7 ms·
For re-inventing the smartphone back in 2007 and for not wanting others to clone the best features?
by onetimeuse001 14y ago
For re-inventing the smartphone back in 2007 and for not wanting others to clone the best features?
- TeMPOraL 14y ago> not wanting others to clone the best features? Yes. It hinders progress. Also for all this patent mess with Samsung, et al.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoOh no, not another thread about whether patents should exist or not or for how many years. The fact is that they exist, iPhone was REVOLUTIONARY when announced and soon after others started cloning it. Go and look at Samsung and Android pre-iPhone and let's talk. Just because something is copied a lot doesn't mean that Apple should roll over. Nokia, for example, came up with a great phone that doesn't seem to clone the iPhone. By the way, E=Mc2 is pretty obvious to me too--now.
- RobAley 14y agoIt wasn't revolutionary. It was evolutionary. There's a big difference.
- DrJokepu 14y agoAre these two concepts exclusive?
- RobAley 14y agoI think so, see my reply to rorrr above. To my mind, revolutionary = patentable, evolutionary = not so much.
- rorrr 14y agoYes, one means slow change, the other means fast change.
- RobAley 14y agoI would rather say that one (revolution) means turning the thing on its head and (often) starting from scratch. The other (evolution) means building incrementally on whats come before.
- jre 14y agoBy your logic, Google should sue Apple over the new maps in iOS6 because it's pretty much a copy of the Google Maps app.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoIf the "new maps in iOS6 because [are] pretty much a copy of the Google Maps app" then Google should be able and should sue Apple. Regarding design protection: Ford can't copy Jaguar or Ferrari, can it?
- olalonde 14y agoThose two cars (Ford vs Jaguar) seem no more dissimilar to me than a Samsung Galaxy S2 and an iPhone: http://www.carautoportal.com/car-images/ford/ford-gt/ford-gt.jpg http://www.carautoportal.com/car-images/ford/ford-gt/ford-gt... http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/05/Jaguar-C-X75-02.jpg http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/05/Jaguar-C-X...
- onetimeuse001 14y agoThat cannot be solved in a few HN posts; judges, juries and appeal courts decide that. My point was that certain designs are unique, virtually all cars have four tires, round steering wheel, baggage area, airbags etc but we kinda know when we see a Jaguar, Porsche, Corvette or a Ferrari.
- BitMastro 14y agoNot really. From the point of view of someone not into cars, Porsche and Corvette have differences and similarities, but only by looking at the brand name on the car you know which one is which. Similarly, someone knowledgeable about smartphones can tell an iPhone and a Samsung Galaxy apart even without reading the brand name (that is nonetheless well visible on Samsung phones). I haven't heard about Porsche suing Corvette because they have copied the design and users may be deceived, and I don't expect the same happening about smartphones.
- Vivtek 14y agoNice use of a one-time-use account.
- simplexion 14y agoGo and look at the LG Prada prior to the iPhone. Appletard.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoiPhone or Android is more than one feature, so "check LG Prada" isn't enough. The only Apple product I have is iTunes and spent probably $50 with them. Any more insults?
- damncabbage 14y agoThis comment doesn't belong on HN. Please don't be rude.
- esolyt 14y agoActually this whole discussion doesn't belong on HN.
- bermanoid 14y agoBy the way, E=Mc2 is pretty obvious to me too--now. And if physicists had been forbidden to use the formula without paying severe fees after it was discovered, we'd be a lot worse off.
- terhechte 14y agoBut that's not Apple's problem, is it? Nokia was the first to sue them, Microsoft sued Android manufacturers, too, and they also have to pay a per device bill due to patent law. It's great that in the sciences there exists no such thing as patents, and I also believe that patent law is a mess. But why is Apple measured on different moral standards than other companies? Why should they not go for what is, by current law, rightfully theirs? Just as Nokia and Microsoft did. And I'd bet a lot that if Samsung had come out with the first iPhone, they'd go after copycats just as well. It's business practice.
- Vivtek 14y agoI think the point where Apple goes too far is the perception that too much is never enough. They're already the most successful business in history - do they really need to use lawsuits to ensure they have no competitors? The fact that they use these frivolous patents to do so is just icing on the righteous indignation cake.
- davidw 14y agoLooks like Apple managed to eke out a bit of money from their products, despite all the copycats, though.
- SquareWheel 14y agoThe world would clearly be a better place if only Xerox could use the GUI and mouse. Or if only Opera were allowed to use tabs. Or if only Apple could use multi-touch. Do you see the problem with that argument? You're hurting consumers when you limit the technologies a company can employ. And when it gets into the realm of shapes, then you have an incredibly broken system.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoThe other side: I would not spend $X billion and risk bankruptcy to invent something that can be stolen 48 hours after I patent it. Do you see the problem with that argument? You're hurting consumers when you don't allow companies to profit for a while from the technologies a company risked everything to invent. Xerox patents have a limited time, they (maybe) can be licensed or exchanged with other patents licenses. Or, gasp....a resourceful company can invest billions to come with a new way to skin the cat. >> And when it gets into the realm of shapes, then you have an incredibly broken system. The biggest lie told by Samsung's shills to hide the details. If that was the case Apple would have sued everyone making phones with round corners. Samsung has a habit of waiting to see what sells and then clone them to get all the benefits without the risks.
- JackpotDen 14y ago>I would not spend $X billion and risk bankruptcy to invent something Then spend that money on resources and sell them for a profit. Buy a mine or a farm or something else that works with that perspective.
- gurkendoktor 14y agoAnd now imagine Apple had done exactly that. Would the consumer really have it better now?
- JackpotDen 14y agoI don't even have to think. Yes.
- kitsune_ 14y agoInnovation and inspiration, patented by Braun [1], errr, I mean Apple. [1] http://visual.ly/braun-or-apple http://visual.ly/braun-or-apple
- gurkendoktor 14y agoPlease remember how absolutely nobody was offended by the Nest Thermosthat while everyone talked about how it was strongly inspired by Apple. If Samsung had built a fridge that looks like an Apple product, the same would have been true. Or another thing - I vividly remember a series of Samsung screens that were 100% designed to be used with the white plastic era of Apple computers. Guess what, Apple didn't sue them into obvlivion. (I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple Stores had featured them.) Apple : Braun is absolutely not like Samsung : Apple.
- onetimeuse001 14y ago1977 was the latest design unless I didn't read it correctly. Any patent protection would have expired already.
- philbarr 14y agoSo once the patent expires it's then morally fine to claim the "inspiration" for a certain design?
- prof_hobart 14y agoYes. The inventor who has invested a lot of time and money in R&D should have had more than enough opportunity to reap the benefits of that investment by then.
- onetimeuse001 14y agoWe're going on a tangent. The idea is that whoever comes out first and patents "it" get some exclusive use. After that it becomes public so others can use and build upon it. If Braun was still marketing those products they might have complained. Apple said that they're making less money because people are buying Samsung phones that use Apple's patented idea /look and feel. True or not that's another story.
- fkdjs 14y agoLike notifications?
- ekianjo 14y agoOh please. Can we stop pretending Apple invented everything in 2007 and everyone else had been clueless for centuries before? I get to see this every week on HN and it gets seriously old. And even if it were true it seems like Apple never had a problem to keep selling their devices while the evil copiers were swarming the market. Hardly a good example of useful patent protection.
- Retric 14y agoThat's the opposite of the good old tiger repellent rock. Patents don't do anything look how well Apple does without them, wait Apple has and uses them. The truth is we don't know what a high tech international corporation would be like without patents because they all have them. You can't even say Apple would be as successful if they where less aggressive because they are already successful and they do use them. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/ http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/
- ekianjo 14y agoMy point is that Apple was doing very well without having to resort to patent claims/protection - when it came out with the iPhone, it was a success not because they had patents for it, but because people were BUYING it willingly. People buys things and do not care what is protected by patents or what is not. As long as Apple make desirable devices, why do they need to resort to patents ? They already have a significant advantage on the supply chain side that nobody else can reproduce so far. There are many ways you can protect your business without having to take the patent claims to court. It's very obvious.
- green7ea 14y agoThis is like the desktop idea Microsoft stole from Apple. Doesn't matter that Xerox did it first or that it was inevitable as computers were becoming more powerful. It's not like there is prior art for most of the touch patents with the diamond touch. The patents are also as absurd as patenting the double click. For any touch device, we want to maximize touch area. To do that, a square is best. A square doesn't fit well in pockets so a rectangle is better for a phone. It's also very uncomfortable to have a rectangle with sharp edges in your pocket. But wait... we don't have the freedom to design something useful, Apple did that first! What really ticks me off is that touch based phones were coming with or without Apple as the technology was becoming cheap enough. The only difference is that Apple did it first and they did it well (few companies do anything well). They didn't really invent much in the process but combined many existing concepts into an awesome product. What scares me is that most of these patents are obvious and completly ridiculous and shouldn't be grounds for granting Apple a monopoly on smartphones.
- peterhost 14y agoYes that exactly, And also for Newton re-inventing the laws of diffraction back in 1672 when humans before that were just staring at rainbows like dumb elephants And also for Thales re-inventing triangles just before the the 58th Olympiad (548–545 BC) while peasants back in the day thought they we just fancy things children used to draw with sticks in the dirt. And also for Uguuk Buguuk (not sure about this one's name) for inventing something called the iWheel that enabled objects to be transported in batches, more easily. And he was dumbfounded when he saw how fast it leaked, the iWheel thing. Come on, now... Serves them right (and WTF with apple anyway, Steve is dead). Nice thing the Whole world is not yet under US (patent) legislations domination.
- TimGebhardt 14y agoSomewhere out there, the guy who invented the Handspring Treo is sitting in a rocking chair yelling at his TV: "Apple didn't invent anything! They stole my ideas!" Get over it. Apple stood on the shoulders of giants and has the best marketers in the world.
- marknutter 14y agoI keep waiting for the "Apple is all marketing" meme to go away but it just refuses to. When Apple introduced the first iPhone the commercials they aired simply showed someone using the device. No clever marketing or cheap sales tactics; just letting the device speak for itself. Marketing doesn't make a product usable. Saying Apple is all marketing is nothing more than a thinly veiled barb at anyone who has ever bought an Apple product, as if they naively let themselves be duped into paying too much for too little. Give it a rest, already, it's tired.
- TimGebhardt 14y agoI'm a Mac owner. They make great products. But people don't know about great products without great marketing (the tech-startup entrepreneur's trap). Great products don't just speak for themselves, people need to know about them. I'm tired of people thinking that Apple divined the design of the iPhone out of the ether like Einstein did for his theory of general relativity. They iterated on some great ideas, combined them with a lot of stuff that existed before, refined them, and sold them.
- Domenic_S 14y agoYou're missing the point. The first iPhone commercial (not counting the "Hello." spot during the Oscars) was literally someone using the device and someone narrating: "This is how you turn it on. This is your music. This is your email." http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=70rgIQJm0Ls http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7... They let the device speak for itself, which was an innovative departure from the typical message of 'look how cool you'll be if you buy this'. Not many products could survive -- let alone crush the market like iPhone has -- left to speak for themselves.