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

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#241

Post by tatsuke95 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:36 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #172

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't hear you. Look at the recurring pattern in this thread and elsewhere. Apple fanatic: Apple deserves a 20 year government enforced monopoly because they did it first. Everyone else stole it, and are thieves, who deserve to pay. Member of the reality-based consensus: small portable computers existed before the iPad/iPhone and every individual part that you could name (or patent) had been done before by other…

Yeah! There's nothing new in the iPhone, that Bell didn't demonstrate over a century ago! The reality is, you guys are ideologically driven- you want to get google off the hook for stealing Apples inventions, so you pretend like the patents cover features rather than implementations. Your dishonesty is shameful.

Since this is essentially Apple vs. the rest of the industry, how can you claim those supporting the industry are the ones that are ideologically driven?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#242

Post by learc83 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:41 PM UTC

pooriaazimi wrote: post #228

learc83 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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,…

The purpose of the patent system is not to "teach Samsung a lesson". The purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation.

Apple made hundreds of billions of dollars even with Samsung copying them. If the patent system disappeared Apple would still make hundreds of billions of dollars, thus they would still have spent billions on R&D without the current patent system.

If you'll notice the jury also found that Samsung violated Apple's trade dress--that was the proper way to go after someone who copies the "look and feel" of your product.

Furthermore I don't care whom Apple sues, I care about the broken system that allows them to do so.

I'm not blaming apple for anything. I've used a macbook pro for the last 5 years by the way, and I only recently switched to a thinkpad running linux b/c I don't like the iOSification of OS X, not because I care whom they sue.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#243

Post by KirinDave » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:44 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #211

nirvana wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure about you, but I've seen a fascinating display of apologizing for the patent system. People have been staunchly repeating what it should do as opposed to what is actually happening in practice.

I've also watched a series of curious arguments revolving around the assertion that patent somehow protect small business which are innovation; as if big companies won't dredge up incredibly expensive patents from purchased portfolios to force licence agreements.

I short, I've learned that the average software & design patent proponent really is as disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt as I have suspected... at least this venue.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#244

Post by jderick » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:47 PM UTC

If an idea can be described in one sentence, it shouldn't be patentable.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#245

Post by orangecat » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

luriel wrote: post #184

cageface wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform. I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (m…

> It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me. It astounds me the kind of stuff Apple gets away with this days that Microsoft could have never dreamed of doing in the 90's. Can anyone imagine if Microsoft had required its approval of applicatio…

Can anyone imagine if Microsoft had required its approval of applications like Netscape before allowing Windows users to install them?

And now they're doing exactly that with Windows 8 apps, and nobody cares because Apple made walled gardens cool.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#246

Post by pooriaazimi » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #242

pooriaazimi wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The purpose of the patent system is not to "teach Samsung a lesson". The purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation. Apple made hundreds of billions of dollars even with Samsung copying them . If the patent system disappeared Apple would still make hundreds of billions of dollars, thus they would still have spent billions on R&D without the current patent system . If you'll notice the jury also found tha…

That's true. And I agree with you 100%.

I want the patent system to be changed just as much as others, but I find it extremely hard to sympathize with Samsung, or not be glad about the verdict in this specific case.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#247

Post by biafra » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:58 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…

Before the iPhone I was using the Sony Ericsson P800 and the Nokia Communicator E95. Both had big screens. The iPhone was not the first smart phone with a big screen.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#248

Post by kiba » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 5:59 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #204

luriel wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have no way of knowing whether this is true. There is a whole field dedicated to answering this kinds of questions, it is called economics, and there is quite a bit of research in this area analyzing historical evidence from different legal systems, times and industries. And most of the evidence indicates that patents hinder and stop innovation, and that most innovation and progress happens when there are no pa…

You're correct that economics is a science, but you make an error when you say "most of the evidence", and then link to an ideological position. Science doesn't work that way. Even if the preponderance of evidence were the standard, you haven't provided evidence that the preponderance of the evidence supports your position. And even if every economist in the world shared the same opinion, it would be a meaningless cl…

You're correct that economics is a science, but you make an error when you say "most of the evidence", and then link to an ideological position.

It is a mistake to simply link to a book and said it is evidence, because that's just being a lazy person. People should be able to come up with their own arguments in a discussion.

That being said, it's an economic book that should be evaluated on its own merit. Calling a book "ideological" is quite unfair unless you're prepared to make an argument against the book's arguments.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#249

Post by moe » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 6:22 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #173

moe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You should try reading that patent sometime before you claim it isn't reasonable. It is profoundly dishonest to characterize patents using a trivial phrase like "one-click" and then pretend like that also means that the patent is itself trivial. I know why you do it- it fits your ideology. But it doesn't fit reality.

Would you care to explain which part of this patent is not trivial?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=O2YXAAAAEBAJ

Until then I'll have to assume we live in different realities.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#250

Post by jbp » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 6:42 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…

>> And secrecy is a patent that potentially never expires.

Do you seriously believe, no one else can come up same/similar functionality/product? I would like a system where they keep the patent secret(nothing is published) for 5 years, and if in 5 years no one comes up with same/similar idea, patent is granted for next 10 years (rather than current 20 years from filing), otherwise patent is not granted. My guess is 99% of software patents will go away.