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

The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#81

Post by ripperdoc »

nitrogen wrote: post #12
Steko wrote: post #6

Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!

Requiring royalties for open source, independently developed software is Wrong. An attack on Android is an affront to all independent software developers. Also, Apple has said they are not interested in licensing.

Look here. IP licensing is the tradition in this industry. All big telecom vendors pay each other yearly amounts for IP rights. Normally they simply bulk them together and see who got most. Now and then a court case flares up (it's a negotiation tactic). In this case, what has happened is simply an escalation between two biggest competitors where no one wants to back down, and Apple "got lucky" in this particular court's interpretation. Apple is not a bully among nice guys. Everyone has been suing. Nokia, Microsoft, Motorola, etc. Everyone is gathering patents like crazy. And remember, Android device vendors are already paying large amounts to Microsoft.

Yes, it's not the signs of a healthy industry, as most software patents are silly and things will get sillier as this progresses. Most are being patented simply because they can, to add a number to the total as ammo for next licensing discussion.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#82

Post by adsr »

lowboy wrote: post #57
adsr wrote: post #16

Why would you need bounce back at all? It's one of those things that gives iOS it's personallity, you could definately make a touch based user interface without bounce back.

Bouncebacks and inertia scrolling help the user experience because they're closer to real world behaviour. On a subconscious level, people more easily interact with something that has a little weight and closer to real physics to it.

It solves some real world problems, but is it really closer to real world behavior? If I for example flip through a photo album and reach the last page, it wont bounce back. There are other cues to that, such as the thickness of the page or if I attempt to flip the last page I will instead see the back cover etc.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#83

Post by wazoox »

conroe64 wrote: post #77
001sky wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Samsung not cite the Domino in the Prior Art? WTF "a hand-held computing device with a rectangular shape, rounded corners, and devoid of buttons" etc. "it has a touch-enabled surface communication technology called "Braille..."and"infite power supply"[1] [but if anyone knows?] [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Dom...

The Domino can be disregarded. Only prior art that can run software compatible with Apple hardware can be considered. The Jury foreman explained it better than I could as follows: The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.

This is widely recognized as blatant misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art by the jurors. "software compatibility" has absolutely zero relation to the notion of "prior art". This is one of the sorest points in this judgement, which has absolutely no credibility overall.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#84

Post by scriptproof »

othermaciej wrote: post #9

Does anyone see groklaw as a credible source any more? They used to have good reporting, but all I've seen since the Apple v Samsung verdict is spittle-flecked ranting.

Do you have read the interview? The foreman read the source code and seeing it is not the same, he concluded prior art was a different invention!!!!!

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#85

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

esolyt wrote: post #75
fpgeek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much as I love Android, and much as the Android team has done yeoman's work on this front... Sadly, today, the more accurate statement is all of them are theoretically solvable by sandboxing and permissions mechanisms. Getting those sandboxes and permissions where they need to be at a technical level, explaining those permissions to users in a way they can understand and make decisions based on and making the overall…

What I meant was, this is the correct approach. The implementation is not necessarily perfect. But in my opinion, it is much better than Apple's approach, which actually gives the world a bigger problem: A company deciding what software I can install on my device and what software I cannot.

My preference is that Apple keep doing what they're doing but also take a less aggressive approach to jail breaking phones.

As someone who gets dragged in to sorting out the IT issues of friends, family, neighbours and who knows what else, there is a lot of benefit to the Apple approach at what is for most people, little real cost.

The problem is the absoluteness of their position. I don't mind if they make people jump through hoops to jailbreak phones, I don't mind if their default support position for phones is to restore them to factory settings before they'll even look at it, but I think allowing for the possibility of jail breaking as an accepted thing would be good for both choice, and making sure Apple stay honest.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#86

Post by alvarosm »

They ask themselves why Apple went for Samsung's head. It's pretty obvious... they don't want an Apple vs. Google. It's much easier to win vs Samsung (a foreign company, by the way) and thus establish some valuable jurisprudence. Google was recently said to be getting ready to sue Apple, it's only natural because Apple's target was always Google and it's now only a matter of time before we get to that. It's a bit like WW2 when Germany started invading eastern countries. It was in no small part a preemptive move, because eastern Europe being occupied by Germany or the USSR was only a matter of time. It would have been Russia if it hadn't been Germany. We might still see some preemptive moves by Google before Apple finally sues Google directly.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#87

Post by demallien »

esolyt wrote: post #64
ender7 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The huge, HUGE advantage that the App Store brings to the average consumer is a feeling of safety. An app installed from the App store: - Can be uninstalled easily, and leave no trace behind (remember "Register cleaners"?) - Cannot interfere with other apps - Cannot run in the background and spy on your surfing habits - Cannot steal your credit card information and upload it to Russian mafia servers For a long time,…

All of them are solved by sandboxing and permission mechanism. "Fuck you, I don't want to waste my time" is actually the response developers should be giving to Apple when they are made to wait more than a month for their app to be reviewed and finally it gets rejected for a political, ideological, arbitrary, or personal (competes with an Apple service) reason.

Whilst you are technically correct, I don't think this is what most people would have in mind when they are thinking of "open" systems.

Have a think about the types of application that are trotted out when people want to point out the advantages of open android :

a) new virtual keyboards - not possible with sandboxing

b) new launcher screens - not possible with sandboxing

c) access to data from other apps - not possible with sandboxing

Or rather, if you can do these things with sandboxing, then sandboxing is not providing the protection that you need. How do you guarantee that the funky new keyboard you just downloaded isn't actually a keylogger sending all of your passwords to a server somewhere for nefarious purposes. Or less nefariously, how do you know that the new keyboard hasn't forgotten to implement a special key that is necessary fo you to use application X. How do you go about backing out that installation of the keyboard, including the reinstallation of the default keyboard?

On the other hand, if you protect against these problems of security and confidence that an app won't break the system, what exactly are the advantages that such a system would have compared to a closed system such as Apple provides?

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#88

Post by TeMPOraL »

esolyt wrote: post #15
Steko wrote: post #6

Some companies will have to pay a slightly higher per device royalty than they had wanted to and/or remove/modify some functionality. It's the Apocalypse! It's Thermonuclear War!

I'm not sure if you are aware but "thermonuclear war" was the term Steve Jobs used. It's certainly not just Groklaw's observation.

I'd wish he didn't. It's not a "thermonuclear war" until there are iCBM's flying everywhere. Some phrases have too profound/big meaning to be hijacked by business marketing like that.

Re: The Next Step in Apple's Thermonuclear War Against Android

#89

Post by dodo53 »

chii wrote: post #54
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing: It doesn't really matter. Take any given software patent and throw a research team at it, chances are you'll find invalidating prior art. Take any given software patent and give it to a CS major, chances are you'll have a work-around inside of a few days. But that's not the problem. The problem is that you never know which patents will be asserted against you, and by that point the horse is out of t…

I think there is a middle ground - patents, if done "properly" is useful. Perhaps, firstly, you have to have a more vigorous application process that is peer reviewed (where peers are basically your competitors!). Secondly, you have to declare the valuation of the patent. This is then taxed by the government, similarly to property tax. If you decide to value your patent at $0, then you pay $0 tax. The valuation of th…

I love this idea (there would have to be careful thinking around patent resell/value restating to avoid sneaky shell company tricks). It means you don't have the problems of special-casing software (no software patents) or vice versa special-casing like big pharma stuff (only patents on drugs - which most people seem to think is a needed case for patents) - big pharma would be much happier to claim up front that drug patent is worth millions on pay tax on that.

It also means that you'd get lots of press around big stated-value (and so big potential claim) patents, so people in the same industry would know which patents to avoid infringing, hopefully much reducing risk of accidental infringement.

Post reply on HN