10 ms·

The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

103 points by esolyt 14y ago

verganileonardo 14y ago
> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection. Wasn't "Slide to Unlock" invalidated in the process against HTC?
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  And didn't Google devise a workaround for Unified Search in a week or so?
  - lelibertaire 14y ago
    I was under the impression that the patch removed universal search altogether.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      That was a temporary stopgap to circumvent the injunction on sales until they came up with a permanent solution.
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    That's the thing: It doesn't really matter. Take any given software patent and throw a research team at it, chances are you'll find invalidating prior art. Take any given software patent and give it to a CS major, chances are you'll have a work-around inside of a few days. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you never know which patents will be asserted against you, and by that point the horse is out of the barn. You've now got to spend millions of dollars on lawyers for years to invalidate their improvidently granted patents. And the work-around doesn't do much good when they're asking for damages for past infringement on the millions of devices you've already shipped or suddenly having your trucks stopped at the border (and interrupting your business and straining your relationships with retailers) during the period before you can retool your supply chain to incorporate the work-around. Especially when the second you release a new product with a new set of work-arounds, they come at you with a new set of patents. Software patents have got to go.
    - chii 14y ago
      I think there is a middle ground - patents, if done "properly" is useful. Perhaps, firstly, you have to have a more vigorous application process that is peer reviewed (where peers are basically your competitors!). Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. The valuation of the patent determines the damage payment. This combination means that you can't just keep a patent indefinitely, waiting for someone to infringe and then extract money from them. Peer review means that you can't patent something that will stop your competitors from continusing business. Real innovation will get thru because your peers will have no case of prior art, but "bad" patents won't get thru as your competitors will search hard for prior art to stop you (aka, incentives are aligned amongst the parties).
      - cageface 14y ago
        Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. I'd rather just see software patents thrown out entirely but I think this is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen for fixing the current system. If that tax were rolled back into funding real scrutiny of incoming patents the whole system might not be the cancer it's become now.
      - Dylan16807 14y ago
        Clever. Especially if you charge some of that tax up front and use that to put up a bounty for invalidating the patent.
      - dodo53 14y ago
        I love this idea (there would have to be careful thinking around patent resell/value restating to avoid sneaky shell company tricks). It means you don't have the problems of special-casing software (no software patents) or vice versa special-casing like big pharma stuff (only patents on drugs - which most people seem to think is a needed case for patents) - big pharma would be much happier to claim up front that drug patent is worth millions on pay tax on that. It also means that you'd get lots of press around big stated-value (and so big potential claim) patents, so people in the same industry would know which patents to avoid infringing, hopefully much reducing risk of accidental infringement.
- huxley 14y ago
  The HTC case was in the UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    It was also tossed out in the Netherlands (Apple's attempt at a pre-holiday ban of the Galaxy S II and other Samsung products last year). Sadly, these results mean almost nothing in the US.
dvhh 14y ago
somehow Apple reminded me of monsanto. Maintain your dominant position on the market by agressively suing everybody.
- dhughes 14y ago
  Apple reminds me of Scientology, sue everyone who defies us!
marginalboy 14y ago
One can't help but suspect these players are acting in concert, to manufacture the most ridiculous exercises of technology patent abuse, so as to motivate the public and Congress to advocate for a reconsideration of the whole mess...
- veidr 14y ago
  I don't think so, because the dysfunctionality of the patent system is working out extremely well for Apple. However, I do hold out some degree of hope that the high-profile nature of these products, along with the self-evident insanity of these patents that give one company exclusive dominion over basic concepts (rounded rectangles, pinch-to-zoom) may be enough to make more people aware of how broken the patent system is. So while I doubt Apple has any intention other than to keep exploiting the flaws in the patent system to attack its competitors, if there is an upside to any of this nonsense, that would be it. Edit: Even though most of us on this forum probably reserve the most contempt for patent trolls like Myrhvold, with his zombie horde of non-practicing entities, I actually think that these cases resonate wayyyyy more with the non-programmer mainstream audience. Indie programmers having to pay royalties behind the scenes to some shell company? For most people, that's not too interesting. The Galaxy Nexus getting pulled off the market because it can search for things? This is at least something that people have heard of, can understand, and can see doesn't make sense.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    > The Galaxy Nexus getting pulled off the market because it can search for things? Absolutely. A Google-designed product getting pulled because of search? Does not compute.
Steko 14y ago
Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "independently developed" This is a new claim and not one that will find many takers imho. "Apple has said they are not interested in licensing" This is far from the truth. They certainly offered licensing to Samsung. $30/device might sound like a lot but that was a starting point in a negotiation.
    - icarus127 14y ago
      Do you think Samsung's 3G patents cost Apple as much as they want charge Samsung for rounded corners?
    - esolyt 14y ago
      Samsung isn't the only Android manufacturer. It also isn't the only one being sued by Apple. One of the benefits of Android being open source and free software is that it encourages small players to start competing with giants by giving them a nice OS and the ability to tweak it. This is why we can have smartphones, tablets, netbooks, smartwatches, ski goggles, cameras running Android. All designed and produced by many different companies, from multinational giants to small Kickstarter startups. No worries though. Soon, every one of them will realize they can get sued for "text correction" and how naive they were to think that they can just build upon open source and free software to realize their goals. As a startup should you care? Absolutely not! You should simply develop for iOS only, using iMacs and Macbooks.
othermaciej 14y ago
Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.
- veidr 14y ago
  I have found their coverage (of Apple v Samsung) useful. The only other outlet that covered some of the more unusual aspects of the verdict and the post-trial jury interviews (that I saw) was BBC.
  - othermaciej 14y ago
    I saw the same factual coverage of post-trial jury interviews on, e.g., The Verge, without GrokLaw's implausible legal analysis that this would cause the verdict to be thrown out.
    - veidr 14y ago
      Hmm, The Verge does indeed seem to have pretty good and detailed coverage: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-complete-trial-coverage http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-c... Like Groklaw, they seem to have their own opinions and eschew the bullshit-objective style of modern mainstream news, whereby all claims and opinions are treated as if equally valid. "Maybe it's time to pay the money and let everyone go back to making cool shit," is how The Verge ends one piece. It's true that Groklaw's stance has been opinionated, but I don't think that has gotten in the way of reporting this story.
- aristidb 14y ago
  Groklaw has proven pretty reliable in prior cases. Se's never truly impartial, but almost always quite close to the truth. And I can understand her, this really is an ugly set of cases. [EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
  - huxley 14y ago
DanBC 14y ago
Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?
- miratom 14y ago
  No. Can you imagine a world where a juror could possibly consider punishment for rape or murder unjust?
- huxley 14y ago
  It can happen, it's called jury nullification. There's some interesting reading in the background section of the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Background
  - philwelch 14y ago
    It's a bit controversial whether jury nullification is an actual right or whether it's just a side-effect of the fact that juries can't be punished or held accountable for their verdicts. What's the difference? Well, for instance, judges tend to instruct juries only to consider the facts and not the law, and attorneys aren't generally allowed to discuss jury nullification in their closing arguments. On the other hand, the jury will rule however it decides, so lots of things from the merit of the law itself to sympathy for the victim or defendant will factor into their decision.
    - patmcguire 14y ago
      It's occasionally upheld by the supreme court, occasionally overturned. It's defacto legal because it's unprovable. Also, it's worth noting that it's not exactly a panacea - the two big (in terms of scale) uses of it in the USA were northern jurors refusing to convict those who sheltered runaway slaves under the fugitive slave act (good) and the southern jurors who acquitted lynchers (bad). US link is more helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite... Judges and lawyers hate it, but at worst it's grounds for dismissal from a jury, not a crime.
adsr 14y ago
Why would you need bounce back at all? It's one of those things that gives iOS it's personallity, you could definately make a touch based user interface without bounce back.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I wouldn't bee so confident about that. The jury also found that the Nexus S 4G infringed the scrolling patent even though it doesn't include "bounce back" and, instead, using stock Android's "overscroll glow" (which, in theory, was supposed to work around the Apple patent). I'd say the breadth of this particular patent is an unsettled question, at the very least.
- lowboy 14y ago
  Bouncebacks and inertia scrolling help the user experience because they're closer to real world behaviour. On a subconscious level, people more easily interact with something that has a little weight and closer to real physics to it.
  - adsr 14y ago
    It solves some real world problems, but is it really closer to real world behavior? If I for example flip through a photo album and reach the last page, it wont bounce back. There are other cues to that, such as the thickness of the page or if I attempt to flip the last page I will instead see the back cover etc.
spaghetti 14y ago
I'd love to see control of the "mobile space" be in the hands of individuals instead of large, for-profit and often evil companies. Clearly mobile computing is here to stay. If it wasn't then companies like apple and google wouldn't be fighting so hard for control. Imagine a decentralized app store where people can make a living without having to deal with apple's ridiculous review process or ideas of what's appropriate. I suppose the major challenge is getting all the non-geeks into this ecosystem and away from iTunes and other privately owned app stores. This is obviously wishful thinking. However given the importance of mobile computing going forward I think it's worth imagining the best mobile ecosystem possible.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > Imagine a decentralized app store where people can make a living without having to deal with apple's ridiculous review process or ideas of what's appropriate. So far, "freedom of App Store speech" and money don't seem to be correlated at all. (Or all the millionaires on OpenMoko and Cydia are being quiet to prevent a gold rush on their turf.) I think the only instance where Apple's guidelines are prohibitive to making a living is porn. I for one would be a thousand times more likely to pay for porn on the trusted platform that is Apple, rather than on some dubious website. Is it possible to use this as an advantage against established app stores? Or is Google already established as the platform to be on for mobile porn? (I can't check first hand, thanks to Google's GeoIP madness.)
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    > Is it possible to use this as an advantage against established app stores? Or is Google already established as the platform to be on for mobile porn? Google has similar guidelines to Apple on this front (see Zinio's comments about why they don't have Android/iOS versions of adult magazines, for example). The only notable difference I can think of is that there's probably more post-filtering than pre-filtering of apps.
  - spaghetti 14y ago
    You're right about the money being at the traditional app stores. I'm trying to think ahead and see if this will change. The enforcement of Apple's "guidelines" for apps harm developers' ability to make money on the app store far beyond porn. I have a non-porn, totally above-bar app that serves a niche that makes $n/day. I re-skinned my app to serve a different, larger niche and it was rejected multiple times for bizarre, ambiguous reasons. If this second app were in the store today I would be making more money. I'd bet my income would be at least 2 * $n/day from the apps combined.
001sky 14y ago
For those who would like to read them, here are all the Apple patents in play in this case: 5,946,647 (the “’647 Patent”), System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data 6,847,959 (the “’959 Patent”), Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system 8,046,721 (the “’721 Patent”), Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image 8,074,172 (the “’172 Patent”), Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations 8,014,760 [Part 2] (the “’760 Patent”), Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device 5,666,502 (the “’502 Patent”), Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes 7,761,414 (the “’414 Patent”), Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices 8,086,604 (the “’604 Patent”), Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system* - Short form summary of the IP. Useful for reference.
alvarosm 14y ago
They ask themselves why Apple went for Samsung's head. It's pretty obvious... they don't want an Apple vs. Google. It's much easier to win vs Samsung (a foreign company, by the way) and thus establish some valuable jurisprudence. Google was recently said to be getting ready to sue Apple, it's only natural because Apple's target was always Google and it's now only a matter of time before we get to that. It's a bit like WW2 when Germany started invading eastern countries. It was in no small part a preemptive move, because eastern Europe being occupied by Germany or the USSR was only a matter of time. It would have been Russia if it hadn't been Germany. We might still see some preemptive moves by Google before Apple finally sues Google directly.
- ash 14y ago
  > It would have been Russia if it hadn't been Germany. You are technically correct - Germany invaded Poland first. But German and Soviet invasions of Poland were just 18 days apart: 1 September and 17 September 1939. All according to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [1] signed shortly before that - on 23 August 1939. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
some1else 14y ago
I'm very much against software patents, at least regarding the UI. But the proposed Bouncebackandforth workaround is how the iOS Photos app works.

103 points by esolyt 14y ago

> These Four Horsemen of the Android Apocalypse are patents for what Apple claims are “key” product features -- “Slide to Unlock,” “Text Correction,” “Unified Search,” and “Special Text Detection. Wasn't "Slide to Unlock" invalidated in the process against HTC?

w1ntermute 14y ago
And didn't Google devise a workaround for Unified Search in a week or so?
- lelibertaire 14y ago
  I was under the impression that the patch removed universal search altogether.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    That was a temporary stopgap to circumvent the injunction on sales until they came up with a permanent solution.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  That's the thing: It doesn't really matter. Take any given software patent and throw a research team at it, chances are you'll find invalidating prior art. Take any given software patent and give it to a CS major, chances are you'll have a work-around inside of a few days. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you never know which patents will be asserted against you, and by that point the horse is out of the barn. You've now got to spend millions of dollars on lawyers for years to invalidate their improvidently granted patents. And the work-around doesn't do much good when they're asking for damages for past infringement on the millions of devices you've already shipped or suddenly having your trucks stopped at the border (and interrupting your business and straining your relationships with retailers) during the period before you can retool your supply chain to incorporate the work-around. Especially when the second you release a new product with a new set of work-arounds, they come at you with a new set of patents. Software patents have got to go.
  - chii 14y ago
    I think there is a middle ground - patents, if done "properly" is useful. Perhaps, firstly, you have to have a more vigorous application process that is peer reviewed (where peers are basically your competitors!). Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. The valuation of the patent determines the damage payment. This combination means that you can't just keep a patent indefinitely, waiting for someone to infringe and then extract money from them. Peer review means that you can't patent something that will stop your competitors from continusing business. Real innovation will get thru because your peers will have no case of prior art, but "bad" patents won't get thru as your competitors will search hard for prior art to stop you (aka, incentives are aligned amongst the parties).
    - cageface 14y ago
      Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. I'd rather just see software patents thrown out entirely but I think this is the most reasonable suggestion I've seen for fixing the current system. If that tax were rolled back into funding real scrutiny of incoming patents the whole system might not be the cancer it's become now.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      Clever. Especially if you charge some of that tax up front and use that to put up a bounty for invalidating the patent.
    - dodo53 14y ago
      I love this idea (there would have to be careful thinking around patent resell/value restating to avoid sneaky shell company tricks). It means you don't have the problems of special-casing software (no software patents) or vice versa special-casing like big pharma stuff (only patents on drugs - which most people seem to think is a needed case for patents) - big pharma would be much happier to claim up front that drug patent is worth millions on pay tax on that. It also means that you'd get lots of press around big stated-value (and so big potential claim) patents, so people in the same industry would know which patents to avoid infringing, hopefully much reducing risk of accidental infringement.
huxley 14y ago
The HTC case was in the UK: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18709232
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It was also tossed out in the Netherlands (Apple's attempt at a pre-holiday ban of the Galaxy S II and other Samsung products last year). Sadly, these results mean almost nothing in the US.

dvhh 14y ago

somehow Apple reminded me of monsanto. Maintain your dominant position on the market by agressively suing everybody.

dhughes 14y ago
Apple reminds me of Scientology, sue everyone who defies us!

marginalboy 14y ago

One can't help but suspect these players are acting in concert, to manufacture the most ridiculous exercises of technology patent abuse, so as to motivate the public and Congress to advocate for a reconsideration of the whole mess...

veidr 14y ago
I don't think so, because the dysfunctionality of the patent system is working out extremely well for Apple. However, I do hold out some degree of hope that the high-profile nature of these products, along with the self-evident insanity of these patents that give one company exclusive dominion over basic concepts (rounded rectangles, pinch-to-zoom) may be enough to make more people aware of how broken the patent system is. So while I doubt Apple has any intention other than to keep exploiting the flaws in the patent system to attack its competitors, if there is an upside to any of this nonsense, that would be it. Edit: Even though most of us on this forum probably reserve the most contempt for patent trolls like Myrhvold, with his zombie horde of non-practicing entities, I actually think that these cases resonate wayyyyy more with the non-programmer mainstream audience. Indie programmers having to pay royalties behind the scenes to some shell company? For most people, that's not too interesting. The Galaxy Nexus getting pulled off the market because it can search for things? This is at least something that people have heard of, can understand, and can see doesn't make sense.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  > The Galaxy Nexus getting pulled off the market because it can search for things? Absolutely. A Google-designed product getting pulled because of search? Does not compute.

Steko 14y ago

Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!

nitrogen 14y ago
Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.
- Steko 14y ago
  "independently developed" This is a new claim and not one that will find many takers imho. "Apple has said they are not interested in licensing" This is far from the truth. They certainly offered licensing to Samsung. $30/device might sound like a lot but that was a starting point in a negotiation.
  - icarus127 14y ago
    Do you think Samsung's 3G patents cost Apple as much as they want charge Samsung for rounded corners?
  - esolyt 14y ago
    Samsung isn't the only Android manufacturer. It also isn't the only one being sued by Apple. One of the benefits of Android being open source and free software is that it encourages small players to start competing with giants by giving them a nice OS and the ability to tweak it. This is why we can have smartphones, tablets, netbooks, smartwatches, ski goggles, cameras running Android. All designed and produced by many different companies, from multinational giants to small Kickstarter startups. No worries though. Soon, every one of them will realize they can get sued for "text correction" and how naive they were to think that they can just build upon open source and free software to realize their goals. As a startup should you care? Absolutely not! You should simply develop for iOS only, using iMacs and Macbooks.

othermaciej 14y ago

Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.

veidr 14y ago
I have found their coverage (of Apple v Samsung) useful. The only other outlet that covered some of the more unusual aspects of the verdict and the post-trial jury interviews (that I saw) was BBC.
- othermaciej 14y ago
  I saw the same factual coverage of post-trial jury interviews on, e.g., The Verge, without GrokLaw's implausible legal analysis that this would cause the verdict to be thrown out.
  - veidr 14y ago
    Hmm, The Verge does indeed seem to have pretty good and detailed coverage: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-complete-trial-coverage http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3207848/apple-vs-samsung-c... Like Groklaw, they seem to have their own opinions and eschew the bullshit-objective style of modern mainstream news, whereby all claims and opinions are treated as if equally valid. "Maybe it's time to pay the money and let everyone go back to making cool shit," is how The Verge ends one piece. It's true that Groklaw's stance has been opinionated, but I don't think that has gotten in the way of reporting this story.
aristidb 14y ago
Groklaw has proven pretty reliable in prior cases. Se's never truly impartial, but almost always quite close to the truth. And I can understand her, this really is an ugly set of cases. [EDIT: Fixed gender pronoun.]
- huxley 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

Groklaw links to a BBC interview with the jury foreman. > we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision. Can't jurors just ignore laws that they feel are unjust?

miratom 14y ago
No. Can you imagine a world where a juror could possibly consider punishment for rape or murder unjust?
huxley 14y ago
It can happen, it's called jury nullification. There's some interesting reading in the background section of the wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Background
- philwelch 14y ago
  It's a bit controversial whether jury nullification is an actual right or whether it's just a side-effect of the fact that juries can't be punished or held accountable for their verdicts. What's the difference? Well, for instance, judges tend to instruct juries only to consider the facts and not the law, and attorneys aren't generally allowed to discuss jury nullification in their closing arguments. On the other hand, the jury will rule however it decides, so lots of things from the merit of the law itself to sympathy for the victim or defendant will factor into their decision.
  - patmcguire 14y ago
    It's occasionally upheld by the supreme court, occasionally overturned. It's defacto legal because it's unprovable. Also, it's worth noting that it's not exactly a panacea - the two big (in terms of scale) uses of it in the USA were northern jurors refusing to convict those who sheltered runaway slaves under the fugitive slave act (good) and the southern jurors who acquitted lynchers (bad). US link is more helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite... Judges and lawyers hate it, but at worst it's grounds for dismissal from a jury, not a crime.

adsr 14y ago

Why would you need bounce back at all? It's one of those things that gives iOS it's personallity, you could definately make a touch based user interface without bounce back.

fpgeek 14y ago
I wouldn't bee so confident about that. The jury also found that the Nexus S 4G infringed the scrolling patent even though it doesn't include "bounce back" and, instead, using stock Android's "overscroll glow" (which, in theory, was supposed to work around the Apple patent). I'd say the breadth of this particular patent is an unsettled question, at the very least.
lowboy 14y ago
Bouncebacks and inertia scrolling help the user experience because they're closer to real world behaviour. On a subconscious level, people more easily interact with something that has a little weight and closer to real physics to it.
- adsr 14y ago
  It solves some real world problems, but is it really closer to real world behavior? If I for example flip through a photo album and reach the last page, it wont bounce back. There are other cues to that, such as the thickness of the page or if I attempt to flip the last page I will instead see the back cover etc.

spaghetti 14y ago

I'd love to see control of the "mobile space" be in the hands of individuals instead of large, for-profit and often evil companies. Clearly mobile computing is here to stay. If it wasn't then companies like apple and google wouldn't be fighting so hard for control. Imagine a decentralized app store where people can make a living without having to deal with apple's ridiculous review process or ideas of what's appropriate. I suppose the major challenge is getting all the non-geeks into this ecosystem and away from iTunes and other privately owned app stores. This is obviously wishful thinking. However given the importance of mobile computing going forward I think it's worth imagining the best mobile ecosystem possible.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
> Imagine a decentralized app store where people can make a living without having to deal with apple's ridiculous review process or ideas of what's appropriate. So far, "freedom of App Store speech" and money don't seem to be correlated at all. (Or all the millionaires on OpenMoko and Cydia are being quiet to prevent a gold rush on their turf.) I think the only instance where Apple's guidelines are prohibitive to making a living is porn. I for one would be a thousand times more likely to pay for porn on the trusted platform that is Apple, rather than on some dubious website. Is it possible to use this as an advantage against established app stores? Or is Google already established as the platform to be on for mobile porn? (I can't check first hand, thanks to Google's GeoIP madness.)
- fpgeek 14y ago
  > Is it possible to use this as an advantage against established app stores? Or is Google already established as the platform to be on for mobile porn? Google has similar guidelines to Apple on this front (see Zinio's comments about why they don't have Android/iOS versions of adult magazines, for example). The only notable difference I can think of is that there's probably more post-filtering than pre-filtering of apps.
- spaghetti 14y ago
  You're right about the money being at the traditional app stores. I'm trying to think ahead and see if this will change. The enforcement of Apple's "guidelines" for apps harm developers' ability to make money on the app store far beyond porn. I have a non-porn, totally above-bar app that serves a niche that makes $n/day. I re-skinned my app to serve a different, larger niche and it was rejected multiple times for bizarre, ambiguous reasons. If this second app were in the store today I would be making more money. I'd bet my income would be at least 2 * $n/day from the apps combined.

001sky 14y ago

For those who would like to read them, here are all the Apple patents in play in this case: 5,946,647 (the “’647 Patent”), System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data 6,847,959 (the “’959 Patent”), Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system 8,046,721 (the “’721 Patent”), Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image 8,074,172 (the “’172 Patent”), Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations 8,014,760 [Part 2] (the “’760 Patent”), Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device 5,666,502 (the “’502 Patent”), Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes 7,761,414 (the “’414 Patent”), Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices 8,086,604 (the “’604 Patent”), Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system* - Short form summary of the IP. Useful for reference.

alvarosm 14y ago

They ask themselves why Apple went for Samsung's head. It's pretty obvious... they don't want an Apple vs. Google. It's much easier to win vs Samsung (a foreign company, by the way) and thus establish some valuable jurisprudence. Google was recently said to be getting ready to sue Apple, it's only natural because Apple's target was always Google and it's now only a matter of time before we get to that. It's a bit like WW2 when Germany started invading eastern countries. It was in no small part a preemptive move, because eastern Europe being occupied by Germany or the USSR was only a matter of time. It would have been Russia if it hadn't been Germany. We might still see some preemptive moves by Google before Apple finally sues Google directly.

ash 14y ago
> It would have been Russia if it hadn't been Germany. You are technically correct - Germany invaded Poland first. But German and Soviet invasions of Poland were just 18 days apart: 1 September and 17 September 1939. All according to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [1] signed shortly before that - on 23 August 1939. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

some1else 14y ago

I'm very much against software patents, at least regarding the UI. But the proposed Bouncebackandforth workaround is how the iOS Photos app works.