Apple using patents to undermine open standards again • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#11

Post by ajross » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:20 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #2

The author's framing of Apple's patent applications isn't congruent with the way Apple views touch. The W3C, and standards advocates, view touch events in the same way they do mouse clicks. They're interactions that should be standardized and incorporated in to an event model for use in web applications. Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. Their already granted pinch to zoom pate…

"Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered."

Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? Using questionable patents to prevent straightforward interoperability requirements (i.e. make a web app to act like a native app) is, to me and I suspect lots of others, a fundamentally evil act.

It's all well and good to Love you some Apple. But when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public, don't expect people to stand behind them just because they make pretty phones.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#12

Post by ajross » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:22 PM UTC

huxley wrote: post #9

untog wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author doesn't seem that concerned with the patent applications themselves, rather Apple repeatedly throwing them at the standardisation process. Every time that it's happened so far they've done it at the last minute and halted the standardisation process, only to find that the patents weren't even relevant anyway. Given the insane amount of time that the standardisation bodies take anyway, Apple's approach is e…

Not disagreeing that it is an area where Apple should have behaved better, but read up about what Rambus did to the JEDEC standards body for an example of really nasty behaviour.

So... it's OK for Apple to do this because Rambus was worse?

(edit: I don't disagree that Rambus was worse -- they were, and threatened to effectively kill the competetive and vibrant DRAM market with their antics. But Rambus lost, and died. Apple is still around, and behaving badly.)

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#13

Post by dextorious » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:32 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #11

bradleyland wrote: post #2

The author's framing of Apple's patent applications isn't congruent with the way Apple views touch. The W3C, and standards advocates, view touch events in the same way they do mouse clicks. They're interactions that should be standardized and incorporated in to an event model for use in web applications. Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. Their already granted pinch to zoom pate…

" Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. " Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? Using questionable patents to prevent straightforward interoperability requirements (i.e. make a web app to act like a native app) is, to me and I suspect lots of others, a fundamentally evil act. It's all well and good to Love you some Apple. But when they sta…

"""Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? """

Yeah, but tough luck.

Why didn't those complaining Opera/Mozilla devs come up with the same interaction methods before Apple/fingerworks to give them to the public domain?

"""when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public"""

Well, selling computers instead of giving them with zero profit margin is against the interest of the public too. Where do you draw the line? Why should the public benefit from something Apple invented by bypassing Apple and getting it from other vendors?

If you invoke the defense of the questionable patent, since "pinch-to-zoom" is "too obvious", then why didn't anyone else come up with it before and patented it?

It can't be both obvious AND non patented before. What it can be, though, and I think it is, is "obvious in retrospect". Which is not the same as obvious at all.

That said, I'm all for a short period (5-10 years?) where a patent can be valid.

But I don't buy the "questionable" or "obvious" argument. If it's obvious, patent it and grant it to the world, or at least establish some major prior-art.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#14

Post by praptak » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:35 PM UTC

bradleyland wrote: post #2

The author's framing of Apple's patent applications isn't congruent with the way Apple views touch. The W3C, and standards advocates, view touch events in the same way they do mouse clicks. They're interactions that should be standardized and incorporated in to an event model for use in web applications. Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. Their already granted pinch to zoom pate…

> Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered.

"Pioneered" is a strong word for a technology whose development they had nothing to do with, then just bought it out so that no one else can innovate upon it: http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-multitouched-your-mom...

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#15

Post by ajross » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:44 PM UTC

dextorious wrote: post #13

ajross wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Apple views toch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered. " Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? Using questionable patents to prevent straightforward interoperability requirements (i.e. make a web app to act like a native app) is, to me and I suspect lots of others, a fundamentally evil act. It's all well and good to Love you some Apple. But when they sta…

"""Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? """ Yeah, but tough luck. Why didn't those complaining Opera/Mozilla devs come up with the same interaction methods before Apple/fingerworks to give them to the public domain? """when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public""" Well, selling computers instead of giving them with zero profit margin is against t…

"It can't be both obvious AND non patented before."

This is so wrong it makes my brain hurt to read it. Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!) it's contradicted by a continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art" stories on this site and a hundred others. Hell, I see some links to that sort of thing in this very thread.

"Why should the public benefit from something Apple invented by bypassing Apple and getting it from other vendors?"

Because that's is the whole point of patent law, according to the US constitution at least. And in any case that's not what's happening here. Apple isn't trying to make sure we get pinch-zoom from them, they're trying to make sure that web applications cannot get pinch-zoom at all.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#16

Post by mbr » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:48 PM UTC

I was under the impression that FSF had a collection of patents that have been donated to them. If so, can it really be true that Apple's not violating any of them? Proprietary companies use their patents to blackmail one another into cross-licensing all the time. Although it's offensive, it's how business operates. Why can't FSF do the same for the greater good of fostering the establishment of standards that will benefit the Free Software community and the public at large?

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#17

Post by jstepien » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

I'm wondering what would be an effect of moving a standardisation organisation to a software-patent-free country. In such case software patent issues wouldn't be any obstacle for the organisation in their standardisation processes. On the other hand, created standards would be useless in countries where technologies covered in the standard had already been patented.

As a result, isn't it so that software patents in some countries inhibit the development of standards on a global scale? That's troubling.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#18

Post by dextorious » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 5:03 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #15

dextorious wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"""Surely you recognize that to a lot of people this is exactly the problem, right? """ Yeah, but tough luck. Why didn't those complaining Opera/Mozilla devs come up with the same interaction methods before Apple/fingerworks to give them to the public domain? """when they start acting directly counter to the interests of the public""" Well, selling computers instead of giving them with zero profit margin is against t…

" It can't be both obvious AND non patented before. " This is so wrong it makes my brain hurt to read it. Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!) it's contradicted by a continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art" stories on this site and a hundred others. Hell, I see some links to that sort of thing in this very thread. " Why should the public benefit from something Apple inven…

"""Even beyond plainly bad logic (you patent every "obvious" idea you have?!)"""

If it's a multi-million making idea, why wouldn't I? (In my case, though, a little Googling reveals that someone else has thought of it first.)

You know of many people coming up with ideas like pinch-to-zoom and just throwing them away?

""it's contradicted by a continuous stream of "bad patent with prior art" stories on this site and a hundred others."""

How does this contradicts it? It cuts both ways, you know. If anything, it makes it even easier for someone else, like Opera, to patent something, if they can still patent it while prior art exists.

"""Because that's is the whole point of patent law, according to the US constitution at least."""

The whole point of the patent law is that ...the public should benefit by something X invented by bypassing X and getting it from their competitors?!!!!

You're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is to PROTECT X invention.

"""Apple isn't trying to make sure we get pinch-zoom from them, they're trying to make sure that web applications cannot get pinch-zoom at all."""

Wrong again. Web applications get it in mobile Safari and Safari OS X. So, yes, they're trying to make sure we get it "from them".

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#19

Post by roc » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 5:08 PM UTC

mbrubeck wrote: post #8

GHFigs wrote: post #6

Alternate title:"Apple disclosing patents ahead of deadline in accordance with W3C patent policy, again." The sense of malice seems to be inferred from Apple not disclosing these sooner, but I question what the point is of having a deadline if disclosures a month prior to it are going to be considered disruptive. If this was going undermine the process, shouldn't the deadline have been sooner?

The case where a W3C member has essential claims that aren't available under W3C royalty-free licensing requirements is treated as an "exception" to W3C policy [1], not an expected part of the normal process. It requires formation of a special committee and is truly disruptive. Apple seems to be one of the only members willing to do it regularly. [1]: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exc... Wh…

I'd be down for considering corporations that retain software patents [1] to be malicious. But I'm not sure I can get behind intimating that groups are being maliciously or aloofly disruptive simply because they aren't participating in Open Source working groups to the degree that we might like.

Again, if the timing is disruptive, the group should have set an earlier deadline for disclosure. If Apple's honoring the rules, then their timing is only as disruptive as the rules allowed in the first place. So it seems more reasonable to critique and revise the rules than to cast aspersions about dedication and motives.

[1] i.e. do not simply file for and retain ownership for defensive purposes, but freely license them to prevent any offensive use on their part.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#20

Post by CaveTech » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 5:11 PM UTC

jstepien wrote: post #17

I'm wondering what would be an effect of moving a standardisation organisation to a software-patent-free country. In such case software patent issues wouldn't be any obstacle for the organisation in their standardisation processes. On the other hand, created standards would be useless in countries where technologies covered in the standard had already been patented. As a result, isn't it so that software patents in s…

Even if the standards process could be carried out in another country, as you said, countries where patents exist would not be able to implement the resulting standard. The end result would be an api that is anything but standard.

It's important that the groups work slowly to clear all legal issues so that standards can truly be used on a global scale.