Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#61

Post by nirvana » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 9:28 AM UTC

jaekwon wrote: post #9

mrharrison wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/21/apple_samsung_...

I want to live in a world where this is OK and expected. I expect competitors to build upon my work and I would love to see them win. Apple had already won my respect and loyalty with the iPhone and iOS. They lost my respect when they went against Samsung.

Do you think that it is ok to copy GPL code and violate the terms of the GPL license? If not, then why do you think that it is ok to enforce the GPL, but not to enforce other terms whereby people reveal their work for it to be extended?

This is what the patent system creates-- an opportunity for samsung to build on top of what apple has done.

Apple published its work and how it was done for everyone to see... and it did so in exchange for a right to license that work to those who wanted to extend it (who could then license their extentions back to Apple.)

Apple even offered a license to samsung who did nothing to extend the work and just copied what Apple had done.

Apple only sued when Samsung refused to license the work.

The patent system gets people to publish their inventions openly, so that they aren't kept secret.

I think a lot of people forget that and imagine that if they got rid of patents people would still be publishing the inner workings of their inventions.

Suing Samsung was the right thing to do, if you want a world where people expand on other people's work and where companies publish their inner workings for others to extend.

Or would you say that you can violate the terms of any open source license?

After all, that's what samsung did-- violate the terms.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#62

Post by nirvana » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 9:30 AM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #17

mrharrison wrote: post #3

Well the consumer most benefits, if companies are continuously innovative, not copying each other and selling for cheaper. This article missed the point. Why doesn't Samsung actually make something better than the iPhone. Not some cheap ripoff.

Thank you for that insight mr Harrison. If you're talking about the packaging and connector, i completely agree. If you're talking about the form factor, I STRONGLY disagree. Apple whole heartedly borrowed from knight Ridder. So what? The design is simple and makes sense. This is how society benefits - the simple stuff is copied. More complex things like algorithms deserve some protection, but not beveled edges, scro…

The patent system has people like Apple revealing the inner workings of their inventions so that other people like samsung can stand on the shoulders of giants for the small price of a royalty. It works great.

You are saying you'd like to go back to a time when there was no open publication of inventions and companies like Apple would keep their inventions secret and obscure so that others couldn't see them.

Really?

Cause if you want innovation, then you want Apple to win this lawsuit.

If they lose then they will stop publishing patents and start keeping their inventions and methods secret.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#63

Post by jaekwon » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 9:56 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #61

jaekwon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to live in a world where this is OK and expected. I expect competitors to build upon my work and I would love to see them win. Apple had already won my respect and loyalty with the iPhone and iOS. They lost my respect when they went against Samsung.

Do you think that it is ok to copy GPL code and violate the terms of the GPL license? If not, then why do you think that it is ok to enforce the GPL, but not to enforce other terms whereby people reveal their work for it to be extended? This is what the patent system creates-- an opportunity for samsung to build on top of what apple has done. Apple published its work and how it was done for everyone to see... and it…

>> Apple published its work and how it was done for everyone to see... and it did so in exchange for a right to license that work to those who wanted to extend it

No, Apple had to publish its work to gain market share. The looks of an iPhone minus branding logo become public domain by necessity.

There is no way that Apple could have kept its iOS API secret, or the dimensions of its iPhone secret, while achieving success. Therefore, these materials cannot be the basis of a patent.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#64

Post by jaekwon » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:03 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #59

jaekwon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If apple had spent 60 billions of dollars in R&D to come up with the exact same iPhone, and everything else were the same, do they still deserve a monopoly on iPhone-like devices to recoup their losses? How about 2 trillion? You can always try to spend more money to get a product created sooner, marketed better... but that doesn't imply that the innovator deserves a sanctioned monopoly, even if temporary. Ladies and…

You're presuming your conclusion and you've provided no evidence of it. The calls for patent "reform" came at the same time google decided they wanted to get away with violating apple's patents (and now google has sued Apple to try and do so). Near as I can tell, and from what I've seen in history, patents have worked out pretty well. They protect the small guy more than they do the big guy, for instance, though this…

>> They protect the small guy more than they do the big guy, for instance, though this is often ignored or the opposite is claimed

What small guy benefited from the patent system in developing and marketing their invention?

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#65

Post by jaekwon » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:10 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #50

kkowalczyk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between selling a piece of cloth or leather that looks similar as a marquee brand and claiming that it is in fact produced by that brand (what we usually mean by "counterfeiting") and producing a highly complex mix of electronics and millions of lines of operating system code, none of which were copied. Samsung doesn't pretend to sell Apple products and I don't see how anyone walking into Ver…

> Macintosh was a blatant and wholesale ripoff of every fundamental idea that Xerox Park came up with I think it is really tragic that so many people will repeat this obvious and blatant lie, in public no less. Is your ideology that much more important than your integrity? Apple paid Xerox handsomely, in pre-IPO Apple stock sold at a discount for a LICENSE to use the technology that Xerox PARC was developing. Full st…

You're right, but Apple would not have paid so handsomely, had Xerox already marketed their innovation.

Apple paid for insider knowledge. Samsung built on public knowledge.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#66

Post by simonh » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:59 AM UTC

kkowalczyk wrote: post #40

simonh wrote: post #29

I think we all agree the actual counterfeiting is wrong, no? You can't produce a fake of someone's product. How about if you create as close to a duplicate as possible, but don't actually pretend it's the original? Is that OK? Samsung haven't done that either, but they've created (some) products that look extremely similar to Apple products, in similar packaging, even going so far as to putApple icons and the icons o…

There's a big difference between selling a piece of cloth or leather that looks similar as a marquee brand and claiming that it is in fact produced by that brand (what we usually mean by "counterfeiting") and producing a highly complex mix of electronics and millions of lines of operating system code, none of which were copied. Samsung doesn't pretend to sell Apple products and I don't see how anyone walking into Ver…

Others have already debunked your grievously misconceived slurs against the early Apple, so I'll let those stand.

>The gravest error in your comment is assuming that Apple is in it for the justice. >Apple is scarred of the runaway train that is Android. They are having Windows >flashbacks and faced with loosing in the marketplace they go for legal blitzkrieg.

Except for the fact that Apple are actually prosecuting Samsung for violating their design patents and duplicating Apple products look, and conspicuously not for any generic features of Android itself.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#67

Post by v0cab » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 11:43 AM UTC

jaekwon wrote: post #9

mrharrison wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/21/apple_samsung_...

I want to live in a world where this is OK and expected. I expect competitors to build upon my work and I would love to see them win. Apple had already won my respect and loyalty with the iPhone and iOS. They lost my respect when they went against Samsung.

Samsung own the South Korean government. Samsung had the government delay the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea to give them time to clone it (the phone that Apple was paying them to manufacture!), so that they'd at least find it easier to break their domestic market with their clone.

Apple lost your respect for going against this?

If you were Apple, you would love to see Samsung win?

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#68

Post by v0cab » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 11:49 AM UTC

kkowalczyk wrote: post #41

fierarul wrote: post #35

>Less competition is bad for consumers Competition is only valid if some fair play is involved. If my team "competes" with your team and faults half your players it doesn't make a very good sport. >Apple v. Samsung is not the problem in itself, but it’s a symptom of a broken system. Agree, but while the system still is as it is, asking for companies to just avoid this aspect of it is naive.

EFF doesn't ask companies to ignore patents but for the people to voice the opposition to patents so that the government has some incentive to reform the patent system. And in your "fair play" analogy you should be explicit about which party do you think doesn't play fair. There seems to be a misconception that it's about Apple accusing Samsung of patent infringement but if you pay attention it's also about Samsung a…

Samsung fired the first shot when they had the South Korean government delay the introduction of the iPhone to South Korea to give them time to develop a clone.

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#69

Post by richworks » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:03 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #50

kkowalczyk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between selling a piece of cloth or leather that looks similar as a marquee brand and claiming that it is in fact produced by that brand (what we usually mean by "counterfeiting") and producing a highly complex mix of electronics and millions of lines of operating system code, none of which were copied. Samsung doesn't pretend to sell Apple products and I don't see how anyone walking into Ver…

> Macintosh was a blatant and wholesale ripoff of every fundamental idea that Xerox Park came up with I think it is really tragic that so many people will repeat this obvious and blatant lie, in public no less. Is your ideology that much more important than your integrity? Apple paid Xerox handsomely, in pre-IPO Apple stock sold at a discount for a LICENSE to use the technology that Xerox PARC was developing. Full st…

How is he misrepresenting Steve Jobs's statement? Isn't it what he meant. Of course, he didn't mean to say that he is proud of copying others' ideas but that copying is inevitable. Or am I misinterpreting his statement?

Re: Apple and Samsung Should Fight in the Marketplace, not the Courtroom

#70

Post by bornhuetter » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:04 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #50

kkowalczyk wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between selling a piece of cloth or leather that looks similar as a marquee brand and claiming that it is in fact produced by that brand (what we usually mean by "counterfeiting") and producing a highly complex mix of electronics and millions of lines of operating system code, none of which were copied. Samsung doesn't pretend to sell Apple products and I don't see how anyone walking into Ver…

> Macintosh was a blatant and wholesale ripoff of every fundamental idea that Xerox Park came up with I think it is really tragic that so many people will repeat this obvious and blatant lie, in public no less. Is your ideology that much more important than your integrity? Apple paid Xerox handsomely, in pre-IPO Apple stock sold at a discount for a LICENSE to use the technology that Xerox PARC was developing. Full st…

> Apple paid Xerox handsomely, in pre-IPO Apple stock sold at a discount for a LICENSE to use the technology that Xerox PARC was developing. Full stop.

I've heard this go around a lot recently, and I'm pretty sure it's a complete distortion of the truth (more so even than the original myth).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jobs allowed Xerox to buy stocks in Apple in exchange for a "look around" Parc. He was shown the GUI and the mouse, and he took these ideas and copied them, and made various changes to them.

The licencing agreement came later, after Xerox found out that Jobs had "stolen" the ideas. Apple argued that ideas can't be patented, only implementations. Then there were court cases (between Apple, MS and Xerox) over who owned what, and what could be protected.