
Apple Worked A Broken Patent System - snupples
http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/apple-worked-a-broken-patent-system/240006568
======
dgreensp
I don't know enough to truly defend Apple's actions, but given that they
started working on the iPad 10 years ago, and even when it was announced no
one could figure out why it was a good idea until they used one... Apple has
likely poured years and buckets of money into R&D full of trial and error,
like a pharma company trying to hit on a chemical formula, and a good amount
of that work can be copied for free by competitors in the absence of patent
protection. In that way, what Apple is seeking is exactly what patents are
supposed to provide.

For example, I still remember how incredibly novel it was to use a web browser
on an iPhone and be able to zoom in to click on links, double-tap, etc. This
isn't a superficial feature either, as it required a beefy graphics chip.
Putting a powerful GPU in a phone and using it to zoom in on web pages and
PDFs may have been as innovative as putting a hard drive, and wheel, and a
graphical LCD together to make the iPod.

On the other hand, maybe "inventing" a form factor or a user interface
paradigm and getting exclusive rights to it is as preposterous as it sounds,
and the ghost of Steve Jobs should be content that Apple used its prescience
to buy up all the high-res LCD panels. They have capitalized on their
innovation quite well.

I do see Android as basically a piece-by-piece copy of the iPhone. I'd trust
Google to build a JVM and throw together an API, and not much further.

~~~
ajross
This is mostly a straw man. The patent system isn't intended to reward
"effort". Apple's work can't be copied "for free" by anyone, nor was it. Apple
wasn't the first to put "a powerful GPU in a phone", nor was their browser the
first to allow zooming (their innovation was the "pinch" gesture, and even
that isn't as clear as it seems if you read the patent).

And if you don't see innovation in Android too, you're simply not looking (let
me guess: you've never so much as installed the Android SDK, right?).

I am so tired of all the advocacy, yet terribly frightened of the
implications. Isn't it enough that Apple made a great, ground breaking product
that enriched us all? Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this
device and the biggest tech company in the world? Must they really be a
monopoly too? Didn't people learn anything from the 90's?

~~~
luriel
> Isn't it enough that they're printing money with this device and the biggest
> tech company in the world?

They are last I checked the biggest company in history.

But apparently that is not enough reward for their efforts, they need the
government to grant them a monopoly on some of the most ridiculously obvious
ideas of the last 20 years.

~~~
ajross
This was hashed out over the last few weeks when they passed the record. They
are the biggest in nominal ("dollar") value. The Microsoft of the 90's and IBM
of the 80's were larger in inflation-adjusted market cap. And my understanding
is that the US trusts of the 1920's were _much_ larger in terms of value as
fraction of GDP.

But they're undeniably the biggest, most successful tech company on the planet
right now. I think that's enough.

~~~
crag
And lets not forgot Standard Oil of the early 20th century. Standard Oil was
so big it's revenue (including all the subsidiaries and holdings) almost
topped the value of the whole country.

Apple is far from that goal.

Apple might be the biggest company by market cap today but they're a pale
comparison to the likes of Standard Oil or US Steel (in their prime).

Also, Apple doesn't have a monopoly is anything unlike (Standard Oil and US
Steel). I wish most of you would stop trying to convince us all they do.

We've been down this road before. And it seems to happen every generation -
some company gets very rich. And everyone starts screaming about unfair
practices and monopolies.

Apple plays the patent game well. So does Google, MS, Samsung, IBM, Oracle,
all the drug companies - and everybody else. So what's new?

~~~
ajross
Right. Everyone is screaming about unfair practices and monopolies _because
unfair practices and monopolies hurt the market_. You honestly don't think MS
hurt adoption of otherwise-good platforms in the 90's? There are a bunch of
South Korean teenagers who probably wish you physical violence for holding
that opinion.

~~~
sbuk
You can't accuse people of using strawmen then proffer one yourself.

~~~
ajross
I'm reading back and forth between crag's reply and mine looking for a straw
man and can't find one. Enlighten me? He strongly implied (it seems clear to
me, though maybe you thought he was saying something else?) that the status
quo was not a problem because it had happened before. I replied that it was a
problem, had happened, and gave an example. Simply inferring an argument is
not making a straw man.

~~~
Retric
The current system enables Apple to be the largest company in the world, in
other systems other companies end up winning. So you don't get to assume the
same companies win win after significant patent reform.

PS: Plenty of large companies have _overthrown_ governments and enabled
atrocities on a massive scale. Sure, someone always wins but it's hard to
point to a company as benign as Microsoft or Apple and assume something must
be horribly broken. Honestly, after comparing the Apple ecosystem with Android
Apple is far better for developers than the more 'open' platform. Ditto for
Microsoft, they had their time in the sun and 'hurt' their rivals, but
compared to say standard Oil, US steel, or the East India Company there
practically a charity.

------
aretiste
When consumers realise they are paying too much (i.e. people in Asia will be
paying less for the "same" phones), then things will get more interesting.

Apple's patent suits will enable it to charge inflated prices. And that's what
they will do.

The comparisons commenters make to pharmaceuticals are amusing.

Apple is not like a drug company that charges high prices for it developed
drugs. Those companies are reimbursed for their R&D through government
programs and health insurance. Apple is reimbursed directly from people's
paychecks or company budgets if the devices are purchased for employees.

These devices are cheap electronics. Few people can develop a generic version
of a drug in their garage. But with 3D printing, the possibility of making
protoypes that rival what Apple is selling is a real possibility.

Patents on biological materials came well before patents on software. The
seriousness of the problems with the patent system (that would prompt people
like Posner to speak out) is due to the behaviour of IT companies, not
pharmaceutical companies.

------
001sky
_Too many patents granted without enough understanding of the state of the
art_

How far would $1B go to better understanding the State-of-the art?

~~~
dgreensp
Are you offering? :)

~~~
001sky
Proposal For Kickstarter:

 _Kickstart The US Patent System_

<Donations Accepted>

~~~
blktiger
Nice!

Although that does make me wonder... what if Government organizations had to
use something like Kickstarter to get funding?

~~~
nickpinkston
I've wanted for a while a way of taking a small % of your taxes and allowing
you the government agencies (or NGOs?) that you prefer. Maybe even a small %
would be a useful thing to compete over - for instance NASA / NIH / NSF might
get huge funding boosts if a certain segment of the population might give 1%
of their taxes to such causes.

~~~
001sky
<http://www.janbanning.com/gallery/bureaucratics/>

Edit: Looks like a little backlog of problems to care of

------
pdonis
I'm not sure I understand the article's point. In the very first sentence, the
author says:

> Samsung too closely copied some elements of the Apple iPhone, and for that
> it should be hung up in the public square.

But the rest of the article gives good arguments for why none of the Apple
patents should have been granted in the first place, much less upheld in
court. So why exactly should Samsung have been punished at all, then?

~~~
MichaelGG
Samsung should be mocked publicly and shamed for taking such a loser's
approach in ripping things off. If I wrote a story about a boy wizard called
"Henry Porter", and had similar books like "Magicians Rock" and "Captive of
Azitan", I'd be widely panned as just ripping off JK Rowling. But, it wouldn't
be illegal.

So, a lot of folks feel like Samsung should be humiliated, that they shouldn't
just ripoff designs, etc. But we also acknowledge that it should not be
illegal, that if they want to make me-too products, that's fine. It's not like
they were actually tricking people into thinking "yes, this is an Apple
iPhone, and not a Samsung phone".

A part of me wants Samsung to get fines, just because I'm so personally pissed
off with how bad they made Android look (e.g. the keyboard, the crappy
backgrounds on icons), but overall, for society, we're worse off if we allow
them to be punished for having poor taste.

~~~
sbuk
Interesting point, but this is where people seem to disagree. At college
plagiarism is expressly forbidden. It's seen as cheating to attempt to pass
off someone else's work, or a close copy, as your own. It can lead to
expulsion. And so it should. Samsung have done this, and appear to be
continuing to do so. What makes it worse to me isn't the fact that they are
attempting to mimick Apple's aesthetic to confuse, it's the liberal use of
their design language with minor tweaks and the blatant denial from all and
sundry that copying has taken place. It's the emporers new clothes!

Should it be illegal? That depends. The level that Samsung take things to
should be. That said, their is nothing inherently wrong with being informed by
other aesthetics when designing the look and feel of a product and that is
where the line blurs.

~~~
terminus
Your comment seems reasonable at first sight. However, your argument presumes
there being an "Apple aesthetic."

Rounded rectangles, bounce-back, swipe to unlock are refinements on what
existed already. That does not imply they are novel. Apple, really is standing
on the shoulders of giants(or-otherwise.)

Refinements and a reality distortion field does not an aesthetic make.

------
y1426i
It would have been interesting to see if MS had patented AJAX, DOM and other
browser goodies, singing its laurels on what an awesome IE6 browser was, where
would the internet be today!

