Live data from Hacker News

Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

my.opera.com

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#21
post #12
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Huxley said

>Not disagreeing that it is an area where Apple should have behaved better

So why would you read it as a claim that "it's OK for Apple to do this"? He's just pointing out an interesting bit of history.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#22

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…

I think just creating the standard is not the problem. If W3C had a policy "We don't care about patents", nobody could sue THEM.

However, if anybody wanted to actually use those standards, he/she would get sued.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#23
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."

As long as an obvious idea can be turned into a patent (and they definitely are! remember the swing patent [1]?) then one attempt to patent it has to be the first. Your statement can't be true unless all obvious ideas have somehow been patented since the dawn of time.

[1]: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-a...

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#24
post #21
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Huxley said >Not disagreeing that it is an area where Apple should have behaved better So why would you read it as a claim that "it's OK for Apple to do this"? He's just pointing out an interesting bit of history.

It's a linguistic thing, I think.

Not disagreeing that it is an area where Apple should have behaved better, but

The 'but' implies "Not disagreeing, but not totally agreeing either". It might have been better to not mention Apple at all:

"It's interesting to note that Rambus persued this tactic in an even worse way..."

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#25
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 letter of the law is one thing, being a dick is another. It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. They also knew that the w3c and the browser vendors were working on this. They let everybody work on the standard while they planned to throw their legal team at it at the last minute. It doesn't matter what the rules are, apple is acting maliciously here.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#26
I don't understand why the W3C even allows this.

When companies submit any documentation whatsoever as part of, say, an the ITU H.264 standardization process, they are required to sign off on a form that states whether they have patent claims on that documentation. If they do, they declare that they are willing to license it under the terms required for that specification -- no surprises.

This doesn't eliminate the possibility of later surprise patents, but it does mean that it's unlikely any can come from anyone involved, because to even be involved in the process, you have to declare legally that this won't happen.

Why does the W3C not do this? If a W3C standard requires that all patents involved be licensed in a particular royalty-free manner, shouldn't even proposing an idea to the W3C require a declaration that one has no patents on said idea, or that will license ones' patent in such a manner?

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#27
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 h…

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

As a matter of fact, I do. Let me present to you a very popular example, pinch to zoom:

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

I'm sure you are confused, because Apple has a patent on this because they invented it, right? Not quite. Apple has a very narrow patent on it for using it in conjunction with a particular technology. To most people, applying pinch to zoom on a capacitive screen verses some other type of screen is pretty obvious, it works in any situation where you have multiple touch points.

None of this stopped Apple from patenting it. It didn't stop the patent system from granting the patent. And perhaps worst of all, it doesn't stop Apple from using this patent to claim that they did all sorts of work and pioneered multitouch with gestures like pinch to zoom.

The problem many of have with Apple stems from exactly this type of situation. While this is one of the most talked about, I have no doubt that you can find many other examples of Apple enforcing trivial patents granted in a narrow band, or in some caes like the Apple vs Samsung, not so narrow.

You don't typically see people complaining about patents on Latent Semantic Indexing, Page Rank, or other complex algorithms that are truly non-obvious. If our society truly believes that minor tweaks on existing ideas are grand innovations worthy of patent protection, that's a very sad statement on the human condition.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#28
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 letter of the law is one thing, being a dick is another. It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them. They also knew that the w3c and the browser vendors were working on this. They let everybody work on the standard while they planned to throw their legal team at it at the last minute. It doesn't matter what the rules are, apple is acting maliciously here.

It isnt like apple just found these patents under a couch cushion, they knew they had them.

You're assuming the people working with the W3C even knew that Apple had these patents. Apple is a big corporation. The people that are working with the W3C probably didn't even look for the patents themselves, it was probably the legal department that finally said, "Oh here's some that might apply."

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#29
post #19
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As I said, there were earlier deadlines, but they didn't apply to members who weren't in the working group -- just as the whole process doesn't apply to companies that aren't W3C members at all.

Perhaps it was a strategic error by the W3C to standardize touch events in a new working group (allowing Apple to delay longer just by refusing to participate), rather than an existing working group that Apple already participated in. But in the end, no matter what process changes a standardization body makes, Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. And they'll continue to do so whenever engaging the standards community is less beneficial than their other priorities (like having a stronger patent arsenal to use against mobile OS competitors).

And sure, I don't expect Apple to act any differently. They are a for-profit corporation, and they have not just an expectation but a duty to use the tools the system gives them -- including patents, secrecy, and lock-in -- to create and capture value. And they are very good at it. And they've created some tremendous value not just for their shareholders but also for users and developers.

But, thinking in the long term, remember that the open web is part of what kept alternative platforms like the Mac useful and viable through decades of Windows monopoly, and what made devices like the iPhone useful from day one, before the SDK and the app store. Open platforms like the web are great for disrupters, but for the same reason they are scary to incumbents.

If the dominant computing platforms of the 1990s were as locked-down as iOS and Windows Phone are today (with one company controlling software distribution, and forbidding any alternate ways to download and run code), then the web would never have been allowed to take off. I want to build and sustain platforms where the next web-like innovation will be allowed to happen. But today's incumbents understand what this means, so I expect a real fight to keep that possibility alive.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#30
post #4

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…

And yet Apple extended the web platform with these APIs, shipped them in a production browser, documented them (without labeling them as experimental or proprietary), published web content that used them, and encouraged other web developers to do the same [1]. Other WebKit vendors followed suit and implemented Apple's APIs, including Android, BlackBerry, and Nokia. Then other browser vendors like Opera followed. Mozi…

Do you think Apple is against W3C adopting their implementation of touch events or are they against any non-Safari browser having touch? If it's the former the working group can just adapt the API a bit and rely on libraries to provide the compatibility layer.
Post reply on HN