Live data from Hacker News

The Tim Cook memo: line by line

jacquesmattheij.com

41–50 of 309 posts

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#41
post #23
post #2

I think it's bullshit that Apple did this for money.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

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?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The patent should be granted only if it is "not obvious to a skilled practitioner skilled in the art", not just if nobody published the same exact thing before. 1-click WAS obvious in 1998 to any skilled practitioner who knew about cookies.

Again, this patent has been litigated over and over and over - so it has been deemed not to be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of filing relevant to the claims. You can't state "it WAS obvious" - because literally millions has been spent on PROVING it wasn't. Even if some of the claims have been subsequently rejected - there are still components that are patentable.

You're talking about the US. The patent was never granted in the first place here in the EU. So yes, I can state that it WAS obvious - at least in Europe.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#43
post #17

Hmm - 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…

You mentioned the difference between big and small company.

When Apple had clearly stolen the look and feel of Delicious Library to make iBook. The author was a "small company". He even show some happiness that his work was used by Apple.

The point is, he couldn't have sued Apple. Simply because, actually, a small company could certainly not win over a big one. The big one will use a lot of money to keep the trial as long as possible while continue to steal your stuff. Even if won, it would have last too long to save your business. And you had lost a lot of energy. This remember me the medieval justice were the richer always win.

Actual patent system only give an advantage to big companies. What if big player start to sue small startups because they used the double-click, the swipe, a wood texture that looks like a library?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#45
Software patents don't make sense, but copying something bit by bit also makes no sense. It is one thing use good ideas as inspiration and another thing to just copy something recklessly.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#46
post #3

All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright law. Jacques would have been better served trying to understand what trade dress means and why Apple's UI patents were about the implementation and not the idea. After all the idea of "how to let the user know they have reached the top of the scroll view" can be implemented many ways. Apples is one way. LG, Samsung and HTC all have different…

Is it possible that there's in some sense a unique "global optimum" of UI and/or aesthetic design (as opposed to just a bunch of equally good but very different designs), at least as far as is possible under the constraints of available technology and resources at any given time? I would guess probably not for aesthetics (too subjective), but it's reasonable IMO in at least some very minimal cases of UI design - e.g.…

It's harder to accidentally kill people with my cell phone than with a car. Regulation leads to standardization.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#47
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Apple cares about a measly $1b? Think about it, the company itself is worth 600+ billion dollars. They did this more out of principal and to defend their products than anything else.

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?

That's the magic of investment! It may not be worth that much to you, personally, but the shareholders beg to differ.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#48
post #35
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're overly-focused on the existence of prior art. Simply being the first to do something shouldn't automatically give you the right to prevent anyone else from doing it. That philosophy, applied consistently, would lead to ridiculousness.

Because that is what patent law is focused on. And yes - that's exactly why is ISNT applied consistently because only things worth patenting are filed. If you think you have a billion dollar idea (and you may have) - and no one has thought of it - are you suggesting you simply tell the world and expect everyone to play nice ? The only way to prove something is unique is if nothing is available in the public domain or…

Yes, but so what if I have a "billion dollar" idea? An idea is merely a thought inside the mind. Just because an idea can be used to make money shouldn't give me (or anyone else) the right to own it. If you don't want others having access to your idea, then keep it to yourself. Thomas Jefferson put it far better than I ever could:

    If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
    all others of exclusive property, it is the action of 
    the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
    may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
    himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself 
    into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot 
    dispossess himself of it.

    That ideas should freely spread from one to another over
    the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
    and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
    peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
    made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
    lessening their density in any point, and like the air in
    which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
    incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
    Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
I like to think of it like this: At some point in the past, two ancient humans were sitting in the rain. One of them -- let's call him CavemanA -- was smart enough to construct a shelter. That certainly would have been a unique and valuable idea at the time. But do you really think that CavemanA should then have the power to tell CavemanB that he's not allowed to build a shelter?

Ideas are not property. Allowing people to own them is extremely harmful, and should only be done to prevent even more harmful situations from arising. We certainly shouldn't give someone ownership of an idea for no other reason than to reward them for having it first.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#49

Phew. That's a little over-wrought. Surely Apple has a responsibility to defend its patents and innovations? We ("rabid Apple fan[s]") need a strong and successful Android to ensure some balance in this next generation of computing. We need a successful Android to keep Apple on their toes. Google has figured out how to innovate with Android. Ice-cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean feature a unique and notable user interfac…

"Pinch to zoom" is an innovation?

Motorola recently sued Apple, and one of the patents covers siri's audible voice prompt, so Apple will have to innovate around that. Also, media playback resume among several devices is Google's innovation. Apple will have to innovate around that. And that's just the beginning. None of them are FRAND, which means higher penalties and bans.

I agree, companies have a responsibility to defend their innovations.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#50
post #8

I think this is an excellent occasion to relink PG's essay on Apple's behavior from 2009: http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html Maybe Apple thinks they can afford to play bull in the china chop of developer opinion right now but I'm sure I'm not the only developer that felt a little sick to his stomach firing up Xcode today. I plan to put iOS and Apple in my rear view mirror.

I should also add that this is just the last straw for me. I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about Apple's policies since they (temporarily) banned all languages but Obj-C from their platform.

I've just had enough of their controlling, paternalistic attitude. It was one thing when they were the scrappy underdog but the idea that I need the OK of the richest company in the world to install software on my (mobile) computer just suddenly seems equally laughable and creepy to me.

Post reply on HN