
The Tim Cook memo: line by line - plinkplonk
http://www.jacquesmattheij.com/tim-cook-memo-line-by-line/
======
cageface
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.

~~~
cageface
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.

~~~
justinh
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.

~~~
cageface
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.

~~~
davidw
This is par for the course for Apple:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation)

------
marcamillion
Wow Jacques, I usually love your posts and your comments here are valuable -
but I think you are so off the mark with this post.

For starters, the reality is that Apple's revenue streams are quite
diversified and their product portfolio is very strong. From iMac, to iTunes
to iPods/iPhones/iPads.

So the notion that Apple would launch into litigation "just for the money"
seems misguided, at the least - if only for the fact that if they lost the
suit, there could be significant ramifications for their sales (e.g. an
injunction against selling any of the products in the suit for X period of
time, etc.). With sales and revenues growing as much as they are, a wrongly
filed lawsuit can be even more risky than rewarding.

For a company as wealthy (and innovative) as Apple, there are more
considerations than just protecting market share and trying to extract patent
rent from competitors as a revenue stream.

There are many other companies that come out with many features in their
products that Apple doesn't sue. See Windows, Safari vs Chrome, iPod vs Zune,
Adobe Premiere vs Final Cut Pro, most "ultrabooks" vs Macbook Air, etc.

The issue here is that Samsung, HTC, et al. essentially have done what many
companies in China have done. They acted like a hardware manufacturing partner
- then using the inside knowledge they gained of the intimate architecture of
the products, they reverse engineered them and competed directly.

That's like you hiring a web developer to build your startup - and both of you
build it to traction, and once you take all the risk and prove the market,
(s)he leaves and builds a direct competitor using his insider knowledge.

It's the most insiduous kind of 'IP stealing' that you can get.

If you had that done to you, and your ex-developer (in fact, he is still
managing your codebase) is making a ton of money off of your ideas and IP in
your market, I am sure you would be pissed too.

The money is just sprinkling on top.

Also, I think it is hard to argue that Apple doesn't pour their hearts into
what they do. That's why they are the most valuable company on the planet and
will continue to be for years to come. It's because of the rate at which they
innovate.

Not the rate at which they copy.

So cut them some slack, and walk a mile in their shoes.

~~~
eyevariety
Really well said- for all of Jacques great posts, this opinion piece isn't
well supported and doesn't go very deep considering its length.

------
ForrestN
This is absurd and frustrating. Apple is not responsible for the broken patent
system.

Apple is a public company. If Apple decided to hold itself to a set of
standards more stringent than its competitors, it would be hampering itself
and acting against the interests of its shareholders. Complain about, and work
to fix, the system. Don't expect Apple to fix it by ceding the rights it
currently has to its competitors. Especially when, as a company, Apple
genuinely seems to believe that the blatant copying of iOS in Android is
unethical.

Also, you know Samsung has filed similar suits around the world, and in no way
is opting out of the patent system, right? Buying a Samsung as a fuck-you to
patent law is a joke. They aren't working to fix the problem. They're just
losing.

~~~
nikic
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you have to. Look at Google. That's a
nice company, which keeps the patent trolling down.

~~~
silvestrov
Oh, so now that Google has bought Motorola, they've stopped Motorola suing
Apple?

~~~
tcbawo
I would not be surprised if suing Apple was a pre-condition of sale for
Motorola.

------
arn
But it wasn't (all) about the money. It was personal.

[http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-
biograph...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/from-steve-jobs-biography-im-
going-to-destroy-android/)

 _"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every
penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said.
"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to
go thermonuclear war on this."_

With that in mind, the email reads far more genuine than the blog post
implies.

~~~
mappu
It's interesting to consider what it might take for an actual war to occur.

Samsung makes up a non-trivial share of the entire South Korean economy, one
fifth of the country's exports and employing roughly one of every thirty
people - if overnight they were barred from selling products internationally,
at what point does the state intervene?

~~~
robbiep
Imagine an apple battle tank. Would it whale on a samsung tank? Or Drone? Or
would Samsung need to down an apple drone then reverse engineer it before they
had equality in the war?

~~~
gurkendoktor
The fact that Samsung _does_ actually manufacture killer robots makes your
posting a little sad. (I know that it's not the entertainment division, but I
still don't understand why no one cares about that part of Samsung.)

[http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-
machinegun...](http://dvice.com/archives/2006/11/samsung-creates-
machinegunning.php)

------
timkeller
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 interface.

Samsung, on the other hand, designed 'TouchWhiz' to imitate parts of the iOS
look-and-feel in order to mislead customers.

~~~
fkdjs
"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.

~~~
ricardobeat
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.

~~~
Off
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>

~~~
catwell
Although the Han ted talk is from 2006, before the iPhone but after the patent
(2005).

The oldest multitouch device I know is the MERL Diamond Touch table (2001)
which clearly predates everything Apple did. I am unsure whether or not
somebody had implemented Pinch&Zoom on it before 2005.

In 2007 I worked on a Multitouch Table project as a student
(<http://digitable.imag.fr/>). We built our own FTIR table and implemented a
basic interface. We used Pinch&Zoom; I implemented it myself and I can assure
you I had never seen an iPhone before. It is so obvious that when you include
it in an interface you do not have to explain it to the users, they will try
it naturally. If anybody using a multitouch interface tries that within 10
minutes, how can it be patented?

I wonder when Microsoft started to use it internally, too. They already had a
working prototype for Surface in 2007: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEiFhD-
DIlA>

~~~
nirvana
Patents cover inventions of methods and processes to accomplish something--
implementations, not the idea or the feature.

Thus pinch-to-zoom as Jeff Han demonstrated it, using cameras to take pictures
of your hands is not the same thing as apple doing it using software to turn
noisy amorphous blobs into finger points on a capacitive touch screen.

Other people can implement pinch-to-zoom because pinch-to-zoom cannot be
patented.

Both Apple and Jeff Han could have patents on their very different
implementations of this same feature.

Unfortunately people really seem to believe that patents cover features, and I
think this is due to the deliberate spin put on the discussions by anti-patent
people.

If you disagree, try reading the pinch-to-zoom patent itself.

------
thomasilk
Almost every single founder would go crazy if someone copied their interface
or device design in the same way. Yes the same people that are now claiming
that Apple is a threat to innovation.

The jury's decision is the best thing that could've happened to the industry
in the long term.

I hope we don't really need to discuss the fact that Smsg's devices and
Android at least started as clones.

~~~
jwr
Exactly. I find it amazing that people suddenly start applying a different set
of rules once it's about Apple.

If I was a startup founder who designed and developed the iPhone, and then saw
the blatant rip-off by Samsung, I would go nuts with rage. And HN would likely
rage with me. But hey, it's Apple, so no bullying, and anyone is allowed to
copy whatever they do, right?

Also, I view this whole trial as "a way" for Apple to get at Samsung. Patents
were a tool here, not the end goal. We all know the patent system is broken
and obsolete, but since it exists, it is a tool that Apple could use. Note
that no one seems to dispute that Samsung copied Apple designs, people just
complain about the use of patents. I think that is a very one-sided view.
Samsung blatantly copied (and continues to do so) Apple designs and they
deserve to be punished — that Apple used patents is something I'd consider
secondary.

~~~
thomasilk
It's a question of intent not of rounded corners. Smsg and Android had the
clear intent to copy Apple, so there should be no discussion about their
guilt.

I totally agree on your view on patents.

------
irreverentbits
I can't help but feel as if all of the claims made regarding "real innovation"
in this post grossly undervalue the strides Apple has made in UI/UX and
overall product design in favor of elevating more immediately self-evident
technical advances.

The strength of Apple's innovation has always been in delivering complete,
cohesive products. In that regard, user interface details and interactions
which seem trivial technically are hardly trivial in terms of user experience.

As a competitive entity, there's no reason for Apple not to leverage every
technique at its disposal to ensure its competitive viability - and one of
these techniques is using patent litigation to prevent competitors from
carbon-copying its innovations.

Moral and ethical arguments should be made with regard to the integrity of the
patent system itself, not a single corporation's lawful use of that system.
Decrying Apple's behavior either speaks to hopeless naiveté regarding the
nature of competition, or self-congratulatory moral posturing.

------
djt
I think Steve said it best himself:

[http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfc...](http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/11/230bfcf694a957fc9c5a8a24297e94ad.jpg)

Companies have an obligation to their shareholders and their staff to protect
themselves. A lot of big companies have come out against the current Patent
Laws, but at the same time are fighting tooth and nail to protect themselves
because that is the current legal environment that they are operating in right
now.

PS. Jacques, the "freemium" and "consulting" links on your personal website
are dead links

~~~
magicalist
If that's real, that's really just an example of the asinine (and petty) side
of Steve Jobs I choose to forget now that he's dead.

Imagine Gabe Newell's version of that email.

------
jahewson
Don't shoot the messenger. If you don't like the way the patent system works,
then criticise the system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is patent reform, not Apple. They certainly
don't need the money. Given the discovery that went into this case, claims
like "Apple didn't even invent it" seem rather far-fetched.

~~~
zmmmmm
> If you don't like the way the patent system works, then criticise the
> system, but don't criticise a company for making use of it

So when and how exactly are we supposed to complain? In a vacuum? When nothing
bad is happening, just start writing letters about how awful the patent system
is and hope somebody listens? Do you honestly think that would ever work? It's
a ludicrous proposition.

If you want change, you have to illustrate why that change is needed. You do
that by highlighting demonstrably problematic cases, and by showing that the
parties involved are behaving in a fashion that is contrary to the public
interest, yet legal, and thus changes to the laws are needed. That is how it
works. If anybody thinks the patent system needs reform then this is _exactly_
when they should put their effort into complaining, and they should
_absolutely_ be criticizing Apple for their actions. It is not just
appropriate - it's the _only_ way change will get achieved.

------
timmyd
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 come into play
and it wouldn't be patentable. Yet it is - and yet despite all of Samsungs
insistences and millions (no doubt) spent on prior art research - nothing has
been shown prior to the date of filing that anything existed. It's no
different than Amazon's One-click.

It would be interesting - if you invented something, you spent ten-of-
thousands on patents, you spent huge amounts of capital in developing a
product - you launch it to much positive press and then someone simply copies
everything you have done. You're a small business - what do you do now ?
According to your article you sit back and say "oh thats totally ok because
thats innovation and I'm happy that everyone has copied me and destroyed my
advantage".

The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have
absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply
extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be
reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to
actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you
dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements
and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents
are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to
expense, time and so on within the legal system)

The entire basis of patents was essentially trying to protect the little guy,
with an idea against the onslaught of bigger companies just copying them
outright and giving them no chance. You state "gone are the days of Steve
Wozniak" and indeed "gone would be the days of apple" long ago - because he
just wanted everyone to have everything and thats not how you run any
business.

I agree that patent law needs reform - but I totally disagree that your
somewhat misconstrued article that we should simply destroy patents all
together. It should destroy them if they are not being actively used - but a
company trying to protect its innovations in not something that I'm against.
If you had a startup and a patentable innovation - it would be ridiculous to
assume that you would be willing to forgo millions/billions in revenue for
some abstract concept of "a greater good". America is a capitalist society and
therefore you are fighting that as a concept - not the patent industry. I know
my post will get down-voted but it's a reality of business and running a
business - you either file for protection or you don't and get copied.

~~~
csallen
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 protect the little guys.
But nowadays the exact opposite is happening. Over the last 200 years, the big
guys have wielded their influence to change the system to their benefit. And
now they abuse patents to crush anything that threatens their leadership
position, whether that's a little guy trying to innovate or another big guy
trying to play catch up.

Either way, the consumer loses, and for what? Innovation certainly isn't any
better off.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
_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 is, is anything other than a HUGE net
positive for innovation. I'm talking about the patent system across all
industries, but I suspect the same would be true for the tech industry
specifically. Companies across many industries regularly spend hundreds of
millions or billions of dollars to develop products that are primarily
protected by patents. If we did away with patents, many of those investments
would no longer be made, and the rest would be as shrouded in secrecy as
possible. And secrecy is a patent that potentially never expires.

~~~
nl
_I find it very hard to believe that the patent system, broken though it is,
is anything other than a HUGE net positive for innovation. I'm talking about
the patent system across all industries, but I suspect the same would be true
for the tech industry specifically._

The Economist (hardly a bastion of the free software movement) quoted a 2008
study showing:

 _A study in 2008 found that American public companies' total profits from
patents (excluding pharmaceuticals) in 1999 were about $4 billion—but that the
associated litigation costs were $14 billion._ [1]

Clearly the litigation costs have grown significantly since 1999. It is
unclear to me if the profits have kept pace, but even if they have that still
would mean patents cost over 3-times the financial benefit they bring.

[1] <http://www.economist.com/node/21526370>

~~~
ericd
That seems intuitively wrong. $4 billion across all public companies? Apple
makes more than 10 times that on its patented inventions yearly...

~~~
Joeri
But how much of that revenue would they miss out on without patents, taking
crosslicensing out of the picture? I suspect very little. People buy iphones
for the whole product's look and feel, not for any specific feature.

It's a myth that software must be protected through patents. Copyright and
trade dress law is sufficient.

------
thomasf1
It´s very clear that it´s been a personal mission by Steve Jobs who felt it´s
wrong.

I´m personally quite conflicted in this case: Apple has a point that Samsung
was copying them. Pure copying, not using elements of it and turning it into
something new.

On the other side, the ways of protection with patents of tiny bits of it is
silly and broken. They are trivial and regard the overall design and should
not be allowed.

Famously the Mac itself is based upon the work of Xerox Parc. To the credit of
Apple and Steve Jobs they put in a lot of work, made many concepts useable and
re-developed the mouse to actually make a consumer product out of it.

For me the morale right or wrong is the following:

make it your own: While heavily using concepts existing prior, you´ll re-
combine them into something way better than the thing you copy: That´s ok for
me, it has creative value.

copy: You simply dumbly copy things line-by-line without even understanding
the basic concepts of why something is great and throw it on the market at a
lower prive: That´s wrong and ripping of the creative work of others.

Samsung to me falls quite clearly into the copy category. I doubt that they
have a deep understanding of UX design and the subtleties what actually made
the iPhone great and delighted the users.

~~~
robin_reala
While lots of MacOS was taken from Xerox’s work it wasn't’t copied, it was
licensed.

~~~
thomasf1
Right. They managed to get a licence from Xerox to the astonishment of many of
the guys working in Xerox PARC.

What´s your take on the morals of this?

~~~
cremnob
Uh in one case they've gotten permission and are paying to use it and in the
other they're not? The morality is clear.

~~~
thomasf1
Sorry, my fault... What´s your take on the morals of the Samsung/Apple trial
and your feelings regarding protection by software patents?

------
EricDeb
How about simply having shorter tech patents? I feel having a patent length of
5 years would absolve these problems quickly. The tech industry moves too fast
for 14 or 20 year patents...

~~~
lancewiggs
And how about compulsory licensing after, say, 2 years, at reasonable terms,
subject to arbitration and penalties for excessive demands.

The patent system needs to be fixed globally. Current international trade
agreements are going in the wrong direction, driven by the USA negotiators who
are ultimately driven by Disney, MPAA and so on.

The rest of te world would dearly like to see US citizens get involved - the
TPP is a good place to start.

~~~
tcbawo
I have an idea of creating an Intellectual Property tax (similar to property
taxes) based on an assessed value of the licence. You would pay yearly to
maintain a patent. Or, you could enter it into the public domain.

------
learc83
The thing you have to ask is: would apple have invented the iPhone if the
patent system as it stands didn't exist? Also assuming that copyright
protection, and protection against counterfeit goods was still in place.

I think the answer to that is, yes. Samsung and other companies did copy Apple
just about as far as they could without actually creating a counterfeit.

Yet, that didn't stop Apple from making _billions_ of dollars. To me that is
proof that in this case the patent system did nothing to foster innovation.

Take the example of pinch to zoom. If Apple knew they couldn't patent the
process would they have implemented it? Of course they would have, it's a
better interface (and the fact nearly every other smartphone copied it, yet
they still created it proves my point).

Furthermore the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation by
rewarding inventors for not hoarding innovation with trade secrets. Could
something like pinch to zoom even realistically be protected by trade secrets.

The implementation is so simple that once someone has seen it, nearly anyone
could replicate it.

Patents no longer serve they purpose of disseminating knowledge. Companies
aren't digging through the patent office in search of implementation details,
the way it was intended to be used.

------
gearoidoc
I wish I could back in time and convince Steve Jobs not to do the iPhone and
(Butterfly Effect style) return to present day and see what phones were like.

I'm guessing we'd be viewing the web scrolling up and down on a Blackberry's
nipple :D

~~~
pgeorgi
Unlikely that there's a difference. It wasn't Apple (or Steve Jobs
Himself[tm]) that invented the capacitive touch screen and made it available
in large quantities (ie. mainstream compatible).

There were prototypes at many (probably all) mobile vendors exploring the
capabilities unlocked by that technology. Apple "merely" was boldest - but
then they hadn't to consider how a new HCI impacts the brand, since they had
no old mobile HCI that mattered.

Things might lag half a year or so due to this, but someone, somewhere would
have kicked off the "touch revolution" in about the same time without Apple.
Maybe even RIM or Nokia.

Funnily, Android/Google was in a similar position as Apple, in about the same
time (new market to enter, knowing the old style mobile HCI and touch, having
prototypes for both) - and they seemed to prefer the old style for now.

In a world without iPhone they probably would have waited for one of the big
guys to introduce touch, and then followed quickly. Google wasn't as confident
about pushing an unproven HCI onto users as Apple was.

~~~
wklauss
Capacitive screens were already used by one terminal, I think an LG phone. But
the iPhone put something different in the market: multitouch and gestures.
Some things like slide to unlock or pinch to zoom seem trivial now but they
weren't really product of the normal evolution of phone interfaces. Locking
the screen was done with a hardware button because it was deemed safer, zoom
was double tapping in the part of the image you wanted to magnify.

Had the iPhone not been introduced I doubt small little details like these
would have changed at all, and there are tons of these small subtleties in the
current smartphone OSs.

------
darkstalker
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.

------
deepGem
"Even the most rabid Apple fan can see through this and realize this is just
about money. If it wouldn’t be about money and control then there wouldn’t be
so many efforts to get injunctions and damages." - Seriously ??? Dude, A
billion dollars is nothing for Apple. They probably earn more than that in a
month.

If I'm not wrong, these were Steve's words to Eric Schmidt - 'I don't want
your money, I don't want 5 billion $, I just don't want you to do Android,
period'. So the lawsuit is definitely not about money.

------
rrrene
While many of the OP's claims seem genuinely true, it saddens me to see how
mad he becomes halfway through, after rightfully assessing facts, like the
obvious flaws behind some the Apple patents.

But what started as a well presented and valid argument essentially became an
unresortfull, self righteous Apple-Bashing that culmulates in "But as proud as
you [Tim Cook] are, as disgusted I am. [...] Today, values have won and I hope
the whole world listens. Your values have won, mine have lost, [...]"

------
mchanson
How can we make these threads not be like comp.sys.mac.advocacy?

~~~
pjscott
Wait for ten years. If that doesn't work, twenty. In that much time,
_something_ is bound to change.

(This may sound impractical, but it's the approach I'm taking. And, hey, it
already worked for discussions involving Microsoft.)

------
aristidb
There's a nice video series about why the primitive moral idea "stealing is
wrong" wreaks havoc in the world of ideas:

<http://www.everythingisaremix.info/>

------
blaines
Okay this guy wrote paragraph(s) retorting each individual line in a memo. The
author is reading way too much into this. They wrote their opinion, this
clearly wasn't a fact finding mission.

I'd probably give this a "C-" for poor format, unbalanced opinionated writing,
and it's length (too long).

In the future, it's fine to pick a side, but make a case and defend it with
research. Don't ask a series of questions in response to a memo. Questions are
unconvincing at best.

"Should your kids be home before 10PM?" vs "Your kids should be home before
10PM"

Hopefully this helps the author improve their writing. I don't even have a
Nokia phone, I have no phone. Maybe we'd be friends.

------
srinathvj
This is total abuse of patents and copyrights! Of course, the obvious way to
do things should never be patent-able in the first place!! Someone definitely
needs to re-look @ how patenting works... I think the rules have obviously
become archaic... and not useful anymore. Another example of this is the
Indian Judiciary... completely meaningless laws and rules all over the place.
A law book to govern a nation should ideally not be over 150 Pages, but now we
have one which is like 5,000 pages and its completely meaningless!! Dawh!!!

------
dogan
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.

------
sapuser
The idea behind patents is a _sound_ one; it provides incentive to innovate by
guaranteeing profits for a certain period of time. Those who don't care about
profits can freely give away patents or not bother getting one!

The details are probably up for a fair debate -- 20 years of loyalty that can
be trivially extended by trivial process changes (e.g. Pharma companies) is
undesirable.

For the argument that someone else can come up with an idea, that is an
interesting point. If you can see how something works, it is not that
difficult to reverse engineer it. But, in the true spirit of innovation, the
innovators should be thinking about _outdoing_ what they see. Merely copying
someone else is not innovation. And, that is the case with so many software
features: both genuine and trivial ones are considered equal.

If there's a way to hide the secret sauce, people would easily do that (and
that was historically done for so many things like the spices etc). The only
way to achieving that in modern day is to (i) manufacture each important
component by self and (ii) create a product that can't be taken apart. Imagine
an Iphone that can't be un-assembled without destroying it. In this context,
patents would speed up innovation (see the development of alternative
compression algorithms) by allowing to examine the details of current
implementation and improve upon it.

Samsung (and others) have been making un-wieldly phones for decades. I wonder
why they decided to make "rectangular phones with rounded corners" after
runaway success of iPhone.

And, this comes from someone who hasn't owned an iPhone :-)

------
tripzilch
It actually all becomes really clear as soon as you realize that what Apple
wanted to patent all along, was _innovation itself_.

Apparently that claim did not get accepted[1] so now they're trying to stop
competition from using _iNnovation_ by means of patent-lawsuits for everything
else.

[1] Prior art, they said. Even though it's absolutely indisputable that Apple
came up with the iWheel first, and everybody else copied its rounded corners.

------
ChuckMcM
My take on it is encapsulated by this:

"For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than
patents or money."

It is clear that it can't be about the money because Apple makes 10x the money
Samsung does, its all about crushing your enemies using every available tool
in your arsenal, no matter what. When Microsoft did that by bundling their own
browser into their dominant OS they were convicted of illegally using their
market domination to crush competition. I don't think that fate will befall
Apple but the ramifications of this on Apple will be far and wide and for the
most part uncontrollable.

I expect that everyone reading this today will, in 5 to 10 years be able to
look back at today and see all the manifestations of what happened because of
it and then see what Apple has wrought. I have no idea if it will be the best
or stupidest thing they ever did, but it will define them as a company. I'm
strangely reminded of the Tesla / Edison rant for some reason.

------
andreyf
I don't think this is about money. Apple has enough money. This is about
destroying the competition - in particular, Android. I believe Steve Jobs
wasn't shy about it, either: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984>

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

~~~
onedev
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.

~~~
DiabloD3
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?

~~~
ricardobeat
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?

~~~
DiabloD3
None of those are particularly interesting to me... not at double the product
cost. Maybe I'm just in the minority and don't get it.

------
pasbesoin
The problem with prior art is that, with the Patent Office doing such a crap
job -- thanks in part to the Congress that funds it -- you and your attorney
have to document and present it yourself, at $300/hour.

Add first-to-file to this mess, and, well, at least there will no longer be
_any_ point in spending that $300/hour.

------
wamatt
Uggh, it's getting pretty tricky to work through the moral ambiguity of all
this.

Probably because it's 3am and I'm tired, but wouldn't it be nice for a change,
to let someone else convince us that _"Apple == good"_ and _"Samsung == Bad"_
, or vice versa? But no, reality has to go and be all grey and complex. :p

------
EthanEtienne
Does anyone else see the irony in that he himself is a domain squatter? The
shit he hates, he is himself.

------
jaebrown
Your argument is really off base. Like most, it seems that you're biased on
this issue. There are clearly a couple of things most people have an issue
with in this case and all are no reason to be mad at Apple.

1\. Design - It has been stated over and over by people that Apple shouldn't
be able to patent hardware and software design; which is why these same people
believe they lost their trial against Microsoft in the 90s. I believe Apple
lost that trial because they waited to late and by that time; which was years
in, people had a hard time believing the novelty of a computer UI was
something to copy but rather a standard to implement. This is why Apple since
Jobs return in 97, has made it their mission to put design first and foremost.
They have built the company since 97 on design because it's the one thing,
that truly distinguishes a product upon appearance. This is why that went
after Samsung early, as they didn't want to give people time to infuse the
two.

No, Apple did not win the right to have a rectangle. Clearly Palm, Blackberry
and a couple other smartphone makers from earlier in the 2000s have been doing
this but Apple did win because Samsung blatantly copied the look and feel of
their rectangle.

2\. Innovation - If anything, this verdict will spur innovation in the
smartphone space. I personally can't wait to start seeing different UIs and
hardware models. After the iPhone in 2007, everything has pretty much looked
the same. It has really become boring. I applauded Microsoft for what they did
with Windows Phone/Mobile from a UI perspective. It shows the possibilities
when you think outside the box and try to innovate and now their Windows OS is
going in the same direction. We don't know the possibilities with hardware
because no one has taken the risk to introduce some truly different or
revolutionary, since 2007.

Look what FrogDesign has done with the UI of Android, that no other OEM has
even attempted to do. <http://www.frogdesign.com/work/sharp-aquos.html>

3\. Patents - The Patent System is clearly broken and needs change; which is
why there is a bill on the Senate floor right now for that. I personally don't
agree with software patents but I'm in huge favor of design and utility
patents. Those are the patents that don't stifle innovation and force
companies to be creative and innovative when building their products.
Companies should definitely have to license patents that infringe on these
two, as these are the areas where the most and hardest work is done because
these are the areas that are most transparent to the consumer.

For all the talk and comments, I've seen and read from people, I've not heard
of any more pressure to Congress on this issue. I've not heard one politician
say "I'm pushing this issue because my constituents have been urging me to do
something about it". We did something about SOPA and PIPA but have done
nothing about patent reform. So, I fail to really hear anyone out on this
stance if they're not actively trying to pursue a change. I've not seen one
sign up or online petition on HN, Reddit or any of the other internet darling
pushing this issue.

I think people need to stop taking such an interest in this, as Apple is only
doing whats best for them, within the law that we all follow and are not
trying to change. We all do whats best for us. An even though we're not
companies, I think that's a greater reason for them to do so, as they adhere
to shareholders; which are people. So if you have a problem, have it with the
Shareholders Dilemma.

------
macspoofing
Was a line-by-line analysis _really_ necessary?

~~~
pjscott
Line-by-line flames are seldom necessary, but are often fine examples of their
literary genre.

------
sterlingwes
This is the ultimate in hypocrisy

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU>

------
uvTwitch
"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs;
Triumph of the Nerds.

------
jderick
If an idea can be described in one sentence, it shouldn't be patentable.

------
epo
Ridiculous fandroid carping by Jaques. Samsung copied Apple feature for
feature, the only difference they added was inferior workmanship. If all
Samsung wanted to do was copy Apple then they should have licensed Apple's
patents.

~~~
aristidb
A "fandroid" who uses a Nokia dumb phone. Yeah right.

------
novaleaf
while I personally dislike Apple, I think the poster would have kept me more
interested if he took a more neutral stance.

overt hostile rebuttals made this a "TLDR" for me

------
taligent
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 ways.

~~~
danmaz74
"All this blog post is one person's misunderstanding of patent and copyright
law": If you refer to the current patent laws in the USA, then you're probably
right. But I think that laws that grant the possibility to give anybody a 20
years monopoly on something like "double tap to zoom" (or "1-click purchase")
are completely against the original spirit of patent laws, very stupid, and,
most importantly, pose a severe risk of slowing down innovation almost to a
halt.

I just hope that this madness will not come to the EU too (eg the 1-click
patent was never granted here).

------
nirvana
It's time to put an end to the lie that Apple has patented ideas or the
"right" to use features. This is simply not true, and not how patents work,
and the anti-patent crowd really should be embarrassed at perpetuating this
ideologically motivated, but obviously factually false claim.

Jeff Han demonstrated a touch interface using cameras a few months before the
iPhone was demonstrated. Both sets of work can be patented because the idea of
using a "touch interface" cannot be patented, by anybody.

Similarly, "pinch to zoom" or "one click purchase" or "pull to refresh" cannot
-- and HAVE NOT-- been patented.

You can only patent inventions. Inventions can be particular implementations
of features. And this is what Apple has patented. Jeff Han's touch
implementation uses cameras and Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot
of VERY sophisticated software. They are both distinct and non-obvious and
both of them could be patented.

I know this is an ideological position for those who are spreading (or
repeating) the misinformation. It is much easier to pretend like these patents
are trivial monopolies on ideas, than to admit that Apple put half a decade of
work into them.

But you should question your ideology when it requires you to lie in order to
make points.

~~~
learc83
>Apple's uses capacitive touch screen and a lot of VERY sophisticated
software.

Here is a summary of the claims.

    
    
      A multitouch display detects at least two contacts.
    
      Those contacts perform a first gesture.
    
      That gesture adjusts an image in some way
    
      The first set of contacts is broken.
    
      A second set of contacts is detected.
    
      The second contacts perform another gesture within a pre-determined period of time.
    
      The gesture continues to adjust the image in the same way.
    
    

That is the obvious way to implement pinch to zoom on a touch screen. You
don't have to copy their "very sophisticated" software to violate that patent.
If you implement a feature that copies the above claims, you are in violation.

Apple _effectively_ has a monopoly on the _feature_ pinch to zoom on touch
screens. The patent is sufficiently broad that there is no way to do it on a
touch screen that avoids the patent.

 _That_ is the problem with the patent system. Many patents are so broad that
they don't cover a specific implementation.

If that were the case the infamous Amazon one click patent would cover a
specific implementation of one click--say a particular way to store the user
information, and you could implement a similar feature using a different
method. However, you can't therefore Amazon _effectively_ has a monopoly on a
_feature_.

------
zakshay
So its fine for Samsung to copy Apple? But when Samwer Bros copy - there is a
huge uproar.

You guys should know how it feels when your products are copied.

~~~
nirvana
I find this contradiction quite curious. I think it is because their position
is ideological, not logical.

Samwer is evil. Copying another startups look is evil. Google is good
(remember their slogan: "Do no evil." how could they be evil?) Apple is bad-
and has been forever. The RIAA and MPAA are evil.

So, sometimes copying is good when google does it, but its bad when the
samwers do it, and of course they will trumpet any "Example" of apple doing it
no matter how disingenuous or dishonest they have to be.

This is more about their personal feelings towards their brands than any kind
of logical consistency.

~~~
jeltz
Well, it is partially also that there are many people with different opinions.
You seem to assume that most people here hold all the views expressed by the
entire community.

------
delllapssuck
This is a consumer. Do the opinions of consumers matter?

All that matters to Apple is sales. Do they care what consumers say about them
on the web? Silence the nonbelievers!

Consumers do not need to understand patent law to make purchase decisions. But
most consumers know what lawsuits are, especially ones that make a mockery of
the justice system.

It's possible many consumers really don't care if they're buying Apple or
Samsung. If they did care, if they only wanted Apple products, then Apple
wouldn't need to sue other manufacturers, would they?

------
goggles99
Lets see how you all feel after Apple is done suing every android and
smartphone manufacturer.

This is just the beginning. The first shot fired... The real war is yet to
come.

------
aklofas
Apple sucks.

