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

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#221

Post by gnaffle » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:22 PM UTC

eftpotrm wrote: post #94

capkutay wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple just added shiny icons and took away the keyboard and stylus. BFD. I actually think that is a BFD. If it had a keyboard, the whole idea of dynamic UI's would not exist. Would anyone think that angry birds is cool if we had to play it with arrow buttons on the keyboard?

Windows CE 'Pocket PC' handhelds had retracting soft keyboards 10+ years ago. Handspring Treos were dedicated touchscreen-based phone-PDA hybrids not much later. PalmOS had grids of icons for its screens from day one. Apple's primary innovation wasn't technical, it was marketing. They tied a few pre-existing ideas together slightly better, made them more shiny and used the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field to convi…

Then I wonder why other companies hasn't realized this and hired the same marketing company as Apple uses? If marketing is all (or mostly all) there is, why can't other companies easily replicate Apples profit margins?

Why didn't Apple just rebrand a Symbian or Maemo device and put an Apple logo on it, if marketing is the main deal? (Or better yet, why not just relaunch the Newton GUI?)

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#222

Post by deepGem » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:23 PM UTC

"Even the most rabid Apple fan can see through this and realize this is just about money. If it wouldn’t be about money and control then there wouldn’t be so many efforts to get injunctions and damages." - Seriously ??? Dude, A billion dollars is nothing for Apple. They probably earn more than that in a month.

If I'm not wrong, these were Steve's words to Eric Schmidt - 'I don't want your money, I don't want 5 billion $, I just don't want you to do Android, period'. So the lawsuit is definitely not about money.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#223

Post by gnaffle » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:24 PM UTC

blaines wrote: post #161

gnaffle wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Pull to refresh is patented by Twitter, and Apple has bought a license (apparently, since it'll apparently be implemented in iOS 6).

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#224

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:24 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #162

It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the "right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work, and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this ideologically motivated, but obviously factually false claim. Jeff Han demonstrated a touch interface using cameras a few months before the iPhone was demonstrated. Both sets of work can be patent…

>Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated software.

Here is a summary of the claims.

  A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.

  Those contacts perform a first gesture.

  That gesture adjusts an image in some way

  The first set of contacts is broken.

  A second set of contacts is detected.

  The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.

  The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.

That is the obvious way to implement pinch to zoom on a touch screen. You don't have to copy their "very sophisticated" software to violate that patent. If you implement a feature that copies the above claims, you are in violation.

Apple effectively has a monopoly on the feature pinch to zoom on touch screens. The patent is sufficiently broad that there is no way to do it on a touch screen that avoids the patent.

That is the problem with the patent system. Many patents are so broad that they don't cover a specific implementation.

If that were the case the infamous Amazon one click patent would cover a specific implementation of one click--say a particular way to store the user information, and you could implement a similar feature using a different method. However, you can't therefore Amazon effectively has a monopoly on a feature.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#225

Post by k2enemy » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:25 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #207

k2enemy wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I agree that this would be absurd, but I think it kind of misses the point of the case. Samsung pretty clearly copied Apple in a "look and feel" way that goes beyond the particular collection of patents. The patents in the case are just the instruments that Apple use…

No it's pretty clear that among other things, Samsung is paying damages for violating the "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" patent. It is also very clearly a bounded part of the claim: if it didn't hold, the rest might still, and vice versa. Assuming your justice system somewhat works, that really should mean that Samsung is in fact guilty of violating this patent. But so far nobody has really expl…

You've mis-understood my comment. It probably wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about Apple's motivation to bring the case in the first place. It wasn't because of individual technical violations of patents -- lots of other phones violate the patents and Apple hasn't sued. It was the spirit and totality of the copying. But once you decide to sue, you have to pick out the particular patents that will be the legal basis for the suit.

I'm not trying to argue that the patents should have been grated, or that they are a good thing. I'm just saying that they were the particular tools that Apple used to punish a form of copying that went beyond the patents in question.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#226

Post by danielweber » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

EricDeb wrote: post #40

How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of 5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast for 14 or 20 year patents...

Given that it takes about 3 years for patents to be issued now, that 5 year window is comical.

However, if you could get a software patent in, say, 6 months, then that 5 year window would make a lot more sense.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#227

Post by nl » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:34 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #154

csallen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Every time a company's competitors catch up to it, and every time technology makes a company's business model obsolete, they turn to the law to try to wipe the competition/technology out of existence. And, quite frankly, it's bullshit. You're right, the entire basis of patents was to…

Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off. You have no way of knowing whether this is true. Patents could come with a host of disadvantages and drags on innovation and still be a net positive for innovation. There's just no way to know without a control group. As long as we're throwing out opinions, I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it i…

I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is, is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry specifically.

The Economist (hardly a bastion of the free software movement) quoted a 2008 study showing:

A study in 2008 found that American public companies' total profits from patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion—but that the associated litigation costs were $14 billion.[1]

Clearly the litigation costs have grown significantly since 1999. It is unclear to me if the profits have kept pace, but even if they have that still would mean patents cost over 3-times the financial benefit they bring.

[1] http://www.economist.com/node/21526370

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#228

Post by pooriaazimi » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #219

swombat wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then make the stink when they do. Honestly, as an Apple "fan" who has no plan to switch from MacBook/OSX/iPhone/iPad, if they decide to just sue others for infringing one or to non-important patents I'll stop using their products and devote my time renouncing them.

But that's not happening, and I seriously doubt that would ever happen. We all "know" that Samsung copied Apple in almost every thing. Home screen icons, packaging, UI elements, icons, USB charger, the "Mac mini" clone (which is almost identical to a Mac mini) they made recently, showing App Store icon and icons of iOS-only apps in their booth at a conference, audaciously cloning "Smart Cover", and hundreds of other little things. Their own lawyer failed to distinguish between a Tab and the iPad! They're suing over just these petty patents because they can't sue them over a hundred un-patentable ideas that make a product great and they (Apple) has spent billions of dollars of R&D on researching them.

Every one of these was a "fuck you" to Apple. I'd do the same if I were Tim Cook or Jobs and would want to teach Samsung a lesson.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#229

Post by jaylevitt » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #210

Evbn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Barnes and Noble copied the novel implementation of one-click, as disclosed by the patent, and didn't use bog standard database and cookie techniques?

You cannot implement "one-click" using "bog standard database and cookie techniques". Your idea of what this patent covers is incorrect. It is not a patent on the feature of "press a button to make a purchase and skip the checkout process" or "have a cookie so we know who you are".

I'll bite - what parts of the patent can't be done with bog-standard techniques? I took a look and it seems obvious in retrospect, though so many things do.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#230

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 4:48 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #215

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 h…

>>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.

How exactly do you do a better job at marketing, positioning, advertising, customer service, etc. as a small business? The implication of being a small business is that you are resource-constrained and cannot do those things as well as the big players can, which is why you need patent protection for your innovations.