
Entrepreneur Wins $625 Million Payout From Apple - ryanwaggoner
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/10/entrepreneur-wins-625-million-verdict-against-Apple.html
======
maxawaytoolong
Interestingly, he was a victim of the Unabomber.

From Wikipedia:

 _In 1993, Gelernter was critically injured opening a mailbomb sent by
Theodore Kaczynski, who at that time was an unidentified but violent opponent
of technology, dubbed by the press as "the Unabomber".[2] He recovered from
his injuries but his right hand and eye were permanently damaged. He
chronicled the ordeal in his 1997 book Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber._

~~~
tav
He has also made some significant contributions to computer science —
linda/tuple spaces in particular have been extremely influential in
distributed computing. Not to mention his sci-fi works.

------
pwpwp
Mirror Worlds patents that are probably the issue here:

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XJ4SAAAAEBAJ>

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=pcASAAAAEBAJ>

Personally, I find it outrageous for an academic to demand credit for
"inventing" displaying files side by side, searching files by content, and
archiving files by time. The Sumerians probably already did this.

~~~
dstein
Pretty much all software patents boil down to "method of organizing
information".

~~~
gargantuan
I'll just file a patent on a business method profiting from patents on methods
of organizing information.

------
kls
I am glad the mobile world is blowing up in global thermo nuclear patent war.
I hope that it will be so bloody that it leaves a bad taste in everyone mouth
for a long time in regards to software patents. I am happy to see a little guy
win who was actually trying to push software based on his patent rather than a
patent troll or Apple but I would have rather he had not had a case due to
software not being patentable. I think the mobile space highlights the damage
that software patents do.

~~~
napierzaza
Apple might have lost this time. But the only winners are the big companies
when it comes to patents. MS and others have a huge portfolios that crushes
everyone who does anything like what they have a patent for. Why are you glad?
Do you think patent laws will be overturned by this in the future? They're all
just going to continue playing the same game.

~~~
kls
_Why are you glad?_

No one can win at the game they are playing, it was always mutually assured
destruction, when it came to the big players suing the big players. Apple made
a move on HTC thinking that they where not a big enough fish to start a
meltdown. Their analysis was wrong, it did. Now with the big fish not focusing
on their core competency it gives others an opportunity in the market. The
mobile patent wars has grown to big for any of them to control, now the only
way they will be able to draw it to an end will be to lobby for patent reform.
There is no doubt in my mind that these wars are close to boiling over into
the desktop market. Until someone mistepped and started the unwinable war, it
was a game stack against the little guy and a tool used exclusively on them.
Now the weapon has been turned on the wielders, which was the logical first
step that had to happen before any weight would be put behind reform.

------
tyng
The verdict would suggest, and it's a common misunderstanding to think that,
the person who comes up with the idea first is more important for innovation
than the person who executes it. This is encouraging talkers and discouraging
doers.

Yes Gelernter may be the first person that came up with the "mirror world"
idea (not to mention he has already made money from the books he sold), but
instead of suing Apple for money, he should have praise Apple for making his
vision a reality.

~~~
atomical
If the world worked this way no one would innovate because the bigger players
would start their copy machines every time someone with courage and a few
great ideas sought to change the world.

If someone has a plan to rid us of the patent system and protect innovation I
have yet to hear it...

~~~
kjksf
This is a common claim but easily debunked.

We know that patent protection is not necessary for innovation. Patents are
relatively new invention (1623 in UK per Wikipedia). And yet there were so
many things invented before that, of much more fundamental nature than any
software patent.

Second argument is an economic thought experiment. Let's say there is no word
processing software yet and there's a million dollars to be made in word
processing software. If we go by your "no innovation without monopoly" rule,
no one will invent word processing out of fear that someone else will take
part of the possible profits.

That's complete bollocks. If there's money in it, people will do it. Patents
are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and lack of
competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and less
possibility to build on stuff that has been done before. This case shows this
well: the guy's idea might be swell, but do we really expect everyone to
either not to anything similar in the future or pay him $625 million for the
privilege? Does anyone really claims that given billions of educated people on
the planet no one would come up with this idea independently even if this one
guy kept it to himself?

~~~
GHFigs
_If there's money in it, people will do it._

Hence, by allowing inventors to secure a temporary patent monopoly, you
greatly magnify the profit potential, encouraging risk and speculation that
might not otherwise be worth the time and capital.

 _Patents are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and
lack of competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and
less possibility to build on stuff that has been done before._

Nonsense. You're talking about turning everything into a commodity, which by
definition means everything trends towards being the same. Sure, it drives
prices down, but it makes improving the product a sucker's game.

Suppose your company can make 10,000 widgets a month. My company can make
7,500 widgets a month, but they're twice as good as your widgets because we
invested more in widget R&D, and we are able to ask a higher price for them.
Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to patent my improved widget, and you're smart
enough to realize that my widgets are better, so you copy them. Now you're
making the same widgets I am, but more of them. Damn, looks like investing in
R&D was dumb.

------
seles
There's getting to be so many patents that it might be harder to determine if
original software you've written is patented than actually developing it.

------
turboway
I am interested to see when a broader coalition against the existing patent
system is forming. or even _if_ ...

 _The world of patents has become perverted in recent years: patents are seen
as valuable things in themselves – the more the merrier – irrespective of
whether they do, truly, promote innovation. Worse: in the world of software,
they are actually brakes on that innovation, particularly as they begin to
interact and form impenetrable patent thickets._

[http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Is-Microsoft-
running-o...](http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Is-Microsoft-running-out-
of-steam-1102654.html)

------
patrickgzill
Prior art: Zoomracks. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomracks>

------
VladRussian
a really bad thing about current patents (enforcement) is that it
redistributes significant resources - time&money - from possibly productive
purposes in an engineering company to [both sides] lawyers' pockets. A "40%
patent layers tax". A parasitic drag if to speak aerodynamically.

------
niallsmart
Coverflow wasn't even developed in-house at Apple, they acquired it. According
to wikipedia "Cover Flow was conceived by artist Andrew Coulter Enright[1] and
originally implemented by an independent Macintosh developer, Jonathan del
Strother. Enright later named the interaction style fliptych to distinguish it
from the particular Cover Flow implementation.[2]"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_Flow>

------
gojomo
I have mixed feelings about this.

I think Gerlernter is an important computer science visionary. There are still
good ideas for today's interfaces in his 1993 book predating the web 'Mirror
Worlds'.

But I also don't think he deserves $625 million for having patented some of
his ideas/predictions about computer interfaces.

In his own writings, the tone is often prophetic: not "here's my nifty
invention" but "this is the inevitable path we're on". Seeing what everyone
else will see a few years early is a valuable skill; it's not so valuable it
needs to be rewarded with a 20-year patent monopoly.

~~~
qjz
But he followed up by forming a company, developing, and shipping actual
software based on these ideas. This doesn't look like mere patent trolling.

~~~
tyng
He may have tried, but his execution wasn't anywhere near Apple's. Instead of
suing Apple for money, he should have praise Apple for making his vision a
reality

~~~
kls
You mean like Apple praised Google for Android? or Microsoft for Windows? I am
sorry but Apple is one of the worst offenders when it comes to litigating
copycats. I think we need to get rid of software patents all together but
historically Apple has never praised copy cats of their original ideas why
should this guy be any different? Because it is Apple?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Is Google's Android better than iOS? Is Microsoft's Windows better than Mac OS
X? There are no obvious answers.

Now, compare some screenshots of Gelernter's Scopeware and Apple's CoverFlow.
In this case it's obvious that Apple's implementation is a lot better, in its
presentation as well as its ease of use.

There are dozens of cases where Apple took someone else's idea and improved on
it, but I can't think of any good examples where the reverse happened.

~~~
kls
I think you are missing the point, either copying ideas is right or wrong. The
quality of the reproduction is irrelevant. The point is that Apple felt that
copying their idea was wrong when Google and Microsoft did it, yet they did
not feel that it was wrong when they did it to this guy, in fact every
graphical OS from Lisa on was founded on Apple copying someones idea, there
whole Mac and later IOS industry was founded when apple copied the Xerox Alto.
It seems that Apples compass of right or wrong when it comes to copying
depends on what side of the fence they are sitting on. Or are you saying that
because Apple copies ideas better than others it is OK for them?

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"either copying ideas is right or wrong"_

I am perfectly aware of the point you're trying to make. However, that was not
what the grandparent, Tyng, was talking about. He suggested that, because
Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, Gelernter should've just be grateful that
Apple threw its R&D prowerss at it, making it what it is now. You then replied
comparing the situation to Microsoft and Google copying Apple's work, which
isn't exactly the same thing.

~~~
kls
Yes it is, why should this guy be grateful, I don't understand why this guy
should be grateful. I don't understand what is not clear about that. Apple was
not grateful so why should this guy be grateful. I want to know why is their
an acceptable double standard?

In my personal opinion he should not be anything, Apple should be free to
implement anything on their system they want (as well as everyone else) but
those are not the rules of engagement. So I want to know, under the current
rules of engagement, why is it flattery when the little guy gets copied, but
acceptable for the big guys to enforce that they can't be copied.

This kind of mentality reinforces the little guy getting victimized and I want
to understand how someone comes to such a flawed conclusion. Whether right or
wrong the big guys are using patents as a tool in their arsenal, so if those
are the ground rules set out by the bigger players then why should a smaller
player be flattered and give up advantage to a big company that has been known
to use the same tools against others? If the shoe was on the other foot Apple
would not consider it flattery (especially if it was superior), they have
proved that and that is my point.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"I don't understand why this guy should be grateful."_

I wasn't asserting that he should, Tyng was. And I don't want to get into a
debate on the validity of software patents, because I'm still undecided on the
matter.

Tyng stated that Apple improved on Gelernter's idea, and I don't think anyone
will disagree with that. You compared the situation to Google and Microsoft
copying Apple's ideas. I'm saying that isn't a fair comparison, because there
is no consensus on whether Android is significantly better than iOS and
whether Windows is significantly better than Mac OS.

 _"Apple was not grateful [for the creation of Windows and Android] so why
should this guy be grateful."_

I very much doubt that Apple saw the initial versions of Windows and Android
as major improvements over their own OSes. Imitation can be the sincerest form
of flattery, but doing it badly is simply insulting.

I think it's hard to tell what Apple would do if some company took Apple's
ideas and made significant improvements to them, since I can't recall such an
event ever happening. Well, maybe one: the Palm Pilot versus the Newton
MessagePad. And I don't think Apple sued USRobotics over it.

~~~
kls
_I'm saying that isn't a fair comparison_

I contend that it is, the suit was about software patents, not quality of
reproduction, just like the cases before it. Bringing quality in is just a
straw man argument and that is what I am trying to ferret out.

As for Palm, software patents did not exist until 95 in their current form,
given that Palm was founded in 92. As well US Robotics existed well before
that. There was no way to enforce a software patent.

------
jrockway
Excellent. When software patents start costing huge companies $625 million a
pop, they'll be gone Real Soon.

~~~
dctoedt
Or monkey see, monkey do - the huge companies might instead redouble their
efforts to get their own patents. Years ago Microsoft got nailed by Stac for
infringement of a patent on disk compression techniques (see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_laws...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics#Microsoft_lawsuit)),
which seems to have spurred Microsoft into applying for patents of its own.

------
dkasper
David Gelernter is an interesting guy; I remember hearing him on NPR's OnPoint
talking about his book Judaism: A Way of Being. Link if anyone's interested:
<http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/12/david-gelernter>

------
GHFigs
"Steven Jobs may be no inventor, but to his credit he recognized elegance when
he saw it and understood its significance." -- David Gelernter, in his 1998
book _Machine Beauty_.

About ten pages after the above quote, Gelernter describes pretty much
everything this suit was about in some detail, e.g. a use of the "time travel"
metaphor very much like Time Machine's Finder interface, wherein the whole
interface reverts to a previous state. Even if you don't agree with the
verdict (or the damages, _yikes_ ) it's unthinkable after reexamining this
book that folks at Apple didn't get some ideas from Gelernter's work, perhaps
without even realizing it.

Incidentally, it is a great book that I highly recommend.

~~~
kls
Sure they did, The iPhone was a eerily similar concept to a device patented in
the late seventies or early eighties. I wish I could dig up the link, but man
it looked like a wholesale copy of this patent. Multi-touch and everything.
Someone at Apple is rifling through old patents for ideas.

~~~
b-man
Not exactly patented, but the concepts behind tablets, smartphones, and the PC
itself can be traced directly to -> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook>

------
cvg
I'm curious to know how the technology is used after a patent suit like this.
Do companies like Apple usually license the patented technology or do they
remove the offending code?

I imagine there could be a lot more money involved if the appeals are shot
down.

------
gallerytungsten
Notice it says Apple is going to appeal. Of course, they'll drag this out a
while, and will likely settle for a much lower number in the end.

------
jonhendry
Gelernter isn't exactly what I think of when I read "entrepreneur".
Technically, I suppose he is, but I just think of an entrepreneur as someone
with more on the line.

It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig and their commitment to
breakfast. He's the tenured chicken providing the idea eggs, not the pig
providing the bacon and working to make a viable business.

------
aresant
These images do a good job illustrating the similarties between coverflow and
scopeware:

<http://www2.freedownloadscenter.com/ReviewImages/s1025.jpg>

[http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/10503519...](http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/1050351976600vgat436.jpg)

And a review of the original patents via Apple Insider 2008:

[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/lawsuit_target...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/lawsuit_targets_time_based_sorting_in_apples_ipods_time_machine.html)

An interesting 5 year old Google answers thread about the fate of Scopeware ->

<http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/603242.html>

~~~
bialecki
Wow, Longhorn is cited as putting them out of business. If only they could've
seen the future...

~~~
bmelton
You've just touched on why the 'release early, release often' mantra, in some
cases, makes sense.

If he were in fact going to be beaten by Longhorn (who knows), it's likely
that Apple would have gotten him anyway, but this proves that giving up on the
rumor that Microsoft is swinging into your space is naive, pussy-footed
thinking at its finest.

If, in fact, Longhorn WAS his only threat, he would have had what, 6 years in
which to prosper, and possibly even dominate as a 'preferred' alternative to
what Microsoft was offering.

He did just fine on his own, of course, so the conversation is moot.

------
bhiggins
More like failed entrepreneur who turned bitter. First blamed Microsoft, now
Apple. Maybe he should blame himself.

~~~
kjksf
His motivations are irrelevant.

The problem is with the patent system that allows getting monopoly for minor
(however useful they might be) ideas and awards mind-boggling damages after
long and costly trials.

Blaming actors in that system is not helpful because it changes focus from
relevant (the patent system is broken) to irrelevant (motivations of people or
companies that take advantage of the system).

