6 ms·

"Just to drive the point home: a device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious.." I still don't buy it. This still misses the mark - it wasn't about a

"Just to drive the point home: a device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious.." I still don't buy it. This still misses the mark - it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none. All those pda's in the picture don't really mean anything to me. Sure, some of them had cell networking and a lot (most? all?) had wifi. But I would never consider the old pda's a mobile device. 'Mobile' to me comes from the term 'mobile phone', not 'mobile pda'. To me, this article is typical of OSNews - if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc. Anyway, Dan Frakes tweet wasn't talking about 'a few buttons being obvious' he said 'having no buttons/keys'. And like he said, if this was so obvious, then why wasn't everyone doing it in 2006? Howcome pda's didn't do this in the early 2000's? Because it took a visionary team of designers and execs (or just Jobs) that appreciates minimalism. No one at Compaq, HP, Microsoft's many pda OEMs would, no, could have done something like this. And don't forget the require stylus..

cryptoz 14y ago
> it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none. Excuse me? Last I checked, the iPhone has at least three buttons, maybe four! Home, Volume Down, Volume Up, Power.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  It's not a button, but if you count the mute switch, that's 5.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    It's a dedicated hardware switch. I'd count it.
    - slantyyz 14y ago
      The funny thing about that switch is that in 2007, I thought it was the best invention in the world. It was a pain muting my Windows phones because you had to fiddle around with the UI to change the profile to silence the ringer.
      - nickbarnwell 14y ago
        That switch was on every single Treo device from the 270 onwards, and numerous feature phones had a hardware mute switch as well.
        slantyyz 14y ago
        Not saying that Apple invented that feature for all phones, but if you were coming from Windows Phone, it was a giant godsend.
theoj 14y ago
So what's the innovation here? Applying minimalism (an established style from the 60's) to computers and phones? Is that really worthy of patent protection? Asked another way, should I be granted a patent to apply minimalism to other objects all around me? Suitcases? Refrigerators? Etc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism
- cstejerean 14y ago
  Yes. There are plenty of things left that could use some simplicity and minimalism. Patent away.
  - ElliotMingee 14y ago
    Why does that warrant patent protection? The idea behind a patent is to protect innovation, however the innovative cost in that sense is negligible.
    - nirvana 14y ago
      You're confusing utility and design patents. They are different things and have different purposes and requirements. Really, you're not the only one, but it is shameful that at this point in time so many people still don't know what patents are, yet comment on HN.
      - ElliotMingee 14y ago
        Fair point; I was too quick to comment there. I'm curious though: are you familiar with the reasoning behind the development of design patents? I've done some light research and not turned up much. It seems that trademark and copyright already provide fairly expansive coverage for non-functional IP, so I don't quite see the intent behind the design patent laws.
        catch23 14y ago
        Here's a small article to get you going: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=74f843be-c63a-40cc-8ae0-007bc50fdd99 http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as... Here's a brief excerpt: "Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as long as product design trade dress remains in use and continues to identify the source of goods to consumers. " And other one on infringement: "Infringement of the design patent is found when an ordinary observer, giving the attention of a purchaser, perceives the patented and the accused designs as substantially the same, in light of the prior art." In the court opinions on Gorham v White (1871): "It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other." This is why if Samsung creates a product whose design is substantially similar to Apple's, then infringement may occur. This is why the jury consists of "ordinary" people who are the right people to make the judgement call. Too many HN readers are complaining that the jurors should be technically minded because they are thinking of utility patents, and not design patents. You also fall in the same boat, but I'm guessing most HN readers don't even realize there is such thing as "design patents" and "trade dress protection". This is why lawyers are paid to do the arguing, while we sit back and yell from the sidelines.
dj2stein9 14y ago
PDA's usually had a few extra buttons because navigation using a stylus was always a bits awkward. If you ever tried scolling a web page using a stylus and scrollbars in Windows Mobile you'd understand why every PDA had a D-pad and a separate home button - it was a neccessity because of the stylus. Apple was simply the first on the market with a touch-driven display, which let them drop the extra navigation buttons. It's not like nobody ever thought of having less buttons. In any case, the invention of removing buttons should not be a patentable idea. The sheer absurdity of all, of Apple's patents is an abomination and makes the US law system look like a carnival.
jonknee 14y ago
The LG Prada pre-dates the iPhone and was actually the first phone to have a capacitive touch screen. It had as many buttons as the infringing Samsung devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada ). This was noticed at the time of the iPhone launch too: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separ... This is all silly though, Apple wasn't making the argument based on Samsung making a touch based phone. The arguments were on very small "inventions" like the rubber band effect and double tap to zoom. The design patent wasn't based on the fact that it was touch based, but that it looked like the iPhone (in shape and color). A weird thing to be able to patent if you ask me, but hey. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsun...
- notatoad 14y ago
  If you read the jury comments though, they made a single decision based on the overall look and feel of the device, and then applied that decision to all the arguments. Essentially, they felt like Samsung had broadly copied apple's look and feel, therefore apple deserved exclusive ownership of things like rubber band, whether they invented it or not.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    I think that was a part of their decision. If Samsung had come forward and said, "ok, this this and this we copied, but that we didn't" I expect they would have gotten a better response. But the blanket denial killed a lot of their credibility.
- sjwright 14y ago
  The LG Prada was a feature-phone with a nicer display. If Samsung had released the Prada in 2008, they would have been at zero risk from retaliation by Apple.
  - Nicole060 14y ago
nirvana 14y ago
> if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc. It's ideological. There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as it takes some sort of touch imput, they can rationalize that Apple never invented anything. I see this as an admission that they know the iPhone was revolutionary but they are making arguments from an ideological, rather than rational perspective. If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years? They say it was "marketing" and a "slick package" and the "Advantage" of charging "twice the price" --- as if charging more ever was the path to easy sales volume!
- hazov 14y ago
  > If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years? People were just enamored with the iPod, it was a good device and people paid to see if Apple would make a good phone as well, which it did.
  - taligent 14y ago
    This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products. And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dollars and lock themselves into a year long contract just to "see if Apple would make a good phone" is plain and utter lunacy.
    - hazov 14y ago
      Don't you know how to argue without doing this type of argumentation that you so commonly uses in Apple versus Android threads? I am not a Apple or Android fan to argue how the US patent system sucks, or how Android sucks, or how Apple is evil, or how Apple is the only company that innovates, all opinions that I read here on Hacker News from people who generally know nothing about life, people just like me. I am really not into these type of discussion that you appear to be so eager to enter in HN. It's easy to come and say that I am a lunatic, so what's your opinion? Why the iPhone succeeded among the early adopters? Were they all geeks that loved Apple? What about other places that are not the United States in which there's not a Apple store in every major city, do your analysis still stands?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- slantyyz 14y ago
  >> Why does Apple deserve protection from being copied when it could easily be argued that they copied or took a lot of inspiration from what came before them? I don't know if they deserve protection, but the IP laws entitle them to it. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the lawsuit or the outcome, but bashing Apple for using existing law in a place like HN is misplaced energy. If we're really outraged about the outcome, we should be hitting the social media channels in large numbers and trying to influence the politicians SOPA-style to get them to change the laws.
nirvdrum 14y ago
Interesting take on "mobile," which is a bit of a fuzzy term. So, I take it you don't consider the wifi-only iPad or the Nexus 7 to be mobile devices? I guess the concept of "mobile Web" has really made things murky.
abecedarius 14y ago
I don't know about your iPhone, but my iPad has four buttons plus a scroll-lock switch.

cryptoz 14y ago

> it wasn't about a 'few' buttons, the iPhone was about none. Excuse me? Last I checked, the iPhone has at least three buttons, maybe four! Home, Volume Down, Volume Up, Power.

slantyyz 14y ago
It's not a button, but if you count the mute switch, that's 5.
- sukuriant 14y ago
  It's a dedicated hardware switch. I'd count it.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    The funny thing about that switch is that in 2007, I thought it was the best invention in the world. It was a pain muting my Windows phones because you had to fiddle around with the UI to change the profile to silence the ringer.
    - nickbarnwell 14y ago
      That switch was on every single Treo device from the 270 onwards, and numerous feature phones had a hardware mute switch as well.
      - slantyyz 14y ago
        Not saying that Apple invented that feature for all phones, but if you were coming from Windows Phone, it was a giant godsend.

theoj 14y ago

So what's the innovation here? Applying minimalism (an established style from the 60's) to computers and phones? Is that really worthy of patent protection? Asked another way, should I be granted a patent to apply minimalism to other objects all around me? Suitcases? Refrigerators? Etc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism

cstejerean 14y ago
Yes. There are plenty of things left that could use some simplicity and minimalism. Patent away.
- ElliotMingee 14y ago
  Why does that warrant patent protection? The idea behind a patent is to protect innovation, however the innovative cost in that sense is negligible.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    You're confusing utility and design patents. They are different things and have different purposes and requirements. Really, you're not the only one, but it is shameful that at this point in time so many people still don't know what patents are, yet comment on HN.
    - ElliotMingee 14y ago
      Fair point; I was too quick to comment there. I'm curious though: are you familiar with the reasoning behind the development of design patents? I've done some light research and not turned up much. It seems that trademark and copyright already provide fairly expansive coverage for non-functional IP, so I don't quite see the intent behind the design patent laws.
      - catch23 14y ago
        Here's a small article to get you going: http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=74f843be-c63a-40cc-8ae0-007bc50fdd99 http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.as... Here's a brief excerpt: "Design patent secures for their owner a fourteen-year right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the claimed product and, thus, allows time to build up secondary meaning necessary to acquire product design trade dress protection. Trade dress protection can last for as long as product design trade dress remains in use and continues to identify the source of goods to consumers. " And other one on infringement: "Infringement of the design patent is found when an ordinary observer, giving the attention of a purchaser, perceives the patented and the accused designs as substantially the same, in light of the prior art." In the court opinions on Gorham v White (1871): "It is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same -- if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer and sufficient to induce him to purchase one supposing it to be the other -- the one first patented is infringed by the other." This is why if Samsung creates a product whose design is substantially similar to Apple's, then infringement may occur. This is why the jury consists of "ordinary" people who are the right people to make the judgement call. Too many HN readers are complaining that the jurors should be technically minded because they are thinking of utility patents, and not design patents. You also fall in the same boat, but I'm guessing most HN readers don't even realize there is such thing as "design patents" and "trade dress protection". This is why lawyers are paid to do the arguing, while we sit back and yell from the sidelines.

dj2stein9 14y ago

PDA's usually had a few extra buttons because navigation using a stylus was always a bits awkward. If you ever tried scolling a web page using a stylus and scrollbars in Windows Mobile you'd understand why every PDA had a D-pad and a separate home button - it was a neccessity because of the stylus. Apple was simply the first on the market with a touch-driven display, which let them drop the extra navigation buttons. It's not like nobody ever thought of having less buttons. In any case, the invention of removing buttons should not be a patentable idea. The sheer absurdity of all, of Apple's patents is an abomination and makes the US law system look like a carnival.

jonknee 14y ago

The LG Prada pre-dates the iPhone and was actually the first phone to have a capacitive touch screen. It had as many buttons as the infringing Samsung devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada ). This was noticed at the time of the iPhone launch too: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/ http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separ... This is all silly though, Apple wasn't making the argument based on Samsung making a touch based phone. The arguments were on very small "inventions" like the rubber band effect and double tap to zoom. The design patent wasn't based on the fact that it was touch based, but that it looked like the iPhone (in shape and color). A weird thing to be able to patent if you ask me, but hey. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsung-the-infringing-device-scorecard/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57500273-37/apple-v-samsun...

notatoad 14y ago
If you read the jury comments though, they made a single decision based on the overall look and feel of the device, and then applied that decision to all the arguments. Essentially, they felt like Samsung had broadly copied apple's look and feel, therefore apple deserved exclusive ownership of things like rubber band, whether they invented it or not.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  I think that was a part of their decision. If Samsung had come forward and said, "ok, this this and this we copied, but that we didn't" I expect they would have gotten a better response. But the blanket denial killed a lot of their credibility.
sjwright 14y ago
The LG Prada was a feature-phone with a nicer display. If Samsung had released the Prada in 2008, they would have been at zero risk from retaliation by Apple.
- Nicole060 14y ago

nirvana 14y ago

> if it's not Linux or open source, it bad/wrong/etc. It's ideological. There is a trend in these objections in articles like this and across hacker news. They simply ignore what was unique about the iPhone and trivialize it completely and then pretend like it was obvious all along. Notice the repeated comparisons to stylus based devices as prior art for multi-touch. They don't care about the differences, as long as it takes some sort of touch imput, they can rationalize that Apple never invented anything. I see this as an admission that they know the iPhone was revolutionary but they are making arguments from an ideological, rather than rational perspective. If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years? They say it was "marketing" and a "slick package" and the "Advantage" of charging "twice the price" --- as if charging more ever was the path to easy sales volume!

hazov 14y ago
> If the iPhone wasn't revolutionary, how did Apple go from selling no phones to the selling the most popular phone in just a few years? People were just enamored with the iPod, it was a good device and people paid to see if Apple would make a good phone as well, which it did.
- taligent 14y ago
  This makes NO sense what so ever. Apple has had plenty of failures in the past e.g. Cube G4 so it is not the case that people will just blindly "buy and try" Apple products. And the idea that ANYONE is going to spend nearly a thousand dollars and lock themselves into a year long contract just to "see if Apple would make a good phone" is plain and utter lunacy.
  - hazov 14y ago
    Don't you know how to argue without doing this type of argumentation that you so commonly uses in Apple versus Android threads? I am not a Apple or Android fan to argue how the US patent system sucks, or how Android sucks, or how Apple is evil, or how Apple is the only company that innovates, all opinions that I read here on Hacker News from people who generally know nothing about life, people just like me. I am really not into these type of discussion that you appear to be so eager to enter in HN. It's easy to come and say that I am a lunatic, so what's your opinion? Why the iPhone succeeded among the early adopters? Were they all geeks that loved Apple? What about other places that are not the United States in which there's not a Apple store in every major city, do your analysis still stands?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

slantyyz 14y ago
>> Why does Apple deserve protection from being copied when it could easily be argued that they copied or took a lot of inspiration from what came before them? I don't know if they deserve protection, but the IP laws entitle them to it. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the lawsuit or the outcome, but bashing Apple for using existing law in a place like HN is misplaced energy. If we're really outraged about the outcome, we should be hitting the social media channels in large numbers and trying to influence the politicians SOPA-style to get them to change the laws.

nirvdrum 14y ago

Interesting take on "mobile," which is a bit of a fuzzy term. So, I take it you don't consider the wifi-only iPad or the Nexus 7 to be mobile devices? I guess the concept of "mobile Web" has really made things murky.

abecedarius 14y ago

I don't know about your iPhone, but my iPad has four buttons plus a scroll-lock switch.