6 ms·

Apple’s Patent Win Is Bad For Us All

81 points by riyadparvez 14y ago

jstalin 14y ago
Apple is the new Metallica.
denzil_correa 14y ago
Sorry but the author attribues the deficiencies of the patent system to Apple. If not Apple someone else would have done it. I would also contest the competition argumen by saying that lesser clones in the market make for better competition. The way I see it, I am happy that there will be lesser clones and more original stuff for me to choose from purely from a consumer POV.
- watty 14y ago
  You really see this as a "plus" from a consumer POV? Things like pinch to zoom and auto-hyperlinks have no place in patents. It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents. Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development? The patent process has effectively made it impossible to create a mobile phone without breaking patents. That's not a win.
  - denzil_correa 14y ago
    > It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents No they do not. They can still use the same gestures and implement it differently. > The patent process has effectively made it impossible to create a mobile phone without breaking patents. You have put the blame of the patent process on Apple which is very unfair was all my point.
    - watty 14y ago
      How so? I didn't even mention the word "Apple" in my post. I just purchased a Macbook Air, I like Apple. This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with a broken patent process.
      - denzil_correa 14y ago
        Watty, It's not whether I like Apple or Samsung. I myself feel that the patent process is broken. My only point was not to single out Apple and leave the others. In this case, there was enough evidence that Samsung "willfully" copied from Apple. For example, a 132 page document was a very hard evidence including emails from the company. You do not require patents to prove it. Patents were used to calculate the financial losses. If otherwise, there would have been a long list of patents which the judges may have seen Samsung to infringed. However, that's not the case.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    Will you pleas stop with the mis-information. Read the linked article by Nilay Patel. It explains exactly why you are wrong about pinch to zoom. "It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents." Or in simpler terms, it forces companies to innovate. "Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development?" Sounds an awful lot like "Won't you please think of the children!" to me. Let's not forget that IBM, HP, Apple and Microsoft all started out at some point as the little guys, as did Google. http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo...
    - rustynails77 14y ago
      You're right. They tweaked the obvious, and patented it. It's almost as bad. Software patents like this should not be validated. To allow two fingers to zoom and one "tap" to set ... next, you'll be telling me that two fingers to zoom and one finger to slide left is patented too. When will this madness end?
- rogerchucker 14y ago
  This "if not Apple someone else would have done it" argument is the biggest pile of horseshit Apple apologists have been spewing since these lawsuits started. Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google against Bing? Or against Duckduckgo?
  - rimantas 14y ago
    > Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google > against Bing? What it has to do with search? As for mobile—there were numerous spider-web type graphs showing who is suing whom. You can actually see the lawsuit started (again) by Motorola agains Apple. Motorola is now owned by Google, if you missed that bit of information. Ultimately there are no good guys and no bad guys—it all boils down to the stupidity of patent systems and who you like more.
    - justinschuh 14y ago
      I think his argument is that Google has a big pile of patents in search and distributed systems, but isn't using any of them offensively. So, the whole argument that it's okay to act unethically (but legally) because someone else is bound to rings especially hollow here. As for the rest of your comment, it's a disingenuous argument that's been thoroughly debunked, so I won't bother wasting the time or keystrokes on it.
  - metatronscube 14y ago
    Google is just anouther company that thinks its shit dont stink. No different from any other in my opinion. So why dont you have a look through this and consider what you are really saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
    - itg 14y ago
      Lot's of Google employees on hn, doesn't surprise me at all when certain stories/comments get upvoted and downvoted.
  - 14y ago
recoiledsnake 14y ago
Perhaps PG can just pin a "Apple vs. Android" discussion to the top of HN so we don't have 20 articles every few hours on the front page regurgitating almost the exact same set of ~20 comment and counterargument types? Am I the only one getting super tired of this?
- luriel 14y ago
  The problem with the out of control patent insanity is absolutely not about "Apple vs. Android". The patent wars around the mobile market are just a symptom of how rotten the whole patent system is.
  - evilduck 14y ago
    Sure, that point is brought up every time too. It's not new, insightful, or interesting at this point, it's been discussed to death and repeated hundreds of times. It also doesn't prevent the media outlets from writing these hollow armchair-lawyering Apple vs. whatever stories to gain click-throughs, and it doesn't make it any less boring to see them submitted on HN every hour.
    - vibrunazo 14y ago
      Obviously there are still many who don't get it, even here. Until everyone understands what the problem is, it's still worth repeating. We can only declare beating on a dead horse, when the horse is dead. This one is not only alive, but getting stronger. We have a long long way to kill it.
      - tedunangst 14y ago
        The beatings will continue until everybody shares the same thoughts? Now what does that remind me of?
- DeanCollinsNYC 14y ago
  Being that this is the most imporatant issue in USA tech....there should be 20 articles each and every day.....
mtgx 14y ago
I wish Microsoft would be castigated for their aggressive use of mostly BS patents as well. Apple wins a one time only $1 billion payment, but Microsoft is getting to the point where they might get $1 billion from the companies using Android every 2 years or even every year if Android keeps getting even more successful. Is that right? Would it seem right if Microsoft did this to companies using Linux? They are even going after companies using ChromeOS. Why isn't there a bigger outrage towards them? Is it because they take the money in small bites compared to Apple? Is that how they get under the radar? They are making Android cost almost as much as their full phone OS license, thanks to a bunch of patents. That's not right.
- stanleydrew 14y ago
  Do you have a source for the ChromeOS claim? I would be really pissed about that.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Here http://goo.gl/68MgE http://goo.gl/68MgE Their license strategy is pretty different from Apple though. They go to OEMs and shake them down for a small licensing deal clouded in other deals and agreements, and also promises to make or keep making Windows Phones etc. Their goal is never court cases except in cases like BN (which they quickly settled later). The strategy is to build up precedents and take small amounts instead of full blown lawsuits requesting $30/device. Looks like the deals are okay with the OEMs, that's why there haven't been high profile lawsuits except with B&N.
- ajross 14y ago
  I hereby castigate Microsoft. Are you happy? MS is evil, but they are broadly happy to be a parasite. They aren't trying to keep their competitor's products out of the market entirely. Other companies, like Nokia, are behaving similarly. And it's hurtful and wrong. But sorry, it's objectively not as hurtful, nor wrong, as what Apple is doing right now with their shotgun suits, refusal to license at reasonable cost, and demands for import bans. The fact that Apple is at the top of a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.
anuraj 14y ago
Patent system is meant as an incentive for innovators. There is a need to clearly define and enforce: 1. What is patentable 2. What is the level of protection that a patent holder gets 3. What are the terms and obligations regarding patent licencing. In the absense of a suitable patent system, innovator's incentive will come down. Will it hurt the consumers by limiting disruptive innovation? If it does then it makes sense to see how the existing system needs to be made better. If not, let us not differentiate between software, pharma, hardware or whatever - because innovation in any form requires tremendous leaps of faith and pioneering efforts from inventors and should be protected by similar terms and instruments.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  Patents are not the only way to incentive innovation. You know what's a great way to incentive innovation yourself? Became an angel investor, those guys are investing in innovation and pushing progress forward many orders of magnitude better than intellectual property is. Don't have enough money? Join an angel group, or fund a kickstarter project. I don't know about the us, but many.countries have programs to inventive innovative startups with funding, incubation and mentorship. Bottomline is, there are.still means to inventive innovation without granting monopolies. If intellectual property magically ceased to exist, men would still invent awesome stuff. You can have my word on that.
DesaiAshu 14y ago
The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?
- luriel 14y ago
  > 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation? Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation". Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing better than your competition is already its own reward.
  - timr 14y ago
    "Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'" I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!" Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins. As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk, please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007, you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to post hoc rationalize the fact that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it "innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there, and I remember the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution screen. I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music. Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market, and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to win.
lotides 14y ago
Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly: > I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with. That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately. Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive. You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics. Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further. If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Just because people didn't like something doesn't make it "non obvious". It's not like the iPhone was the first phone with a software keyboard, I remember people using the XDA years before that. In many ways the iPad essentially is a "giant iPod" , just turns out there was a market for a giant iPod. Edit: Actually now I think about it I remember a conversation I had with a friend who is a big Apple fan at around the time that the iPhone/iPod touch came out. Something like this: "Hey, this iPod touch is cool. Now you can watch movies on the go!" "Yea, but the screen is kinda small, I don't want to watch a movie on a 4" screen. If they brought out a bigger version of this that I could stuff in my briefcase I might be interested." "Don't be ridiculous, nobody would want to buy that!" I also remember him trying to explain to me how GPRS/Edge was superior to 3G..

81 points by riyadparvez 14y ago

Apple is the new Metallica.

Sorry but the author attribues the deficiencies of the patent system to Apple. If not Apple someone else would have done it. I would also contest the competition argumen by saying that lesser clones in the market make for better competition. The way I see it, I am happy that there will be lesser clones and more original stuff for me to choose from purely from a consumer POV.

watty 14y ago
You really see this as a "plus" from a consumer POV? Things like pinch to zoom and auto-hyperlinks have no place in patents. It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents. Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development? The patent process has effectively made it impossible to create a mobile phone without breaking patents. That's not a win.
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  > It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents No they do not. They can still use the same gestures and implement it differently. > The patent process has effectively made it impossible to create a mobile phone without breaking patents. You have put the blame of the patent process on Apple which is very unfair was all my point.
  - watty 14y ago
    How so? I didn't even mention the word "Apple" in my post. I just purchased a Macbook Air, I like Apple. This has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with a broken patent process.
    - denzil_correa 14y ago
      Watty, It's not whether I like Apple or Samsung. I myself feel that the patent process is broken. My only point was not to single out Apple and leave the others. In this case, there was enough evidence that Samsung "willfully" copied from Apple. For example, a 132 page document was a very hard evidence including emails from the company. You do not require patents to prove it. Patents were used to calculate the financial losses. If otherwise, there would have been a long list of patents which the judges may have seen Samsung to infringed. However, that's not the case.
- sbuk 14y ago
  Will you pleas stop with the mis-information. Read the linked article by Nilay Patel. It explains exactly why you are wrong about pinch to zoom. "It may make Samsung differentiate further but at the same time they have to create unintuitive gestures to avoid Apple patents." Or in simpler terms, it forces companies to innovate. "Can you imagine being a "little guy" trying to get into mobile development?" Sounds an awful lot like "Won't you please think of the children!" to me. Let's not forget that IBM, HP, Apple and Microsoft all started out at some point as the little guys, as did Google. http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-myth http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/30/3279628/apple-pinch-to-zoo...
  - rustynails77 14y ago
    You're right. They tweaked the obvious, and patented it. It's almost as bad. Software patents like this should not be validated. To allow two fingers to zoom and one "tap" to set ... next, you'll be telling me that two fingers to zoom and one finger to slide left is patented too. When will this madness end?
rogerchucker 14y ago
This "if not Apple someone else would have done it" argument is the biggest pile of horseshit Apple apologists have been spewing since these lawsuits started. Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google against Bing? Or against Duckduckgo?
- rimantas 14y ago
  > Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google > against Bing? What it has to do with search? As for mobile—there were numerous spider-web type graphs showing who is suing whom. You can actually see the lawsuit started (again) by Motorola agains Apple. Motorola is now owned by Google, if you missed that bit of information. Ultimately there are no good guys and no bad guys—it all boils down to the stupidity of patent systems and who you like more.
  - justinschuh 14y ago
    I think his argument is that Google has a big pile of patents in search and distributed systems, but isn't using any of them offensively. So, the whole argument that it's okay to act unethically (but legally) because someone else is bound to rings especially hollow here. As for the rest of your comment, it's a disingenuous argument that's been thoroughly debunked, so I won't bother wasting the time or keystrokes on it.
- metatronscube 14y ago
  Google is just anouther company that thinks its shit dont stink. No different from any other in my opinion. So why dont you have a look through this and consider what you are really saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
  - itg 14y ago
    Lot's of Google employees on hn, doesn't surprise me at all when certain stories/comments get upvoted and downvoted.
- 14y ago

recoiledsnake 14y ago

Perhaps PG can just pin a "Apple vs. Android" discussion to the top of HN so we don't have 20 articles every few hours on the front page regurgitating almost the exact same set of ~20 comment and counterargument types? Am I the only one getting super tired of this?

luriel 14y ago
The problem with the out of control patent insanity is absolutely not about "Apple vs. Android". The patent wars around the mobile market are just a symptom of how rotten the whole patent system is.
- evilduck 14y ago
  Sure, that point is brought up every time too. It's not new, insightful, or interesting at this point, it's been discussed to death and repeated hundreds of times. It also doesn't prevent the media outlets from writing these hollow armchair-lawyering Apple vs. whatever stories to gain click-throughs, and it doesn't make it any less boring to see them submitted on HN every hour.
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    Obviously there are still many who don't get it, even here. Until everyone understands what the problem is, it's still worth repeating. We can only declare beating on a dead horse, when the horse is dead. This one is not only alive, but getting stronger. We have a long long way to kill it.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      The beatings will continue until everybody shares the same thoughts? Now what does that remind me of?
DeanCollinsNYC 14y ago
Being that this is the most imporatant issue in USA tech....there should be 20 articles each and every day.....

mtgx 14y ago

I wish Microsoft would be castigated for their aggressive use of mostly BS patents as well. Apple wins a one time only $1 billion payment, but Microsoft is getting to the point where they might get $1 billion from the companies using Android every 2 years or even every year if Android keeps getting even more successful. Is that right? Would it seem right if Microsoft did this to companies using Linux? They are even going after companies using ChromeOS. Why isn't there a bigger outrage towards them? Is it because they take the money in small bites compared to Apple? Is that how they get under the radar? They are making Android cost almost as much as their full phone OS license, thanks to a bunch of patents. That's not right.

stanleydrew 14y ago
Do you have a source for the ChromeOS claim? I would be really pissed about that.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  Here http://goo.gl/68MgE http://goo.gl/68MgE Their license strategy is pretty different from Apple though. They go to OEMs and shake them down for a small licensing deal clouded in other deals and agreements, and also promises to make or keep making Windows Phones etc. Their goal is never court cases except in cases like BN (which they quickly settled later). The strategy is to build up precedents and take small amounts instead of full blown lawsuits requesting $30/device. Looks like the deals are okay with the OEMs, that's why there haven't been high profile lawsuits except with B&N.
ajross 14y ago
I hereby castigate Microsoft. Are you happy? MS is evil, but they are broadly happy to be a parasite. They aren't trying to keep their competitor's products out of the market entirely. Other companies, like Nokia, are behaving similarly. And it's hurtful and wrong. But sorry, it's objectively not as hurtful, nor wrong, as what Apple is doing right now with their shotgun suits, refusal to license at reasonable cost, and demands for import bans. The fact that Apple is at the top of a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.

anuraj 14y ago

Patent system is meant as an incentive for innovators. There is a need to clearly define and enforce: 1. What is patentable 2. What is the level of protection that a patent holder gets 3. What are the terms and obligations regarding patent licencing. In the absense of a suitable patent system, innovator's incentive will come down. Will it hurt the consumers by limiting disruptive innovation? If it does then it makes sense to see how the existing system needs to be made better. If not, let us not differentiate between software, pharma, hardware or whatever - because innovation in any form requires tremendous leaps of faith and pioneering efforts from inventors and should be protected by similar terms and instruments.

vibrunazo 14y ago
Patents are not the only way to incentive innovation. You know what's a great way to incentive innovation yourself? Became an angel investor, those guys are investing in innovation and pushing progress forward many orders of magnitude better than intellectual property is. Don't have enough money? Join an angel group, or fund a kickstarter project. I don't know about the us, but many.countries have programs to inventive innovative startups with funding, incubation and mentorship. Bottomline is, there are.still means to inventive innovation without granting monopolies. If intellectual property magically ceased to exist, men would still invent awesome stuff. You can have my word on that.

DesaiAshu 14y ago

The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation?

luriel 14y ago
> 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in innovation? Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation". Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing better than your competition is already its own reward.
- timr 14y ago
  "Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"? Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'" I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!" Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins. As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk, please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007, you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to post hoc rationalize the fact that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it "innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there, and I remember the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution screen. I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music. Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market, and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to win.

lotides 14y ago

Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly: > I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then they say it was their idea to begin with. That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now. With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately. Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious" they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive. You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's a serious breach of ethics. Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't going to develop further. If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Just because people didn't like something doesn't make it "non obvious". It's not like the iPhone was the first phone with a software keyboard, I remember people using the XDA years before that. In many ways the iPad essentially is a "giant iPod" , just turns out there was a market for a giant iPod. Edit: Actually now I think about it I remember a conversation I had with a friend who is a big Apple fan at around the time that the iPhone/iPod touch came out. Something like this: "Hey, this iPod touch is cool. Now you can watch movies on the go!" "Yea, but the screen is kinda small, I don't want to watch a movie on a 4" screen. If they brought out a bigger version of this that I could stuff in my briefcase I might be interested." "Don't be ridiculous, nobody would want to buy that!" I also remember him trying to explain to me how GPRS/Edge was superior to 3G..