Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#11

Post by pook1e » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:44 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #9

thechut wrote: post #6

These patent wars don't help anyone but Apple, and directly hurts consumers. I don't think this is what anyone wants. It actually sickens me to see the law enacted in this way. I really hope this comes back to bit Apple in the ass. It seems there has been a story about Apple doing something shitty everyday for the past few days, and the taste it leaves in my mouth is just getting worse and worse.

Arguably, forcing other company's to innovate could be a Good thing. Is a rectangle with rounded edges the one and only perfect tablet shape? I don't know, but if everyone just copy's the iPad it's going to take a even longer to find out. The windows tiles may or may not be an advance, but they are clearly not a row of buttons just like the 1st gen iPhone and 2 out of every 3 smart phones that followed.

Are you suggesting Apple was the first company to create a rectangular tablet with rounded edges?

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#12

Post by flatline3 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

thechut wrote: post #6

These patent wars don't help anyone but Apple, and directly hurts consumers. I don't think this is what anyone wants. It actually sickens me to see the law enacted in this way. I really hope this comes back to bit Apple in the ass. It seems there has been a story about Apple doing something shitty everyday for the past few days, and the taste it leaves in my mouth is just getting worse and worse.

First, I'd like to note that the article provides a very poor summary of the patents. That said, I'd like to throw this devil's argument out there as to why these patent wars help consumers:

These patent wars might help consumers by allowing Apple to leverage the money they spend on R&D, giving them the traction necessary to invest further R&D, and pushing Apple's competitors to come up with new and different ideas.

Apple has undeniably pushed the entire cell phone industry forward, and in the process had a tremendous impact on the software, entertainment, and game industries.

If everyone is free to copy their work and compete with them on price, and Apple could lose the market position they (in theory) earned through innovation, and may not be able to get it back. At the same time, if nobody else is innovating to do things differently from Apple, all we get are clones.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#13

Post by flatline3 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 2:53 AM UTC

DigitalSea wrote: post #7

"A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked" nobody should own a patent on that, what the heck? The patent system is seriously messed up. Don't get me started on the other patent: "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data." how can anyone be awarded such a generic patent? I'm disgu…

The automatic touch screen-based linkification of phone numbers, addresses, and calendar dates was fairly novel for smartphones when Apple introduced it. I don't believe anyone else was doing it on smartphones -- and if they were, there's prior art, and the patent should be invalidated.

What made it that especially interesting was that it alleviated a large part of the need for copy+paste. If you'll recall, the first iPhone OS didn't ship with copy+paste.

I'm having trouble figuring out what "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data" actually refers to.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#14

Post by randomfool » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:03 AM UTC

DigitalSea wrote: post #7

"A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked" nobody should own a patent on that, what the heck? The patent system is seriously messed up. Don't get me started on the other patent: "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data." how can anyone be awarded such a generic patent? I'm disgu…

And for the patent to grant a monopoly on this trivial idea for so long.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#15

Post by creamyhorror » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:07 AM UTC

flatline3 wrote: post #13

DigitalSea wrote: post #7

"A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked" nobody should own a patent on that, what the heck? The patent system is seriously messed up. Don't get me started on the other patent: "A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data." how can anyone be awarded such a generic patent? I'm disgu…

The automatic touch screen-based linkification of phone numbers, addresses, and calendar dates was fairly novel for smartphones when Apple introduced it. I don't believe anyone else was doing it on smartphones -- and if they were, there's prior art, and the patent should be invalidated. What made it that especially interesting was that it alleviated a large part of the need for copy+paste. If you'll recall, the first…

There was a whole HN thread throwing up prior art about the linkification patent (and also on Reddit). Linkification was being done in the '80s, based on one of the programs that someone managed to scrounge up in the thread, and the '90s as well. No patents issued - people just did it.

The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their work or not. That's the nature of software (and technology in general). The difference is, some software makers don't expect to protect their new features from competitors with patents. That's the crux of it, imo.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#16

Post by marshray » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:13 AM UTC

flatline3 wrote: post #12

thechut wrote: post #6

These patent wars don't help anyone but Apple, and directly hurts consumers. I don't think this is what anyone wants. It actually sickens me to see the law enacted in this way. I really hope this comes back to bit Apple in the ass. It seems there has been a story about Apple doing something shitty everyday for the past few days, and the taste it leaves in my mouth is just getting worse and worse.

First, I'd like to note that the article provides a very poor summary of the patents. That said, I'd like to throw this devil's argument out there as to why these patent wars help consumers: These patent wars might help consumers by allowing Apple to leverage the money they spend on R&D, giving them the traction necessary to invest further R&D, and pushing Apple's competitors to come up with new and different ideas.…

To the contrary, what it tells me is that Apple has lost confidence in its own ability to win on good ideas and good execution and is now being run by investors looking for quarterly returns and lawyers thinking this is actually a constructive way to "leverage the money they spend on R&D".

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#17

Post by flatline3 » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:18 AM UTC

creamyhorror wrote: post #15

flatline3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The automatic touch screen-based linkification of phone numbers, addresses, and calendar dates was fairly novel for smartphones when Apple introduced it. I don't believe anyone else was doing it on smartphones -- and if they were, there's prior art, and the patent should be invalidated. What made it that especially interesting was that it alleviated a large part of the need for copy+paste. If you'll recall, the first…

There was a whole HN thread throwing up prior art about the linkification patent (and also on Reddit). Linkification was being done in the '80s, based on one of the programs that someone managed to scrounge up in the thread, and the '90s as well. No patents issued - people just did it. The fact that these programs were written tells us that software writers innovate regardless of whether patents are issued for their…

Thanks. I have my own negative opinions about software patent novelty, I just wanted to point out that it was somewhat unique on smart phones.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#18

Post by readme » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:24 AM UTC

cremnob wrote: post #3

habosa wrote: post #2

So wrong. When will we have comprehensive reform on software-related patent law? In this age everything is powered by a computer of some sort, and it's very important to the intellectual future of the nation that we secure the right for individuals and corporations to innovate without fear of a patent lawsuit.

Why is it wrong exactly?

The 'patents' are so vague and fundamental that they shouldn't be legal. They only are because the system is badly in need of reform (read: abolition) and non-technical people weigh in on the issues.

I like Samsung stuff, I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1 and I'm an Android guy. I'm not going to go buy an iPhone if the Gnex gets banned.

Ever since they sued that German cafe I have had very little hope for them ever to take the righteous path again.

This is like Honda trying to sue Toyota for making a car with a steering wheel.

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#19

Post by mechnik » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:48 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #8

This is a preliminary injunction. It doesn't mean Apple wins against Samsung. From TFA: "Apple was ordered to post a bond of $95 million to enact the injunction, which would be used to pay Samsung damages if the decision is later reversed."

Can consumers sue Apple for denying them the opportunity to acquire Galaxy Nexus?

Re: Judge grants Apple an injunction against the Galaxy Nexus

#20

Post by ken » Sat, Jun 30, 2012, 3:52 AM UTC

I'm no lawyer. Is this ruling stating that the court believes the patents are valid, or simply that if they are found to be valid that they are being infringed in this case?

There's a huge difference between the two, and the article isn't quite clear on what the finding is. The bond makes it sound like it could be the latter, but everybody here seems to be assuming it's the former.