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

The Tim Cook memo: line by line

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 309 posts

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#31

Post by icebraining »

timmyd wrote: post #20
danmaz74 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's no different than Amazon's One-click." exactly: It is just as outrageous as 1-click.

Then if its not innovative - show me the prior art ? There is none - so it's innovative under law - regardless of whether I agree or not. Amazon patented an innovative process unthought of at the time - the fact you apply retrospectivity to it now and look at it as ridiculous does nothing to prove it was not innovative back in 1998. If you thought of this process - would you be happy not to charge Amazon if you paten…

In October, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected 21 of the 26 claims of Amazon's famous patent after an Auckland patent enthusiast, Peter Calveley, produced evidence of prior art.

http://web.archive.org/web/20081211093025/http://www.out-law...

Of course, this was only after Amazon bullied others, including B&N, using the bogus patent.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#32

Post by jyap »

cageface wrote: post #8

I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

Wow, you're going to also take down your current iOS apps from the App Store as well?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#33

Post by timmyd »

danmaz74 wrote: post #24
timmyd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then if its not innovative - show me the prior art ? There is none - so it's innovative under law - regardless of whether I agree or not. Amazon patented an innovative process unthought of at the time - the fact you apply retrospectivity to it now and look at it as ridiculous does nothing to prove it was not innovative back in 1998. If you thought of this process - would you be happy not to charge Amazon if you paten…

Nope. The patent should be granted only if it is "not obvious to a skilled practitioner skilled in the art", not just if nobody published the same exact thing before. 1-click WAS obvious in 1998 to any skilled practitioner who knew about cookies.

Again, this patent has been litigated over and over and over - so it has been deemed not to be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of filing relevant to the claims. You can't state "it WAS obvious" - because literally millions has been spent on PROVING it wasn't. Even if some of the claims have been subsequently rejected - there are still components that are patentable.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#34

Post by djt »

I think Steve said it best himself:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc...

Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now.

PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website are dead links

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#35

Post by timmyd »

csallen wrote: post #26
timmyd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then if its not innovative - show me the prior art ? There is none - so it's innovative under law - regardless of whether I agree or not. Amazon patented an innovative process unthought of at the time - the fact you apply retrospectivity to it now and look at it as ridiculous does nothing to prove it was not innovative back in 1998. If you thought of this process - would you be happy not to charge Amazon if you paten…

You're overly-focused on the existence of prior art. Simply being the first to do something shouldn't automatically give you the right to prevent anyone else from doing it. That philosophy, applied consistently, would lead to ridiculousness.

Because that is what patent law is focused on. And yes - that's exactly why is ISNT applied consistently because only things worth patenting are filed. If you think you have a billion dollar idea (and you may have) - and no one has thought of it - are you suggesting you simply tell the world and expect everyone to play nice ? The only way to prove something is unique is if nothing is available in the public domain or nothing is filed before hand. I'm in no way suggesting the patent system is great (read above) - but removing it entirely like this article suggests is also wrong.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#36

Post by thomasf1 »

robin_reala wrote: post #25
thomasf1 wrote: post #11

It´s very clear that it´s been a personal mission by Steve Jobs who felt it´s wrong. I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung was copying them. Pure copying, not using elements of it and turning it into something new. On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should not be allowe…

While lots of MacOS was taken from Xerox’s work it wasn't’t copied, it was licensed.

Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of the guys working in Xerox PARC.

What´s your take on the morals of this?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#37

Post by cageface »

jyap wrote: post #32
cageface wrote: post #8

I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

Wow, you're going to also take down your current iOS apps from the App Store as well?

I think so. I'm trying to decide what's best for my customers. Since I don't plan to update them anymore I think it's best if I stop selling them.

However, I do want to make sure that I get at least one more update out there to take care of any issues that might arise from the iOS 6 transition so I'll probably wait until I'm sure there's nothing serious there.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#38

Post by magicalist »

djt wrote: post #34

I think Steve said it best himself: http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc... Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right now. PS. J…

If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead.

Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#39

Post by gearoidoc »

I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and (Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like.

I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's nipple :D

Post reply on HN