7 ms·

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 f

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?
- luriel 14y ago
  > Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world? They are last I checked the biggest company in history. But apparently that is not enough reward for their efforts, they need the government to grant them a monopoly on some of the most ridiculously obvious ideas of the last 20 years.
  - ajross 14y ago
    This was hashed out over the last few weeks when they passed the record. They are the biggest in nominal ("dollar") value. The Microsoft of the 90's and IBM of the 80's were larger in inflation-adjusted market cap. And my understanding is that the US trusts of the 1920's were much larger in terms of value as fraction of GDP. But they're undeniably the biggest, most successful tech company on the planet right now. I think that's enough.
    - crag 14y ago
      And lets not forgot Standard Oil of the early 20th century. Standard Oil was so big it's revenue (including all the subsidiaries and holdings) almost topped the value of the whole country. Apple is far from that goal. Apple might be the biggest company by market cap today but they're a pale comparison to the likes of Standard Oil or US Steel (in their prime). Also, Apple doesn't have a monopoly is anything unlike (Standard Oil and US Steel). I wish most of you would stop trying to convince us all they do. We've been down this road before. And it seems to happen every generation - some company gets very rich. And everyone starts screaming about unfair practices and monopolies. Apple plays the patent game well. So does Google, MS, Samsung, IBM, Oracle, all the drug companies - and everybody else. So what's new?
      - ajross 14y ago
        Right. Everyone is screaming about unfair practices and monopolies because unfair practices and monopolies hurt the market. You honestly don't think MS hurt adoption of otherwise-good platforms in the 90's? There are a bunch of South Korean teenagers who probably wish you physical violence for holding that opinion.
thezilch 14y ago
> I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. You realize you are comparing an OS to a device? As well, assuming you are comparing Android to iOS, you realize that there are numerous accounts -- too many to iterate -- where features were born on iOS only after Android had success (ex. Android's notifications bar).
learc83 14y ago
The purpose of patents aren't reward hard work, but to promote innovation. You have to ask, if the patent system were dramatically changed (shortened, the scope of not obvious widened etc...)--would Apple still have innovated? The answer is a resounding yes. According to the verdict Samsung copied apple. Yet Apple still made hundreds of billions of dollars, of course they would have still created the iPhone, even if they had no patent protection whatsoever.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  I wish we could validate (or invalidate) the benefits of IP and copyright protection, given people speak about the benefits as if it's fact. Too often I hear garbage along the lines of: Without patents there would be no innovation! Without copyrights there would be no art!
  - luriel 14y ago
    Most evidence indicates the net value of so called "intellectual property" is negative: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
  - sophacles 14y ago
    Well, until copyright and patents were invented in the 1600s, there were no paintings, books, plays, or devices in the world.
    - prodigal_erik 14y ago
      To be fair, there weren't as many per capita as now, and far fewer professionals making them full-time. I'm just not sure that more works each accessible to fewer people (those who can afford to license it) is an overall win.
      - learc83 14y ago
        There are so many other variables that have dramatically changed over the last 400 years that there is no way to test whether this was a result of ip protection or not.
daemon13 14y ago
A pharma company receives patent for the specific molecule to be used for treating defined conditions. The cost of R&D usually is several billion dollars. The absense of prior art is crystal clear. The efficacy is confirmed by clinical trials, required by FDA. I am not convinced that using pharmaceuticals industry example is valid to illustrate your point, especially taking into account the subjective nature of prior art examination process.
- luriel 14y ago
  Also, most of the cost of developing a new drug is not the R&D, but the clinical trials and the huge bureaucracy to get a drug approved. The pharma industry is also notoriously anti-competitive and suffers from chronic regulatory capture.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Surely the trials should be counted as part of R&D. A drug isn't done until it's proven to be safe and effective in humans, after all.
Tichy 14y ago
All mobile browsers had a zoom function - I am actually too lazy to check, but I can't imagine they wouldn't have had zoom, because then they would have been unusable. Lot's of companies worked on tablets and even published them. I think the mistake you and others are making is saying "for ten years nobody managed to publish a successful tablet, so Apple must have solved a very hard problem". What you forget is that in those ten years there was a lot of technological progress that made modern tablets possible: better screens, faster, more energy efficient CPUs and GPUs and so on. Apple simply was a bit better in their timing for coming to market. You may applaud them for their good sense of waiting, or you may applaud others for being more daring and coming out with tablets before the tech was ready. Also, a big part of the success was simply marketing. Which certainly has some merit, but it shouldn't affect the patent issues.
sauravc 14y ago
I always thought coders had the ability to sniff out a BS software patent a mile away. But with all the pro-Apple patent comments, it seems software ignoramuses and revisionists have taken over HN. How can anyone "skilled in the art" stand by Apple's patents as non-obvious? http://www.erwanmace.com/2010/03/apple-did-not-invent-apps-and-touchscreen-phones-they-only-made-it-mainstream/ http://www.erwanmace.com/2010/03/apple-did-not-invent-apps-a... If such innovations weren't obvious to someone in the mobile industry given all the prior art out there, they've got to be a complete idiot.
throwawaay 14y ago
> [...] and a good amount of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent protection [...] Really? I would guess a good amount of that work was writing millions of lines of code, electrical and circuit design, designing for manufacture, and all that stuff you actually can't copy. Patents account for much less of that real _work_. To circle back to the beginning: > I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions You're right. > I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. Straight-up batshit absurd. People don't give Android enough credit for its Danger heritage -- Andy Rubin's previous company -- they developed a whole line of phones with hardware keyboards, web browsers, and downloadable applications. It was also built on top of a JVM. This sounds like the first incarnation of Android (the G1), doesn't it? The popular notion that Android was a copy of the iPhone or Blackberry is stupid and wrong. If Android was inspired by anything, it was from Andy Rubin's own past.
MisterMerkin 14y ago
That sounds like conjecture to me. I mean it sounds good but ultimately it's just a story you came up with retroactively.

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?

luriel 14y ago
> Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest tech company in the world? They are last I checked the biggest company in history. But apparently that is not enough reward for their efforts, they need the government to grant them a monopoly on some of the most ridiculously obvious ideas of the last 20 years.
- ajross 14y ago
  This was hashed out over the last few weeks when they passed the record. They are the biggest in nominal ("dollar") value. The Microsoft of the 90's and IBM of the 80's were larger in inflation-adjusted market cap. And my understanding is that the US trusts of the 1920's were much larger in terms of value as fraction of GDP. But they're undeniably the biggest, most successful tech company on the planet right now. I think that's enough.
  - crag 14y ago
    And lets not forgot Standard Oil of the early 20th century. Standard Oil was so big it's revenue (including all the subsidiaries and holdings) almost topped the value of the whole country. Apple is far from that goal. Apple might be the biggest company by market cap today but they're a pale comparison to the likes of Standard Oil or US Steel (in their prime). Also, Apple doesn't have a monopoly is anything unlike (Standard Oil and US Steel). I wish most of you would stop trying to convince us all they do. We've been down this road before. And it seems to happen every generation - some company gets very rich. And everyone starts screaming about unfair practices and monopolies. Apple plays the patent game well. So does Google, MS, Samsung, IBM, Oracle, all the drug companies - and everybody else. So what's new?
    - ajross 14y ago
      Right. Everyone is screaming about unfair practices and monopolies because unfair practices and monopolies hurt the market. You honestly don't think MS hurt adoption of otherwise-good platforms in the 90's? There are a bunch of South Korean teenagers who probably wish you physical violence for holding that opinion.

thezilch 14y ago

> I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. You realize you are comparing an OS to a device? As well, assuming you are comparing Android to iOS, you realize that there are numerous accounts -- too many to iterate -- where features were born on iOS only after Android had success (ex. Android's notifications bar).

learc83 14y ago

The purpose of patents aren't reward hard work, but to promote innovation. You have to ask, if the patent system were dramatically changed (shortened, the scope of not obvious widened etc...)--would Apple still have innovated? The answer is a resounding yes. According to the verdict Samsung copied apple. Yet Apple still made hundreds of billions of dollars, of course they would have still created the iPhone, even if they had no patent protection whatsoever.

smokeyj 14y ago
I wish we could validate (or invalidate) the benefits of IP and copyright protection, given people speak about the benefits as if it's fact. Too often I hear garbage along the lines of: Without patents there would be no innovation! Without copyrights there would be no art!
- luriel 14y ago
  Most evidence indicates the net value of so called "intellectual property" is negative: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...
- sophacles 14y ago
  Well, until copyright and patents were invented in the 1600s, there were no paintings, books, plays, or devices in the world.
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    To be fair, there weren't as many per capita as now, and far fewer professionals making them full-time. I'm just not sure that more works each accessible to fewer people (those who can afford to license it) is an overall win.
    - learc83 14y ago
      There are so many other variables that have dramatically changed over the last 400 years that there is no way to test whether this was a result of ip protection or not.

daemon13 14y ago

A pharma company receives patent for the specific molecule to be used for treating defined conditions. The cost of R&D usually is several billion dollars. The absense of prior art is crystal clear. The efficacy is confirmed by clinical trials, required by FDA. I am not convinced that using pharmaceuticals industry example is valid to illustrate your point, especially taking into account the subjective nature of prior art examination process.

luriel 14y ago
Also, most of the cost of developing a new drug is not the R&D, but the clinical trials and the huge bureaucracy to get a drug approved. The pharma industry is also notoriously anti-competitive and suffers from chronic regulatory capture.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Surely the trials should be counted as part of R&D. A drug isn't done until it's proven to be safe and effective in humans, after all.

Tichy 14y ago

All mobile browsers had a zoom function - I am actually too lazy to check, but I can't imagine they wouldn't have had zoom, because then they would have been unusable. Lot's of companies worked on tablets and even published them. I think the mistake you and others are making is saying "for ten years nobody managed to publish a successful tablet, so Apple must have solved a very hard problem". What you forget is that in those ten years there was a lot of technological progress that made modern tablets possible: better screens, faster, more energy efficient CPUs and GPUs and so on. Apple simply was a bit better in their timing for coming to market. You may applaud them for their good sense of waiting, or you may applaud others for being more daring and coming out with tablets before the tech was ready. Also, a big part of the success was simply marketing. Which certainly has some merit, but it shouldn't affect the patent issues.

sauravc 14y ago

I always thought coders had the ability to sniff out a BS software patent a mile away. But with all the pro-Apple patent comments, it seems software ignoramuses and revisionists have taken over HN. How can anyone "skilled in the art" stand by Apple's patents as non-obvious? http://www.erwanmace.com/2010/03/apple-did-not-invent-apps-and-touchscreen-phones-they-only-made-it-mainstream/ http://www.erwanmace.com/2010/03/apple-did-not-invent-apps-a... If such innovations weren't obvious to someone in the mobile industry given all the prior art out there, they've got to be a complete idiot.

throwawaay 14y ago

> [...] and a good amount of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent protection [...] Really? I would guess a good amount of that work was writing millions of lines of code, electrical and circuit design, designing for manufacture, and all that stuff you actually can't copy. Patents account for much less of that real _work_. To circle back to the beginning: > I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions You're right. > I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. Straight-up batshit absurd. People don't give Android enough credit for its Danger heritage -- Andy Rubin's previous company -- they developed a whole line of phones with hardware keyboards, web browsers, and downloadable applications. It was also built on top of a JVM. This sounds like the first incarnation of Android (the G1), doesn't it? The popular notion that Android was a copy of the iPhone or Blackberry is stupid and wrong. If Android was inspired by anything, it was from Andy Rubin's own past.

MisterMerkin 14y ago

That sounds like conjecture to me. I mean it sounds good but ultimately it's just a story you came up with retroactively.