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

Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

bgr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#21

Post by Hyena »

admiralpumpkin wrote: post #14
scottmp10 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is clearly not the case. There actions are clearly harming both competitors (Samsung, etc) and consumers (through less consumer choice in the tablet market).

So your implied argument is that patents hurt consumers because they don't allow one company's patented innovations to be used without restriction by other companies? Your view is that the limit of one's benefit from an innovation should be the time between when one releases an innovative product and when your competitors release copy-cat products?

Unless you're spending immense amounts of R&D, that tends not to be as severe a problem as constricting development because of patent thickets or creating aggregately large legal problems (Lodsys, et al).

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#22

Post by nextparadigms »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #4
maeon3 wrote: post #2

Your product is in the shape of a rectangle, we invented rectangle. Pay us money for our invention or we will sue you in 50 different nations. there needs to be a penalty for the attacking company when frivolous patent suits are shown to be ridiculous.

The problem is that very few claims are genuinely ridiculous. There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable. Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on. The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On the s…

Only because the patent law is broken. Just because the patents are made "according to the law", doesn't mean they are good patents.

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#23

Post by sukuriant »

Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this point, or is trying to goad Apple on to attack them.

I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized, like mini/microUSB...

By the way, the clenching feature was two bumps at the ends of the charger that, I think are used for holding the charger in place.

A question of course is, "should this be patentable". I'm not arguing that right now, and haven't thought about it enough to have a position, but it is awkwardly similar, and when there are already a fair amount of already-existing standards they could have chosen, they went with an Apple-specific one. ... that's all I'm saying.

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#25

Post by talmand »

admiralpumpkin wrote: post #17
grannyg00se wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are plenty of frivolous cases. When I looked at the details of thee hot coffee case the claim seemed even more absurd. The physical damage was worse than I expected but that doesn't make her less responsible.

Please explain "the details" which made it "even more absurd" to you. At what temperature would you start to assign responsibility to McDonalds? Can they, in your mind, give out boiling coffee without culpability? [edit: typo]

If a person asks for boiling water, then yes, McDonald's may sell such a product without culpability.

But the debate over how hot coffee should be is a different discussion. I'm curious though, what is the proper temperature of coffee? I for one don't drink it so I have no idea.

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#26

Post by epo »

Except for ammunition to the endless legions of kneejerk anti-Apple fandroids, what is the point of this article? It is essentially content-free, the limited claim being that Apple, who are infringed upon in many areas, is suing people who rip off its case designs as well as Samsung who ripped of the design of the iPad wholesale.

The patent system exists, Apple are using it correctly. Companies like Samsung should quit whining and stop copying.

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#27

Post by yason »

talmand wrote: post #25
admiralpumpkin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain "the details" which made it "even more absurd" to you. At what temperature would you start to assign responsibility to McDonalds? Can they, in your mind, give out boiling coffee without culpability? [edit: typo]

If a person asks for boiling water, then yes, McDonald's may sell such a product without culpability. But the debate over how hot coffee should be is a different discussion. I'm curious though, what is the proper temperature of coffee? I for one don't drink it so I have no idea.

If Mr Darwin is at work, nobody should have the right to sue.

Their coffee might be very hot or not so very hot, but the real problem is that thinking which allows the customer to lay blame on McDonald's without ever considering any responsibility for himself.

That thinking blatantly ignores the fact that everyone is—to a fair extent and by default—responsible for their own mishaps unless they truly had no reasonable way to guess or test for the surprise outcome.

If you're buying a hot drink in the first place, it's just common sense to merely touch the cup first to figure out if it's too hot before lifting it and burning your fingers. Similarly, when washing your hands you will generally first test the temperature of the running water before you splurge into your watery rejoicings instead of suing the café for reckless overuse of their water boiler. Further, most people learn very early on to try out if a stove plate is hot first before focusing on pressing their hands against it.

Now, admittedly, there are some things that you couldn't possibly avoid yourself. For example, unless otherwise signposted, publicly available staircases should hold together while you're stomping up and down on them. Door handles shouldn't deliver you a surprise shock directly from electric mains. A new car probably shouldn't explode on you when you turn on the ignition. But these come in rare numbers and equally extreme conditions.

Known accident-prone activities, such as driving, are explicitly protected via mandatory insurance in general. But in life in general, anyone can be expected to avoid many unexpected accidents with mere common sense, and still most of the rest of the incidents are well, just accidents. Accidents do happen and the driving nature of accidents is well, accidental, i.e. "nobody's fault" in general.

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#28

Post by Terretta »

sukuriant wrote: post #23

Am I the only person that actually thinks that charger cable (assuming its the same size) is a bit suspiciuos? It's like Samsung is either being lazy at this point, or is trying to goad Apple on to attack them. I have to side with Apple on the shape of the charger issue. Especially since there are plenty of shapes they could have used, some of them standardized, like mini/microUSB... By the way, the clenching feature…

You are not the only one.

What's more, Apple didn't start this. A few times in the past, I've traced the history of these suits in HN threads. Everyone is suing everyone, but reporters love to highlight Apple because it's a brand that ignites page views.[1,2,3]

Part of the (broken) cross licensing process is testing and setting cross licensing pricing using these suits and settlements. Given the limited market and limited market info for patent values and the unpredictability of enforcement results, this litigation seems to participants as reasonable a method as any for determining the cross licensing value if you're not going to just put everything in a pool (which certainly is supposed to work better, except when Samsung or Nokia sues over the very patents they put into the pool).

Most forget that Apple spent 20 years of R&D on personal mobile devices, then moved into phones in a way that made it obvious the rest of the industry was stagnantly producing what the carriers wanted instead of what humans would really use.

As Apple's "Jesus phone" swallowed demographic segments whole, raking in the lion's share not of units shipped but of profits, the mobile industry went nuts at seeing the lucre they'd left on the table and started suing Apple from every side, both directly and through intermediaries. Of course, Apple, with its 20 years of actually innovative R&D in the space, countered.

When some of the industry start playing the "fast follow" game instead, Apple is forced by trade law to defend against that or they de facto give up their rights to the undefended points.

The charger and cable design show this wasn't a happy design coincidence; this was a calculated move to establish a "me too" product line. Part of that calculation was "What will be our expense from design and patent assertions by Apple when we fast follow these products so closely?"

Before Apple got into mobile, this was how the business was done, but it wasn't in the press because nobody was interested. The only thing different now is that we're talking about it.

(Footnote: the Prada phone design timing has been debunked[4] previously.)

    1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit
    2. http://news.designlanguage.com/post/1252039209
    3. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/
    4. http://www.slashgear.com/iphone-samsung-f700-prada-phone-rumors-debunked-20147320/

Re: Apple takes patent attacks in a new direction

#30

Post by joe_the_user »

admiralpumpkin wrote: post #14
scottmp10 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is clearly not the case. There actions are clearly harming both competitors (Samsung, etc) and consumers (through less consumer choice in the tablet market).

So your implied argument is that patents hurt consumers because they don't allow one company's patented innovations to be used without restriction by other companies? Your view is that the limit of one's benefit from an innovation should be the time between when one releases an innovative product and when your competitors release copy-cat products?

A patent system that has most of its connection to actual innovation definitely hurts consumers.

Apple's claims against the Android tablets have been shown here to involve something like the claim that Apple invented the tablet, something that's also been debunked here.

Post reply on HN