3 ms·

This is just anti-competitive warfare and plain patent-trolling. Apple scored 1 billion playing the trolling game last time, for a list over-scroll effect and

This is just anti-competitive warfare and plain patent-trolling. Apple scored 1 billion playing the trolling game last time, for a list over-scroll effect and rounded corners no less. How much will it get this? Two billion? Who knows, but last time around they clearly got enough to buy another judge. Utterly disgusting.

natdempk 13y ago
Agreed, at this point why not sue 90% of Android's custom keyboard makers into oblivion? At their core most of them have the same feature as the patent. The Samsung keyboard is barely different from the stock Google Keyboard anyways. Selective patent trolling at its finest.
- shultays 13y ago
  I always wondered, can Apple sue them too? Because I saw a couple apps that uses apple kind overscroll lists and wondered if it is illegal
dminor 13y ago
> Who knows, but last time around they clearly got enough to buy another judge. Same judge. Still have to convince a jury though.
coob 13y ago
Apple vs. Samsung is in no way equivalent to patent trolling. Patent trolling is done by companies that don't make anything.
rayiner 13y ago
It's not patent trolling because Apple is suing to defend its design as implemented in an actual product.[1] Moreover, I'm going to guess there is more to the patent than just "autocomplete for touch devices" considering Apple is just seeking bans on old Samsung Galaxy devices. Samsung did some very shady ripping off the iPhone in those models, so it wouldn't be surprising if they managed to infringe on Apples' patent even taken very narrowly and specifically. The usual arguments against patent trolling don't apply to Apple v. Samsung, in my opinion. There is nothing "innovative" about Samsung's early Android devices: they were copy-cat designs that ripped-off Apple in order to get quickly to market and take advantage of the mindshare around Apple's product. That's not a business tactic that should be encouraged. [1] "Trolling" means to lie in wait for an unsuspecting passer-by, like a bridge troll. There was nothing "unsuspecting" about what Samsung did. This document was damning in the original suit: http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-inter....
- harryh 13y ago
  > That's not a business tactic that should be encouraged. Why not?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    1) People broadly tend to perceive it as "unfair." 2) It tends to hurt American companies, who have a competitive advantage in design, which is easily copied, and help Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese companies, who have a competitive advantage in manufacturing, which is not easily copied. Apple versus Samsung is of course the paradigmatic example of this. 3) It tends to lead to commoditization of markets which I don't think is particularly good for innovation. When you can't compete on design, because someone else can easily copy it, the industry just becomes a race to become the biggest/most outsourced/most vertically integrated. And once that vertically integrated leviathan emerges, it is unassailable. It can destroy everyone on price and also copy any competitive design that gets traction with consumers. Samsung in the Android space is the paradigmatic example of that. I probably have an atypical, at least among HN-ers, view of the cell phone industry. I view Apple as the underdog, fighting to keep the industry from turning into something like the PC industry, where innovation is more or less dead because everyone is too busy fighting for the thin scraps of profit that are available.

natdempk 13y ago

Agreed, at this point why not sue 90% of Android's custom keyboard makers into oblivion? At their core most of them have the same feature as the patent. The Samsung keyboard is barely different from the stock Google Keyboard anyways. Selective patent trolling at its finest.

shultays 13y ago
I always wondered, can Apple sue them too? Because I saw a couple apps that uses apple kind overscroll lists and wondered if it is illegal

dminor 13y ago

> Who knows, but last time around they clearly got enough to buy another judge. Same judge. Still have to convince a jury though.

coob 13y ago

Apple vs. Samsung is in no way equivalent to patent trolling. Patent trolling is done by companies that don't make anything.

rayiner 13y ago

It's not patent trolling because Apple is suing to defend its design as implemented in an actual product.[1] Moreover, I'm going to guess there is more to the patent than just "autocomplete for touch devices" considering Apple is just seeking bans on old Samsung Galaxy devices. Samsung did some very shady ripping off the iPhone in those models, so it wouldn't be surprising if they managed to infringe on Apples' patent even taken very narrowly and specifically. The usual arguments against patent trolling don't apply to Apple v. Samsung, in my opinion. There is nothing "innovative" about Samsung's early Android devices: they were copy-cat designs that ripped-off Apple in order to get quickly to market and take advantage of the mindshare around Apple's product. That's not a business tactic that should be encouraged. [1] "Trolling" means to lie in wait for an unsuspecting passer-by, like a bridge troll. There was nothing "unsuspecting" about what Samsung did. This document was damning in the original suit: http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-internal-report-copy-iphone http://bgr.com/2012/08/08/apple-samsung-patent-lawsuit-inter....

harryh 13y ago
> That's not a business tactic that should be encouraged. Why not?
- rayiner 13y ago
  1) People broadly tend to perceive it as "unfair." 2) It tends to hurt American companies, who have a competitive advantage in design, which is easily copied, and help Korean/Taiwanese/Chinese companies, who have a competitive advantage in manufacturing, which is not easily copied. Apple versus Samsung is of course the paradigmatic example of this. 3) It tends to lead to commoditization of markets which I don't think is particularly good for innovation. When you can't compete on design, because someone else can easily copy it, the industry just becomes a race to become the biggest/most outsourced/most vertically integrated. And once that vertically integrated leviathan emerges, it is unassailable. It can destroy everyone on price and also copy any competitive design that gets traction with consumers. Samsung in the Android space is the paradigmatic example of that. I probably have an atypical, at least among HN-ers, view of the cell phone industry. I view Apple as the underdog, fighting to keep the industry from turning into something like the PC industry, where innovation is more or less dead because everyone is too busy fighting for the thin scraps of profit that are available.