8 ms·

Apple Worked A Broken Patent System

82 points by snupples 14y ago

001sky 14y ago
Too many patents granted without enough understanding of the state of the art How far would $1B go to better understanding the State-of-the art?
- dgreensp 14y ago
  Are you offering? :)
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Proposal For Kickstarter: Kickstart The US Patent System <Donations Accepted>
    - blktiger 14y ago
      Nice! Although that does make me wonder... what if Government organizations had to use something like Kickstarter to get funding?
      - mtgx 14y ago
        I actually think that's how all political campaigns should work as well. Be funded only by individuals, just like votes are done only by individuals, not corporations, and the donations should be capped at a few thousand dollars at most. The way political donations work right now it's like a parallel voting system, where instead of each vote being (more or less) equal, the discrepancies can be enormous. One can donate millions or tens of millions or dollars, while others are donating a few tens of dollars or none. Who do you think the politician will listen to first? They'd rather listen to the guy who gave them $1 million, than 1000 other people who voted for the opposite position. The system is incredibly skewed because of this parallel "faux voting" system through huge money donations. It's almost like the "real" voting system doesn't matter anymore, and the more donations come through the other one, the less relevant the first one is.
      - ShawnBird 14y ago
        It would be interesting to set up a website that took donations for a cause, like a bounty board. The first politician (or group of politicians) to enact the policy would receive a donation to their next political campaign. This would probably only be effective if corporate spending was limited but... just a thought.
      - nickpinkston 14y ago
        I've wanted for a while a way of taking a small % of your taxes and allowing you the government agencies (or NGOs?) that you prefer. Maybe even a small % would be a useful thing to compete over - for instance NASA / NIH / NSF might get huge funding boosts if a certain segment of the population might give 1% of their taxes to such causes.
        001sky 14y ago
        http://www.janbanning.com/gallery/bureaucratics/ http://www.janbanning.com/gallery/bureaucratics/ Edit: Looks like a little backlog of problems to care of
dgreensp 14y ago
I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions, but given that they started working on the iPad 10 years ago, and even when it was announced no one could figure out why it was a good idea until they used one... Apple has likely poured years and buckets of money into R&D full of trial and error, like a pharma company trying to hit on a chemical formula, and a good amount of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent protection. In that way, what Apple is seeking is exactly what patents are supposed to provide. For example, I still remember how incredibly novel it was to use a web browser on an iPhone and be able to zoom in to click on links, double-tap, etc. This isn't a superficial feature either, as it required a beefy graphics chip. Putting a powerful GPU in a phone and using it to zoom in on web pages and PDFs may have been as innovative as putting a hard drive, and wheel, and a graphical LCD together to make the iPod. On the other hand, maybe "inventing" a form factor or a user interface paradigm and getting exclusive rights to it is as preposterous as it sounds, and the ghost of Steve Jobs should be content that Apple used its prescience to buy up all the high-res LCD panels. They have capitalized on their innovation quite well. I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. I'd trust Google to build a JVM and throw together an API, and not much further.
- Joeri 14y ago
  You're right, what apple patented is exactly what software patents are meant for. These apple patents are the cream of the crop of software patents. Which is why i think that if this is the best software patents as a category have to offer, the whole category should not exist.
- ajross 14y ago
  This is mostly a straw man. The patent system isn't intended to reward "effort". Apple's work can't be copied "for free" by anyone, nor was it. Apple wasn't the first to put "a powerful GPU in a phone", nor was their browser the first to allow zooming (their innovation was the "pinch" gesture, and even that isn't as clear as it seems if you read the patent). And if you don't see innovation in Android too, you're simply not looking (let me guess: you've never so much as installed the Android SDK, right?). I am so tired of all the advocacy, yet terribly frightened of the implications. Isn't it enough that Apple made a great, ground breaking product that enriched us all? Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world? Must they really be a monopoly too? Didn't people learn anything from the 90's?
aretiste 14y ago
When consumers realise they are paying too much (i.e. people in Asia will be paying less for the "same" phones), then things will get more interesting. Apple's patent suits will enable it to charge inflated prices. And that's what they will do. The comparisons commenters make to pharmaceuticals are amusing. Apple is not like a drug company that charges high prices for it developed drugs. Those companies are reimbursed for their R&D through government programs and health insurance. Apple is reimbursed directly from people's paychecks or company budgets if the devices are purchased for employees. These devices are cheap electronics. Few people can develop a generic version of a drug in their garage. But with 3D printing, the possibility of making protoypes that rival what Apple is selling is a real possibility. Patents on biological materials came well before patents on software. The seriousness of the problems with the patent system (that would prompt people like Posner to speak out) is due to the behaviour of IT companies, not pharmaceutical companies.
pdonis 14y ago
I'm not sure I understand the article's point. In the very first sentence, the author says: > Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square. But the rest of the article gives good arguments for why none of the Apple patents should have been granted in the first place, much less upheld in court. So why exactly should Samsung have been punished at all, then?
- kaonashi 14y ago
  The general sense I get from people who support the decision is that Samsung 'copied' various iOS motifs, therefore it is fair game for Apple to use whatever means to punish them.
  - yojimbo311 14y ago
    I get the impression that a lot of the anti-Apple camp get the same sense about people who "support" the decision, and I use that term loosely. I'd like to offer the following: Apple has been consistent in actively defending any design element, hardware or software, they feel is uniquely identifiable as Apple. This has always been about brand identity, but something so amorphous and difficult to regulate have few tools to protect them so instead the fights focus on technicalities. A patent here, a copyright there, a trademark, whatever. It's always fun to point and laugh at the specifics, but it's the bigger overall picture at play that's defining the actions, not the actions themselves. Long debates exist over whether the ends justify the means ect. so no need to get into it here. Samsung is just the latest in this trend and sort of the current poster child of businesses who's modus operandi is mimicking the successful designs of market leader products (whether it's software, hardware, appliances, whatever) and offering them at lower costs to cannibalize (couldn't think of a better word) the market as much as possible. There's nothing explicitly illegal about it since they aren't 100% knockoffs, but they skirt a very fine line, and I, like many others, seem to find it a morally detestable practice which can have a negative long term impact on the market and can debatably hurt consumers in ways they aren't always aware of. (apologies, still looking for a source on this). I think you'll find that most people who support the decision also agree that the need to weaponize a patent on an arguably questionable "innovative UI" in order to convince a bad actor to stop copying other people's work is absurd and has a serious chilling effect that can hurt more than it can help. IANAL, but my feeling is that if the market is significantly large enough scale the tools available that would be more appropriate to use don't carry enough weight behind them to create an equally compelling incentive to "play fair". Many companies seem to be resorting to using patents, copyright, and trademark instead to create an incentive compelling enough to negotiate some sort of mutual agreement (forced or otherwise). I think we can all agree that this activity is an abuse of those "protections" and a very compelling argument to have a good long look at them and determine what positive and negative motivational forces they create. However, while two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a genuine grievance in this case where the systems, as they currently exist, have not been able to resolve without heavy dependance on technicalities that taken individually may not mean much to the original issue. This is at least how I've personally been able to rationalize the disparity I have of the two positions and I get the feeling from other "supporters" that something similar is going on.
y1426i 14y ago
It would have been interesting to see if MS had patented AJAX, DOM and other browser goodies, singing its laurels on what an awesome IE6 browser was, where would the internet be today!

82 points by snupples 14y ago

Too many patents granted without enough understanding of the state of the art How far would $1B go to better understanding the State-of-the art?

dgreensp 14y ago
Are you offering? :)
- 001sky 14y ago
  Proposal For Kickstarter: Kickstart The US Patent System <Donations Accepted>
  - blktiger 14y ago
    Nice! Although that does make me wonder... what if Government organizations had to use something like Kickstarter to get funding?
    - mtgx 14y ago
      I actually think that's how all political campaigns should work as well. Be funded only by individuals, just like votes are done only by individuals, not corporations, and the donations should be capped at a few thousand dollars at most. The way political donations work right now it's like a parallel voting system, where instead of each vote being (more or less) equal, the discrepancies can be enormous. One can donate millions or tens of millions or dollars, while others are donating a few tens of dollars or none. Who do you think the politician will listen to first? They'd rather listen to the guy who gave them $1 million, than 1000 other people who voted for the opposite position. The system is incredibly skewed because of this parallel "faux voting" system through huge money donations. It's almost like the "real" voting system doesn't matter anymore, and the more donations come through the other one, the less relevant the first one is.
    - ShawnBird 14y ago
      It would be interesting to set up a website that took donations for a cause, like a bounty board. The first politician (or group of politicians) to enact the policy would receive a donation to their next political campaign. This would probably only be effective if corporate spending was limited but... just a thought.
    - nickpinkston 14y ago
      I've wanted for a while a way of taking a small % of your taxes and allowing you the government agencies (or NGOs?) that you prefer. Maybe even a small % would be a useful thing to compete over - for instance NASA / NIH / NSF might get huge funding boosts if a certain segment of the population might give 1% of their taxes to such causes.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        http://www.janbanning.com/gallery/bureaucratics/ http://www.janbanning.com/gallery/bureaucratics/ Edit: Looks like a little backlog of problems to care of

dgreensp 14y ago

I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions, but given that they started working on the iPad 10 years ago, and even when it was announced no one could figure out why it was a good idea until they used one... Apple has likely poured years and buckets of money into R&D full of trial and error, like a pharma company trying to hit on a chemical formula, and a good amount of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent protection. In that way, what Apple is seeking is exactly what patents are supposed to provide. For example, I still remember how incredibly novel it was to use a web browser on an iPhone and be able to zoom in to click on links, double-tap, etc. This isn't a superficial feature either, as it required a beefy graphics chip. Putting a powerful GPU in a phone and using it to zoom in on web pages and PDFs may have been as innovative as putting a hard drive, and wheel, and a graphical LCD together to make the iPod. On the other hand, maybe "inventing" a form factor or a user interface paradigm and getting exclusive rights to it is as preposterous as it sounds, and the ghost of Steve Jobs should be content that Apple used its prescience to buy up all the high-res LCD panels. They have capitalized on their innovation quite well. I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. I'd trust Google to build a JVM and throw together an API, and not much further.

Joeri 14y ago
You're right, what apple patented is exactly what software patents are meant for. These apple patents are the cream of the crop of software patents. Which is why i think that if this is the best software patents as a category have to offer, the whole category should not exist.
ajross 14y ago
This is mostly a straw man. The patent system isn't intended to reward "effort". Apple's work can't be copied "for free" by anyone, nor was it. Apple wasn't the first to put "a powerful GPU in a phone", nor was their browser the first to allow zooming (their innovation was the "pinch" gesture, and even that isn't as clear as it seems if you read the patent). And if you don't see innovation in Android too, you're simply not looking (let me guess: you've never so much as installed the Android SDK, right?). I am so tired of all the advocacy, yet terribly frightened of the implications. Isn't it enough that Apple made a great, ground breaking product that enriched us all? Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world? Must they really be a monopoly too? Didn't people learn anything from the 90's?

aretiste 14y ago

When consumers realise they are paying too much (i.e. people in Asia will be paying less for the "same" phones), then things will get more interesting. Apple's patent suits will enable it to charge inflated prices. And that's what they will do. The comparisons commenters make to pharmaceuticals are amusing. Apple is not like a drug company that charges high prices for it developed drugs. Those companies are reimbursed for their R&D through government programs and health insurance. Apple is reimbursed directly from people's paychecks or company budgets if the devices are purchased for employees. These devices are cheap electronics. Few people can develop a generic version of a drug in their garage. But with 3D printing, the possibility of making protoypes that rival what Apple is selling is a real possibility. Patents on biological materials came well before patents on software. The seriousness of the problems with the patent system (that would prompt people like Posner to speak out) is due to the behaviour of IT companies, not pharmaceutical companies.

pdonis 14y ago

I'm not sure I understand the article's point. In the very first sentence, the author says: > Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that it should be hung up in the public square. But the rest of the article gives good arguments for why none of the Apple patents should have been granted in the first place, much less upheld in court. So why exactly should Samsung have been punished at all, then?

kaonashi 14y ago
The general sense I get from people who support the decision is that Samsung 'copied' various iOS motifs, therefore it is fair game for Apple to use whatever means to punish them.
- yojimbo311 14y ago
  I get the impression that a lot of the anti-Apple camp get the same sense about people who "support" the decision, and I use that term loosely. I'd like to offer the following: Apple has been consistent in actively defending any design element, hardware or software, they feel is uniquely identifiable as Apple. This has always been about brand identity, but something so amorphous and difficult to regulate have few tools to protect them so instead the fights focus on technicalities. A patent here, a copyright there, a trademark, whatever. It's always fun to point and laugh at the specifics, but it's the bigger overall picture at play that's defining the actions, not the actions themselves. Long debates exist over whether the ends justify the means ect. so no need to get into it here. Samsung is just the latest in this trend and sort of the current poster child of businesses who's modus operandi is mimicking the successful designs of market leader products (whether it's software, hardware, appliances, whatever) and offering them at lower costs to cannibalize (couldn't think of a better word) the market as much as possible. There's nothing explicitly illegal about it since they aren't 100% knockoffs, but they skirt a very fine line, and I, like many others, seem to find it a morally detestable practice which can have a negative long term impact on the market and can debatably hurt consumers in ways they aren't always aware of. (apologies, still looking for a source on this). I think you'll find that most people who support the decision also agree that the need to weaponize a patent on an arguably questionable "innovative UI" in order to convince a bad actor to stop copying other people's work is absurd and has a serious chilling effect that can hurt more than it can help. IANAL, but my feeling is that if the market is significantly large enough scale the tools available that would be more appropriate to use don't carry enough weight behind them to create an equally compelling incentive to "play fair". Many companies seem to be resorting to using patents, copyright, and trademark instead to create an incentive compelling enough to negotiate some sort of mutual agreement (forced or otherwise). I think we can all agree that this activity is an abuse of those "protections" and a very compelling argument to have a good long look at them and determine what positive and negative motivational forces they create. However, while two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't negate the fact that there is a genuine grievance in this case where the systems, as they currently exist, have not been able to resolve without heavy dependance on technicalities that taken individually may not mean much to the original issue. This is at least how I've personally been able to rationalize the disparity I have of the two positions and I get the feeling from other "supporters" that something similar is going on.

y1426i 14y ago

It would have been interesting to see if MS had patented AJAX, DOM and other browser goodies, singing its laurels on what an awesome IE6 browser was, where would the internet be today!