Apple is only doing whats best for them, within the law that we all follow and are not trying to change. We all do whats best for us. An even though we're not companies, I think that's a greater reason for them to do so, as they adhere to shareholders; which are people. So if you have a problem, have it with the Shareholders Dilemma.

macspoofing 14y ago

Was a line-by-line analysis really necessary?

denzil_correa 14y ago
Someone apart from me found it amusing, Phew!
pjscott 14y ago
Line-by-line flames are seldom necessary, but are often fine examples of their literary genre.

nirvana 14y ago

It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the "right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work, and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this ideologically motivated, but obviously factually false claim. Jeff Han demonstrated a touch interface using cameras a few months before the iPhone was demonstrated. Both sets of work can be patented because the idea of using a "touch interface" cannot be patented, by anybody. Similarly, "pinch to zoom" or "one click purchase" or "pull to refresh" cannot -- and HAVE NOT-- been patented. You can only patent inventions. Inventions can be particular implementations of features. And this is what Apple has patented. Jeff Han's touch implementation uses cameras and Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software. They are both distinct and non-obvious and both of them could be patented. I know this is an ideological position for those who are spreading (or repeating) the misinformation. It is much easier to pretend like these patents are trivial monopolies on ideas, than to admit that Apple put half a decade of work into them. But you should question your ideology when it requires you to lie in order to make points.

learc83 14y ago
>Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software. Here is a summary of the claims. A multitouch display detects at least two contacts. Those contacts perform a first gesture. That gesture adjusts an image in some way The first set of contacts is broken. A second set of contacts is detected. The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time. The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way. That is the obvious way to implement pinch to zoom on a touch screen. You don't have to copy their "very sophisticated" software to violate that patent. If you implement a feature that copies the above claims, you are in violation. Apple effectively has a monopoly on the feature pinch to zoom on touch screens. The patent is sufficiently broad that there is no way to do it on a touch screen that avoids the patent. That is the problem with the patent system. Many patents are so broad that they don't cover a specific implementation. If that were the case the infamous Amazon one click patent would cover a specific implementation of one click--say a particular way to store the user information, and you could implement a similar feature using a different method. However, you can't therefore Amazon effectively has a monopoly on a feature.

tripzilch 14y ago

It actually all becomes really clear as soon as you realize that what Apple wanted to patent all along, was innovation itself. Apparently that claim did not get accepted[1] so now they're trying to stop competition from using iNnovation by means of patent-lawsuits for everything else. [1] Prior art, they said. Even though it's absolutely indisputable that Apple came up with the iWheel first, and everybody else copied its rounded corners.

blaines 14y ago

Okay this guy wrote paragraph(s) retorting each individual line in a memo. The author is reading way too much into this. They wrote their opinion, this clearly wasn't a fact finding mission. I'd probably give this a "C-" for poor format, unbalanced opinionated writing, and it's length (too long). In the future, it's fine to pick a side, but make a case and defend it with research. Don't ask a series of questions in response to a memo. Questions are unconvincing at best. "Should your kids be home before 10PM?" vs "Your kids should be home before 10PM" Hopefully this helps the author improve their writing. I don't even have a Nokia phone, I have no phone. Maybe we'd be friends.

darkstalker 14y ago

I'm surprised how Apple-biased the people here is. They're clearly abusing the patent system by patenting ridiculous things. How come things like slide to unlock are considered innovation? that's been used to open laptops before Apple patented it.

learc83 14y ago

The thing you have to ask is: would apple have invented the iPhone if the patent system as it stands didn't exist? Also assuming that copyright protection, and protection against counterfeit goods was still in place. I think the answer to that is, yes. Samsung and other companies did copy Apple just about as far as they could without actually creating a counterfeit. Yet, that didn't stop Apple from making billions of dollars. To me that is proof that in this case the patent system did nothing to foster innovation. Take the example of pinch to zoom. If Apple knew they couldn't patent the process would they have implemented it? Of course they would have, it's a better interface (and the fact nearly every other smartphone copied it, yet they still created it proves my point). Furthermore the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by rewarding inventors for not hoarding innovation with trade secrets. Could something like pinch to zoom even realistically be protected by trade secrets. The implementation is so simple that once someone has seen it, nearly anyone could replicate it. Patents no longer serve they purpose of disseminating knowledge. Companies aren't digging through the patent office in search of implementation details, the way it was intended to be used.

deepGem 14y ago

"Even the most rabid Apple fan can see through this and realize this is just about money. If it wouldn’t be about money and control then there wouldn’t be so many efforts to get injunctions and damages." - Seriously ??? Dude, A billion dollars is nothing for Apple. They probably earn more than that in a month. If I'm not wrong, these were Steve's words to Eric Schmidt - 'I don't want your money, I don't want 5 billion $, I just don't want you to do Android, period'. So the lawsuit is definitely not about money.

jderick 14y ago

If an idea can be described in one sentence, it shouldn't be patentable.

andreyf 14y ago

I don't think this is about money. Apple has enough money. This is about destroying the competition - in particular, Android. I believe Steve Jobs wasn't shy about it, either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984

ChuckMcM 14y ago

My take on it is encapsulated by this: "For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money." It is clear that it can't be about the money because Apple makes 10x the money Samsung does, its all about crushing your enemies using every available tool in your arsenal, no matter what. When Microsoft did that by bundling their own browser into their dominant OS they were convicted of illegally using their market domination to crush competition. I don't think that fate will befall Apple but the ramifications of this on Apple will be far and wide and for the most part uncontrollable. I expect that everyone reading this today will, in 5 to 10 years be able to look back at today and see all the manifestations of what happened because of it and then see what Apple has wrought. I have no idea if it will be the best or stupidest thing they ever did, but it will define them as a company. I'm strangely reminded of the Tesla / Edison rant for some reason.

pasbesoin 14y ago

The problem with prior art is that, with the Patent Office doing such a crap job -- thanks in part to the Congress that funds it -- you and your attorney have to document and present it yourself, at $300/hour. Add first-to-file to this mess, and, well, at least there will no longer be any point in spending that $300/hour.

novaleaf 14y ago

while I personally dislike Apple, I think the poster would have kept me more interested if he took a more neutral stance. overt hostile rebuttals made this a "TLDR" for me

aklofas 14y ago

Apple sucks.

goggles99 14y ago

Lets see how you all feel after Apple is done suing every android and smartphone manufacturer. This is just the beginning. The first shot fired... The real war is yet to come.

uvTwitch 14y ago

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs; Triumph of the Nerds.

EthanEtienne 14y ago

Does anyone else see the irony in that he himself is a domain squatter? The shit he hates, he is himself.

sterlingwes 14y ago

This is the ultimate in hypocrisy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

sapuser 14y ago

The idea behind patents is a _sound_ one; it provides incentive to innovate by guaranteeing profits for a certain period of time. Those who don't care about profits can freely give away patents or not bother getting one! The details are probably up for a fair debate -- 20 years of loyalty that can be trivially extended by trivial process changes (e.g. Pharma companies) is undesirable. For the argument that someone else can come up with an idea, that is an interesting point. If you can see how something works, it is not that difficult to reverse engineer it. But, in the true spirit of innovation, the innovators should be thinking about _outdoing_ what they see. Merely copying someone else is not innovation. And, that is the case with so many software features: both genuine and trivial ones are considered equal. If there's a way to hide the secret sauce, people would easily do that (and that was historically done for so many things like the spices etc). The only way to achieving that in modern day is to (i) manufacture each important component by self and (ii) create a product that can't be taken apart. Imagine an Iphone that can't be un-assembled without destroying it. In this context, patents would speed up innovation (see the development of alternative compression algorithms) by allowing to examine the details of current implementation and improve upon it. Samsung (and others) have been making un-wieldly phones for decades. I wonder why they decided to make "rectangular phones with rounded corners" after runaway success of iPhone. And, this comes from someone who hasn't owned an iPhone :-)