Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

my.opera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#31

Post by mbrubeck »

DarkShikari wrote: post #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 p…

The W3C has similar requirements. Apple worked around them by never proposing touch events as a standard in the W3C [1]. The standardization effort was led by other W3C members without Apple's participation.

[1]: Also, although Safari lead David Hyatt hinted way back in January 2007 that he would eventually bring touch events to the WHAT-WG , it never actually happened: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-Jan...

P.S. Greetings from a fellow Mudder! Thanks for ffmpeg! :)

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#32

Post by bradleyland »

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…

My opinion is that Apple's patents on touch interactive are bad for consumers and bad for progress. Imagine if Xerox had patented the mouse, and never licensed it to other computer makers on the terms they did. How long would UI design have stagnated on text interfaces? Would something else more/less useful arisen to work around the patent?

I don't know exactly how to express this, but maybe it's best to say that I'm always "concerned" when an argument occurs where one party is fighting the wrong battle. That's also just an opinion. "Apple shouldn't have these touch patents" is a lot harder fight to win than "Apple is a bad company and does mean things to the W3C." I question the effectiveness of the latter though. Say you convince people that Apple is a meanie and is undermining standards, have you produced any significant outcome that will change things? Apple's historical disposition hasn't exactly been yielding to consumers' interests. They decide what consumers want, build it, then make a ton of money. You have to find a way to assault that head on, or use the power of law to prevent them from using these tactics.

Convincing those who are paying attention that Apple undermining standards won't amount to much.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#33

Post by tosseraccount »

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 touch events as a proprietary interaction that they pioneered."

That's the problem. The marketing that "Apple invented the PC, Apple invented the GUI, Apple invented music players, apple invented pads" is one thing. But to actually continually threaten competitors with law suits is just being a bully.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#34

Post by dextorious »

mbrubeck wrote: post #23
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." 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...

"""Your statement can't be true unless all obvious ideas have somehow been patented since the dawn of time"""

Yeah, but I'm not talking "fire" here. The context is ideas that can generate lots of money and companies want to use like crazy. Like pinch-to-zoom.

If they claim it's obvious why didn't they implement it in their products first? Why wasn't it part of the web standards from before the iPhone? And why nobody patented it? That's the gist of my argument.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#35

Post by roc »

mbrubeck wrote: post #29
roc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partici…

> "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. "

Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want. I just don't think it's reasonable to do so while they're still following the rules.

> "the web would never have been allowed to take off."

The systems being locked down isn't a big deal, I don't think. The far larger risk was the monoculture that Windows presented and thus the control Microsoft could (and tried) to exert. As long as we have healthy competition between viable alternatives, I think the mobile space will be healthier than PCs in the 90s. Carriers, manufacturers and platform vendors today may try to squeeze out third party solutions, as Verizon is trying to control the NFC wallet space. But they extent to which they might succeed is the extent to which there aren't competitors for what they offer. The operating systems they (ab)use to push this plan are largely irrelevant of their ability to get away with it. Indeed they stand at their highest chance for success, right now, with the most open mobile operating system on the market.

That said, a locked-down monoculture would be a far bigger threat than a monoculture with more freedom.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#36

Post by notatoad »

adestefan wrote: post #28
notatoad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

i am assuming that apple's legal department know what their own company is up to. i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#37

Post by notatoad »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #30
mbrubeck wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i think that apple wants non-safari browsers to have touch events, but they want non-safari browsers to pay licensing fees for that privilege.

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#38

Post by GHFigs »

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…

Would it have been less disruptive in May? It's very clear that Apple's participation would have been preferable, but is there any other way this would have gone down even with it?

(Your posts have been much more informative than the submission, thank you.)

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#39

Post by ajross »

dextorious wrote: post #18
ajross wrote: 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're reading it totally backwards. The whole point of the patent system is to PROTECT X invention.'

Don't know where you live, but the constitution of my nation is pretty damn clear that the whole point of the patent system is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I don't see anything in there about "protection".

(edit with a little less snark: you're misreading what I said. Patents provide protection as a means to an end. What I was saying is that the goal of the patent system is very much to get inventions into the hands of the public, and into the hands of other inventors who can improve them. Apple's attempts to kill off web standards here is very much in violation of that principle.)

Re: Apple using patents to undermine open standards again

#40

Post by mbrubeck »

roc wrote: post #35
mbrubeck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 partici…

> "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. " Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want. I just don't think it's reasonable to do so while they're still following the rules. > "the web would never have been allowed to take off." The systems being locked down isn't a big deal, I don't think. The far larger risk was the monoculture that Windows presente…

>> "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. "

> Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want.

Well, that's what they did in this case. They opted out of the standards process, first by not bringing their proprietary extensions to any standards group, and later by not joining the standards group that other parties formed. No rule change will prevent outcomes like this.

I do agree that it's slightly better that they are at least W3C members (so they had to disclose their patent claims at the last minute rather than not at all), but that's the most marginal possible level of participation, and it doesn't really leave the open web or the standards community in much better shape.

Post reply on HN