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

Apple Never Invented Anything

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 217 posts

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#131

Post by arn »

smartkids wrote: post #125
arn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compu…

anecdotal evidence indeed. that's precisely the point. there is no empirical evidence behind the vast majority of comments like these. conclusions without evidence or any indication of the methods used to arrive at them. linux? are you kidding? this is exactly what i was referring to: assumptions. how did you conclude by booting an os i meant linux? a true apple fanboy. thanks for sharing.

that's precisely the point. there is no empirical evidence behind the vast majority of comments like these.

Are you being purposefully vague? No empirical evidence of what? I'll counter that there is overwhelming evidence, but I'll share specifics once I know what your claim is. :)

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#132

Post by briandear »

echaozh wrote: post #117
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.

That's not government's role unless you're in Soviet Russia. The free market drives more innovation that government ever has. The Lada and the Yugo are great examples of what happens when central planners try to run things. Besides, if people aren't going to profit from their hard work, what's the incentive for hard work? I don't write code everyday for the good of humanity, I do it to try and build something someone wants to buy so I can improve my lot in life. Besides, if companies don't profit, they won't do and then you have a downward economic spiral of decreasing tax revenues and ever increasing tax rates to fund the government's work which then drives even less economic activity because the incentive is reduced.

The role of government is to protect life, freedom and property. As soon as the government gets involved in microeconomic transactions, the efficiency declines. Comparing the US Postal Servie and Amtrack to Southwest Airlines and FedEx illustrates this perfectly. The government should regulate markets only as much as necessary to ensure that the markets function. They shouldn't be running the markets themselves.

The lack of tort reform is one of the key drivers to the insane cost of drugs and medical care. When a drug company has multi-million dollar exposure for every drug they produce, it's going to raise the cost. OB-GYN docs pay several hundred thousand dollars per year in malpractice insurance because one mistake has them on the hook for multi-million dollar punitive judgements.

Government should be a referee, not a player. It should provide a safety net from complete destitution, but not serve as an insurance policy against failure. The GM bailout is a great example of what government should not be doing.

When the government starts meddling in private business (i.e. pouring money into it,) it distorts the market and makes it much harder for innovative new players to enter the market. The Tucker car from the 1950s is a perfect illustration. The big three in Detroit threw around political muscle to effectively shut down a car company that built safer cars. If government had stayed out, we would have had seat belts and pop-out windshields years earlier.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" are still the scariest words one can hear in America.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#133

Post by btn »

ender7 wrote: post #127
ghshephard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to keep things fact based, the recent court case against samsung did not cite the "Pinch-to-zoo-after-finger-contact-has-been-broken-and-restarted patent of 7,812,826. You can read that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 And, even thought that patent was _not_ referenced in the case, you will see it's a particular multi-touch behavior _associated with pinch-to-zoom_ that apple is claiming a pro…

Thank you for linking those articles, that was very helpful. That said, Google was lucky that there was a loophole in the patent definition. Imagine a world where Apple had actually obtained an airtight patent on a system that listens for single- or multi-touch gestures and switches between scrolling and pinch-to-zoom appropriately (which is essentially what the patent in question does). So, you'd be free to implemen…

Apple's original claim didn't have that "loophole", but added it after the patent office rejected the original version as being anticipated by prior art (specifically, a patent [1] and a patent application [2]).

[1] http://www.google.com/patents/US7576732

[2] http://www.google.com/patents?id=gKyRAAAAEBAJ

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#134

Post by aresant »

There was a clear before and after when they launched the iPhone

By NAILING it apple managed to popularize existing tech like the modern touch-screen interface, the app develeper economy & handheld computing.

So enough with this apple hasnt done anything bs, the reason they print money is they keep making future tech accessible, I hope the iPhone 5 (6?) lives up to their record.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#135

Post by ta12121 »

briandear wrote: post #132
echaozh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not government's role unless you're in Soviet Russia. The free market drives more innovation that government ever has. The Lada and the Yugo are great examples of what happens when central planners try to run things. Besides, if people aren't going to profit from their hard work, what's the incentive for hard work? I don't write code everyday for the good of humanity, I do it to try and build something someone…

The US government spends an enormous amount of money on medical research, and many medical treatments would simply not exist if it weren't for such Evil Communist behavior.

The market is a tool useful for some problems. It is not the alpha and the omega of society.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#136

Post by fpgeek »

ender7 wrote: post #127
ghshephard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to keep things fact based, the recent court case against samsung did not cite the "Pinch-to-zoo-after-finger-contact-has-been-broken-and-restarted patent of 7,812,826. You can read that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 And, even thought that patent was _not_ referenced in the case, you will see it's a particular multi-touch behavior _associated with pinch-to-zoom_ that apple is claiming a pro…

Thank you for linking those articles, that was very helpful. That said, Google was lucky that there was a loophole in the patent definition. Imagine a world where Apple had actually obtained an airtight patent on a system that listens for single- or multi-touch gestures and switches between scrolling and pinch-to-zoom appropriately (which is essentially what the patent in question does). So, you'd be free to implemen…

And even then sometimes you have to hire a team of lawyers to defend your loopholes in a trial.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#137

Post by fpgeek »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #109
potatolicious wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UI and UX are innovations. The silly notion that only hard, technical inventions with academic papers attached are innovative is the reason why Apple has eaten everyone's lunch up till now. "Fit and finish" is as innovative as a new algorithm, it's shocking how much of the industry still treats it as a footnote and a detail, despite the entire history of the tech world since iPhone 1 would indicate.

> UI and UX are innovations As a UX designer, the idea that UX can be patented terrifies me. It's like patenting a specific color of paint. shudders

Don't companies trademark specific colors all the time (or at least try to prevent those colors from being used in anyone else's corporate logo)?

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#138

Post by fpgeek »

csmeder wrote: post #113
notatoad wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If you take the subtle details into account, no one is copying Apple's inventions either (just listen to any iOS enthusiast on Android scrolling, for example).

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#139

Post by zaroth »

ender7 wrote: post #127
ghshephard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to keep things fact based, the recent court case against samsung did not cite the "Pinch-to-zoo-after-finger-contact-has-been-broken-and-restarted patent of 7,812,826. You can read that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7812826 And, even thought that patent was _not_ referenced in the case, you will see it's a particular multi-touch behavior _associated with pinch-to-zoom_ that apple is claiming a pro…

Thank you for linking those articles, that was very helpful. That said, Google was lucky that there was a loophole in the patent definition. Imagine a world where Apple had actually obtained an airtight patent on a system that listens for single- or multi-touch gestures and switches between scrolling and pinch-to-zoom appropriately (which is essentially what the patent in question does). So, you'd be free to implemen…

Imagine something completely different happened, based on that, something bad could then have come out of it?

I'd rather not, lets just stick to the facts and not build strawmen. It's bad enough to even discuss pinch-to-zoom or rounded rectangles when that's not what the trial was even about.

If we're discussing the Apple trial, lets figure out what really happened, not just repeat what we read from the press.

Re: Apple Never Invented Anything

#140

Post by fkdjs »

csmeder wrote: post #102
drblast wrote: post #95

This article is unintentionally an excellent argument against patent protection for Apple's products. If Apple is a company that uniquely has the talent and taste of a good chef, the patent protection is unnecessary. They will be able to continually outdo other companies that don't have the same talent. Arguing that a company has so much talent and is so successful that it needs legal protection seems absurd to me.

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…

And iOS has robbed Android blind (notifications).

Anyone can come out tomorrow and write their own search engine. Like Bing. Hell, Bing has even been caught red handed copying. Yet still Google makes money. Anyone remember Google suing Microsoft over that? Nope.

Maybe Apple needs to find a better business model whereby they can thrive and out-innovate before their competitors do so? That's what Google has to do, is Apple the special kid needing special treatment? What if Google started getting mad and suing every search engine competitor for infringing on their instant search patents, and other search patents? And without google, you'd be searching and hoping like you did in the 90's. Imagine that, a company that innovated, innovates, and doesn't try to sue their competition silly!!

If I hear one more primadonna talk about how Apple is getting ripped off, I'm going to explode. Please, get over yourself.

Post reply on HN