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

Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#81

Post by r00fus »

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #72
gibwell wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because doing so would be shooting ourselves in the foot. All of the major players are equally guilty, if not more so, of 'abusing' the patent system. Google and Samsung have tried to control the whole industry through assertion of FRAND patents. Also, you do realize that you are calling for a total monopoly on the entire industry to placed into the hands of Google? I can't think of anything more destructive. Note: I…

I already boycott all Apple products, after using only Macs for years. Google doesn't seem to do any rent-seeking (as MS) nor does it try to lock down its platform to prevent any competition whatsoever (as Apple). FRAND is a shitty situation, but I think it's fair to claim even with that, Google is a much less threat to freedom than Apple or MS. Just don't count on them to provide privacy as well. I'm hoping for Mozi…

> Google doesn't seem to do any rent-seeking (as MS) nor does it try to lock down its platform to prevent any competition whatsoever (as Apple). FRAND is a shitty situation, but I think it's fair to claim even with that, Google is a much less threat to freedom than Apple or MS.

I take it you don't advertise with Google? Google is just like any other company - they want to increase margins on their main revenue streams, and commoditize other areas so other large companies that gain revenue in those spaces are so weak they can't challenge Google.

For a long time, Google was not rent-seeking on their advertising platform, and gained a lot of cred. Then they bought double-click and it's been downhill from there. Google knows they're the biggest/only game in town and their prices (on their main revenue stream) reflect it.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#82

Post by josephlord »

shmerl wrote: post #80
josephlord wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have gone quite far off course but I thought I would summarise our polite disagreements which I doubt we will resolve: 1) How much effort it would be to introduce and support Vorbis over the long term. You seem to believe it is negligible in cost while I believe it is quite achievable if they wanted to do it but VERY far from free to support additional codecs. 2) Terminology. I don't like appropriation of words an…

1) It's not even the point whether there is some cost or none. It's not the cost that prevents Apple from implementing open codecs. It's control, I already emphasized that above. They spend a lot on other things, it's not like they direly lack resources. 2) I didn't invent the usage of "open" as in "liberated". That's used in open Web, open technologies and etc. Usually some try to complain that free software is diff…

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control?

(2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropriate the word (which you didn't start but you are continuing) isn't an attempt to debate on the merits. Patent encumbered standards can be compatible with many proper open source licenses.

(3) I don't know Opus or how good it is but it seems too new. The proposed standard RFC is only a year old and silicon specification lead times are often several times that.

All iPods support AAC in MP4 containers and have since the first iPod shipped so that is why I was comparing with AAC, MP3 is just for backwards compatibility in my view.

(5) Do you have any evidence for this.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#83

Post by shmerl »

josephlord wrote: post #82
shmerl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It's not even the point whether there is some cost or none. It's not the cost that prevents Apple from implementing open codecs. It's control, I already emphasized that above. They spend a lot on other things, it's not like they direly lack resources. 2) I didn't invent the usage of "open" as in "liberated". That's used in open Web, open technologies and etc. Usually some try to complain that free software is diff…

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control? (2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropr…

1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open codecs, and it was never based on technical merits. Closed codecs equals control (or to make it more clear patents = control).

2) Arguments about what's an "open standard" aren't new either. I hold - open standards means unencumbered by patents. Especially when applied to the idea "open Web requires open standards". Luckily, W3C adopted that position.

3) Ubiquitous common denominator in audio players is still MP3. They aren't forward compatible though, i.e. players which support just MP3 can't play AAC.

5) Clear evidence is that other manufacturers successfully implement open codecs. It's not a downside, it's a benefit (for them and for their users).

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#84

Post by josephlord »

shmerl wrote: post #83
josephlord wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control? (2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropr…

1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open…

I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response.

1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their codec decisions were about control of anyone else. Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. VO8 is newer and not much better than AVC. Opus is just too new. Apple doesn't use closed codecs, I won't concede the language to you.

2) W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards (although it is within the definition).

3) Yes and Apple support that too. It is old and poor by modern standards but I'm not sure of the relevance to this debate.

5) That is nice. I have the feeling that many of them may drop it in subsequent models if it was inconvenient. Again I'm not sure of the relevance of this to our disagreements.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#85

Post by lake99 »

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #72
gibwell wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because doing so would be shooting ourselves in the foot. All of the major players are equally guilty, if not more so, of 'abusing' the patent system. Google and Samsung have tried to control the whole industry through assertion of FRAND patents. Also, you do realize that you are calling for a total monopoly on the entire industry to placed into the hands of Google? I can't think of anything more destructive. Note: I…

I already boycott all Apple products, after using only Macs for years. Google doesn't seem to do any rent-seeking (as MS) nor does it try to lock down its platform to prevent any competition whatsoever (as Apple). FRAND is a shitty situation, but I think it's fair to claim even with that, Google is a much less threat to freedom than Apple or MS. Just don't count on them to provide privacy as well. I'm hoping for Mozi…

> Just don't count on them to provide privacy as well.

On the bright side, Google won't go thermonuclear on you if you choose a Google-free mod. The Cyanogenmod guys conveniently provide instructions to install "google packs" if you choose to do so. I will not do business with companies that are into thermonuclear war.

The first and last Apple product I used was an iPod, years ago. Having to convert my music and videos to specific formats made the iPod lose its luster.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#86

Post by shmerl »

josephlord wrote: post #84
shmerl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open…

I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response. 1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their code…

> When have they banned competitive technologies?

Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS.

> Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality.

Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperability. Apple obviously doesn't care.

> I won't concede the language to you.

I'm calling them closed, you can call them restricted, non free or whatever codecs. The main point - you understood what was implied.

> W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards

Neither does anyone else make such definition. It's not formal and shouldn't be. The main point that it should be clear what's implied, to avoid word play, when some call standards "open" (so fitting for the open Web), while implying that they are encumbered by patents. It caused problems in W3C in the past.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#87

Post by josephlord »

shmerl wrote: post #86
josephlord wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response. 1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their code…

> When have they banned competitive technologies? Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS. > Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperab…

How does "open but non-free" for the MOEG4 standards and "open and Free" for the Xiph ones. Closed is wrong.

Openness and freeness are separate axis.

AAC is interoperable, there are many implementations; open, closed source and hardware on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and many more devices than support Vorbis so in many ways AAC is more interoperable despite not being suitable for zero cost codec distribution or GPLv3 compatible (probably some more licenses too, not sure about MPL and CDDL off the top of my head).

Yes Apple impose limits on their iOS platform with a mixture of reasons including, security, reliability and their commercial advantage. I don't think it is an arbitrary control grab but some aspects are for their commercial benefit. Note VLC on iOS will play ogg files.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#88

Post by acjohnson55 »

gibwell wrote: post #56
acjohnson55 wrote: post #40

As I type on my MacBook Pro, I also wonder at what point we as a community are going to start voting with our wallets against Apple and the extent to which they are abusing the broken US patent system. Of course it's only rational to expect that they will use any means at their disposal to get a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean that we must reserve moral judgment. For me, Apple has already moved into "pre…

Because doing so would be shooting ourselves in the foot. All of the major players are equally guilty, if not more so, of 'abusing' the patent system. Google and Samsung have tried to control the whole industry through assertion of FRAND patents. Also, you do realize that you are calling for a total monopoly on the entire industry to placed into the hands of Google? I can't think of anything more destructive. Note: I…

I disagree with you. Me boycotting Apple would not hand the market over to its competitors. Nor would an HN-wide boycott. But as they see the tide rising against them, perhaps we'd start to see changes in attitude. Also, it would incentivize competitors to differentiate from Apple in their bad behavior to try to multiply the trend.

The strategy of targeting the big players in an industry has worked time and time again. We've seen it work with GM, McDonalds, and most recently, Walmart.

I'm not saying anyone else in the industry is an angel. Just maybe it's time to start letting people know that we care enough to weigh corporate behavior pretty heavily in the mix with product specs in making our purchasing decisions.

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#89

Post by acjohnson55 »

josephlord wrote: post #45
acjohnson55 wrote: post #40

As I type on my MacBook Pro, I also wonder at what point we as a community are going to start voting with our wallets against Apple and the extent to which they are abusing the broken US patent system. Of course it's only rational to expect that they will use any means at their disposal to get a competitive advantage, but that doesn't mean that we must reserve moral judgment. For me, Apple has already moved into "pre…

And where would you go if you were to boycott Apple over the actions you deem to be "abusing the broken US patent system". I think Google/Motorola and Samsung have behaved far worse when they attempted to obtain injuctions and excessive licensing fees over patents that they had committed to license on FRAND terms. Microsoft has a horrible history of anticompetive behavior. Maybe Blackberry phone and linux based compu…

I think it would be fair to say that Microsoft's bad behavior earned it an absolutely crap reputation amongst many in the tech community, and that negativity may have played a role in the rise of adoption of Apple products and Google services.

I will have to look into this FRAND issue. Do you have any good links?

Re: Apple Patent on Touch Typing, Multitouch Upheld; Allows Ban on Most Androids

#90

Post by fastball »

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #69
camus2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely doesnt mean impossible. A Few month ago it was unlikely Apple's patents were upheld. This could be a huge issue for any os that runs on a phone that uses the same multi-touch tech as the iphone. MSFT striked a deal , Google screwed up big time.

One of my fondest hopes is that Apple and Google mutually assured destruct in a legal war, leaving plenty of space for Mozilla and Canonical.

Because Mozilla and Canonical have a much better track record when it comes to releasing game-changing products?
Post reply on HN