Apple Never Invented Anything • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#111

Post by podperson » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

surrealize wrote: post #83

podperson wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But 20? It's absurd. If pinch and zoom is such a trivial thing then invent some other thing to use instead. The patent system by-and-large doesn't pick and choose patent durations based on the kind of patent. Theoretical physics and patentable technology are quite different things and the comparison is not helpful. Before patents we had a guild system where people who made almost anything -- pottery, telescopes, po…

> Knowledge of key manufacturing processes was a trade secret. So, without patent protection, pinch-to-zoom would have been a secret and the rest of us would never have been able to figure it out? Or, without patent protection, no one would have put in the R&D effort to come up with pinch-to-zoom? Obviously not. The benefits that patents are supposed to provide to society just aren't benefits at all in this case. So,…

I think you're arguing against a straw man. The idea of pinch to zoom isn't patented, it's specific tricks to the implementation, which the patent explains, that are patented.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#112

Post by vibrunazo » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 1:53 AM UTC

podperson wrote: post #86

cromwellian wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivial doesn't mean valueless. A "1 click buy" patent is trivial, but forcing everyone to "invent something else instead" (e.g. 2 clicks) is stupid. And what if 2-click is patented? Then the next guy to come along has to have a 3-click system, or some obfuscation that convinces a jury. Pretty soon, consumers are confused, because every website they go to has a radically different user interface brought on by patents…

> I really don't see how anyone who writes software for a living can defend these things and defend the status quo of not even supporting reform. I agree that it seems like things are a bit screwy right now, but I don't claim to know what the solution is, and I'm not sure that things haven't always been a bit screwy (Alexander Graham Bell got the telephone patent because he was ahead of some other guy in line, Farnsw…

The solution already exists, in parallel with patents. If the whole goal is to "incentive innovation", then there are many ways of doing this. And we've been doing it already. If all you wanna do is incentive innovation then just give innovators what they need to innovate. That's what angel investors, angel groups, startup incubators, accelerators and even kickstarter backers do.

There's absolutely nothing about the concept of "incentive innovation" that says you must punish other innovators by giving monopolies to each individual. Of all ideas for promoting innovation you can think of, granting monopolies are among the worst ones. If before the invention of Intellectual Property, if you asked people to come up with new ideas to incentive innovation, no one would come up with "let's promote innovation by punishing innovators to pay fees to a select few". And in fact, no one did, that's not how IP was invented, it was the other way around. It started with UK monarchy monopolies with the explicit goal to make money for the monarchy. The excuse that IP protects innovation was made up later by those who were profiting from it when the monarchy fell.

Solutions to replace patents always existed, still exist and are working great. YCombinator is a great example of that. If you think it's the government who should grant some kind of incentives. I don't know about the US, but in my country we have many government programs for innovative startups. Many high tech and bio tech startups only exist because of government granted funding, incubation and mentorship.

Humans will always innovate. Solutions already exist and are working. Patents just need to stay out of our way and the rest will keep working fine.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#113

Post by csmeder » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:09 AM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #110

csmeder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point he was making was: once you see a master chef make mayonnaise you realize the reason you failed. You tried too hard. And now you can make mayonnaise. Tablet makers (iPaq, MS, etc) tried too hard. Apple showed them don't try too hard. And now they can make tablets too. So yes, the excellent chef can be the first to make mayonnaise, however, with out patents on mayonnaise so can everyone else now. The…

So what's the takeaway here? Are you saying that apple deserves to own the concept of, essentially, not being shitty, just because they were the first to make a good tablet? yes, Steve jobs' vision inspired his competitors to make better products. That is the single most fundamental tenet of capitalism: Competition drives all the players in a market to do better. Apple does not have a legal right to remain the market…

I actually agree with you, this is why I said:

   That said Jiro [1] doesn't patent his Sushi, 
   he simpley makes the best sushi. And he does 
   quite well for him. If I was Apple I would 
   spend a lot more of my time in the kitchen 
   making the best Sushi in the world and a lot 
   less time in the courtroom.

[1] http://www.magpictures.com/jirodreamsofsushi/

What I don't agree with is people saying there was prior art. No. Sorry there was no prior art, for most of apples inventions. If you take the subtle details into account.

So how can I agree with you and the above statement? I think we need patent reform. I believe in capitalism. Our current patent laws are anti capitalism, they are pro corporateerism.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#114

Post by arn » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:26 AM UTC

smartkids wrote: post #98

mdonahoe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like you are not a large market, unfortunately. > There's nothing the iPad can do that my open, unlocked hardware cannot do. Your open, unlocked hardware, cannot survive two days with my mother.

I understand the comment. Of course the thought has crossed my mind. But I'm not so sure there's any evidence to support it. I actually test some of my ideas with people like your mother, and surprisingly (why should I be surprised?) they have little trouble catching on. What's really amusing is that these things that I have them doing are things that many nerds cannot themsleves do. I've got them using systems and t…

I understand the comment. Of course the thought has crossed my mind. But I'm not so sure there's any evidence to support it.

Your post is vague enough that I have a hard time parsing it. No evidence for what? That there is such a thing as a "non techy" user? The evidence is overwhelming, including anecdotal evidence from practically every "techy" person here who have ever had to help their family/friends with a computer issue.

And it's not a question of ability, it's a question of ability + caring enough. The non-tech people might not care to boot an OS from a CF Card -- certainly not enough to seek out how to learn it.

To mom-type:

Here's an iPad, you can use it to easily email your friends, check facebook, and check the web.

or...

Here's an iPaq 2012, you can do all the above, but it's a little harder to use, HOWEVER you can boot any linux distribution you want, add a USB device, attach ANY keyboard -- like one with mechanical switches! I personally prefer the Cherry Blues, but you might want to try the Topre ones. People who use those never go back. They cost a bit more ($~250), and you have to get it imported from Asia or find a U.S. distributor... but it's worth it.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#115

Post by justinicenhour » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:27 AM UTC

But bmw never sued brand x for the patten on useing steal or plastic in there cars. Nor has einsteins estate ever sued the government for teachers in our schools using his therories.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#116

Post by 001sky » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:31 AM UTC

swombat wrote: post #36

robertskmiles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed entirely. To make the metaphor accurate, the chef would then have to sue someone else who was making mayonnaise by a similar recipe.

If no one else could make mayonnaise successfully and a chef came up with the process for making it, that chef should damn well get some kind of protection from the IP system for his innovation, invention, or whatever the hell you wanna call it. That is, after all, what will make him want to share his methods instead of keeping them a secret. That's the fundamental principle of the patent system: you share, and we gi…

Mayo: Its a trade secret, not a patent.[1,2]

The law of protection of confidential information effectively allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information - it does not expire as would a patent. The lack of formal protection, however, means that a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

[1] Like Coke. Ingredients and technique are, independenltly, common prior art.

[2] Also, this is not to be snarky: the protections are different.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#117

Post by echaozh » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:36 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #42

One interesting point is he brought up Einstein's invention of relativity. Notice that in the scientific community, humanity has been building upon previous work for centuries with no copyright or patent protection, and nothing more than honor, citation, and shame against plagiarists. The fundamental defense made by many is that without patent protection for software, people would not put much effort into innovating.…

I don't even think medicines should be patented. I think government should fund the R&D and then let all companies manufacture and sell it at a low price. Then it is even better than medicare.

The government can sell the production method to other countries for a profit though.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#118

Post by surrealize » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:38 AM UTC

podperson wrote: post #111

surrealize wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowledge of key manufacturing processes was a trade secret. So, without patent protection, pinch-to-zoom would have been a secret and the rest of us would never have been able to figure it out? Or, without patent protection, no one would have put in the R&D effort to come up with pinch-to-zoom? Obviously not. The benefits that patents are supposed to provide to society just aren't benefits at all in this case. So,…

I think you're arguing against a straw man. The idea of pinch to zoom isn't patented, it's specific tricks to the implementation, which the patent explains, that are patented.

The world that you were describing, without patent protection, would be perfectly fine for software.

Do you think samsung needed to refer to apple's patent to figure out those tricks? Or that those tricks needed significant R&D to come up with, which requires patent protection? I do not.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#119

Post by 5teev » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:38 AM UTC

mdonahoe wrote: post #57

5teev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the worst software is the kind where the person buying it is not the person using it. This might also explain Apple's recent successes.

Can you clarify the point you are making? Are you saying that Apple is succeeding because their customers are their users? Or are you claiming Apple software sucks, and every ipad sold was a gift?

> Are you saying that Apple is succeeding because their customers are their users?

Yes, and they have different priorities than the CTO or IT manager, who may select enterprise software by feature checklist (or other priorities) rather than end-user experience.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#120

Post by 001sky » Mon, Sep 03, 2012, 2:46 AM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #82

001sky wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last 20% of the work takes 80% of the Effort --The 80/20 rule [Old saying] Monetization does seem to be maximized at a bottleneck or stumbling block. Like bridge tolls. Or that final thing that makes the whole worth more than the sum of its parts. Apple does seem to do both.

I would say that closeness in time to commercialization is more important than bottlenecks per se: doing research that will enable great products in 20 years is rarely lucrative, because it's difficult to capture any of that future value (especially if it's further out than the length of patents, and often even if it's within that length). So it's smarter (if you want to make a profit) to let someone else do that, e.…

An interesting example of your case: the Art dealer. Despite doing none of the work of art, they collect 50% of the sale. I think the missing link here is that the effort involve in innovation is S-shaped. [1] Like in your idea of original research, The original idea or creative spark, overcoming inertia. etc. Next, there is a lot of stuff to do to get it roughed out, but many competent people that would not have the genius to originate the idea, can/do help move it along. But then their is finishing and integration, and again for this you need a master (eg, steve jobs). Likewise, with a business. In business, the last step is sometimes looking like the art dealer. A bottleneck? Yes. But being an art-dealer is still a bit of work. They have to make it marketable. They have to market it. There is a needle in a haystack problem. There is knowing about the haystack (rolodex), doing the legwork to meet clients. Then running the shows, exhibiting, writing about the "value" and context of the work. Etc. The pay (like you say) is higher than what seems reasonable. (Although, perhaps not as easy as it seems.)

[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Log...