The Tim Cook memo: line by line • Hacker News Board

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#51

Post by rrrene » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:12 AM UTC

While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents.

But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#52

Post by bulltale » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:15 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #28

onedev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

They didn't it to get $1b from Samsung. They did it to stop anybody else to compete with the iPhone, and so be able to make even more money.

Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#53

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:19 AM UTC

fkdjs wrote: post #49

timkeller wrote: post #5

Phew. That's a little over-wrought. Surely Apple has a responsibility to defend its patents and innovations? We ("rabid Apple fan[s]") need a strong and successful Android to ensure some balance in this next generation of computing. We need a successful Android to keep Apple on their toes. Google has figured out how to innovate with Android. Ice-cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean feature a unique and notable user interfac…

"Pinch to zoom" is an innovation? Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans. I agree, companies have a responsibility to…

Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#54

Post by timmyd » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:20 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #42

timmyd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're talking about the US. The patent was never granted in the first place here in the EU. So yes, I can state that it WAS obvious - at least in Europe.

And as a result Europe produces the Samwer brothers - who just copy everything from the United States and open it in Europe. I'm not arguing that patent law is perfect (per my first post) but rather that it does have a function and the original article conveys the view its entirely pointless. EU patent law has its problems as well and its a long post to discuss it - but without any protection you just get outright copies (Airbnb, Stripe and so on and so on) and that does nothing for innovation.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#55

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:21 AM UTC

DiabloD3 wrote: post #41

onedev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market). I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?

> the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market

I'm sorry but you just flipped your own bozo bit.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#56

Post by mappu » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:22 AM UTC

arn wrote: post #16

But it wasn't (all) about the money. It was personal. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biograph... "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." With that in mind, the email reads far more gen…

It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur.

Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally, at what point does the state intervene?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#57

Post by danmaz74 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:22 AM UTC

bulltale wrote: post #52

danmaz74 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't it to get $1b from Samsung. They did it to stop anybody else to compete with the iPhone, and so be able to make even more money.

Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.

Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them?

By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#58

Post by zakshay » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:26 AM UTC

So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a huge uproar.

You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#59

Post by ricardobeat » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:26 AM UTC

DiabloD3 wrote: post #41

onedev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market). I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?

To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#60

Post by epo » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:30 AM UTC

Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's patents.