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

Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 372 posts

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#261

Post by jsz0 »

cageface wrote: post #230
pooriaazimi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I find Apple's strategy more solid and sustainable than their competitors'. BTW, I just wanted to say you have a GitHub link on your HN profile that leads to a 404. I thought maybe that was a mistake and you might want to fix it :)

It seems like essentially the same strategy that lost them the desktop wars after taking an early lead with the Mac. I don't see why we should expect things to be any different this time, although their vertical approach is better suited to mobile. Thanks for heads up on github. Fixed.

Apple can't really win on market share or their business model would be impossible to sustain on anti-trust grounds alone. The iPod was the only exception/fluke and IIRC there were some rumblings from the EU about it. The Bush DOJ was too 'business friendly' to worry much about it. Apple could make a market-share grab anytime they wanted to but they also realize it's suicide to do so. Better to own 30% of the market and 75% of the profits than 75% of the market and 30% of the profits. I don't know if they can sustain that but they probably won't shake things up until they are forced to. Don't mess with a good thing right?

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#262

Post by alayne »

cageface wrote: post #245
tptacek wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when did profit become the one and true metric? This is like wondering whether you'd be better off running a grocery store rather than a software business. Profit is the only metric. The idea that this notion started with Apple is strange.

Of course profit is ultimately the metric that counts. But time and time again in the tech world we've seen that it's much easier to build something cheap and ubiquitous and eat your way up the value chain than it is to start at the top and try to tenaciously cling there. It didn't work for Apple last time and I think it's starting to slip for them again now.

Which companies would you give as examples of "eat your way up the value chain"?

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#263

Post by linuxhansl »

That's what you get from having lay people (with no training in either software development, UI design, etc) making decisions like this.

These patents are quite obviously ridiculous.

381 patent: "rubber band" effect 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom 163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom" D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons"

This is supposed to be what sets off iPhones from competition?!

W.T.F.? How did we get to this?

I can see Dr. Evil saying "One Biiiillion Dollars".

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#264

Post by cageface »

alayne wrote: post #262
cageface wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course profit is ultimately the metric that counts. But time and time again in the tech world we've seen that it's much easier to build something cheap and ubiquitous and eat your way up the value chain than it is to start at the top and try to tenaciously cling there. It didn't work for Apple last time and I think it's starting to slip for them again now.

Which companies would you give as examples of "eat your way up the value chain"?

The PC industry devouring the server and workstation market is the most salient example.

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#265

Post by rayiner »

jellicle wrote: post #182
nirvana wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big misunderstanding of patents. Patents don't cover ideas, but inventions. "Pinch to zoom" is a feature, and the idea of doing that is not patentable by Apple or Jeff Han. It is the implementation that is patentable, and Apple's touch technology is very different from Jeff Hans'. It's quite possible that both could legitimately patent their inventions.... just as the rotory and the piston engines can both…

Your understanding disagrees with current law.

It doesn't. It only seems to because people on HN, reddit, etc, don't know how to read patent claims.

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#266

Post by rayiner »

Xcelerate wrote: post #130
danudey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent was filed on December 29, 2006, and covers a multitouch display that a) detects two contacts; b) which perform a gesture; c) which affects an image; d) and then the contacts disconnect; e) after which a second set of contacts is detected; f) which perform another operation within a set period of time. In other words, patent #7,812,826 only applies when you pinch to zoom and then pinch to…

Wouldn't it be great to just program things without worrying about patenting what you've done or whether someone else has patented it?

I understand the appeal of this line of argument, and to an extent I agree with it. I think independent invention is a real problem with patents as applied to software. Yet, Samsung didn't independently invent a phone that diverges from the Android default to look more like the iPhone.

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#267

Post by dkrich »

ellyagg wrote: post #237
cageface wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has done a good job of persuading people that this case was about protecting innovation and about Samsung's specific alleged infringements of their patents. But this is nothing more than a smoke screen for their ongoing proxy war on Android. They've refused to compete with Android on price, features, and form factors and the market has punished them for it. Expect more attacks on Android seeking ridiculous dama…

Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money. This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-f…

What did Samsung do that is shady, that Apple itself didn't? Apple was the first to market with the most-polished device, but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. Who cares? Apple was already winning on their merits. I have a feeling people will look back on this as a major turning point in Apple's history. They are starting to look like a paranoid ruler worried about an imminent attack instead of playing offense they way they used to.

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#268

Post by rayiner »

nikic wrote: post #58
shawnee_ wrote: post #53

If Lucy Koh is so intent on protecting the singularity of one corporate interest over what is so obviously good for the general public, she should not be a Federal District Judge. She should still be in private practice. We need Federal District Judges who are willing to work for the good of consumers, which involves protecting a market where competition can thrive. Consumers benefit when there is more than one separ…

I don't think that this is the judges fault. The law (at least to some degree) dictates the decision. If that decision is not good for the general public, then it is the law that needs change. (And we all agree that it does.)

We don't all agree that the law does need to change. I think at least the trade dress infringement claims were spot-on.

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#269

Post by rayiner »

linuxhansl wrote: post #263

That's what you get from having lay people (with no training in either software development, UI design, etc) making decisions like this. These patents are quite obviously ridiculous. 381 patent: "rubber band" effect 915 patent: Pinch to Zoom 163 patent: "Double tap to enlarge/zoom" D '305 patent: "Grid of rounded square icons" This is supposed to be what sets off iPhones from competition?! W.T.F.? How did we get to t…

This kind of comment is what you get when you have non-lawyers try to interpret patent litigation...

Re: Apple Wins Patent Ruling As Jury Finds Samsung Infringes

#270

Post by Anechoic »

dkrich wrote: post #267
ellyagg wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from the specifics of this or any other court case involving Apple attacking Samsung, I find the desire to defend Samsung odd. Obviously they copied Apple as much as they felt they could get away with. They did this because it was a very conservative way to make a lot of money. This isn't an admirable strategy. It's annoying. It's precisely the strategy that major movie studios use to give us one boring, risk-f…

What did Samsung do that is shady, that Apple itself didn't? Apple was the first to market with the most-polished device, but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout. Who cares? Apple was already winning on their merits. I have a feeling people will look back on this as a major turning point in Apple's history. They are starting to look like a para…

but all one has to do is look at the old Palm Pilot to know that they completely ripped off the design and layout.

You're forgetting about the Newton.

Post reply on HN