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

Apple granted broad mobile patent

macworld.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#41

Post by diminish »

bitwize wrote: post #32
huggyface wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed? There are a lot of what ifs. There are millions of patents in play.

Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed? Then Apple will simply license the tech, the patent holder will be happy, and life will go on. This is what they did for Xerox's GUI tech that got integrated into the Macintosh; it's what they did for that digital noise filter in the A5 chip, it's what they'll do if anyone tries to sue. Alternately, they could make a…

>> For Apple, it isn't about the money, though. Stealing Apple tech is an assault on their prestige, so they are unlikely to negotiate licensing terms with Android handset makers, and those handset makers are doomed in this market.

Never saw such a low quality analysis on HN, lately. For Motorola too then maybe it isnt about money, really?

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#42

Post by bcrescimanno »

stewbrew wrote: post #38
bcrescimanno wrote: post #18

I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…

"because if they don't patent it someone else will" AFAIK it won't be worth the stamps if there is some prior art. I.e. once release nobody can patent it. The above statement is false. They patented it to hinder competition. Note: I'm not against patents (for significant inventions) per se.

The fact that they did it to hinder competition does not invalidate the assertion that someone else likely would have patented it anyway.

I'd like to think that prior art would invalidate a lot of bad patents; but, prior art is not so clear cut as it seems on the surface.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#43

Post by fpgeek »

bitwize wrote: post #32
huggyface wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed? There are a lot of what ifs. There are millions of patents in play.

Apple isn't immune to the patent game either. What if any of the countless assaults on Apple succeed? Then Apple will simply license the tech, the patent holder will be happy, and life will go on. This is what they did for Xerox's GUI tech that got integrated into the Macintosh; it's what they did for that digital noise filter in the A5 chip, it's what they'll do if anyone tries to sue. Alternately, they could make a…

There are a couple of things you're not considering. First, the patent-holder could easily (and almost certainly will within the next few years) be Google/Samsung/HTC/... in which case they're not going to let Apple "simply license the tech". Second, if a patent holder gets traction in an attack on Apple, what is their most lucrative option? Hint: It isn't letting Apple negotiate a license.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#44

Post by DanBC »

bcrescimanno wrote: post #18

I'm not entirely sure why this is surprising news to anybody; in the original iPhone announcement, I believe Steve Jobs said, "...and boy have we patented it." Let's be frank: Apple is not the only major technology company with a massive collection of questionable patents that they could use to stifle their competition. The system, as it is today, basically forces companies into these patents because if they don't pa…

> "Don't hate the player, hate the game."

I do hate the game. The game needs to be reformed.

But some players appear too keen to play the game. Not pointing fingers at Apple here; most of them are as bad as each other.

I actually support the idea of software patents and hardware patents and "look and feel" patents; just not how they're implemented now. Something like a 2 year protection would give companies significant advantage, yet still allow smaller players to use the stuff in time.

See the lack of single-handed (software and hardware) keyboards; many of these were attacked by a patent troll. This has harmed accessibility, and has benefited no-one. A two year patent would have given a good faith actor an advantage when producing and marketing their device, and yet allowed other people to compete in time.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#45

Post by greyboy »

VanL wrote: post #26

The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…

> Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it.

Or, anyone who has used the default Nokia S60 browser (such as on the E7x series devices).

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#46

Post by VanL »

greyboy wrote: post #45
VanL wrote: post #26

The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…

> Translated from patent-speak, this just means that the little position indicator along the side of the display indicates where you are in a document. Further claims indicate that the position indicator disappears when you don't do anything for a minute. Anyone who has seen iOS (or Mac OS X Lion) has seen it. Or, anyone who has used the default Nokia S60 browser (such as on the E7x series devices).

Probably. I approach patents with the default position that any given patent is either invalid or irrelevant. 99.5% of the time I am right.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#47

Post by mrich »

bcrescimanno wrote: post #36
ajross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china. The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?

I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.

All other companies typically recognize that nobody ever invented anything on their own and the industry would be dead if products were banned because of infringements. So they settle either for royalties or a cross-licensing deal.

Not so with Apple. They want Android smartphones banned from the market.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#48

Post by kstenerud »

VanL wrote: post #26

The hyperventilating in this article is ridiculous. First, patents always issue on a Thursday - and any large company usually has a number in the pipe. There is nothing unusual about a company the size of Apple getting 25 patents issued in one release. Now, I haven't read all of the 25 patents issued to Apple, but this article makes the classic mistake of confounding the specification (which describes lots of stuff)…

It will probably be invalidated anyway since there is prior art. I had a document reader on my old Zaurus that did exactly this.

Re: Apple granted broad mobile patent

#50

Post by DanBC »

bcrescimanno wrote: post #36
ajross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "could" is doing way too much work in that sentence. Yes, all the other patent holders "could" file ridiculous suits and bring the tech economy down, in the same way that the US "could" launch a nuclear first strike against china. The thing is, for the most part they aren't, and haven't, over several decades of detente. Apple did. I think that distinction matters, no?

I think it'd be interesting to put that assertion to the test: has Apple really been more litigious with their patent portfolio than Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, and Google (as totally random examples pulled from thin air)? I'm honestly not sure of the answer; but, I'm skeptical that Apple is "worse" than other major tech companies in this regard.

I'd love to see some data for this.

Perhaps patent litigation is something that some consumers would base their buying decisions on?

Post reply on HN