

Wil Shipley on Apple's Patent Enforcement - swilliams
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2010/03/open-letter-to-steve-jobs-concerning.html

======
jimbokun
Jobs told the world he would do this at the 2007 MacWorld keynote introducing
the iPhone:

"We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend
to protect them."

[http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-
macworld-2007-s...](http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-
macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/)

~~~
itistoday
I fail to see how Apple stating their intent to be an asshole makes them any
less of an asshole.

Patents are, in the words of @lapcat: anti-competition, anti-free market,
anti-consumer. First to market is already a huge competitive advantage.

Patents are a huge part of the reason you're paying so much for health
insurance right now. They play a large role in _stifling_ innovation. Imagine
you have a great idea that hasn't been done before, but you suddenly discover
parts of it have been patented. The patenter isn't doing _shit_ with the idea,
yet they have a _20-year_ monopoly on it.

Oh, and they also happen to be a huge monolithic organization with thousands
of employees worldwide that is patenting thousands of ideas every year, yet
actually implementing only a small fraction of those ideas.

Don't think this happens? You don't know much about patents then. The patent
system is one of the best examples of an idea backfiring on itself that I know
of. It was supposed to protect the guy toiling in his garage on the next best
thing (read: Apple in its infancy), but today it's doing the exact opposite
while screwing consumers over to boot.

~~~
potatolicious
Honestly, I think software people have a largely skewed view of the patent
system in general. I used to be in traditional engineering
(mechanical/electrical to be precise), and the amount of R&D dollars that has
to go into any major innovation is astronomical.

The amount of testing, regulatory costs, tooling costs, etc etc, makes
bringing an innovative thing to market very, very expensive indeed. Most of
these things are also trivially easy to reverse engineer - the patent is the
only thing preventing a company's competitors from cloning the tech, avoiding
all of the costs associated, and discouraging innovation overall.

The trick is software patents - software largely doesn't _cost_ a lot, not
compared to big heavy machinery requiring onerous certification and government
authorizations. 3 guys hacking for a month straight is peanuts compared to,
say, the amount of money it would cost to bring a new fuel injection system to
market, yet the software these guys produce can be equally valuable from a
marketability perspective. This is where patents fall apart - the point of the
patent system is to encourage R&D spending by allowing protection of its
results, because being simply first to market is not a large enough advantage
in many industries to be profitable. It is, however, true in software, so I'm
personally dubious of software patents in general.

Just some perspective - I dislike the "patents are evil, always, every way!"
kneejerk reaction. It has a very valid role in a lot of industries that aren't
well represented or understood by people on HN.

~~~
chaostheory
Here's an interesting Apple hardware patent:

"It is somewhat surprising that Apple received some of the patents in
question, such as the patent on "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied
To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor". When you peel away the
technical language, the patent basically is talking about saving power by
supplying less voltage to a circuit and some common strategies to do so. Not
only has then been seemingly done before (prior art), but it also is
inherently given by laws of nature (power = current * voltage). If that's
patentable, the general concept of die shrinks should be patentable,
overclocking would be patentable (watch out Anandtech.com!), and a whole host
of other processes made possible by laws of nature."

[http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Wild+iPhone+Patent+Attack+To...](http://www.dailytech.com/Apples+Wild+iPhone+Patent+Attack+Took+HTC+by+Suprise/article17822.htm)

~~~
sparky
Everything patented or implemented in the history of the world is possible
under the laws of physics; the argument that because it is possible, it is not
patentable makes no sense.

As must be stated anytime there is an article on here concerning patents, read
the claims, not just the title. Most of the titles are so broad as to be
meaningless, but the claims must be made specific, as these are what can be
defended against infringement.

In this particular case, the claims themselves (
[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=7CCWAAAAEBAJ&dq=7...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=7CCWAAAAEBAJ&dq=7,383,453)
) are vague and extremely obvious, and I would be shocked if every claim
hadn't already been implemented and/or patented by someone else. In fact, if
you read the application, they were forced to retract the first twenty of
their original claims.

I know it has become fashionable to say that the concept of patents in general
is flawed, and that patent examiners are sub-human imbeciles. I disagree on
both counts; software patents are generally crap and should be done away with
to a large extent, but as another commenter has pointed out, many inventions
require a great deal more investment and patents provide a great incentive to
develop such things. It is unreasonable to expect patent examiners (engineers,
not lawyers) to do a perfect job of pattern-matching each application with
every similar previous application, considering that patent applications are
deliberately worded in a language which is impenetrable to anyone trying to
figure out what the hell something _does_. Reform at the policy level is
needed, and acting as though the problem is that patent examiners aren't smart
enough or that patents in general are a bad idea tends not to be very
persuasive.

------
andreyf
Microeconomics 101: Apple is in the mobile device business. Apple makes money
by selling high-end mobile devices. Google Android is an move towards
commoditizing mobile devices, as they are a compliment to Google's business
[1]. The point of this is simply to increase the costs of making mobile
devices.

1\. <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html>

~~~
zppx
As far as I know Introductory Microeconomics is much more than that... not
intending to disrespect to Joel, but my father, being a formed economist with
a master degree, laugh reading this some years ago. Watching two courses on
Introductory Economics and trying to analyze a [fairly complex] situation with
a great number of players is the same thing as passing as a analyst after
watching a course on basic calculus.

------
starkfist
Does anyone else think this is less about the patents and more about a
boardroom beef between Jobs and Eric Schmidt?

My gut feeling is this is a private argument between two CEOs that has
spiraled into the public eye.

~~~
pavs
Apple feels threatened by Google, as simple as that. Its hard to compete
against a freemium model. It take years of research and development to make a
solid OS (desktop or phone). Remember all the Phone interface before iphone?
Yeah, they all pretty much sucked. Based on Apple iphone sales it is fair to
say they have a winner and most people likes it.

Google comes up with a free high quality, highly customizable, open source
alternative to iphone OS that can turn any phone to a good phone. So all phone
manufacturers have to do is concentrate on making a phone that looks like an
iphone.

I don't like that fact that Apple is being a patent troll, but at the same
time I think manufacturers just copying iphone form factor is being a bit
tacky.

Who wants to bet that when ipad ships (and if it is a success) tablet
manufacturers will start making tablets that copies the form factor of ipad?

Edit: Relevant to what I wrote earlier -
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8547230.stm>

~~~
mbreese
_Apple is being a patent troll_

No they aren't... patent trolls don't produce anything or use the patents they
sue over. Apple is clearly using their patent portfolio to produce products.

You can disagree whether or not they should enforce their patents, but don't
call them a troll. It weakens your argument.

~~~
pavs
Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous
definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of
understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law. Definitions include
a party that does one or more of the following:

\- Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another
company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased
patent;

\- Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to
manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;

\- Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; or

\- Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.

\- Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large
industry that is composed of non-copiers

\---------
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trolls#Etymology_and_def...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trolls#Etymology_and_definition)

I think in this case the fifth definition applies?

~~~
Kadrith
> \- Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large
> industry that is composed of non-copiers

Isn't this what the case will determine? If that is the situation then nobody
really knows if there is infringement until the courts decide. They have also
only filed against one company right now.

I don't agree with the action, but I don't think they even remotely qualify as
a patent troll.

------
andrew1
"Who will want a pale imitation when they could have the original?"

I'd imagine it's the people who want a cheaper option that does most of the
things an iPhone does and don't mind the lack of polish.

~~~
stanleydrew
And the people who think the pale imitation's lack of software restrictions is
far more important than any amount of polish.

~~~
andrew1
As an Android user I wouldn't disagree with you; I was just trying to present
an example which the article's author wouldn't feel the need to argue about
(software restrictions is a holy war topic, price probably isn't :) ).

------
d4nt
What troubles me about this whole thing is, Apple doesn't NEED to do this.
They still have great products, there are still many geniuses who would love
to work there, they still have an insanely valuable brand. This sort of thing
should be a last resort.

~~~
dustingetz
course they don't _need_ to, but if they can hurt HTC, isn't that good
strategy?

------
jaxc
This could be less to do with Apple asserting its rights and more to do with
protection. Don't forget Nokia is if I remember correctly suing them for
patent infringement with Apple counter suing so it could just be for
protective purposes as well as legal maneuvering. I guess we'll see where
things end up in a couple of years down the line. I doubt this would be
cleared up quickly.

~~~
yumraj
Apple's patent's are software patents which we all as software people know
should never exist.

Nokia's patents are hardware patents, actual inventions related to wireless.

In other words, a light bulb is genuinely patentable but some software code
which does (for example only) _if(switch=on)light=true_ shouldn't be
patentable and much less enforceable.

~~~
protomyth
Some of those patents Apple is using are hardware.

------
adamilardi
I think the issue is with the government issuing patents like these in the
first place. Multitouch...are you kidding. I can see a patent on the
technology behind multitouch so you can't open the iphone and steal it. Unlock
by dragging an icon. rediculous. I am going to patent the form submit button.
"an action by which a user submits information to a back-end server" Then I
will sue everyone. Done!

------
bitwize
Apple has always been vigorous about protecting its intellectual property. Its
UI innovations are what keeps it ahead of the pack and not just another
generic hardware manufacturer.

The loss of _Apple v. Microsoft_ only means that they cannot protect UI
elements under the copyright regime. Which leaves patents and trying to invoke
UI elements as trademark/trade dress.

~~~
jonknee
When was the last time Apple offensively sued for IP?

~~~
bitwize
The last high-profile case was the aforementioned _Apple v. Microsoft_ from
1988.

They've issued plenty of C&D letters and takedown notices to individuals
making Aqua-alike UI themes for other operating systems, as well. Not nearly
the same threat display as an actual suit, but indicative of Apple being
proactive about IP defense.

~~~
nailer
Indeed. It always struck me as odd they didn't C & D Microsoft for the aqua
start menu in Vista and XP.

------
dustingetz
um, a CEO has an obligation to act in the financial best interests of his
shareholders. software patents might suck, but them's the rules.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism>

~~~
glhaynes
Indeed. It seems to me that using the term "evil" (at least in instances where
there's no human harm being done... Bhopal disaster and such aside) about a
corporation is unlikely to lead us to clear thinking.

Corporations are artificial entities that are set up with the goal of
maximizing shareholder value. The corporations we're talking about exist
inside democratic governance and regulatory systems. It seems to me that
things would be likely to work best when we all think of corporations as what
they are: machines to make a profit, and exercised our powers as voters (and
as customers) appropriately.

Now, of course, a particular corporation's behavior may make one more or less
likely to want to purchase their products (in other words, their public
"persona" is part of their marketing), but to be _outraged_ about legal
maneuvers doesn't make much sense to me. Don't buy their products and/or work
to change the laws, but let's not be angry at tigers for chasing sweet little
antelopes. It's what they do.

I say this as someone who's been outraged before over Microsoft's anti-
competitive maneuvers. I think that was probably stupid of me. They were doing
just what they should have been doing if that's what they thought would
maximize their profitability. Doesn't mean I like their products. But to call
them evil was a mistake that I regret.

~~~
prewett
According to dictionary.com, evil means: "1. morally wrong or bad; immoral;
wicked. 2. harmful; injurious". Microsoft harmed competitors (and their
shareholders) in the marketplace with questionable ethics at best, and was
convicted of illegally using their monopoly powers by a U.S. court. "Evil"
applies to injustice as much as it does to gross immorality. Sociopathic
corporate behavior is just as evil as sociopathic personal behavior.

------
niallsmart
Great artists sue?

~~~
dustingetz
sure they do. [http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/joe-satriani-
speaks-a...](http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/joe-satriani-speaks-about-
coldplay-lawsuit-185914)

------
dustingetz
" _If Apple becomes a company that uses its might to quash competition instead
of using its brains, it's going to find the brainiest people will slowly stop
working there. You know this, you watched it happen at Microsoft. Enforcing
patents isn't a good long-term play: it's the beginning of the end of the
creative Apple we both love._ "

theorizing out my ass without thinking much about it here: does anyone else
feel like this is the long term lifecycle of every successful company?
innovate, scale, stop innovating but keep executing what you know, scale,
become too clumsy to innovate, die. But you made a heck of a lot of money
along the way.

~~~
blubb
Yep. I think so. When you get big enough not to care, you inevitably stop
caring. At some point, you become evil, and the smartest guys usually don't
want to work for the evil company.

That being said, I this is a good thing - other companies may be forced to
out-innovate Apple and pay as much attention to detail as they do, and maybe
these companies will attract all the talent they need to make it happen.

------
calebgilbert
As someone who was using macs even when there was a death watch on the entire
company 1997-1999'ish I find all this wringing over patent fights to be silly.
For better or worse, it's what companies do in this day and age. It's also
hard for me to imagine that Steve Jobs is going to let someone do what Bill
Gates did with windows in the mid 1980's (e.g., steal Apple's dominant market
position by basically copying Apple's stuff and then selling it for a lower
price) again without a fight.

~~~
olsonjeffery
Are you kidding me? Every time I hear someone complain about how Apple was
wronged by Microsoft in the 1980s, I can't help but roll my eyes. Three words:
Xerox-Fucking-PARC.

~~~
protomyth
Xerox made a business decision and was paid by Apple. Now, we can debate if
Xerox's management made the correct call, but you can't say Apple "ripped them
off". It is interesting comparing the situation with Microsoft since most of
the problem came from badly written (from Apple's perspective) contracts.

------
nkassis
I believe the targeting of HTC might also be due to their modified android
version with almost exact copies of the gesture from the iPhone (pinch to zoom
in browser).

But frankly, that stuff falls in the obvious category to me. And Apple claims
to being a great company with awesome originality does feel like re-visioning
history.

~~~
abecedarius
Pinch-to-zoom predates the iPhone. (That doesn't mean you're wrong.)

------
wrinklz
The patent system is broke. Patents are handed out willy-nilly and only later
validated through expensive legal litigation. Somehow the work needs to be
done up front, to provide transparency and reduce litigation.

Here's an idea. A tax on any product or service which is covered under a
patent. The tax would be placed in government trust. If a patent is
successfully invalidated by later litigation, then the court could award the
successful litigant all or some portion of the collected taxes.

When the patent expires, the collected taxes is transferred to the Patent
Office.

The intention is to increase funding for patent deliberation up front, and to
create incentive for awarding enforceable patents.

------
char
There is something very wrong with the fact that I can only get the 'best'
technologies on my phone if I use an Apple product. I really should have the
choice between several phones with similar technologies, and each of their
respective companies should be spending their time competing to create the
_next_ best technology so that everyone can have even better phones in the
near future.

But no, my only choice is Apple, because they want to 'protect' their patents.
In reality, all they are doing is impeding the natural progress of innovation.

------
markkanof
Interesting as Apple clearly copied the look and feel of Wil's application
Delicious Library of use in thier iBook store application. Granted I doubt Wil
holds a patent on that interface, but it does seem a bit hypocritical.

~~~
starkfist
I assumed this is licensed from Shipley or they had Shipley do it for them.
Apple is good at covert acquisitions and partnerships.

Edit - Looks like i'm wrong. (easier to edit than respond to 4 other posts)

~~~
appathy
Shipley wasn't involved. He posted some angry tweets when he first saw it.

~~~
pmjordan
"Angry"? IIRC he said they'd clearly copied it and that he'd be pissed if they
were using it in a directly competing product. He also acknowledged that
there's hardly a better visual metaphor for representing a collection of
books.

------
metatronscube
This is one of the more childish rants. Apple is a company working in a
capitalistic government, Its no different to any other company out there.
Defending patents isn't unusual...especially if they have a case (which I feel
they do).

I don't agree necessarily with it because it stifles creativity and to some
respect stops others from trying new things (or makes them too scared to try
something else based on some current technology), but its the same with every
other industry, HTC just have to payup or innovate. If they cant do either
then they were taking a chance and it didn't pay off.

------
marze
This is a sign that the Apple vs. Microsoft battle is over. Previously, Apple
and Google felt the need to cooperate against Microsoft. Apple believes now
they have won.

~~~
awa
I think its because Apple's main sources of revenue (handheld devices like
iPod, iPhone...) are no longer conflicting with Microsoft's. Windows and
Office are still huge revenue generator for MS and dominate their market.

