

Good ideas are meant to spread - raganwald
http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/regarding_old_apple_microsoft_suit

======
martythemaniak
"Apple brings to market a revolutionary next step in personal computers; "

In this case, Apple _popularized_ the next step - they neither invented it,
nor were they the first one to do it. In the iPhone case, you an look at the
LG Prada (revealed about a month prior to the iPhone) or the HTC phones of
that era (shipped a few weeks before the iPhone). If people kept that in mind,
there'd be far less sympathy for what Apple is doing right now - that is
trying to stop progress that would have occurred whether or not they were
there to capitalize on it.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_revealed about a month prior to the iPhone... shipped a few weeks before the
iPhone..._

If only the cause-and-effect were so clear. The iPhone was rumored for years
before it was released; it was surely in manufacturing prototype for many
months before it was announced, and then it was announced months before it
actually shipped.

Apple is legendary for keeping its secrets well. But even major government
agencies can't keep secrets _perfectly_. Espionage works. And I'm sure that
lots of people in China were in a position to figure out Apple's plans in
advance. (Note how poorly the iPad's secrets were kept relative to the iPhone.
The biggest advantage Apple had with the iPod and iPhone was the element of
surprise: Nobody thought of Apple as a music-player company, or a telephony
company, so nobody was focusing too hard on Apple product espionage. They're
focused now, though.)

So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would
have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak. For example, just because
Google and Microsoft announced iPad knockoffs within days of the iPad
announcement [1] doesn't mean that those products [2] were going to happen
with or without Apple.

\---

[1] Microsoft's pad was announced _earlier_! Of course, I'm told it also
didn't look much like an iPad. In demo-theatre, as in curling, it pays to move
last.

[2] If products they are. Demos are at least one order of magnitude easier to
cough out than shipping products are. Of course you can build a _demo_ of a
pad. That's a couple weeks of work or less.

~~~
martythemaniak
It's people like Grubber and you that want a clear cause-and-effect. To them,
the iPhone was the genesis and everything that's mobile and touch derives from
it. To me, this is a lot like people claiming Nirvana invented Grunge. No,
there was a scene/movement, they were a part of it and they were the ones that
hit it big and influenced it. But to claim anything more is a big mistake.

In order to defend your absurd "there would be no touch without Apple" stance,
you're going to great lengths here - accusing multiple companies of successful
espionage against Apple for years in a row. Instead, you could face that fact
that there were many companies with touchscreen devices, that there was much
research in the area (both by companies such as the MS with the Surface and
various independent researchers) and technology like high-res capacitative (vs
the older, cheaper, crappier resistive) screens were becoming more available.

~~~
TimothyFitz
I'm not sure where the "there would be no touch without Apple" quote comes
from (parent's parent may have edited) but I agree it's false. Trivially
provable, since Apple did not invent multitouch, they purchased the
company/guy who did, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks>

~~~
martythemaniak
"So the argument that these various contemporaneous iPhone-like devices would
have happened without the iPhone is pretty weak"

How many ways can one interpret that? Clearly, he thinks large-screened touch-
based phones would not have existed without the iPhone.

------
jknupp
It's a bit disingenuous to say "Good ideas are meant to spread." They're not
really meant to do anything, in the same way that the common saying
"information wants to be free" is nonsense.

It seems hand-wavy to say "good ideas are meant to spread" without a more in-
depth discussion of copyright/trademark law. The information you present is
hypothetical and anecdotal. Anthropomorphizing "ideas" is not a substitute for
real data and constructive discussion.

~~~
brlewis
You're fighting a battle you can't win. Ideas want to be anthropomorphized.

~~~
pronoiac
You're kidding, right? Ideas _hate_ being anthropomorphized.

~~~
brlewis
They keep changing their minds, like a cat always on the wrong side of the
door.

------
stcredzero
Versus, "Good Ideas are meant to be owned?"

I think the world economy needs places where IP is _not_ respected. That is
where those ideas can freely get applied, and where they can be expanded and
refined. The US was this for the world in the late 1800s. Such places will be
the next economic powerhouses.

~~~
bbatsell
So... China.

------
jsz0
Since the iPhone is currently a very successful product I wonder what Apple
see's coming down the road that scared them into this patent lawsuit? I
suppose it could be pure greed but it almost feels like they know the iPhone
is in trouble long term and this was the only viable strategic move to protect
the market. Otherwise they could just stay ahead of the competition with
innovation and nice bouncy scrolling lists and "slide to unlock" would be old
features not even worth protecting. Lots of Apple investors seem pleased at
this patent lawsuit but I think they should be asking themselves if maybe
Apple knows the iPhone's current success is unsustainable.

~~~
roc
In general, large companies don't bring software patent lawsuits against
competitors to prevent competition. Large companies bring software patent
suits against competitors to win cross-licensing agreements; to get something
their competitor has. (And counter-suits are typically about trying to block
such a forced cross-licensing)

The exceptions to this process are notable as being _exceptions_.

So I'm not sure why everyone automatically assumes Apple has the 'evil'[1]
motive for patent prosecution.

What I wonder, is whether the license HTC has to Nokia's GSM patents is
transferable. That is: could Apple be forcing a cross-licensing agreement with
HTC, to end-run Nokia's lawsuit against them?

[1] that is: suing to strangle competition. e.g. Amazon

~~~
halostatue
That's really my thinking. Since some of the patents in question against HTC
are the same patents in question against Nokia, I wonder if the HTC move is
just to strengthen the claims against Nokia. If Android is hurt in the
process, Apple doesn't care.

------
gfunk911
The advantage of inventing a better way to do something is that now you're
selling a better product. Apple has been rewarded for their great ideas
(embodied in the iPhone) by making a kajillion dollars and somewhat dominating
the smartphone space. The ethical interpretation here seems pretty clear-cut.

------
lambdom
A bit out of subject, but I find the white on green hard to read.

~~~
ugh
Get your monitor fixed. The RGB values are 74, 82, 90 – that’s a rather more
bluish than green grey :)

