The Tim Cook memo: line by line • Hacker News Board

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#71

Post by Off » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:47 AM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #53

fkdjs wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.

Multi touch and Pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jefferson Han¹ on a TED conference before the release of the iPhone.

¹: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#72

Post by writetoalok » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:47 AM UTC

csallen wrote: post #22

timmyd wrote: 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…

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. Every time a company's competitors catch up to it, and every time technology makes a company's business model obsolete, they turn to the law to try to wipe the competition/technology out of existence. And, quite frankly, it's bullshit. You're right, the entire basis of patents was to…

> 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 of government granted monopoly. But this grant is not on the basis of money generation, but on innovation and benefits to the society by disclosure.

Imagine if someone discovered and invented a principle and device for unlimited cheap source of energy. If he kept it to himself, it may definitely help him to unknown riches. And possibly the secret could die with him. But if he shared his secret sauce, then all of us in the society will benefit a lot. Patents are a means to that end. What do you think?

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#73

Post by Vivtek » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:48 AM UTC

mdonahoe wrote: post #46

FaceKicker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The automobile UI standardized far, far earlier than it was regulated. In 1905 there was a regular Cambrian explosion of steering devices - that disappeared when the Model T succeeded wildly.

I suppose Ford should have patented the car UI and still be earning money on it today from every car sold - after all, the Model T was clearly innovation, and innovation should be rewarded with long-term rent.

(I can't believe people can actually think that way.)

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#74

Post by cageface » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:49 AM UTC

justinh wrote: post #63

cageface wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (m…

Is your argument that because Apple is now successful, that their walled garden approach is now flawed? I don't follow the line of reasoning there.

No it was just easy enough to dismiss it as a harmless eccentricity of a niche player. Now that they're in the driver's seat in many ways it takes on much more sinister overtones. If Apple succeeds in driving Android out of the market they will be the sole arbiter of what's allowed on the devices that mediate most users' interactions with the net.

I have no problem with curated app stores or app DRM, by the way. I just think that there has to be a way to side load apps that don't meet the censor's approval for whatever reason.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#75

Post by minhhuongohido » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:49 AM UTC

Vivtek wrote: post #73

mdonahoe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The automobile UI standardized far, far earlier than it was regulated. In 1905 there was a regular Cambrian explosion of steering devices - that disappeared when the Model T succeeded wildly. I suppose Ford should have patented the car UI and still be earning money on it today from every car sold - after all, the Model T was clearly innovation, and innovation should be rewarded with long-term rent. (I can't believe p…

http://khamphukhoa.com.vn

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#76

Post by soup10 » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:50 AM UTC

csallen wrote: post #22

timmyd wrote: 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…

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. Every time a company's competitors catch up to it, and every time technology makes a company's business model obsolete, they turn to the law to try to wipe the competition/technology out of existence. And, quite frankly, it's bullshit. You're right, the entire basis of patents was to…

This seems to mostly be the case in software industry where everything moves really fast so nothing seems patent worthy. There's a whole world out there where innovation moves a lot slower and patent protection is crucial.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#77

Post by fkdjs » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:53 AM UTC

Off wrote: post #71

ricardobeat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pinch to zoom was unheard of on any device (mobile or not) at the time of iPhone's launch. Not surprising considering no one had multi-touch screens either.

Multi touch and Pinch to zoom was demonstrated by Jefferson Han¹ on a TED conference before the release of the iPhone. ¹: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Han

Direct link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac0E6deG4AU#t=2m50

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#78

Post by bulltale » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:56 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #57

bulltale wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Apple wants to protect their revenue. But they focus their litigation efforts on companies that, in Apple's view, try to sell devices by making the look and feel imitate that of the ios. Microsoft also competes with the iPhone, but I doubt Apple will sue them as vigarous as Samsung, because Microsoft developed, again in Apple's view, an original take on the smartphone concept.

Or, possibly, they just focus on suing companies that are successfully competing with them? By the way, I have no problem with Apple suing to defend the look and feel that characterize their brand. It's the obvious patents that worry me.

I think that is at the core of this issue: Apple feels Samsung copied the iPhone experience, without any effort or even vision on Samsung's side on how to create this experience. Blind copying so to say. So Apple wants to sue them on look and feel, but they can't; what I remember from the Microsoft-Apple litigation about look and feel is that it turned out that look and feel is almost impossible to patent and defend. That is my explanation on why Apple is now suing over their obvious patents, because they cannot sue over look and feel.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#79

Post by magicalist » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:57 AM UTC

timmyd wrote: post #61

csallen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I entirely disagree. "keep it to yourself" a) the society doesn't benefit b) then you do nothing with it c) then you don't commercialise it for gain d) if you don't protect it - you get crushed by everyone else who does and so on and so on. Indeed, Jefferson stated "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility" Discouraging…

I think you are missing his point. His point is not that patents should not exist, it is that patents are not protection of ideas. They are protection for inventions, as in, the actual (used to be physical) functional embodiments of an idea.

If you allow someone to patent cotton gins just because they thought that they sounded swell and wrote the idea down, you've seriously hindered any kind of market at all. Your idea is worthless without an embodiment, and no one else can make anything until your patent expires.

If you allow someone to patent all cotton gins based on their single implementation one, you again have poisoned future implementations -- perhaps better and more efficient ones with completely different physical forms -- just because they belong to the idea class of "cotton separating machines".

The point is a very important one: ideas are not property. We can go a little further and say all IP is not property either. You cannot be deprived of it (short of a lead pipe), but you can be deprived of your granted right to profit from it, for a little while at least. That's the motivation you speak of, and that's the only reason patents exist at all, at least in the US.

Re: The Tim Cook memo: line by line

#80

Post by beedogs » Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 9:57 AM UTC

timmyd wrote: 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…

> 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.

What?

No, we weren't.

I had a Cingular 8125 (HTC Wizard) a year and a half before the iPhone was introduced and it was perfectly fine. Apple just added shiny icons and took away the keyboard and stylus. BFD.