I'm surprised how Apple-biased the people here is. They're clearly abusing the patent system by patenting ridiculous things. How come things like slide to unlock are considered innovation? that's been used to open laptops before Apple patented it.
The Tim Cook memo: line by line
201–210 of 309 posts
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the company be worth $600b? I haven't seen them do anything that I can't buy from another company cheaper, or in some cases, years before Apple "invented" it (ex: the iPad was a decade late to the tablet market). I'm not trying to be snarky here, but what is it that Apple can actually sell me that no one else can?
To answer your question: a sturdy, forged aluminum computer with a powerful unix-like OS with the most polished interfaces around and the greatest collection of software of all systems? With a 200dpi+ display? With wireless, seamless, video/audio streaming to other devices? Bluetooth 4? The best multitouch trackpad? The only decent power cord on earth?
Don't forget the cute minimalistic bitten apple and the fact that they are #1 in product placement.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, answer me this: If you think "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" is a reasonable thing to patent so that nobody except Apple can use it on a smartphone, then you would have also had have no problem if: - Someone patented "tabbed browsing" on a desktop computer[1] and nobody could sell a browser with tabs on a desktop platform - Someone patented the pull-down list-select control on a desktop compu…
You can't patent the feature "pinch-to-zoom" you can only patent an invention of a method to implement that feature. Thus, samsung could have implemented the feature if they had done it their own way. For example, Jeff Han demonstrated a similar feature, but his system uses cameras to take pictures of your hands. Thus both he and Apple could have patented their inventions for implementing this feature. The idea that…
Fine. I got that. The patent, however, describes the most obvious and straight forward algorithm to implement pinch-to-zoom on a touch-screen.
Of course you can't (officially) patent algorithms either (unless they're sufficiently technical, like MP3 and LZW).
It seems what you're avoiding to state clearly, is what exactly you believe this patent does cover, then. What is it?
Is it that Samsung shouldn't have used a touch screen on a smartphone if they also wanted to implement pinch-to-zoom? Because that's still absurd.
Really, I asked an honest question, and all you say is that's not what the patent covers and it's disinformation--well I was asking wasn't I? So enlighten us, what is the non-trivial bit that the patent covers??
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any better off. You have no way of knowing whether this is true. Patents could come with a host of disadvantages and drags on innovation and still be a net positive for innovation. There's just no way to know without a control group. As long as we're throwing out opinions, I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it i…
> You have no way of knowing whether this is true. There is a whole field dedicated to answering this kinds of questions, it is called economics, and there is quite a bit of research in this area analyzing historical evidence from different legal systems, times and industries. And most of the evidence indicates that patents hinder and stop innovation, and that most innovation and progress happens when there are no pa…
You're correct that economics is a science, but you make an error when you say "most of the evidence", and then link to an ideological position.
Science doesn't work that way. Even if the preponderance of evidence were the standard, you haven't provided evidence that the preponderance of the evidence supports your position. And even if every economist in the world shared the same opinion, it would be a meaningless claim (even if you got a petition and they all signed it) from a scientific standpoint.
I believe you are wrong, but I would fall into the same error if I simply made the opposite claims you do, and I cannot prove my position scientifically, so I won't argue it.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't patent the feature "pinch-to-zoom" you can only patent an invention of a method to implement that feature. Thus, samsung could have implemented the feature if they had done it their own way. For example, Jeff Han demonstrated a similar feature, but his system uses cameras to take pictures of your hands. Thus both he and Apple could have patented their inventions for implementing this feature. The idea that…
Fine. I got that. The patent, however, describes the most obvious and straight forward algorithm to implement pinch-to-zoom on a touch-screen. Of course you can't (officially) patent algorithms either (unless they're sufficiently technical, like MP3 and LZW). It seems what you're avoiding to state clearly, is what exactly you believe this patent does cover, then. What is it? Is it that Samsung shouldn't have used a t…
I did answer your question. Nobody can patent "pinch to zoom" such that nobody else can use it. The question comes from a misunderstanding of the situation and the patent.
I've met this method of arguing before and consider it a trap. "I think its this, prove me wrong!" In my experience, no amount of research on my part will meet the burden of your opinion.
If you want to argue that the claim is trivial, please, feel free to do the research and quote the patent yourself. Your speculation about what the patent covers is not compelling.
Constantly on this page-- and it appears that this has happened 50-100 times, people have asserted that the patent covers the "right" to use the feature and not the invention.
In fact, the entire basis of the anti-patent movement is grounded in that falsehood.
Thank you for acknowledging that it is false, that was my only issue (because debating specific patents applicability is far more technical of a discussion than you can have in an ideologically driven site like this.)
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#206Hmm - i really dont agree with this. Apple revolutionised the industry - before the iPhone we were using tiny screens with Nokia SMS interfaces or Motorla RAZR. Apple frankly blew the industry apart. "These are not patents on innovation, they’re patents on simple ideas and features that you didn’t even think of first but you were the first to patent." Then the magical aspect of patent law called "prior art" would com…
"Apple revolutionised the industry" You give them far too much credit. Apple happened to be first in implementing an obvious conclusion in the evolution of computing: combining a true operating system with the features of a PDA and adding a radio. Many people saw this coming a decade earlier; I was one of them. The reason it happened when it did had to do with the hard work of the scientists and engineers who kept sh…
There was nothing obvious about the iPhone, otherwise Apple's competitors, who had been in the phone industry for years, would have done it already.
Hell, they and much of the "experts" spent the 6 months between announcement and shipping of the iPhone claiming it was going to be a total failure.
So, not only was it not obvious, even after it had been revealed, people claimed that it was a bad idea and would be a failure.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, answer me this: If you think "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" is a reasonable thing to patent so that nobody except Apple can use it on a smartphone, then you would have also had have no problem if: - Someone patented "tabbed browsing" on a desktop computer[1] and nobody could sell a browser with tabs on a desktop platform - Someone patented the pull-down list-select control on a desktop compu…
If you think "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" is a reasonable thing to patent so that nobody except Apple can use it on a smartphone I agree that this would be absurd, but I think it kind of misses the point of the case. Samsung pretty clearly copied Apple in a "look and feel" way that goes beyond the particular collection of patents. The patents in the case are just the instruments that Apple use…
No it's pretty clear that among other things, Samsung is paying damages for violating the "pinch-to-zoom on a mobile device with touch screen" patent. It is also very clearly a bounded part of the claim: if it didn't hold, the rest might still, and vice versa. Assuming your justice system somewhat works, that really should mean that Samsung is in fact guilty of violating this patent.
But so far nobody has really explained what this actually means. You're all dancing around the question.
It's very simple: what is the non-absurd way in which Samsung violated the pinch-to-zoom patent in particular? And please be specific, if you're about to use the word "implementation", I'd like to know what you understand by that term. This is not "Explain like I'm 5".
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because something makes you money doesn't mean it's inherently good or useful, and it doesn't mean it should be protected by law. Are we talking about patentable innovations, or something else? A lot of patentable innovations do not make anything, a lot things which are not patentable make boat load of bucks. Your comment seem to have clouded this distinction. It seems to me that you are questioning the basis…
> Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. First of all, this imaginary genius could still choose to not disclose his innovation. Patents are optional. Take for instance the Coca Cola recipe. Its kept as a trade secret [1]. But consumers can still choose to drink Pepsi and co. instead. Second, I doubt a case like this, an truly important innovation that o…
You're exactly right - unless I tell the older folk "it's from Apple.. You know, the iPod company", they're not going to know. And when the iPod came out, it's was similar "it's called an iPod and Apple, you know, they made the Macintosh about 20 years ago, they made this. You can put 1000 songs on it..".
If this 'education' is not performed, then they'll never know. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just simply not true. Without a provisioning profile from apple you can't install anything. And putting a web link on your screen counts as an installation only in bizarro world.
It is true, you're just simply being dishonest. You can download and install full javascript apps that run on the device. To call it "putting a web link on the screen" is a lie. After you installed the app, you can go into airplane mode, tap the icon and be in the app and use it-- with no connection to any network. It is an app, not a link. It requires no provisioning file at all, it could be anything you want to dow…
You're probably also the first to dismiss HTML5 apps when it suits you to talk up native, right?
I write iOS apps for a living. I know how their distribution controls work, thanks. Without Apple's explicit permission for each and every device I can't distribute my app. To muddy the waters here is intellectually dishonest. You should be embarrassed for trying to argue that this is anything remotely like Android or any of the current desktop platforms.
Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should try reading that patent sometime before you claim it isn't reasonable. It is profoundly dishonest to characterize patents using a trivial phrase like "one-click" and then pretend like that also means that the patent is itself trivial. I know why you do it- it fits your ideology. But it doesn't fit reality.
You think Barnes and Noble copied the novel implementation of one-click, as disclosed by the patent, and didn't use bog standard database and cookie techniques?
You cannot implement "one-click" using "bog standard database and cookie techniques".
Your idea of what this patent covers is incorrect. It is not a patent on the feature of "press a button to make a purchase and skip the checkout process" or "have a cookie so we know who you are".