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

91–100 of 102 posts

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

#91

Post by gibwell »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #88
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 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 agai…

I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that a boycott of Apple would do anything to cause Samsung to improve their behavior in any way. Most likely they would conclude that their general PR campaign to tarnish Apple was successful and be encouraged to turn it up further.

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

#92

Post by gibwell »

Prefinem wrote: post #76
josephlord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You may think that Google and Samsung are worse because of FRAND, but the fact is that Apple by its very nature is more dangerous because of their closed system. If Google wins a patent, with it's open source AOSP, then guess what, anyone can use it. If Apple wins a patent, guess what, everyone has to pay for it. This is horrible for users and businesses and is evil in nature. As for Samsung, they are fighting back a…

Sadly not true. Google is moving most new Android development into tightly controlled closed source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...

And portraying Samsung as the victim is absurd, they are one of the worlds most aggressive companies.

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

#93

Post by Prefinem »

gibwell wrote: post #92
Prefinem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may think that Google and Samsung are worse because of FRAND, but the fact is that Apple by its very nature is more dangerous because of their closed system. If Google wins a patent, with it's open source AOSP, then guess what, anyone can use it. If Apple wins a patent, guess what, everyone has to pay for it. This is horrible for users and businesses and is evil in nature. As for Samsung, they are fighting back a…

Sadly not true. Google is moving most new Android development into tightly controlled closed source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-... And portraying Samsung as the victim is absurd, they are one of the worlds most aggressive companies.

I know Google is, because they have open sourced it for so long, competitors have taken and used it... Now they are trying to reap some rewards. But it won't matter since it has been open sourced the way it has... How many different ROMS are there now based off of AOSP? Hundreds

Samsung is not a victim, they are battling just as hard as Apple, but Apple, because of how vehemently they have attached Google and Samsung, they are the bad guys. People defend them because they are blinded by some infatuation that makes no sense to me and most other, level headed people.

And before you say I am an Apple hater, I have purchased multiple Apple products (mostly to evaluate compared to other products). I have owned every type of iPhone except for the new 5 series. I have had a mac, I have had iPods, etc etc... I was never satisfied with their price point for what I got. But, as a company, they disgust me. Anyone who wants to defend them can go for it.

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

#94

Post by shmerl »

josephlord wrote: post #87
shmerl wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed.

Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations and anyone else. Patent encumbrance means that one has to pay for a license. This contradicts the requirement above, so it makes it not really interoperable in a complete sense. It wasn't without a strong opposition from Apple and Co, but these principles were accepted by W3C as a premise for the development of the Web (unfortunately this failed in case of DRM, but that's another story). Apple and similar minded managed to sabotage mandatory codecs for the video and audio tags though, making these principles easy to ignore (which they do).

Mozilla manifesto summarizes these points about interoperability and openness well:

https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/

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

#95

Post by josephlord »

shmerl wrote: post #94
josephlord wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed. Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations…

Interoperable means that things operate together and they undoubtably do in the MPEG4 ecosystem. Anyone can legally interoperate with MPEG4 with some limitations (equally anyone can use GPL code but some requirements come with distribution). That some choose not to join in and operate together does not make a thing lack interoperability. Note that I am not saying Mozilla are wrong to stay out, they have that right. For a long time they chose not to use even existing licensed codecs provided by the OS. They have a valid manifesto and a valid point of view and I am a Firefox and Thunderbird user when on a proper computer but it was a choice. That doesn't oblige other companies or groups to bend or change to support their ideologically based position.

On the interoperability scale (it isn't a binary yes/no) MPEG4 almost certainly wins by the pure range of devices supporting it from blu-ray players, mobile devices, RaspPi etc.

It is you that want to control other organisations to bend them to your ideological position via the W3C.

If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now. I don't know of an HEVC beater out there but if there isn't one getting into silicon roadmaps right now you may have lost the next generation already.

A royalty free codec would be nice but for me a ubiquitous one is better. That is a valid disagreement that we have but it shows how Apple (and others) opposition to standardising on codecs doesn't need to be seen as an evil plot but a difference in prioties between different "good" choices.

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

#96

Post by josephlord »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #89
josephlord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I know many here dislike him but Florian' blog is largely fact based and has an understanding of how patents actually work unlike much of the media:

Latest relevant one and a couple of others on topic but I haven't had time to review it all for the best ones:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/eu-commission-market-test...

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/samsung-drops-all-request...

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/motorolas-royalty-demand-...

I don't always agree with Florian's opinions (although I'm not usually that far off) but his facts are usually solid.

Groklaw also had coverage but was often really quite disappointing when it moved beyond the SCO case. There seemed very much a Google good Apple bad, patents bad, FRAND patents not quite as bad when they are being used on people we don't like attitude.

There are probably some good comments on some HN discussions although many people seem to be under a mistaken impression that standards essential patents are better and more inventive than others when commonly the reverse is true.

My summary:

Standards are a bit like laws and sausages - you don't want to see how they are made.

Standards bodies are groups of competitors meeting in a room to set terms of business going forwards which without a signficant number of rules (including the declaration and FRAND licensing commitment of related patents) would be illegal under anti-trust/competition law.

Often with a standard like a codec there are many ways to implement each part of the process e.g. transforming, filtering, compressing, encoding.... Many of these approaches will have similar performance or perform well in different scenarios, many will also be patented. Companies want their patents included as (whether they are good or bad patents) anyone can work around them if they aren't included in the standard so they would get no royalties for them. If included they will get a very small slice of a big pie. Horse trading goes on in addition to the inclusion of technologies on pure merit (we will vote for your filtering approach and you can vote for our encoding approach). Everyone both wants a good standard that people will use and to get as many patents in as possible. If a company has a patent that they don't want to license under the terms of the standards organisation (often very vague) they could declare that and the standard would be developed avoiding the technology (or potentially abandoned).

Patents

In principle a patent gives you the exclusive right to implement and/or license the technology and no-one should import/produce or distribute infringing technology without your permission. In practice many granted are invalid (partially or totally). If there were no FRAND commitments you could hold up any implementer of a standard in which you had a patent for virtually the whole value of the standard (and obviously if everyone did that nothing would get implemented).

Injuctions for FRAND

Courts can offer damages and injuctions. As you have agreed to license SEP (standards essential patents) under FRAND terms it should be clear that damages should be a sufficient remedy and injunctions unnecessary, the courts can sort it out later (unless the company is unlikely to be able to pay up or can't be brought to court in the jurisdiction when there may be case to impose and injunction).

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

#97

Post by shmerl »

josephlord wrote: post #95
shmerl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed. Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations…

Interoperable means that things operate together and they undoubtably do in the MPEG4 ecosystem. Anyone can legally interoperate with MPEG4 with some limitations (equally anyone can use GPL code but some requirements come with distribution). That some choose not to join in and operate together does not make a thing lack interoperability. Note that I am not saying Mozilla are wrong to stay out, they have that right. F…

> Interoperable means that things operate together and they undoubtably do in the MPEG4 ecosystem.

No, they don't. Technical feasibility to interoperate is only part of the picture. I clearly said above, that any participant should have an equal ability to interoperate legally. This includes no barriers to enter. License is like a visa to a country - it's a barrier to enter (which makes it not open).

If it's still not clear, license means "only those who can afford can use the encoder" and etc. Only those who can afford is a barrier to enter. I hope this is clear. Open codecs ensure equal accessibility and no barriers to enter. Encoders and decoders are available to everyone equally.

Pushing Apple and Co to support open technologies? It's only a natural thing to expect, since now they have a disproportionate grip as gatekeepers (in this context - it's about controlling codecs with patents). That was the whole point above, and that's exactly why Apple opposes it so strongly. It comes back to the same thing - control. You can call it an evil plot on their part, a basic instinct (desire for power) or whatever. But they clearly are allergic to the idea of the open Web, because it leaves them less leverage and makes it better for the people.

> If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now.

Google does a lot with enabling VPx support in hardware. It's more up to OS developers to support it in software now. Hardware (at least mobile SoCs) is shaping up well. With wider usage of WebRTC things will get even better, since WebRTC mandates open [free] codecs (here Apple and Co. didn't manage to sabotage it). The next big thing is Daala, which is next generation to both VP9 and H.265. That won't appear in hardware soon.

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

#98

Post by gibwell »

Prefinem wrote: post #93
gibwell wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly not true. Google is moving most new Android development into tightly controlled closed source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-... And portraying Samsung as the victim is absurd, they are one of the worlds most aggressive companies.

I know Google is, because they have open sourced it for so long, competitors have taken and used it... Now they are trying to reap some rewards. But it won't matter since it has been open sourced the way it has... How many different ROMS are there now based off of AOSP? Hundreds Samsung is not a victim, they are battling just as hard as Apple, but Apple, because of how vehemently they have attached Google and Samsung…

Cloning other people's products and then dumping them onto the market using predatory pricing is a far more 'vehement' attack than anything Apple has done.

If you seriously believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Apple, then we need discuss this no longer.

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

#99

Post by Prefinem »

gibwell wrote: post #98
Prefinem wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Google is, because they have open sourced it for so long, competitors have taken and used it... Now they are trying to reap some rewards. But it won't matter since it has been open sourced the way it has... How many different ROMS are there now based off of AOSP? Hundreds Samsung is not a victim, they are battling just as hard as Apple, but Apple, because of how vehemently they have attached Google and Samsung…

Cloning other people's products and then dumping them onto the market using predatory pricing is a far more 'vehement' attack than anything Apple has done. If you seriously believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Apple, then we need discuss this no longer.

Ethical and evil are two different words with two different meanings.

And, if I can make the same thing you can for cheaper, then why shouldn't I? Your problem is that you value "ingenuity" as something that can be stolen or ripped off which is wrong. You can't protect ideas. Everyone has them. Why should yours be more valuable then mine. Just because you say yours first? Even when I may have been working on my without anyone knowing? Or maybe you think, taking the risk of making something (i.e. the iphone) and since you took that risk, you should be rewarded by not allowing anyone else to make one. Because life if fair right? If you created the first product, make the product better than others, and offer at a reasonable price, then there is no reason you shouldn't be successful.

If apple didn't have patents, they would fail, why, because their products would be too expensive to compete with other "clones". Now, if they actually made a better product, then they would at least exist (if their "better" product was worth the cost). Think about the guys that started a business building normal pc's and putting OS X on them. Apple forcibly shut them down fast because they new people would flock to them. Why, because they were much cheaper and would do the same thing as a Mac. And yet, Apple forced the business to shut down so that they would own their market. That is evil.

Your stance make me believe that either, a) you are an Apple lover and thus overriding basic logic because you are blinded, b) don't understand the underlying points c) just trying to argue. Your ultimatum of "If you don't believe Samsung is as evil as Apple then I won't talk to you" is childish, immature and extremely bias. I believe Samsung is a better company than Apple. That is my own personal opinion, and I don't care whether you believe it or not.

Patents do not protect anyone accept the greedy corporation that files them. They stifle innovation and hurt everyone but themselves. Apple is the king of patents and thus, the worst.

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

#100

Post by gibwell »

Prefinem wrote: post #99
gibwell wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloning other people's products and then dumping them onto the market using predatory pricing is a far more 'vehement' attack than anything Apple has done. If you seriously believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Apple, then we need discuss this no longer.

Ethical and evil are two different words with two different meanings. And, if I can make the same thing you can for cheaper, then why shouldn't I? Your problem is that you value "ingenuity" as something that can be stolen or ripped off which is wrong. You can't protect ideas. Everyone has them. Why should yours be more valuable then mine. Just because you say yours first? Even when I may have been working on my witho…

I never made a 'childish ultimatum'. I simply said that if you believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Samsung, we have nothing to discuss, because it have no intention of debating that belief with you.

I am glad you were willing to own up to it.

I am also glad you admit that you do not respect the idea of contract law and think that Apple should be forced to give away their intellectual property.

Post reply on HN