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

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#121

Post by jwr » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:03 PM UTC

thomasilk wrote: post #66

Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming that Apple is a threat to innovation. The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry in the long term. I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and Android at least started as clones.

Exactly. I find it amazing that people suddenly start applying a different set of rules once it's about Apple.

If I was a startup founder who designed and developed the iPhone, and then saw the blatant rip-off by Samsung, I would go nuts with rage. And HN would likely rage with me. But hey, it's Apple, so no bullying, and anyone is allowed to copy whatever they do, right?

Also, I view this whole trial as "a way" for Apple to get at Samsung. Patents were a tool here, not the end goal. We all know the patent system is broken and obsolete, but since it exists, it is a tool that Apple could use. Note that no one seems to dispute that Samsung copied Apple designs, people just complain about the use of patents. I think that is a very one-sided view. Samsung blatantly copied (and continues to do so) Apple designs and they deserve to be punished — that Apple used patents is something I'd consider secondary.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#122

Post by swombat » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:03 PM UTC

checker659 wrote: post #6

taligent wrote: post #3

All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea. After all the idea of "how to let the user know they have reached the top of the scroll view" can be implemented many ways. Apples is one way. LG, Samsung and HTC all have different…

You know, you're missing the whole point here. Patenting a Human Computer Interaction 'pattern' is absurd no matter how you put it. Enough said.

Patenting a single one is absurd.

Protecting the hundreds of design decisions that go into making a product look and feel a certain way, against people who are willing to just basically make a copycat product that does everything the same way - that's not so absurd.

I think Samsung lost not because of one specific patent, but because of the overwhelming number of points on which they copied Apple.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#123

Post by moe » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:09 PM UTC

timmyd wrote: post #17

Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would com…

It's no different than Amazon's One-click.

You're not seriously trying to suggest that one-click is a reasonable patent, are you?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#124

Post by aristidb » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:11 PM UTC

epo wrote: post #60

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.

A "fandroid" who uses a Nokia dumb phone. Yeah right.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#125

Post by printer » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:13 PM UTC

ForrestN wrote: post #89

This is absurd and frustrating. Apple is not responsible for the broken patent system. Apple is a public company. If Apple decided to hold itself to a set of standards more stringent than its competitors, it would be hampering itself and acting against the interests of its shareholders. Complain about, and work to fix, the system. Don't expect Apple to fix it by ceding the rights it currently has to its competitors.…

Would you ever think about patenting a double touch interaction when you were the first to implement a double click action on a touchscreen? I think these things are so obvious I would even be ashamed to call them my innovation.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#126

Post by aristidb » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:15 PM UTC

There's a nice video series about why the primitive moral idea "stealing is wrong" wreaks havoc in the world of ideas:

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#127

Post by chrisrhoden » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:31 PM UTC

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…

Except that since there is a pending suit over the Galaxy Nexus, and this suit found that the Nexus S is infringing of all of the same patents, both ICS and Jelly Bean (stock, no TouchWhiz) are non-unique user interfaces. They've been found to blatantly copy iOS. Stock Android, including the most recent version, has been found to violate the patents in this case.

Think about that.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#128

Post by jasonlotito » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:32 PM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #104

buster wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped reading after "Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces". Clearly you are very misguided. You are comparing featurephones with smartphones (the ones with screens and stuff). Smartphones existed way before the iPhone. It makes me extremely sad that the marketing lies of Apple are taken for truth. Apple may have invented the vendor lock-in, tho…

Name one pre-iPhone smartphone that you'd be willing to pit against the iPhone. Oh, and Apple's vendor lock-in is still a damn sight better than the telco lock-in it replaced (in the US).

> Name one pre-iPhone smartphone that you'd be willing to pit against the iPhone.

Any phone that let you install your own applications.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#129

Post by gnaffle » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:32 PM UTC

buster wrote: post #109

sjwright wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one pre-iPhone smartphone that you'd be willing to pit against the iPhone. Oh, and Apple's vendor lock-in is still a damn sight better than the telco lock-in it replaced (in the US).

I guess you misread my comment. I was criticizing the comparison of feature phones with the iPhone not comparing iPhones with smartphones. It's a big difference. If the iPhone would have been the first smartphone you could probably call it revolutionary. But you can't. Evolution ok, Better as the competition at the time of release ok. I'll grant you that already. Still a big difference. The first iPhone didn't even s…

Nobody are claiming Apple invented phones with big screens. But you have to be pretty blind to not see that iPhone was a revolution in the smartphone market, which had barely seen any user interface innovation in 10 years prior to that.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#130

Post by MatthewPhillips » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:39 PM UTC

timmyd wrote: post #17

Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would com…

> Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart.

No one brings this up, but all of those phones looked and behaved the same as well. Presumable the first inventor of said phone style could have patented everything and disallowed anyone else to make a dumb phone. This is what the author is speaking to; the notion that an inventor, if with enough resources, can legally own the only logical way to do a particular thing. And if armed with enough of those, can legally own an industry. You don't have to be a lawyer to see there is something wrong with that.