Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 437 posts

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#311

Post by [deleted] »

corin_ wrote: post #164
hnriot wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course touch means finger touches. Writing with a pencil or stylus isn't called touching. This is pretty basic stuff, it just seems as though you have some axe to grind with this poster and want to nit pik at semantics, but in doing to it just looks rather childish.

My overall argument was not about the terminology, but the claim that Apple invented touching with your fingers - so not sure why you picked this one point to disagree with me on if it's a childish semantic. But if "touch means finger touches" in the tech world then what do you call devices designed to be used with a stylus? Not touchscreen? And in general English "touch" doesn't mean "with fingers" either.

[deleted]

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#312

Post by veemjeem »

gergles wrote: post #130
sjwright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like your problem is with the law, not Apple.

This is farcical reasoning. Apple chose to sue Samsung. They could have not sued them. Therefore, the problem is with Apple, who chose to be the aggressor in a bullshit rounded rectangle lawsuit.

I think most HN readers confuse the distinction between "utility" and "design" patents. They feel the rounded rectangle does not provide utility and therefore should not be awarded a patent. If you think rounded rectangles are crazy, you should see the patents filed by Gucci and Chanel. Trademark and copyright will not suffice for protection of design, this is why design patents exist.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#313

Post by learc83 »

taligent wrote: post #209
gergles wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is farcical reasoning. Apple chose to sue Samsung. They could have not sued them. Therefore, the problem is with Apple, who chose to be the aggressor in a bullshit rounded rectangle lawsuit.

Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents. And this idea that Apple patented rectangles is just a figment of your imagination. And a sign of your ignorance.

>Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents.

You're confusing trademarks and patents. You have an obligation to defend trademarks because if you don't you risk dilution. This isn't the case with patents.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#314

Post by confluence »

SCdF wrote: post #303
confluence wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as I bought Apple in 08 I understand your reasoning :D A few factors lead to my understanding of this situation changing. 1: Mobile saturation - only thing left is more of the same and virtual/augmented reality. 2: Absolute domination of Android and the continual manufacturing dominance of Samsung 3: The move towards commoditizing most consumer electronics thanks to work done by Google and other hardware manuf…

re #2, dominance is an interesting word, and it can mean a few different things. In terms of percentages of devices in pockets, I believe Android (including all versions) as an OS is doing better than iOS as an OS. In terms of physical smart phones, I think Apple's phones are in more pockets than any other specific manufacture with their name on the box. In terms of raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple domina…

> specific manufacture with their name on the box.

Nice little constraint there - Samsung has made the most phones by far.

> raw profit in the smartphone industry, Apple dominates.

Profit really isn't everything and is only important so long as you have a monopoly - afterwards it's all about volume baby! Apple has lost their monopoly on mobile.

> iOS still dominates.

Nope - Android has more activations, downloads and usage than iOS.

I own a Galaxy Nexus.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#315

Post by veemjeem »

learc83 wrote: post #313
taligent wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents. And this idea that Apple patented rectangles is just a figment of your imagination. And a sign of your ignorance.

>Actually Apple has an obligation to defend their patents. You're confusing trademarks and patents. You have an obligation to defend trademarks because if you don't you risk dilution. This isn't the case with patents.

> This isn't the case with patents

You're confusing "utility" patents with "design" patents. You have obligation to defend the design patents because you'll need this to apply for trade dress protection.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#316

Post by nirvana »

eropple wrote: post #251
tomjakubowski wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I don't know, I thought I'd ask -- were Apple the first to create a multi-touch UI for a phone? That would seem to me to be the major innovation in touch UI if that's the case.

Apple was neither the first to create a multi-touch user interface (the first consumer multitouch device I know of was the Lemur, but I'm sure that was predated) nor the first to put it in a handheld PDA-ish device or a phone (LG beat the iPhone to market with the Prada--which, incidentally, also used very few physical buttons in favor of software buttons). The entire argument in favor of Apple's patents is bullshit,…

>"Apple was neither the first to create a multi-touch user interface (the first consumer multitouch device I know of was the Lemur, but I'm sure that was predated) nor the first to put it in a handheld PDA-ish device or a phone (LG beat the iPhone to market with the Prada--which, incidentally, also used very few physical buttons in favor of software buttons)."

The LG Prada was single touch and it did not have a touch UI. Just a gimmick screen that would let you launch functions. IT wasn't even a smart phone, it was a feature phone.

>The entire argument in favor of Apple's patents is bullshit,

Its only "bullshit" that the facts of reality don't fit your claims.

>and nirvana has a history of bad-faith fanboyism on the topic.

I do have a history of citing facts that deflate ideological balloons in response to people like you who lie about history and call me names.

It really is a shame that you choose not to be honest. I mean, that guy was asking a legitimate question, and you lied to him!

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#317

Post by confluence »

veemjeem wrote: post #305
confluence wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think I know that? I've owned their stock since 08. But the past isn't what matters - but chances for future growth. Success always comes before the fall - Apple can either stabilise or fall. They will fall. Linux won - Android is Linux. Consumer electronics are Linux. Servers are Linux. Everything runs on Linux. Microsoft is done. Google wins. I own Google now.

I wouldn't exactly confuse Google with Linux. They're linked because of Android, but if some company innovated on the search engine front and took Google's monopoly, Google would be in a rough spot. Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com

I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#318

Post by pserwylo »

catch23 wrote: post #236
pserwylo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but at the very least, this shows that at the time the iPhone was released (or just before), many of the concepts were "obvious".

If they were so "obvious", why hadn't someone created something similar to iPhone's interface? I owned the Nokia 770 -- a great internet tablet for it's time. I even hack soldered a wifi extension dongle to it so I could get better signal, but the browser on that thing was just horrible. What other obvious ideas are out there right now that some company will make billions off of? There's a few right under your nose t…

I think the obviousness argument is getting a little confused in most comments about this case.

I am arguing that the technology itself was obvious. This is also what the OP is arguing. Several examples of prior art for patented technologies such as pinch to zoom, rounded corner rectangles, etc. have been presented in other articles here and elsewhere.

What is not obvious was the sum of each tiny part that Apple put into the design of the iPhone was commercially viable in such a spectacular way.

My understanding (though admittedly, I have not been following this case as much as some others) is that Apple is asserting several individual patents in the one lawsuit against Samsung. I argue that for the most part, each of these patents are "obvious". Sure, when putting all of them together into a single product, Apple made a successful device. However, weren't they just asserting several individual patents? I'm not sure they have a patent on "all of their working patents together in one device".

In addition, it is often the case that several groundbreaking inventions/ideas in science are not just spontaneously invented. Rather, they are the cumulative (and perhaps inevitable) result of small steps in other areas. For example, the invention of Calculus by both Newton and Leibniz, or the theory of evolution by Darwin and Wallace.

Yes, there are ideas which are truly revolutionary, but I'd argue that the iPhone was more the inevitable (I use the term very loosely) outcome of several small steps in related areas of technology.

EDIT: This is why I am so against the patenting of human genes. Sure, some companies have put billions of dollars into researching specific genes. But why should they get a monopoly on that gene, whereas every scientist who put work into sequencing DNA, cracking the genetic code, understanding hereditary, evolution, scientific thinking in general, and anybody before, gets nothing from it?

It feels a little like they are doing an economic version of a Steven Bradbury[0], because they raced to patent the "inevitable/obvious" solution first.

Apple refuses to admit that they got where they are (i.e. iPhone/iPad/iPod by "standing on the shoulders of giants" [1]

[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=steven%20brad...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g...

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#319

Post by sbuk »

confluence wrote: post #277
mcclux wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how does this philosophy square with Google's recently filed lawsuit against Apple via Motorola's patents?

Apple started it - Google is defending both Samsung and it's Android product from the litigiousness of the new Apple.

No. Nokia and Motorola did. If you are going to pontificate, get your facts right.

Re: A device with a touchscreen and few buttons was obvious

#320

Post by nirvana »

nivla wrote: post #163
nirvana wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those have a touch based UI. Touch means finger touches. Very different from a stylus which is only touching one or two pixels at a time. This is very easy to sense because the stylus pushes two layers together physically and effectively is closing swithces. A touch is much difeferent, a finger is an amorphous blob over many pixels of a varying shape, and Apple had to figure out how to resolve that into a sin…

>What's next? The Mac stole from windows? Actually Mac did borrow a few usability from Windows too. 1. Finder Sidebar: Windows Navigation pane 2. The Mac Path bar: Windows Address bar 3. Back and Forward navigation buttons in folder windows 4. Minimizing to document windows into app icon 5. Screen Sharing: Remote Desktop Connection 6. Time Machine: Backup and Restore 7. System Preferences: Control Panel 8. ActiveSync…

Your response is non-responsive. None of these features were stolen in the original Mac UI from 1984 from windows because Windows did not exist in 1984. My point was people were claiming someone "stole" from something that came out later.

Also, most of the things you list appeared originally on the Mac, or the windows "equivalents" really aren't and haven't caught up to the mac.

The only thing that the Mac did take from windows-- that's on your list anyway-- is Alt-Tab.

Post reply on HN