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

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#211

Post by tripzilch » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #205

tripzilch wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine. I got that. The patent, however, describes the most obvious and straight forward algorithm to implement pinch-to-zoom on a touch-screen. Of course you can't (officially) patent algorithms either (unless they're sufficiently technical, like MP3 and LZW). It seems what you're avoiding to state clearly, is what exactly you believe this patent does cover, then. What is it? Is it that Samsung shouldn't have used a t…

I did answer your question. Nobody can patent "pinch to zoom" such that nobody else can use it. The question comes from a misunderstanding of the situation and the patent. I've met this method of arguing before and consider it a trap. "I think its this, prove me wrong!" In my experience, no amount of research on my part will meet the burden of your opinion. If you want to argue that the claim is trivial, please, feel…

And so we leave this discussion without anyone becoming any wiser. Not me, not other people reading this, not you.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#212

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 3:48 PM UTC

The thing you have to ask is: would apple have invented the iPhone if the patent system as it stands didn't exist? Also assuming that copyright protection, and protection against counterfeit goods was still in place.

I think the answer to that is, yes. Samsung and other companies did copy Apple just about as far as they could without actually creating a counterfeit.

Yet, that didn't stop Apple from making billions of dollars. To me that is proof that in this case the patent system did nothing to foster innovation.

Take the example of pinch to zoom. If Apple knew they couldn't patent the process would they have implemented it? Of course they would have, it's a better interface (and the fact nearly every other smartphone copied it, yet they still created it proves my point).

Furthermore the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by rewarding inventors for not hoarding innovation with trade secrets. Could something like pinch to zoom even realistically be protected by trade secrets.

The implementation is so simple that once someone has seen it, nearly anyone could replicate it.

Patents no longer serve they purpose of disseminating knowledge. Companies aren't digging through the patent office in search of implementation details, the way it was intended to be used.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#213

Post by ciniglio » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 3:48 PM UTC

zerohp wrote: post #194

sharjeel wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Windows CE had everything well before iPhone came, why didn't Microsoft patent the stuff then?

Sensible people considered these minor features too obvious. Apples invention was the combination of many simple things into one good product, but they are protecting it by patenting all of the simple things.

To be clear, if this were actually the case, the $$ that Samsung spent on this suit would have clearly uncovered this as prior art.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#214

Post by yojimbo311 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 3:52 PM UTC

canadiancreed wrote: post #136

tayl0r wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cool to hate Apple because elite hackers don't like closed systems, despite the fact that their walled garden is actually better for 99.9% of consumers out there.

I wonder if folks said the same thing for AOL's walled garden approach to the internet once upon a time too.

Yep. But for people like my grandma and parents it was absolutely true. My apologies that I have nothing to cite but my own experience and analysis, but closed ecosystems are a temporary solution, at best, for building trust in a new market paradigm. Any attempt to justify extending the life of a closed ecosystem once the market has matured enough to adapt to it will have a tragically shrinking effect on that company's market allowing other competitors to wedge themselves in by differentiating on greater flexibility and convenience.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#215

Post by mindcrime » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:00 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…

You're a small business - what do you do now?

You continue to innovate. You do a better job at understanding your customer's needs and fulfilling them. You do a better job at marketing, positioning, and advertising. You give better customer service. There's tons of ways to compete, other than raw product uniqueness.

According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my advantage".

Meh. A better product is not a sustainable competitive advantage anyway. Better to have a product "arms race" where everybody is forced to "innovate or die", IMO.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#216

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:01 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #205

tripzilch wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine. I got that. The patent, however, describes the most obvious and straight forward algorithm to implement pinch-to-zoom on a touch-screen. Of course you can't (officially) patent algorithms either (unless they're sufficiently technical, like MP3 and LZW). It seems what you're avoiding to state clearly, is what exactly you believe this patent does cover, then. What is it? Is it that Samsung shouldn't have used a t…

I did answer your question. Nobody can patent "pinch to zoom" such that nobody else can use it. The question comes from a misunderstanding of the situation and the patent. I've met this method of arguing before and consider it a trap. "I think its this, prove me wrong!" In my experience, no amount of research on my part will meet the burden of your opinion. If you want to argue that the claim is trivial, please, feel…

I've read the patent and while you are technically correct, the effect of the patent is to grant them a monopoly on the feature pinch-to-zoom on a smartphone with a touch interface.

The end result is that no one else can implement pinch to zoom on a smart phone.

The patent is also overly broad in that it covers all multi-touch touch screen devices. So that whether I use an infrared overlay or a capacitive screen it is still covered.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#217

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:05 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #196

tripzilch wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, answer me this: If you think "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" is a reasonable thing to patent so that nobody except Apple can use it on a smartphone, then you would have also had have no problem if: - Someone patented "tabbed browsing" on a desktop computer[1] and nobody could sell a browser with tabs on a desktop platform - Someone patented the pull-down list-select control on a desktop compu…

Addition from what I've read further down the thread, it appears that the patent is about the way Apple implemented pinch-to-zoom, not the feature of having pinch-to-zoom as a gesture for zooming in general. So that would be where maybe my analogy breaks down. However: Can someone maybe explain me/us what is exactly so unique and non-obvious about the way they implemented it, then? And yes I did read the patent, or a…

There is no non-obvious implementation here. It is the only reasonable way to implement such a feature on a touch screen.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#218

Post by blaines » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:09 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #174

blaines wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure this was a patent infringement lawsuit, so the statement that the "iPhone was a revolution" is irrelevant. Apple won a claim against Samsung for mimicking "bounce back" behavior among other patents. Hopefully pull-to-refresh isn't patented. I'm not about to look either lest I be found willfully infringing.

>Apple won a claim against Samsung for mimicking "bounce back" behavior False. Patents don't cover features. Patents cover inventions. Apple won against samsung for copying apple's solution for how to implement a feature. Not for having that feature. This misrepresentation trivializes the nature of the patents and is ideologically driven. Don't fall for it. If you disagree, try reading the patent.

I'll check it out. I remember seeing a number of patents involved in the case, just haven't read them. My comment was certainly a generalization.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#219

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:15 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #122

checker659 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Patenting a single one is absurd.

Yet the individual patents are still there. If Apple decides to go after any company for implementing a single one they can still do so, and probably will.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#220

Post by gnaffle » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:17 PM UTC

beedogs wrote: post #145

veeti wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can not see the difference in the touchscreen UI between the Wizard (or any other pre-iPhone device) and the iPhone, you have to be blind. Until the iPhone, touch-screen phones were slow, clunky and unresponsive. They had shitty resistive screens that were a total pain to use. (LG actually released a capacitive phone before the iPhone, but the software was the same shit we had for ages so it didn't change a th…

It seems like you're walking back the claims of the guy I responded to for him: "Oh, well, okay, Apple didn't have the first touchscreen phone, but they had the first good one." Well, I don't even agree with you on that. I got five years out of my "unenjoyable" HTC smartphone. I could tether it to my laptop without forking over extra money. I could run whatever apps were available (which is more than could be said fo…

I also got many years out of my old Nokia smartphone (which on paper could do more than the first iPhone). However, I immediately understood what a revolution the iPhone UI was when it launched.

Lucky for Apple that most competitors had key people who thought exactly like you do for a good while after the iPhone launched - why give a shit about smooth scrolling and polished, intuitive interfaces?