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

Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

slashgear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#121

Post by Tloewald »

ddlatham wrote: post #57

Make no mistake - all the major smartphones out there are infringing someone else's patent. If this is the precedent, next thing we'll have iPhones banned for infringing on Motorola, and Windows Phones banned for infringing on RIM patents. This is bad news for consumers, bad news for innovators. Everyone loses.

Infringing on patents pooled to create standards is different (viz Motorola). your patent goes into the standard in exchange for your agreeing to make it available for a reasonable price. This is obviously a Good Thing or standards would not be created or adopted.

Similarly, the price of simpy ditching patents would be the proliferation of trade secrets and obfuscated mechanisms.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#122

Post by [deleted] »

pook1e wrote: post #114
oemera wrote: post #107

You are all way to biased about the whole thing. Thing about it. They just freaking copied Siri. Would you feel cool if someone else just copies your innovative product feature. Apple has all right to sue them and get them blocked. You can hate my comment. You can down vote me. You can hate Apple as much as you like but all of you know before there was iPhone and iPad there was nothing close to any of it. So how can…

> They just freaking copied Siri. This article is about the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which doesn't have any integrated voice assistant as far as I am aware. > Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone... While it may be true that Android has "stolen" certain things from the iPhone, there are also plenty of things that the iPhone has also "stolen" from Android. Saying Android copies everything that Apple does whil…

[deleted]

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#123

Post by vacri »

gatlin wrote: post #10
jtsai256 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I share a similar sentiment of disliking Apple's litigious nature as of late, can you really blame the company for attempting to protect its intellectual property?

Yes. It has the choice not to (ab)use the law in this fashion and yet it does. Assuming free will - which is the only sane assumption to keep this conversation focused and tractable - then yes. I can blame them for their own actions.

Especially since Apple's long-standing mottos are think different/we do things differently to the rest of the pack.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#124

Post by gergles »

oemera wrote: post #120
pook1e wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They just freaking copied Siri. This article is about the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which doesn't have any integrated voice assistant as far as I am aware. > Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone... While it may be true that Android has "stolen" certain things from the iPhone, there are also plenty of things that the iPhone has also "stolen" from Android. Saying Android copies everything that Apple does whil…

AFAIK you would voice assistant in Android 4.1 which is damn similar what Apple introduced with Siri. I really can't understand how some people can just ignore the fact that there happens a big stolen product here. How on earth will you argue that Google has now a similar voice assistant like Siri without copying Siri. You don't want to say it is coincendence, do you? People always claim Apple had stolen from Android…

You can't own an idea. The idea of 'searching with your voice' is not something Apple can own.

They can own a specific implementation of searching with your voice, but that's it. The general concept of "doing this thing" is not something that is protectable.

Also, not that it is really relevant, but selling point Apple copied from Android? Notification center. A direct, 'slavish' copy (to use Koh's own terms), but you're not jumping up to defend Google's 'innovations' in the untamed wilderness of "use part of the screen to tell you what's happening".

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#125

Post by lukifer »

jusben1369 wrote: post #84
thechut wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with you ars, Apple is getting totally out of hand. They are becoming what Microsoft was in the 90's and it absolutely sickens me. Consumers have the right to choose what products they want to buy. I have been slowly switching away from the Apple products I own. And this just reaffirms that I will never buy another Apple product.

"They are becoming what Microsoft was in the 90's and it absolutely sickens me." Once you become the dominant player your mentality shifts from cocky upstart with nothing to loose to fat cat incumbent that thinks of nothing but protecting your turf. You might notice all of your friends who were liberal and poor in their 20's start voting conservative in their 40's once they have material wealth to protect - "less tax…

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#126

Post by oemera »

gergles wrote: post #124
oemera wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK you would voice assistant in Android 4.1 which is damn similar what Apple introduced with Siri. I really can't understand how some people can just ignore the fact that there happens a big stolen product here. How on earth will you argue that Google has now a similar voice assistant like Siri without copying Siri. You don't want to say it is coincendence, do you? People always claim Apple had stolen from Android…

You can't own an idea. The idea of 'searching with your voice' is not something Apple can own. They can own a specific implementation of searching with your voice, but that's it. The general concept of "doing this thing" is not something that is protectable. Also, not that it is really relevant, but selling point Apple copied from Android? Notification center. A direct, 'slavish' copy (to use Koh's own terms), but yo…

5 years of iOS work and the only thing you can find is "notification center"? It's not even a copy. It's not close to what it is on Android.

I just stop here. It doesn't make any sense to argue about this anymore. I just hope this copying just stops and everyone can have it's own innovative feature and not copied crap!

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#127

Post by dguaraglia »

Tloewald wrote: post #116
dguaraglia wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but AFAIK this economic model (and the Constitution) was supposed to work by trying to break monopolies, not encouraging them.

You do realize that a patent is a deliberately created, temporary monopoly.

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting.

But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (say, SPDY) can be massaged into being a vague generic definition ("a binary transmission method designed to make HTTP-like data structures and operations possible in a more efficient manner") that could cover a lot of ground, giving the owner of the patent the power to halt innovation (ZeroMQ could very well fall under the umbrella defined of such 'patent') while giving exactly 0 benefit to anyone.

I'm just waiting for someone cheeky enough to come up with a vague wording for describing a 'wooden and/or plastic object designed with the purpose of holding items and or facilitating common household tasks' (i.e. a piece of furniture) and sue IKEA.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#128

Post by dguaraglia »

jmduke wrote: post #95
JabavuAdams wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has managed to have a bogus patent issued - the patent, as far as I can tell, covers any sort of "search-as-you-type" system Is this from reading the claims, or from reading the introduction (whatever that's called)?

The patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... I'm bad at legalese, but it seems to pertain to search-as-you-type amongst multiple libraries (songs, texts, emails, etc.)

So, basically what Launchy, Spotlight, Android's 'search' toolbar, even Google's homepage, have been doing for a decade now. Nice.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#129

Post by JoeCortopassi »

dguaraglia wrote: post #127
Tloewald wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that a patent is a deliberately created, temporary monopoly.

Yes, and that's why I think (most) software patents are a crock of shit, same as most design patents. The very idea that someone can get a patent something like 'a tablet with a metal casing and rounded corners' is revolting. But then, the whole patent system has been fucked up for umpteen years because of the way lawyers lay out the legalese on most patents. Something as specific as a new protocol to transfer data (…

Where would Google be without the PageRank patent to give them a monopoly on search? Don't think many people have an issue with that.

Re: Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus

#130

Post by creamyhorror »

flatline3 wrote: post #96
creamyhorror wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? If they aren't near starvation, why should they recover the maximum "lost market advantage", if that would only increase the likelihood of them becoming a monopoly? If there is real infringement, why not offer Samsung the option of licensing the patent at a court-determined price? And sh…

> Why are you bringing up such a hypothetical, when clearly Apple isn't anywhere near starvation at all from the impact of the Nexus? The analogy was intended to demonstrate that when you purloin (or commandeer) someone else's property, it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them. Apple may not starve, but they may very well be irreparably harmed…

> it's sometimes impossible to restore their previous hypothetical future, no matter how much money you throw at them.

And my point is, why should it be necessary under the law to restore their hypothetical future?

The law doesn't presume to restitute the full losses of people whose property is destroyed by others' acts. I don't have the impression the law generally aims to completely undo big violations of others' rights or contractual terms, only to punish or provide partial restitution after the fact; otherwise we'd be seeing big reversals and small startup Davids suddenly overpowering Goliaths who had unfairly crushed them out of existence.

Not that this even applies in this case; Apple is no small scrappy David, and it's relying on imo broken patents.

> Apple doesn't want to license these patents to Samsung, because Apple clearly thinks the temporary government-granted monopoly is worth far more than any reasonable licensing fee.

I meant that the court should compel Apple to offer the licensing option, not that it would benefit Apple to do this. Ideally, though, the court should simply overturn the patents (which I hope is done in the subsequent hearings). Patents on metasearch, linkification and slide-to-unlock simply threaten the rest of the industry.

Post reply on HN