
Apple’s Patent Win Is Bad For Us All - riyadparvez
http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/01/one-bad-apple/
======
lotides
Dan Pallotta wrote an article titled "When My Business Failed". It included a
quote that explains the Apple/Android war perfectly:

> I've learned that the adage about innovation is true — that at first, people
> say your idea is absurd, then they say it was obvious all along, and then
> they say it was their idea to begin with.

That's exactly what I've seen with Apple since Steve Jobs returned. Remember
all the "giant iPod" comments when the iPad was released? Or the "this will
fail without a keyboard" when the iPhone came out? Those people shut up now.
With each product Apple released, people dismissed it immediately.

Now people are saying they're "obvious" ideas. The argument that Apple
shouldn't be allowed to defend their designs all center around how "obvious"
they are. Of course, they weren't obvious when Apple released them. They're
only "obvious" now that other companies have copied those ideas. I won't get
in to design with most of you because you aren't designers but the simplest
solutions are usually the hardest to come up with. It's easy to make something
complicated. It's very, very hard to make it simple or intuitive.

You can't rewrite history. When the iPhone was being developed, Android looked
like Blackberry. Those are the facts. What should be obvious is that Eric
Schmidt sat on Apples board and suddenly pivoted Android before being removed
for "conflicts on interest." And you wonder why Steve Jobs was pissed? That's
a serious breach of ethics.

Most of the anti-Apple comments are absurd. Like the Xerox thing: Apple didn't
steal anything. They paid for something Xerox didn't believe in and weren't
going to develop further.

If you have an issue with patents write your congressperson. Donate to not-
for-profit organizations trying to fix the patent system. Contact the
companies that abuse the patent system (especially if you're a shareholder or
large customer) and tell them what you think. But don't use patents as an
excuse to attack companies you irrationally hate.

~~~
rustynails77
I love how you turn some people into "people" like it was all people. Remember
the Palm os? No? Revionist history? Wasn't that before iPhone? What about
Knight Ridder's iPad in the 90s? Doesn't ring a bell? Thought so. I also love
how revisionist history of Android being a black-berry clone, then suddenly
not is still propagated. When Google first took over Android, it's aim was to
work on all platforms - to be open. That's still the aim... blackberry, or
iPhone like - it doesn't matter. I feel it important that the tech community
discusses the validity of patents, not -only- write letters to a congressman.
Let the world discuss how broken and harmful they are. Also, I advise you to
pick your examples a little better to blindly defend companies that you love.
My love is first and foremost to society. I have no particular preference to
Apple, Google, Android, Canonical, Microsoft - or whatever. But anything that
harms society, I will take offense to. Before you shoot me down for being
anti-Apple, I own no Samsung or Google/Android products, but I own an iPad3,
iPhone4 and three iPod touches. However, I am vehemently against Apple in
their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly believe is to stifle competition,
and in effect, harm society.

~~~
nessus42
_> I am vehemently against Apple in their IP crusade - which I wholeheartedly
believe is to stifle competition_

Who has Apple sued that aren't blatantly copying the iOS UI? Are they suing
Microsoft over Windows Phone? Are they suing HP over webOS? Are they suing
Nokia over Symbian? Are they suing BlackBerry?

I don't see how permitting blatant copying of a company's UI is supposed to
encourage innovation. If we want to encourage innovation, then we must
encourage companies to _innovate_ \-- not _copy_.

~~~
mullingitover
> Are they suing Microsoft over Windows Phone?

The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license.

It's interesting that Microsoft chose to purchase a license outright rather
than work out a cross-licensing deal. It seems like MS did this to lay the
groundwork for Apple to purse their competition in the Android space, since
Apple could then go to court and say, "Look, even Microsoft paid for a
license!"

~~~
nessus42
_> The don't need to, they got Microsoft to buy a license._

I'd be willing to bet good money the the _reason_ that Apple licensed iOS UI
patents to Microsoft was to make Microsoft sign something saying that they
wouldn't copy the iOS UI too closely, rather than for Apple to make a killing
on licensing fees. Making a killing on licensing fees is Microsoft's approach,
which they have used successfully against Android.

Apple took this same approach they're taking now back with Windows 1: They
licensed Mac OS UI elements to Microsoft, but then ultimately sued Microsoft
when Apple felt that Microsoft violated the terms of that license and made a
UI that was too similar in look-and-feel to Mac OS.

If anything, this is evidence that Apple is _not_ trying to squelch
competition or innovation. They don't seem to mind competition at all, and
will even license their technologies, as long as other companies aren't
slavishly copying Apple's design.

------
DesaiAshu
The way I see it this verdict was effectively a make-up call. There was no
clear way for Apple to take legal action against Samsung for copying their
device, so they found a legal loophole to enable them to do so. While most of
us would agree the patents Apple were granted are common sense patents, most
of us would also agree that Samsung blatantly copied Apple's design and UX. I
think this was an important win because it brings to light two major issues
with our patent system: 1. What kinds of things should be granted software/UX
patents? 2. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who
invest in innovation?

~~~
luriel
> 2\. How can we create rules that protect companies like Apple who invest in
> innovation?

Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"?

Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old
ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as "investing in innovation".

Apple is the perfect example of how what matters is execution, they are
successful because they execute better than their competition, and executing
better than your competition is already its own reward.

~~~
timr
_"Why exactly does the biggest company in the industry need to be "protected"?
Making fashionable-looking hardware and putting together some obvious and old
ideas (eg., pinch to zoom) is not the same as 'investing in innovation'"_

I read comments like this, and all my brain sees is: "WAAAH!"

Companies don't give up their rights to legal protection once they get to a
size that the internet thinks is "too big". And that's a great thing -- it's
how small companies become large companies without being killed by nasty
parasites who do nothing but copy good products to eat away at profit margins.

As for the argument that Apple didn't do anything innovative: take a walk,
please. Unless you're too young to remember the world of cellphones in 2007,
you can't make a reasonable claim that there was no innovation in what they
did with the iPhone. Lots of people want to _post hoc_ rationalize the fact
that the market has been flooded with iPhone-esque devices by calling it
"innovation" (as if lower prices were somehow innovative). But I was there,
and I _remember_ the phone I had before I had an iPhone: It flipped open. It
had a keyboard. It barely fit in my pocket, and had a tiny, low-resolution
screen. _I had to buy an expensive, custom headphone to listen to music._

Rationalize whatever you like, but Apple revolutionized the cellphone market,
and they deserve the spoils of their risk-taking. If this is how they do that
within the confines of the current legal system, so be it. They deserve to
win.

~~~
echaozh
1\. Big companies should be less well protected, or there may be a monopoly.
Intel is innovative, but it has to tolerate AMD using its instruction set. Big
companies is much more dangerous than small ones, you don't want them to
dominate your life.

2\. Apple may be innovative, but it should try and be more innovative. The
patent system is to encourage people to innovate more, by protecting their
innovation. The protection is the means, not the ends. If Apple cannot
innovate any more, why protect it? It's not like Apple will die tomorrow if
not protected.

------
anuraj
Patent system is meant as an incentive for innovators. There is a need to
clearly define and enforce:

1\. What is patentable 2\. What is the level of protection that a patent
holder gets 3\. What are the terms and obligations regarding patent licencing.

In the absense of a suitable patent system, innovator's incentive will come
down. Will it hurt the consumers by limiting disruptive innovation? If it does
then it makes sense to see how the existing system needs to be made better. If
not, let us not differentiate between software, pharma, hardware or whatever -
because innovation in any form requires tremendous leaps of faith and
pioneering efforts from inventors and should be protected by similar terms and
instruments.

~~~
vibrunazo
Patents are not the only way to incentive innovation. You know what's a great
way to incentive innovation yourself? Became an angel investor, those guys are
investing in innovation and pushing progress forward many orders of magnitude
better than intellectual property is. Don't have enough money? Join an angel
group, or fund a kickstarter project. I don't know about the us, but
many.countries have programs to inventive innovative startups with funding,
incubation and mentorship.

Bottomline is, there are.still means to inventive innovation without granting
monopolies. If intellectual property magically ceased to exist, men would
still invent awesome stuff. You can have my word on that.

------
mtgx
I wish Microsoft would be castigated for their aggressive use of mostly BS
patents as well. Apple wins a one time only $1 billion payment, but Microsoft
is getting to the point where they might get $1 billion from the companies
using Android every 2 years or even every year if Android keeps getting even
more successful. Is that right? Would it seem right if Microsoft did this to
companies using Linux? They are even going after companies using ChromeOS. Why
isn't there a bigger outrage towards them? Is it because they take the money
in small bites compared to Apple? Is that how they get under the radar? They
are making Android cost almost as much as their full phone OS license, thanks
to a bunch of patents. That's not right.

~~~
ajross
I hereby castigate Microsoft. Are you happy? MS is evil, but they are broadly
happy to be a parasite. They aren't trying to keep their competitor's products
out of the market entirely. Other companies, like Nokia, are behaving
similarly. And it's hurtful and wrong.

But sorry, it's objectively not as hurtful, nor wrong, as what Apple is doing
right now with their shotgun suits, refusal to license at reasonable cost, and
demands for import bans.

The fact that Apple is at the top of a very long list of evil doers doesn't
excuse them.

~~~
rustynails77
>The fact that Apple is on a very long list of evil doers doesn't excuse them.

FTFY.

~~~
ajross
Please leave that sort of ridiculousness on Reddit where it belongs. HN
aspires (at least it used to) to a higher level of discourse.

------
recoiledsnake
Perhaps PG can just pin a "Apple vs. Android" discussion to the top of HN so
we don't have 20 articles every few hours on the front page regurgitating
almost the exact same set of ~20 comment and counterargument types? Am I the
only one getting super tired of this?

~~~
luriel
The problem with the out of control patent insanity is absolutely not about
"Apple vs. Android".

The patent wars around the mobile market are just a symptom of how rotten the
whole patent system is.

~~~
evilduck
Sure, that point is brought up every time too. It's not new, insightful, or
interesting at this point, it's been discussed to death and repeated hundreds
of times. It also doesn't prevent the media outlets from writing these hollow
armchair-lawyering Apple vs. whatever stories to gain click-throughs, and it
doesn't make it any less boring to see them submitted on HN every hour.

~~~
vibrunazo
Obviously there are still many who don't get it, even here. Until everyone
understands what the problem is, it's still worth repeating. We can only
declare beating on a dead horse, when the horse is dead. This one is not only
alive, but getting stronger. We have a long long way to kill it.

~~~
tedunangst
The beatings will continue until everybody shares the same thoughts? Now what
does that remind me of?

------
denzil_correa
Sorry but the author attribues the deficiencies of the patent system to Apple.
If not Apple someone else would have done it. I would also contest the
competition argumen by saying that lesser clones in the market make for better
competition. The way I see it, I am happy that there will be lesser clones and
more original stuff for me to choose from purely from a consumer POV.

~~~
rogerchucker
This "if not Apple someone else would have done it" argument is the biggest
pile of horseshit Apple apologists have been spewing since these lawsuits
started. Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google against Bing? Or
against Duckduckgo?

~~~
rimantas

      > Do we see similar search lawsuits started by Google
      > against Bing?
    

What it has to do with search? As for mobile—there were numerous spider-web
type graphs showing who is suing whom. You can actually see the lawsuit
started (again) by Motorola agains Apple. Motorola is now owned by Google, if
you missed that bit of information. Ultimately there are no good guys and no
bad guys—it all boils down to the stupidity of patent systems and who you like
more.

~~~
justinschuh
I think his argument is that Google has a big pile of patents in search and
distributed systems, but isn't using any of them offensively. So, the whole
argument that it's okay to act unethically (but legally) because someone else
is bound to rings especially hollow here. As for the rest of your comment,
it's a disingenuous argument that's been thoroughly debunked, so I won't
bother wasting the time or keystrokes on it.

